Abortion: What do you think?

[selfinflikted]

I'm sure you're aware of the flaws in your definition, which have been debated ad nauseam, but let me ask a different question. Do animals have rights? Why can't I go outside and kill my cat?

You can go outside and kill your cat. There may be consequences, but you are certainly free to do so.

Maybe I'll go rip out its rip cage and tear off its limbs.

Hey, whatever floats your boat. Abortion up to a certain stage of development is, however, nothing like the cruelty you've just described.

Neither is a newborn outside of the womb for for the first couple of months of life. This theory seems quite flawed to me.

I would consider a newborn, once born, an individual that is both sentient and cognizant.

 

[Beechwell]

I'm sure you're aware of the flaws in your definition, which have been debated ad nauseam, but let me ask a different question. Do animals have rights? Why can't I go outside and kill my cat?

Human sentimentality.
You may not be allowed to kill a domesticated cat (although I think it is legal to do so if the cat is running around the forest), but we obviously kill pigs for food who are more intelligent than cats and certainly at least as much persons.

Indeed I think that the killing of some animals - those who show clear signs of self-awareness - is much more problematic than the killing of unborn humans that haven't even developed a brain yet.

I find the traditional concept of protecting life depending on the species it belongs to, way too arbitrary. Basing that right on level of self awareness and the membership in a society of self-aware and sentient beings makes imo much more sense.

@ the OP: Skimming over that article I get the impression that the only argument it brings forth is that abortions are yucky. Why is that a good argument on the morality of abortions?

 

[SithDoughnut]

Why, exactly, is that?

Because that is what our legislation says. Obviously, the foetus gains rights at the point where abortion becomes illegal, but before then it has none.

 

[Mr. Ripley]

Because that is what our legislation says. Obviously, the foetus gains rights at the point where abortion becomes illegal, but before then it has none.

"The government says so" isn't exactly a valid argument in an ethical discussion. Might as well say "Because God said so."

 

[Hakan101]

Hey, whatever floats your boat. Abortion up to a certain stage of development is, however, nothing like the cruelty you've just described.
.

Denying a human their entire experience of life is, in every way, much worse than ripping a cat's limbs off. You're basically saying a human life is less valuable than the pain of a cat. The last time I checked, we were the dominant and most valuable species. What does a cat do? It lies around and sleeps all day when it's not eating, for like 12 years. We learn and grow spiritually and have relationships and experiences no other animal can grasp. And we do this for about 100 years.

Do the math.

EDIT: By the way, please don't say "so you think it's okay to rip the limbs off a cat." I don't promote animal cruelty, but when concerning lives, a human's is worth more.

 

[mpok1519]

This unanswerable question is why the pro-choice movement is losing momentum.

Yes; eveR since prochoice became an institution it ceased being a movement. It's the status quo now, and doesn't need momentum bc it's the right thing for a society to do.

 

[clep]

@ the OP: Skimming over that article I get the impression that the only argument it brings forth is that abortions are yucky. Why is that a good argument on the morality of abortions?

I know this was for the OP but I am also compelled to answer this. A fetus can feel. It can feel pain as every living person can. I don't think it is just yucky to dismember someone. Dismemberment is considered to be a heinous crime in our society. People cringe at the thought. I have read news articles about children dismembering animals and that is a crime in the eyes of the law.

To dismember anything alive is an unspeakable act. For a mother to do it to her child is even worse. That is not just yucky to me, it is inflicting deliberate pain on a life until the point of death for the convenience of another. This is not moral in my eyes.

 

[Mr. Ripley]

Pendulums have a tendency to swing.

 

[mpok1519]

Denying a human their entire experience of life is, in every way, much worse than ripping a cat's limbs off. You're basically saying a human life is less valuable than the pain of a cat. The last time I checked, we were the dominant and most valuable species. What does a cat do? It lies around and sleeps all day when it's not eating, for like 12 years. We learn and grow spiritually and have relationships and experiences no other animal can grasp. And we do this for about 100 years.

Do the math.

You're not denying a person life; you're denying a potential person's potentiality of life.

Ripping a cats limbs off is worse bc the cat is already a cat, not a potential cat.

 

[Mr. Ripley]

We still haven't established this whole "potential life" thing. I'd like a clearer explanation por favor.

 

[Hakan101]

You're not denying a person life; you're denying a potential person's potentiality of life.

Ripping a cats limbs off is worse bc the cat is already a cat, not a potential cat.

There is not "potential of life". If a baby is born, it's gonna have a life. By killing that baby you take away it's life before it could even have it. But if you didn't kill the baby and it was born, it is definitely gonna have a life. Therefore aborting a baby takes a human life away.

And like I said, a human life is more valuable than a cat.

