Abortion

[Skaloop]

Ok so then the problem is that it is legal.

I don't see that as a problem at all.

If you think it's a problem, then it's a moral problem for you. If there's something legal that I don't like or that I find immoral, I just don't do it.

But I was not addressing whether there was a problem or not. I was merely resolving the legal issue at hand, namely the difference between murder and abortion and why it's not contradictory when doctors who perform abortions are not charged with murder.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Wanderingone,

I don't know, that's why I said likely.

Ok but I do know, it’s the same child in the womb 5 mins before as 5 mins after birth.

Women have gone into labor in a pregnancy that appears to be healthy and ended up mourning over a stillbirth. The child who seems to be healthy in the womb may have an unknown condition that presents itself during or immediately after birth.

But the child may then die after 10 mins so I don’t see that you have recognised what I am saying. I am the same person whether I am healthy or I am dying of illness.
What I can say is life observably begins at conception, the zygote and foetus are just developmental stages of that life no different ftom a baby, a toddler a teenager etc... all started at conception, none of it would have happened but for conception.

So terminating a pregnancy for many = terminating a life.

 

[TeddyKGB]

What I can say is life observably begins at conception, the zygote and foetus are just developmental stages of that life no different ftom a baby, a toddler a teenager etc... all started at conception, none of it would have happened but for conception.

It must be said that millions more zygotes manifest than embryos or fetuses develop. Even the most utterly lethal mutations often permit development to morula or blastula stage before spontaneously terminating. It does not seem consistent to exalt a phase of human development that is so fickle about actually developing.

So terminating a pregnancy for many = terminating a life.

An odd concern. Those people are free not to terminate their own pregnancies.

 

[sufast]

“Naomi Wolf, the high-profile 32-year-old feminist author and Rhodes scholar, recently admitted that her morning sickness -- and her seeing the baby inside moving on a scan -- has helped her change her mind about abortion. Wolf said that she now rejects the abortion lobby's claim that a foetus [fetus] (a Latin word which, when translated to English, means 'little one') isn't a human life but is merely a mass of tissue.
While she hasn't gone so far as to oppose abortion 'at all costs', Wolf is firing some heavy verbal artillery at her fellow feminists, whom she accuses of self-delusion, hardness of heart, and even lying when they say a death doesn't take place in abortion."
Robert Doolan, Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 18, No. 1

"'The nurses have to look at the ultrasound picture to gauge how far along the baby is for an abortion, because the larger the pregnancy, the more you get paid. It was very important for us to do that. But the turnover definitely got greater when we started using ultrasound. We lost two nurses - they couldn't take looking at it. Some of the other staff left also.' What about the women having the abortions? Do they see the ultrasound? 'They are never allowed to look at the ultrasound because we knew that if they so much as heard the heartbeat, they wouldn't want to have the abortion.'"
Dr. Joseph Randall, who performed over 32,000 abortions, quoted in David Kupelian and Mark Masters, "Pro-Choice 1991: skeletons in the closet," New Dimensions (September/October 1991), p. 43.

"A nurse who had worked in an abortion clinic for less than a year said her most troubling moments came not in the procedure room, but afterwards. Many times, she said, women who had just had abortions would lie in the recovery room and cry, 'I've just killed my baby. I've just killed my baby.' "'I don't know what to say to these women,' the nurse told the group. 'Part of me thinks "Maybe they're right."'"
Diane M. Gianelli, "Abortion providers share inner conflicts," American Medical News, 12 July 1993, p. 36.

"Norma McCorvey, who under the pseudonym of 'Jane Roe' in 1973 prompted the landmark United States Supreme Court case Roe vs Wade (which decided in favor of abortion) announced in August [1995] that she now believes abortion is wrong. She has become a born-again Christian. McCorvey is still working through some of the issues, but she has left her job at a Dallas abortion clinic to work for the pro-life group Operation Rescue, revealing that she had been haunted by the sight of empty swings in a playground."
Robert Doolan, Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 18, No. 1

"The fact that restricting access to abortion has tragic side effects does not, in itself, show that the restrictions are unjustified, since murder is wrong regardless of the consequences of prohibiting it; and the appeal to the right to control one's body, which is generally construed as a property right, is at best a rather feeble argument for the permissibility of abortion. Mere ownership does not give me the right to kill innocent people whom I find on my property, and indeed I am apt to be held responsible if such people injure themselves while on my property. It is equally unclear that I have any moral right to expel an innocent person from my property when I know that doing so will result in his death."
Prochoice philosopher Mary Anne Warren, "On the Moral and Legal Status on Abortion," in The Problem of Abortion, Second edition, editor Joel Feinberg (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1984), p. 103, quoted in Randy Alcorn, Pro Life Answers to Pro Choice Arguments, (Portland, OR: Multnomah Press, 1992), p. 86.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To TeddyKGB,

It must be said that millions more zygotes manifest than embryos or fetuses develop. Even the most utterly lethal mutations often permit development to morula or blastula stage before spontaneously terminating. It does not seem consistent to exalt a phase of human development that is so fickle about actually developing.

Well that doesn’t really address my point, a zygote is still the product of conception and I fail to see how the start of human life can be called fickle, unless one sees nothing wrong with terminating it.

An odd concern. Those people are free not to terminate their own pregnancies.

An odd concern for those who terminate pregnancies, but not odd for those who see those pregnancies are really lives.

