What I don't understand about the arguement for Abortion.

LawsonAlan · Dec 18, 2011

In a perfect world, there would be no abortions.

But there are cases, like the health of the mother, where abortion can be a life-saver.

The problem I have with outlawing abortion is that the legal process required for a mother to prove her life is at stake is often lengthy, despite efforts to hasten it.

Then, you have cases that are gray areas. For instance, the doctors know the baby will be born without a brain; or with no bones; or with no skin.

Those are hypothetical situations, btw, but they illustrate my point.

The best position government can take is pretty much where they are now. Leave the decision to the Woman, and let her take the advice of her doctor, her husband/boyfriend, her clergy, and make the decision based on her values and faith.

If she's so pro-life that she wants to carry a baby with no brain to full term and risk her own life doing so, let her.

But that last thing we need is government to be able to insert itself (and the red tape) into the process.

Before Roe vs Wade, the bar was set so high for legal abortions that many mothers died waiting for the courts to give permission.

What i have a hard time understanding is why anyone would want to impose their beliefs on all women in general. If you think abortions are always wrong, then you should never have one. If you think there is a gray area where they are sometimes beneficial, then you should only have one under those circumstances.

There's no cookie cutter answer for all women.

And the last people I'd want affecting that type of decision are politicians and lawyers. And the only way to keep them out of it is to keep abortion legal, as it is, and as it should be.

TomZzyzx · Dec 19, 2011

Jase said:
Well, since the only verse pertaining to this in the Bible does not view a forced miscarriage as a punishable crime unless the assailant also kills/injures the mother, it seems that it doesn't fall under the Biblical definition of murder.

If it did, a forced miscarriage would carry the death penalty under Jewish law, not a monetary fine.

I believe your reading that verse wrong. Most translations say that the baby is born prematurely not miscarried.

TomZzyzx · Dec 19, 2011

Tinker Grey said:
I am not going to argue about abortion. But I'm glad you see my point. If one is going to be anti-abortion/pro-life, then one's argument cannot rely on mere potentiality.

You say "at that point". The question is what point is that. I think the question of personhood is useful for this. A fetus that is forming without a brain (I am given to understand that this does happen), will never be a person. Similarly as Jase noted, it is hard to consider a cluster of undifferentiated cells a person. (Sorry, Jase, if I misrepresent you.)

I am not prepared to say when a fetus becomes a person, but I do think that answering that question is essential to moving the debate forward.

Since no one knows for sure when the unborn becomes a person, then every abortion could be killing a person. Isn't it important the know for sure when the unborn becomes a person so we don't kill any persons? I thought every person had a right to life

Rao · Dec 19, 2011

I think there's quite a lot of misuse of the word "potential". I think that an embryo is clearly not "potential" in the same way a non-fertilized egg is. An embryo in mother's womb will became a human being if no one stops it willingly or not (accident). A non-fertilized egg won't, unless someone acts to fertilize it. Trying to put these two on equal level is not reasonable.

Because of this, I can understand but don't agree with the argument that "a few cells" is not a human being, for me the fact that it will be is enough.

Actually, I also don't think rape and disease/malformations are reasons enough for an abortion. Rape gives me lots of issues because clearly it is an unspeakably evil act against a woman: on one hand I don't want the child to be punished for someone else's evil, but also I admit that before such a terrible crime suffered I don't know what to say.

I understand also that some parents choose abortion in case of fatal and painful diseases, and that can be a choice of love, not wanting the child to suffer a short and miserable life. However I do believe that we don't know that such child will really live miserably. We project our own experience of pain, and imagine it must be terrible, but perhaps someone who is born and always lives in a condition may not experience it nearly as bad as we think: that condition is just standard for him, the same way a blind-born will never know what sight means and may not suffer significantly for the absence of it. We just don't know... maybe even a poor child living only a few years in pain can be happy in the love of his family.

There is only one case where I am sure abortion should be allowed, and it is when the mother's life is in serious danger and an abortion is the only way to save her. In that case I would have to choose between one life or the other, and I believe the right thing to do is not to choose. The mother is the only one who can. If she chooses to die she will be a Saint, but the choice cannot be imposed on her.