 

[Macx]

I do not believe abortion should be illegal

I do believe it is wrong, and one of the gravest sins in our society.

I reconcile these positions with the following: Making it illegal won't stop it. Making it illegal will make clean and sanitary abortions possible for high society women whop can afford a doctor willing to break the law and it will make unsanitary dirty abortions the rule for most. Women who are intelligent enough to use birthcontrol correctly tend not to get pregnant and that (despite what we see on reality shows) also means high society women are less likely to get "knocked up" on accident. That leaves the unintelligent and unfortunate. . . . and for anyone else who has ever cleaned the blood and hanger out of a sink at a shelter . . . surely you know lack of access won't stop the abortions & can have a higher cost on society (because the non-mom is on state sponsored insurance and goes in for the hemmorage and infections, gets held over for the chem-dep issue and before ya know it society has thrown 10's of K's down the drain on an unfortunate young lady who coulda gone to planned parenthood if she woulda used the bus tokens to get there instead of going towards the rock. Having worked in that world, I realize making abortion harder to happen/ more expensive/ legally difficult is just going to broaden the range of women taking the coathanger route.

In short, if Christians want to stop it, they need to get serious about adressing the sociological situations that lead to abortion . . not attack abortion. Abortion is not good, it is not right, but it is the end of a series of evils that need not happen if the evils that lead to it (ignorance, poverty, addiction, the welfare system, and a great number of other contributing factors) were adressed. Abortion is a symptom of a much larger disease, treating it as the whole of a problem isn't going to make it go away.

 

[SithDoughnut]

"The government says so" isn't exactly a valid argument in an ethical discussion. Might as well say "Because God said so."

That's not what I said. You asked why foetuses had no rights, and I told you. It was a statement of fact, not an ethical opinion.

Personally, I believe that before 20 weeks or so (when the foetus develops the capability of self-awareness) the foetus should not have the rights of personhood. We do not extend those rights to animals, and many species of them are more intelligent that a foetus at this stage. In fact, the reason we don't give animals the same rights as humans is because of the intelligence gap, and the fact that they are incapable of understanding the idea. I find it only logical to extend the same line of thinking to humans.

 

[Beechwell]

I know this was for the OP but I am also compelled to answer this. A fetus can feel. It can feel pain as every living person can. I don't think it is just yucky to dismember someone. Dismemberment is considered to be a heinous crime in our society. People cringe at the thought. I have read news articles about children dismembering animals and that is a crime in the eyes of the law.

To dismember anything alive is an unspeakable act. For a mother to do it to her child is even worse. That is not just yucky to me, it is inflicting deliberate pain on a life until the point of death for the convenience of another. This is not moral in my eyes.

You are entirely correct. Dismemberment and killing are terrible things - if done to a feeling victim. You say a fets can feel. This is entirely news to me, and if true would indeed chamge my view on abortion. So in what way can a fetus feel?

Note: I don't view simple nerve activity as felling. To feel requires imo an at least partially self-aware being interpretating those nervous signals.

 

[kittycat7]

I think abortion is just as bad as killing a child after it's been born. However, I think it needs to be legal (in a very limited time frame) because if it's legal, it can at least be regulated and done safely. In countries were abortion is still illegal, women do it themselves or go to quack doctors. The one circumstance where I think having an abortion would be moral is if the mother's life is at stake.

 

[clep]

You are entirely correct. Dismemberment and killing are terrible things - if done to a feeling victim. You say a fets can feel. This is entirely news to me, and if true would indeed chamge my view on abortion. So in what way can a fetus feel?

Note: I don't view simple nerve activity as felling. To feel requires imo an at least partially self-aware being interpretating those nervous signals.

Why Can't We Love Them Both? On Line Book by Dr. and Mrs. Willke. about during an abortion?

Can a Fetus Feel Pain? - TIME

Do Fetuses Feel Pain During An Abortion?

Neonatal perception - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I say there is evidence that shows they do feel pain, doctors just can't say when that starts beyond the shadow of a doubt. They know for certain it is at twenty weeks, but don't know how early before that. I certainly am not about to risk such a thing.

Now let's say the unborn child can't feel pain. That makes the act of dismemberment less of a crime?

A - Baby is alive inside the uterus
B - Baby is aborted by whatever means, pain involved or not
c - Baby is now dead

I don't know how any person can not see that mom has just killed her child. All of these debates of whether the child is a "real" child, if it is old enough to be considered are justifications in my eyes. Mother has killed her child, plain and simple to me.

Dismembering even a dead body is a despicable act in the eyes of our society so I am not sure what the argument here is. Even if they are being sucked into a vacuum in the early stages and their bodies mutilated, that is much better?

 

[clep]

I do not believe abortion should be illegal

I do believe it is wrong, and one of the gravest sins in our society.

