A Pro-Choice Consideration

[Fiendishjester]

I would disagree that the unborn fetus has a will to live. In fact, I would disagree that it is completely sentient.

Secondly, if I were an unborn child, and I knew that my life would be horrible, because of some defect or disease, I would much rather be dead than be born.

 

[Lifesaver]

The distinction here is that abortions are not preformed out of malevolence. If you have ever know a women who has had an abortion you will understand that its not done because she hated the baby, or wanted to hurt the baby. The two main reasons are that she does not have the means to support the child, and health risks to the mother. Other reasons include serious birth defects that would prevent the baby from living a happy life.

I know they don't mean evil. But the action is still as horrid as ever.

Whatever reason she may have not to want a baby at the moment, it can't be used to justify the killing of said baby.

As for birth defects, that is a particularly arrogant reason to kill someone. Having no limbs or Downs Syndrome does not make one's life unbearable or unworthy of being lived, and it is very insulting to say that it does.

 

[Lifesaver]

I would disagree that the unborn fetus has a will to live. In fact, I would disagree that it is completely sentient.

Of course it is not sentient!
A young born baby is not sentient. But you don't want infanticide to be allowed as well, do you?

And just look at the fetus behaviour: it nourishes itself and does all in its power to continue living, which indicates a natural drive to survival.

Secondly, if I were an unborn child, and I knew that my life would be horrible, because of some defect or disease, I would much rather be dead than be born.

Not all think like you (me, for instance). And since we don't know how the person will feel about their life once they are full grown adults living it, we must always choose to preserve it.

 

[professor frink]

I know they don't mean evil. But the action is still as horrid as ever.

This wasn't really my point. I was just trying to illustrate that there is a fundamental difference between going out and murdering someone, and having an abortion, and the laws must reflect this.

Whatever reason she may have not to want a baby at the moment, it can't be used to justify the killing of said baby.

Here you are placing the value of the babies life above that of the mothers. We cannot start saying that one persons life is worth more than another's. Our principles of equality would implode.

As for birth defects, that is a particularly arrogant reason to kill someone. Having no limbs or Downs Syndrome does not make one's life unbearable or unworthy of being lived, and it is very insulting to say that it does.

I am not saying that it is a valid reason. But that is not something you can decide either. If the child is going to be in constant pain throughout their life, it may be more humane/merciful to end the life before it becomes sentient. Unfortunately, euthanasia is not yet legal in most countries, so if the child is born, lives in constant pain and wants to die, thats not an option they have. That right has already been taken from them. What gives you the right to say that the child has to live a life of pain. The closest person to the unborn child is the mother carrying the child, so the decision is left up to her.

 

[Lifesaver]

Here you are placing the value of the babies life above that of the mothers. We cannot start saying that one persons life is worth more than another's. Our principles of equality would implode.

Good question: how am I placing the value of the babie's life above that of the mother's? I'm not!
I'm placing the value of the babie's life above the mother's right to choose if it will live or die.

I am not saying that it is a valid reason. But that is not something you can decide either. If the child is going to be in constant pain throughout their life, it may be more humane/merciful to end the life before it becomes sentient. Unfortunately, euthanasia is not yet legal in most countries, so if the child is born, lives in constant pain and wants to die, thats not an option they have. That right has already been taken from them. What gives you the right to say that the child has to live a life of pain. The closest person to the unborn child is the mother carrying the child, so the decision is left up to her.

So you defend abortion to help those people who would want to die once they are alive. And the person who would make the decision for them would be the mother, who in most cases does for some personal reason rather than the welfare of the baby in mind. I don't have to tell you that this doesn't sound and is not well!
You would be killing many people who would have wanted to live and leaving alive many who would want to die, using as a standard the opinion of another person who doesn't know the mind of the baby and who has other motives for making the choice.

Not to mention this brings up another complicated ethical point: is it okay to kill someone if they give you the permission to?

 

[AdJesumPerMariam]

This wasn't really my point. I was just trying to illustrate that there is a fundamental difference between going out and murdering someone, and having an abortion, and the laws must reflect this.

How is it different? There is a heartbeat before you even know you are pregnant! I guess it is OK to ahhh "abort" a newborn if for some reason it does not meet your standards?? How many moms would love a child no matter what????

Here you are placing the value of the babies life above that of the mothers. We cannot start saying that one persons life is worth more than another's. Our principles of equality would implode.

I have seen many moms that were advised NOT to get pregnant, because it was a risk to them...and they wanted a baby so bad, they did anyway. We once had a brittle diabetic that took that chance, and she died within months of the baby's birth. In today's society YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BECOME PREGNANT!