Tinker Grey · Dec 19, 2011

TomZzyzx said:
Since no one knows for sure when the unborn becomes a person, then every abortion could be killing a person. Isn't it important the know for sure when the unborn becomes a person so we don't kill any persons? I thought every person had a right to life

If one bothers to define what a person is, beyond simply human, it would go a long way toward deciding when a fetus becomes a person.

I don't think it is impossible to define. And I think that once defined it isn't impossible to decide if a fetus is a person.

As it stands, I think it is relatively clear that a blastocyst isn't a person. I think it is clear that a fetus without a brain isn't a person. Therefore I'd say that outlawing abortions in all cases because we don't know everything in all situations is misguided. Where we know stuff, we can act.

ETA: Add where we admit we don't know stuff, we should act compassionately to those we do know are persons

I imagine that most that argue as you have would still argue that an abortion in the case of rape and incest is acceptable. Nobody's life is at stake and yet I suspect that in such circumstances the phrase "I thought every person had a right to life" goes unuttered.

lismore · Dec 19, 2011

LawsonAlan said:
But there are cases, like the health of the mother, where abortion can be a life-saver.
.

That can be true, but in society abortion has gone to extremes where babies are aborted with no health risks, no deformities. The number of aborted babies will one day eclipse the number of people actually living.

Scotland only has one form of capital punishment, the crime is being conceived and not wanted.

LawsonAlan · Dec 19, 2011

lismore said:
That can be true, but in society abortion has gone to extremes where babies are aborted with no health risks, no deformities. The number of aborted babies will one day eclipse the number of people actually living.

Scotland only has one form of capital punishment, the crime is being conceived and not wanted.

Like I said, in a perfect world, there would be no abortions.

You seem to have your mind made up, which begs the question why you would post here in the liberal forum if you were merely looking for discussion.

I gave several examples in which abortions would not happen, such as the case where a mother's beliefs preclude it.

But, it should be the mother's choice.

Adding the government and lawyers into the mix would lessen the chances that a woman could possibly save her own life if it were threatened by a pregnancy. Why? Red tape.

In the mean time, if your goal is to eliminate abortions, then talk to mothers who might have them.

There isn't a law book or set of rules that could make everyone happy. Every situation is different. Every mother faces this decision. She, along with her partner, her doctor, and her clergy will make the best decision they can.

It's how American law says it should be.

lismore · Dec 19, 2011

LawsonAlan said:
You seem to have your mind made up, which begs the question why you would post here in the liberal forum if you were merely looking for discussion.

If everyone who posted had to have the same opinion on every issue then that would violate the definition of liberal. I'm free to post my opinion just as you are.

Moving on do you accept that healthy human women abort healthy human embryos and how do you feel about that?

LawsonAlan · Dec 20, 2011

lismore said:
If everyone who posted had to have the same opinion on every issue then that would violate the definition of liberal. I'm free to post my opinion just as you are.

Moving on do you accept that healthy human women abort healthy human embryos and how do you feel about that?

Yes, I accept that happens. And, like I've said, in a perfect world, there would be no abortions.

I stop short of calling it murder, though, as unpleasant as it is.

There will always be abortions. Just like prohibition did not stop drinking, invasive legislation did not stop abortions, either.

To lower the amount of abortions (in healthy circumstances), I'd prefer a more supportive structure for women including better adoption alternatives, etc.

What I will not support is legislation that assumes that a woman cannot make a decision based on her own thoughts after she weighs advice from her doctor, partner, and clergy.

And I take this position for the exact same reason I do not support government mandated abortions like we see in China. The government should stay out of it.

TomZzyzx · Dec 20, 2011

Tinker Grey said:
If one bothers to define what a person is, beyond simply human, it would go a long way toward deciding when a fetus becomes a person.

I don't think it is impossible to define. And I think that once defined it isn't impossible to decide if a fetus is a person.