I reconcile these positions with the following: Making it illegal won't stop it. Making it illegal will make clean and sanitary abortions possible for high society women whop can afford a doctor willing to break the law and it will make unsanitary dirty abortions the rule for most. Women who are intelligent enough to use birthcontrol correctly tend not to get pregnant and that (despite what we see on reality shows) also means high society women are less likely to get "knocked up" on accident. That leaves the unintelligent and unfortunate. . . . and for anyone else who has ever cleaned the blood and hanger out of a sink at a shelter . . . surely you know lack of access won't stop the abortions & can have a higher cost on society (because the non-mom is on state sponsored insurance and goes in for the hemmorage and infections, gets held over for the chem-dep issue and before ya know it society has thrown 10's of K's down the drain on an unfortunate young lady who coulda gone to planned parenthood if she woulda used the bus tokens to get there instead of going towards the rock. Having worked in that world, I realize making abortion harder to happen/ more expensive/ legally difficult is just going to broaden the range of women taking the coathanger route.

In short, if Christians want to stop it, they need to get serious about adressing the sociological situations that lead to abortion . . not attack abortion. Abortion is not good, it is not right, but it is the end of a series of evils that need not happen if the evils that lead to it (ignorance, poverty, addiction, the welfare system, and a great number of other contributing factors) were adressed. Abortion is a symptom of a much larger disease, treating it as the whole of a problem isn't going to make it go away.

This is a very valid point. My church just fundraised for the local pregnancy care center to raise money to aid women who are pregnant. We also just handed out thousands of packages to the homeless to aid them in getting jobs. We do a great deal of community work on a regular basis. My own family volunteers for our local homeless shelter and I am about to embark on a four year degree to become a social worker to aid in these types of things that you speak of.

I agree with you completely. I am not so sure we should legalize something immoral so people will be less likely to commit an immoral act. I am then standing behind that immoral act with my support. I would rather spend my time aiding in the factors that prevent that act to begin with.

Too bad there weren't more people like you who see the bigger picture here.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I don't know how any person can not see that mom has just killed her child. All of these debates of whether the child is a "real" child, if it is old enough to be considered are justifications in my eyes. Mother has killed her child, plain and simple to me.

The emphasis is on the phrase "to me". There's an awful lot of people that don't equate a fetus and a child.

 

[Beechwell]

Why Can't We Love Them Both? On Line Book by Dr. and Mrs. Willke. about during an abortion?

Can a Fetus Feel Pain? - TIME

Do Fetuses Feel Pain During An Abortion?

Neonatal perception - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I say there is evidence that shows they do feel pain, doctors just can't say when that starts beyond the shadow of a doubt. They know for certain it is at twenty weeks, but don't know how early before that. I certainly am not about to risk such a thing.

Woah, easy there. Disregarding the two pro-life sites leaves us with the Times article and the Wikipedia entry. The Times article mentions earliest possible feeling of pain at 26-29 weeks, with 20 weeks being claimed by the pro-lifers. The wikipedia article says most agree on 26 weeks being the earliest time to percieve pain, with 20 weeks being the aboslute minimum, because essential nervous parts haven't developed before then.
All this still doesn't address the question whether any form of self-aware being has yet developed to actually feel that pain (afaik the necessary parts for that develop much later), or whether the pain only exists as nervous signals and maybe instinctive reactions to them).

But I would agree with 20 weeks being a reasonable limit to abortions. I'm against late term abortions, because of the uncertainty if the child could indeed already feel pain and be somewhat self-aware at that point. Banning abortions after 20 weeks I can agree with. Would that be acceptable to you, or would any earlier date be acceptable if it could be proven that the child cannot possibly feel pain, or be aware before that?

Now let's say the unborn child can't feel pain. That makes the act of dismemberment less of a crime?

A - Baby is alive inside the uterus
B - Baby is aborted by whatever means, pain involved or not
c - Baby is now dead

Simply being alive doesn't justify any right to live. Should we make picking flowers or swatting flies illigal? I know some say that being human should grant that right, but such a distinction on pure genetic differences seems inappropriate to me. I'd rather ask why do we attribute a special right to live to humans, and what makes us think of somebody/something as human?

Dismembering even a dead body is a despicable act in the eyes of our society so I am not sure what the argument here is. Even if they are being sucked into a vacuum in the early stages and their bodies mutilated, that is much better?

Dismembering a dead body is only despicable if done without good reason. And then only because it might reveal tendencies to also try it out with living people (or because living people don't like to see their deceased family/friends mutilated). If done for medical reasons for example, I see absolutely no problem with it.

 

[The Nihilist]

Whatever else you can say about abortion, it's definitely a real time-saver.