I am not saying that it is a valid reason. But that is not something you can decide either. If the child is going to be in constant pain throughout their life, it may be more humane/merciful to end the life before it becomes sentient. Unfortunately, euthanasia is not yet legal in most countries, so if the child is born, lives in constant pain and wants to die, thats not an option they have. That right has already been taken from them. What gives you the right to say that the child has to live a life of pain. The closest person to the unborn child is the mother carrying the child, so the decision is left up to her.

How would you know the child will be born in pain??? My friend had a child 16 yrs ago who was born blind w/ constant seizures. He also has never walked. Today, the seizures are controlled & he is in school. He has been a blessing to the family, and a truely happy child!

 

[professor frink]

How is it different? There is a heartbeat before you even know you are pregnant! I guess it is OK to ahhh "abort" a newborn if for some reason it does not meet your standards?? How many moms would love a child no matter what????

OK - once again, the only distinction I am making is that murder is done with the intention of hurting someone, whereas abortion is not. Abortions are not performed out of malevolence. That does not make abortion "right," and I have never advocated abortion.

I have seen many moms that were advised NOT to get pregnant, because it was a risk to them...and they wanted a baby so bad, they did anyway. We once had a brittle diabetic that took that chance, and she died within months of the baby's birth. In today's society YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BECOME PREGNANT!

Often times, the risk does not become apparent until after she is pregnant. I do not advocate at risk women from becoming pregnant. However, women are raped sometimes. It is an horrible thing. Some of these women have conditions that would make child birth dangerous, and thus choose not to have children. It is sad that you blame these women for getting pregnant. I personally don't see how they had a choice in the matter. You can argue that they should have been on birth control just in case someone rapes them, but I don't see that as a fair argument.

How would you know the child will be born in pain??[?QUOTE]

This is fairly obvious. If the child is diagnosed with a chronic painful disease, then the child will be in pain....

My friend had a child 16 yrs ago who was born blind w/ constant seizures. He also has never walked. Today, the seizures are controlled & he is in school. He has been a blessing to the family, and a truely happy child!

Umm, thats excellent.

 

[professor frink]

Good question: how am I placing the value of the babie's life above that of the mother's? I'm not!
I'm placing the value of the babie's life above the mother's right to choose if it will live or die.

If the mother's life is at risk if she gives birth, and you deny her the right to an abortion, you are in fact saying that the babies life has more value than hers'.

Not to mention this brings up another complicated ethical point: is it okay to kill someone if they give you the permission to?

Well, yes. In principle I see nothing wrong with euthanasia. The potential exists for it to be abused, however if someone truly wants to die to end their suffering, the should have that right.

 

[Lifesaver]

If the mother's life is at risk if she gives birth, and you deny her the right to an abortion, you are in fact saying that the babies life has more value than hers'.

First, her life is at risk. Death is not certain for her.

Secondly, when you know someone will die (they have a serious organ malfunction, for instance), it doesn't give you the right to kill someone so that they could live (and get a transplant).

We value both lives equally. If one is to die for health causes, we don't have the right to kill another to save this life.

Well, yes. In principle I see nothing wrong with euthanasia. The potential exists for it to be abused, however if someone truly wants to die to end their suffering, the should have that right.

I see nothing wrong with passive euthanasia, ie: letting the person go through their natural cycle if the options available are too complicated, expensive or hurting and offer no good benefits.

If we give people the right to kill those who wanted to die, it wouldn't be too long before they would be negotiating their lives as mortgage or bets, every murderer would have a good alibi, and people in moments of despair, frailty or drunkeness would be exploited.

 

[professor frink]

I don't think we will reach an agreement on the abortion thing, which is ok. We all have the right to our opinions

I see nothing wrong with passive euthanasia, ie: letting the person go through their natural cycle if the options available are too complicated, expensive or hurting and offer no good benefits.

Passive euthanasia is not currently illegal. I am not saying that you said it is, just stating a fact. Actually killing at their request, because they are living in pain and want to die is illegal.

If we give people the right to kill those who wanted to die, it wouldn't be too long before they would be negotiating their lives as mortgage or bets, every murderer would have a good alibi, and people in moments of despair, frailty or drunkeness would be exploited.

Indeed, there is a large potential for abuse. However I don't have a problem with active euthanasia, in principle. If someone is living in pain and sincerely wants to die, I think they should have the right to have someone kill them.

Whether the day will come when we can allow that, and avoid the possible abuse of the law, I do not know.

