This is true, and I’ll say that my feelings about abortion become significantly more mixed once a fetus’s spinal cord connects to its brainstem. My understanding is that this happens between the 20-24th week of pregnancy, and prior to this time, the fetus is neurologically unequipped to experience pain, or any other sensation.
Daniel
What, if you know, is the fallacy of Hasty Generalization?
If anything, the rate of child abuse rose as abortion was legalized.
There are 3 ads for targeted mailing lists. I don’t get it.
Does the spinal cord develop independently of the brain? I wasn’t aware of that fact. Do you have a cite that explains this process?
Yeah, the real tricky part is where to draw the line in the 2nd trimester. Those, like Bricker, who want to restrict all elective abortions are in the minority, just as are those who want no restrictions at all.
Why would that be? We already allow people to use deadly force in certain situations. One of those situations is self-defense…if you are threatened with deadly force and cannot retreat, you are allowed to use deadly force in response.
I don’t think anyone argues that if a mother’s life is endangered that she is still obligated to attempt to carry the baby to term. Even the Catholic church allows abortion in those cases. After all, if the pregnancy would kill the mother the baby is going to die anyway, correct?
Likewise, we could allow abortions in cases where the baby isn’t expected to live past birth, or where the brain is so damaged that they will never be conscious. This isn’t anything more than withdrawl of care from terminally ill patients. It is true that terminally ill patients can request for the withdrawl of futile care, while unborn babies can’t. However, we also allow medical judgments to be made by a person’s guardian if they are unable to make those decisions for themselves.
I don’t see anything hypocritical or completely foreign to our existing laws and customs from allowing abortion in those cases, but not in cases where the baby is completely healthy and the mother is completely healthy.
And I can easily give assent to an exception for rape. It seems to me that we could easily imagine that engaging in sexual intercourse implies consent to any subsequent pregnancy. Birth control isn’t 100% effective, everyone who has sexual intercourse is (or should be) aware that pregnancy is a forseeable risk. However, rape removes that implied consent.
So why aren’t I in favor of making abortion illegal? Because in today’s society it woudl be unworkable. Not enough people believe that abortion is wrong, imposing restrictions on abortion when the majority of people don’t agree would be a disaster. And I also don’t feel that very early abortion is the same as later abortion. If the baby doesn’t yet have a brain I don’t have much problem with ending the pregnancy. I don’t have a problem with in vitro fertillization, I don’t have a problem with frozen human embryos, etc. But at some point it is inarguable that a baby is a baby, and that point is well before the baby is born.
This ad appears at the bottom of the thread, at least for me -
I assume that the agency listed has earned the right to work against abortion. Wouldn’t you agree?
Regards,
Shodan
You said
If abortion is murder then abortion and infanticide are equivalent, and mothers who murder their babies go to prison. Is that what you want, and if not, don’t you have to admit that abortion and murder are not one and the same?
At least part of what I think you’re getting at is that while you believe abortion doctors are doing evil, you believe that they perceive themselves as doing good.
What if there was a sizeable group of people who honestly and forthrightly believed that black people were subhuman. These might be perfectly nice and generous and patriotic and sweet people in all other ways, except that they, with 100% conviction, were convinced that blacks were subhuman, and they opened up camps in which they began exterminating black people. They would (presumably) honestly believe themselves to be doing right. Their actions would (in crazy hypothetical land) be legal.
How would you respond? Would there be any point at which you would consider using violence?
To me, at least, there’s a difference between someone who’s doing what I perceive as evil, who perceives himself as doing good, where I can see and sympathize with the logic of his belief (for instance, lots and lots of people who voted for Bush), and someone who I perceive as evil, who perceives himself as doing good, and whose belief I can’t sympathize with or understand.
This is a kind of disturbing issue, but… I think that killing a 2 month old infant is a lot LESS bad than killing a 5 year old child.
To be blunt and morbid about it, I have friends who have twins who are now around 18 months old. If one of them had died in childbirth, they (the parents) would have been devestated, but really, what would they have lost? They would never have known the baby. It would have been nothing but an idea. If one of them (heaven forbid) died NOW, it would be VASTLY worse, as they now actually know the child at least somewhat, are familiar with its personality, etc.
And since at least part of the reason that killing is wrong is that killing a person hurts the people who know and love that person, killing an older baby who is more meaningfully loved DOES cause more pain and grief, and thus IS more wrong.
However, I’m perfectly happy with the law NOT trying to make distinctions of that sort. And I’m certainly not trying to say that it’s OK to kill babies, at all.
(Similarly, killing a selfish abusive asshole is less bad than killing a sweet and well loved friend-of-many. But again, we’re FAR better off with the law not making any such distinction. And both acts are still murder.)
How so? I could easily be convinced that more abortions = fewer unwanted children = fewer abused children. That might not actually be true, but I don’t see anything either silly or prima facie ridiculous about it.
If you withdraw their feeding tubes, do they not (eventually) die?
While I tend to agree with you, I think that society as a whole is better off by not allowing infanticide, even by the parents. That is a case where I believe the slippery slope argument can be used in a non-fallacious way.
I didn’t say it would be silly to argue that it was true, I said it would be silly to argue that it was good because it was true. There are all kinds of things we could do to reduce child abuse that wouldn’t be acceptable to society (eg, burning parents at the stake if they were found guilty of child abuse).
That still doesn’t make it silly. If we were discussing the issue of burning parents at the stake if they were found guilty of child abuse, and assuming we believed that that would, in fact, reduce, child abuse, then one pro of that policy would be reducing child abuse. Now, that pro would doubtless be outnumbered by the cons, but I still don’t see that as being silly.
Then you and I have very different ideas of what silly is.
No. And the reasons for the distinction have been explained in detail in posts I have made above. I am disinclined to type the answer out again, when it seems obvious that you failed to read my earlier posts in their entirety.
If they had the support of a supermajority of citizens, enough to amend the Constitution to legitimize their actions, would I be willing to become an urban guerilla and start assassinating the camp guards?
No. I would not.
Consider Martin Luther King’s response. He was not facing camps, but he was facing a society in which extra-legal killings - lynchings - were widely tolerated.
Did he urge violence to solve the problem?
No - a student of Ghandhi, he urged passive resistance. Today both he and Ghandhi are revered as heros.
Yes.
Whose side of the argument are you helping here?
And rightfully so. Bear in mind, please, that I’m not talking about the way people should act in normal times, or even in normal abnormal times, but in hypothetical extremes…
But there is a big differene between lynchings and death camps. Lynchings are unpredictable and sporadic. Death camps are in a known location. If I oppose lynchings, I can’t just drive my car up to the lynchings that I know are going on, get out, and attempt to stop them. I’m not sure how I would act in a hypothetical death-camps-in-America situation, or how I would believe I should act… but I do believe there could be a point where I would believe preemptive violent action to be justified. Note, however, that there’s a difference between just shooting death camp guards in cold blood just to spread fear, and (for instance) blowing up a wall of a death camp to help people escape, knowing full well that some guards will die in the blast.
I was just trying to put a name and face to the concept of “extremely handicapped”. There’s “he has Down’s syndrome and an IQ of 75, but he enjoys being around puppies and always has a big smile when he drinks a milkshake” handicapped, and then there’s Terri Schiavo. I wasn’t really trying to make a point aside from that. (Do you think that withdrawing her feeding tube was capital M murder?)
I’m not sure how that was hard to read for both you and jsgoddess. But if you at the one hand espouse the view that you want people to have a choice and just make the other option more favorable, and on the other hand want to take away that choice, then you fit your own definition.