As it stands, I think it is relatively clear that a blastocyst isn't a person. I think it is clear that a fetus without a brain isn't a person. Therefore I'd say that outlawing abortions in all cases because we don't know everything in all situations is misguided. Where we know stuff, we can act.

ETA: Add where we admit we don't know stuff, we should act compassionately to those we do know are persons

I imagine that most that argue as you have would still argue that an abortion in the case of rape and incest is acceptable. Nobody's life is at stake and yet I suspect that in such circumstances the phrase "I thought every person had a right to life" goes unuttered.

I do not believe abortion in the case of rape or incest is acceptable. I believe the only acceptable abortion should be if the mother's life were in danger. Why should the unborn die for the sins of the father?

sniperelite7 · Dec 21, 2011

TomZzyzx said:
I do not believe abortion in the case of rape or incest is acceptable. I believe the only acceptable abortion should be if the mother's life were in danger. Why should the unborn die for the sins of the father?

Because the woman is under no moral obligation to carry the child.

It would be as if you where kidnapped by a group of music lovers and woke up laying in bed hooked up to a famous violinist. He has a rare disease and needs your kidneys to filter his blood. It will take about 9-months for him to be cured. But you must stay in the bed next to him for that duration of time, until he is cured.

You have been placed in such a situation against your will. You where drugged, kidnapped, and unwillingly hooked up to another person. For you to stay, invest your time/nay your life, for the indiscretions of another(those damn music lovers) would be incredibly generous, but to leave would not be a moral wrong.

Its a good analogy I heard, and I find it explains at least that aspect of the abortion debate.

TomZzyzx · Dec 21, 2011

sniperelite7 said:
Because the woman is under no moral obligation to carry the child.

It would be as if you where kidnapped by a group of music lovers and woke up laying in bed hooked up to a famous violinist. He has a rare disease and needs your kidneys to filter his blood. It will take about 9-months for him to be cured. But you must stay in the bed next to him for that duration of time, until he is cured.

You have been placed in such a situation against your will. You where drugged, kidnapped, and unwillingly hooked up to another person. For you to stay, invest your time/nay your life, for the indiscretions of another(those damn music lovers) would be incredibly generous, but to leave would not be a moral wrong.

Its a good analogy I heard, and I find it explains at least that aspect of the abortion debate.

I could not give you a coherent answer to this argument, so here is an excerpt of an article by Greg Koukl of Stand To Reason.

The key question in any slippery slope appeal is whether the two situations are truly similar in a morally relevant way. If not, then the illustration is guilty of a logical slippery slope fallacy. The analogy fails and the argument falls apart.

Are there important differences between pregnancy and kidnapping? Yes, many.

First, the violinist is artificially attached to the woman. A mother's unborn baby, however, is not surgically connected, nor was it ever "attached" to her. Instead, the baby is being produced by the mother's own body by the natural process of reproduction.

Both Thompson and McDonagh treat the child--the woman's own daughter or son--like an invading stranger intent on doing harm. They make the mother/child union into a host/predator relationship.

A child is not an invader, though, a parasite living off his mother. A mother's womb is the baby's natural environment. Eileen McDonagh wants us to believe that the child growing inside of a woman is trespassing. One trespasses when he's not in his rightful place, but a baby developing in the womb belongs there.

Thompson ignores a second important distinction. In the violinist illustration, the woman might be justified withholding life-giving treatment from the musician under these circumstances. Abortion, though, is not merely withholding treatment. It is actively taking another human being's life through poisoning or dismemberment. A more accurate parallel with abortion would be to crush the violinist or cut him into pieces before unplugging him.

Third, the violinist illustration is not parallel to pregnancy because it equates a stranger/stranger relationship with a mother/child relationship. This is a key point and brings into focus the most dangerous presumption of the violinist illustration, also echoed in McDonagh's thesis. Both presume it is unreasonable to expect a mother to have any obligations towards her own child.