 

[Lifesaver]

I don't think we will reach an agreement on the abortion thing, which is ok. We all have the right to our opinions

Yes we do, but I sincerely hope you change yours, for as it was shown in this thread, killing a fetus or even zygote is just the same as killing an adult.

 

[professor frink]

Hmm, I suppose this is now wildly off topic. Sorry....

 

[professor frink]

Yes we do, but I sincerely hope you change yours, for as it was shown in this thread, killing a fetus or even zygote is just the same as killing an adult.

I don't think my opinion is what you want to change. If I was a woman and had an unwanted pregnancy, I would carry the child to term and give it up for adoption.

 

[flicka]

killing a fetus or even zygote is just the same as killing an adult.

 

[Lifesaver]

*sigh* say I, flicka.

I stay the whole thread giving the logical defense of abortion and showing the flaws of its defenses, and then, when I state my conclusion, you react as if this were some undefensible dogma of mine.

I'm not against it because I'm Christian. I would be against it no matter what religion (or lack of thereof) I followed.

 

[flicka]

Actually, the whole point of MY posts was for people to try to see beyond black and white. Your comment suggests you are unwilling to even consider a view other than your own, going so far as to equate the status of a zygote to the status of an adult to get your point across. I *SIGHED* because debating with someone unwilling to even try to see from a different POV is pointless. As it this thread.

 

[Lifesaver]

No, it suggests nothing of the kind.

One method I used to refute other points of view was considering them, taking them to their logical consequences and showing how absurd they were.

Yes, killing a zygote and killing an adult is the same thing- you are killing people.

Everyone failed to come up with a moral distinction between killing the two (which are in fact both homo sapiens, only in different stages of development). The burden is on them to do it.

I was not "close-minded" or "dogmatic" at all, and take offense that you unfairly called me that.

I also disagree on the pointlessness of this thread. Both sides got the chance to present and debate their views, and even if no-one "converted" to the other side (as is usually the case), they might have profited from knowing more about each other and seeing the possible flaws of their position.

 

[Dirac_Delta]

No, it suggests nothing of the kind.

One method I used to refute other points of view was considering them, taking them to their logical consequences and showing how absurd they were.

Yes, killing a zygote and killing an adult is the same thing- you are killing people.

Everyone failed to come up with a moral distinction between killing the two (which are in fact both homo sapiens, only in different stages of development). The burden is on them to do it.

I was not "close-minded" or "dogmatic" at all, and take offense that you unfairly called me that.

I also disagree on the pointlessness of this thread. Both sides got the chance to present and debate their views, and even if no-one "converted" to the other side (as is usually the case), they might have profited from knowing more about each other and seeing the possible flaws of their position.

I don't understand how you can equate a small number of human cells (say10)with a Human Being. Of course you can define it that way but I think that's not very honest. I said it before but I will repeat it: what makes the difference between a zygote and a Human Being is the non-existence or existence, respectively, of brain activity (if it has no brain it cannot have brain activity). A person is declared dead if it has no brain activity.

You can continue to try to convince people that a single cell is a Human Being but you must admit that that comparation is a little bit forced.

 

[professor frink]

I don't understand how you can equate a small number of human cells (say10)with a Human Being. Of course you can define it that way but I think that's not very honest. I said it before but I will repeat it: what makes the difference between a zygote and a Human Being is the non-existence or existence, respectively, of brain activity (if it has no brain it cannot have brain activity). A person is declared dead if it has no brain activity.

You can continue to try to convince people that a single cell is a Human Being but you must admit that that comparation is a little bit forced.

You just brought another thought to my mind. Is it odd that the same people who say that 2 cells are a human being, immediately dismiss the possiblility that life arose from amino acid reactions?

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

I know were like 124 posts into this and its start to degrade into name calling, but, hey, God hates a coward.

Have you ever seriously thought of defending keeping abortion legal on the grounds that it causes fewer abortions to occur?

This is actually defensable by historical fact and imperical observation. First, throughout the history of US, abortion has been legal at times and illegal at others. While illegal, during the majority of the 19th century, it is likely their were more abortions per capita then live births. A situtation similar to Russia today and much higher then the US at the moment (1 for every 4 or 5 live births)

Also, it is agruable that keeping abortion legal keeps the debate in the open which allows a pregeant women's opinion to be swayed. Making abortion illegal removes the ability for anti-abortionist to access these women easily and effectively, thereby likely increasing the total number of abortions.

The key here is what anti-abortionist what, to make abortion illegal or to reduce the number of abortions. I think that the goals my be at cross purposes with each other.