The violinist analogy suggests that a mother has no more responsibility for the welfare of her child than she has to a total stranger. McDonagh's view is even worse. She argues the child is not merely a stranger, but a violent assailant the mother needs to ward off in self-defense.

This error becomes immediately evident if we amend Thompson's illustration. What if the mother woke up from an accident to find herself surgically connected to her own child? What kind of mother would willingly cut the life-support system to her two-year-old in a situation like that? And what would we think of her if she did?

Blood relationships are never based on choice, yet they entail moral obligations, nonetheless. This is why the courts prosecute negligent parents. They have consistently ruled, for example, that fathers have an obligation to support their children even if they are unplanned and unwanted.

If it is moral for a mother to deny her child the necessities of life (through abortion) before it is born, how can she be obligated to provide the same necessities after he's born? Remember, Thompson concedes that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. If her argument works to justify abortion, it works just as well to justify killing any dependent child. After all, a two-year-old makes a much greater demand on a woman than a developing unborn.

Thompson is mistaken in presuming that pregnancy is the thing that expropriates a woman's liberty. Motherhood does that, and motherhood doesn't end with the birth of the child. Unlike the woman connected to the violinist, a mother is not released in nine months. Her burden has just begun. If Thompson's argument works, then no child is safe from a mother who wants her liberty.

In the end, both Thompson's and McDonagh's arguments prove too much. They allow us to kill any human being who is dependent upon us, young or old, if that person restrains our personal liberty.

sniperelite7 · Jan 4, 2012

TomZzyzx said:
<snip>

That was my issue with the violinist argument. It cannot be used for all abortion cases which is what the article you posted suggests and I agree with(Here's to hoping I read it correctly). However for rape I find the violinists argument to fall into its own, because the woman was forced.

VolRaider · Jan 7, 2012

TomZzyzx said:
I could not give you a coherent answer to this argument, so here is an excerpt of an article by Greg Koukl of Stand To Reason.

The key question in any slippery slope appeal is whether the two situations are truly similar in a morally relevant way. If not, then the illustration is guilty of a logical slippery slope fallacy. The analogy fails and the argument falls apart.

Are there important differences between pregnancy and kidnapping? Yes, many.

First, the violinist is artificially attached to the woman. A mother's unborn baby, however, is not surgically connected, nor was it ever "attached" to her. Instead, the baby is being produced by the mother's own body by the natural process of reproduction.

Both Thompson and McDonagh treat the child--the woman's own daughter or son--like an invading stranger intent on doing harm. They make the mother/child union into a host/predator relationship.

A child is not an invader, though, a parasite living off his mother. A mother's womb is the baby's natural environment. Eileen McDonagh wants us to believe that the child growing inside of a woman is trespassing. One trespasses when he's not in his rightful place, but a baby developing in the womb belongs there.

Thompson ignores a second important distinction. In the violinist illustration, the woman might be justified withholding life-giving treatment from the musician under these circumstances. Abortion, though, is not merely withholding treatment. It is actively taking another human being's life through poisoning or dismemberment. A more accurate parallel with abortion would be to crush the violinist or cut him into pieces before unplugging him.

Third, the violinist illustration is not parallel to pregnancy because it equates a stranger/stranger relationship with a mother/child relationship. This is a key point and brings into focus the most dangerous presumption of the violinist illustration, also echoed in McDonagh's thesis. Both presume it is unreasonable to expect a mother to have any obligations towards her own child.

The violinist analogy suggests that a mother has no more responsibility for the welfare of her child than she has to a total stranger. McDonagh's view is even worse. She argues the child is not merely a stranger, but a violent assailant the mother needs to ward off in self-defense.

This error becomes immediately evident if we amend Thompson's illustration. What if the mother woke up from an accident to find herself surgically connected to her own child? What kind of mother would willingly cut the life-support system to her two-year-old in a situation like that? And what would we think of her if she did?

Blood relationships are never based on choice, yet they entail moral obligations, nonetheless. This is why the courts prosecute negligent parents. They have consistently ruled, for example, that fathers have an obligation to support their children even if they are unplanned and unwanted.

If it is moral for a mother to deny her child the necessities of life (through abortion) before it is born, how can she be obligated to provide the same necessities after he's born? Remember, Thompson concedes that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. If her argument works to justify abortion, it works just as well to justify killing any dependent child. After all, a two-year-old makes a much greater demand on a woman than a developing unborn.

Thompson is mistaken in presuming that pregnancy is the thing that expropriates a woman's liberty. Motherhood does that, and motherhood doesn't end with the birth of the child. Unlike the woman connected to the violinist, a mother is not released in nine months. Her burden has just begun. If Thompson's argument works, then no child is safe from a mother who wants her liberty.

In the end, both Thompson's and McDonagh's arguments prove too much. They allow us to kill any human being who is dependent upon us, young or old, if that person restrains our personal liberty.

No matter how you slice it, it's murder.

Incariol · Jan 7, 2012

utmtsumethodist said:
No matter how you slice it, it's murder.

Except when you actually pay attention to the legal code in most Western nations, embryologists, bioethicists and women's health advocates. Or really anyone other than right wing Christians. :doh:

Incariol · Jan 7, 2012

I find it funny that only one woman has posted in this thread, trying to explain this women's issue, but so many men are going on and on, rather pompously, as if what a woman does with her uterus is any of their business. ^_^

TomZzyzx · Jan 7, 2012

Incariol said:
I find it funny that only one woman has posted in this thread, trying to explain this women's issue, but so many men are going on and on, rather pompously, as if what a woman does with her uterus is any of their business.

We couldn't care less what she does with her uterus, it's the innocent human life she is carrying that we care about.

mathetes123 · Jan 7, 2012

religious&reasonable said:
No insulting or flaming please. I come in peace.

So, some people consider a fetus not to be a person, or a part of the female and nothing more during inital pregnancy for it is not self-aware or self-concious. Therefore it is the Woman's right to decide.

But isn't the potential for human life just almost or just as important as human life?

Consider myself. At one point, I was an unborn fetus who was unware. At the time, my mother had a right to abort me. 9 months later I am now a functioning being. The potential was always the same, but yet it is somewhat more justifiable to terminate a human-in-the-making than it is to kill a born baby.

Now, I am no Woman, and couldn't possible understand the stress of pregnancy, but this is just a thought I had when listening to a Ron Paul interview (Ron Paul 2012!).

Comments? Ideas?

Another argument that is commonly made is that the fetus is not viable outside the womb. I know people who have had premature babies weighing less than two pound that have survived. Also, would a just born baby be any more viable? No, it requires the care of it's parents to survive, just as the premature baby required the care of the doctors. Using the "not viable" argument, you could therefore make the case for infanticide.

Those who are pro-choice often say that they are not pro-abortion, that they would not personally choose abortion for themselves, neither would they deny the choice to another. Either it is wrong or it is not. If it is wrong, why should something that is wrong be a choice?

Incariol · Jan 7, 2012

mathetes123 said:
Another argument that is commonly made is that the fetus is not viable outside the womb. I know people who have had premature babies weighing less than two pound that have survived. Also, would a just born baby be any more viable? No, it requires the care of it's parents to survive, just as the premature baby required the care of the doctors.

Those who are pro-choice often say that they are not pro-abortion, that they would not personally choose abortion for themselves, neither would they deny the choice to another. Either it is wrong or it is not. If it is wrong, why should something that is wrong be a choice?

Because not all of us are as fond as ramming our personal morality down everyone elses' throats, I guess. Fancy that. :idea:

mathetes123 · Jan 7, 2012

Incariol said:
Because not all of us are as fond as ramming our personal morality down everyone elses' throats, I guess. Fancy that.

So your support for abortion is based on not offending people?

What I don't understand about the arguement for Abortion.

LawsonAlan

Guest

Newbie

Newbie

Candlecaster

Wanderer

Maranatha

LawsonAlan

Guest

Maranatha

LawsonAlan

Guest

Newbie

Junior Member

Newbie

Junior Member

Regular Member

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Similar threads