 

[brightmorningstar]

A very helpful post indeed sufast. Thank you so much.

Mine is a little more blunt.
Indeed no hospital, nurse doctor or mother has ever refered to their foetus or zygote, but rather their baby. Foetus and zygote are developmental stages of life and the terms employed by pro choice so it doesn't sound like they are terminating a baby or a life. If they are going let the baby live its a baby, if they are going to terminate the baby its a foetus.

 

[cantata]

A very helpful post indeed sufast. Thank you so much.

Mine is a little more blunt.
Indeed no hospital, nurse doctor or mother has ever refered to their foetus or zygote, but rather their baby. Foetus and zygote are developmental stages of life and the terms employed by pro choice so it doesn't sound like they are terminating a baby or a life. If they are going let the baby live its a baby, if they are going to terminate the baby its a foetus.

That's right.

If the mother is not attached to it, it's a foetus. If she is, it's a baby. I don't think that's very surprising or shocking. While it is insensible, all its value is bestowed on it from outside.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

That's right.

If the mother is not attached to it, it's a foetus. If she is, it's a baby. I don't think that's very surprising or shocking. While it is insensible, all its value is bestowed on it from outside.

DNA?

It's the only thing that makes you you.

From the moment of conception you were you and no one else. And, never could be.

 

[cantata]

DNA?

It's the only thing that makes you you.

No it isn't. My experiences and my environment also make me me. If I had had a different upbringing I would be a different person.

From the moment of conception you were you and no one else. And, never could be.

And? Uniqueness or having DNA does not make something inherently valuable.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To canata,

That's right.

If the mother is not attached to it, it's a foetus. If she is, it's a baby. I don't think that's very surprising or shocking. While it is insensible, all its value is bestowed on it from outside.

Well firstly that’s not what all mothers think. Secondly I would again dispute that can be possible as the physical nature of the foetus/baby doesn’t change even if the view of it does. In this respect the same foetus that is viewed expendable could given the chance be the living born baby.
That means the fate of the foetus/baby is how it is viewed.
If it is merely a foetus or a life that can be terminated, murder the action is merely a human preference.

However, you having said it is all about how it is viewed my view would be the same as Mother Teresa’s
Any country that accepts abortion, is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what it wants."
"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
“The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships”
http://www.gargaro.com/mother_teresa/quotes.html

No it isn't. My experiences and my environment also make me me. If I had had a different upbringing I would be a different person.

So then you saying your DNA isnt you? Hmmn.

And? Uniqueness or having DNA does not make something inherently valuable.

But value isnt something everyone shares, DNA is.

If I had had a different upbringing I would be a different person

so why didnt you say this on the other thread to those who claim they were born homosexual and have no choice.

 

[cantata]

Well firstly that’s not what all mothers think.

I am not saying that all women use the same terminology as I am using here, but I think it is relevant to say that women view their pregnancies in different ways, and an unwanted pregnancy where the mother has not formed an emotional attachment is more likely to be thought of in dispassionate terms than a wanted one.

Secondly I would again dispute that can be possible as the physical nature of the foetus/baby doesn’t change even if the view of it does. In this respect the same foetus that is viewed expendable could given the chance be the living born baby.
That means the fate of the foetus/baby is how it is viewed.
If it is merely a foetus or a life that can be terminated, murder the action is merely a human preference.

We are not talking about the physical nature of the foetus, however, but about its value. Value is not conferred solely and objectively by physical status. It is conferred precisely by how much a thing is valued. A foetus' life cannot be valued by the foetus because of the lack of mental capacity to do so. It can, however, be valued by the woman carrying it. If she values it, it is valuable. If she doesn't, it is not.

So then you saying your DNA isnt you? Hmmn.

It is fundamental to who I am, but it is not the only factor which shapes and has shaped who I am.

But value isnt something everyone shares, DNA is.

So..?

so why didnt you say this on the other thread to those who claim they were born homosexual and have no choice.

Er... for a lot of reasons. Some of them:

- I have no right to tell people what their experiences were. They are the authority on their own life experiences. If they say they had no choice, I am not in a position to tell them otherwise.

- While I believe that there are environmental influences on many people's sexual orientation, that does not imply that those people have a choice in the matter, any more than someone has a choice about having a phobia of dogs because they were bitten by a dog as a child.

- While I believe that one's environment and upbringing are a partial influence on how one develops, I nevertheless think that genes and other biological factors play a role. People have green or brown eyes because of their genes. Some people inherit a talent from their parents, such as perfect pitch. Some may also be homosexual because of their genes, for all I know.

 

[truthshift]

I personally do not advocate abortion. It is a murder of convenience, not necessity and for that; immoral in my eyes.

But... I often think about how I would feel if I were aborted... Then I realize, I wouldn't care at all. I'd never see it coming and I'd never see it going. I feel that without memories, we are nothing but living flesh.

That said; I am pro choice.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To cantata,

I am not saying that all women use the same terminology as I am using here,

Ah ok but for you and some all value is bestowed from outside.

That means the fate of the foetus/baby is how it is viewed.

Ok.

We are not talking about the physical nature of the foetus, however, but about its value.

You might not be but I am so we are. The physical nature of the foetus/baby is no different.

Value is not conferred solely and objectively by physical status.

I agree with that.

A foetus' life cannot be valued by the foetus because of the lack of mental capacity to do so.

Stop. We are talking about the foetus/baby, otherwise you aren’t engaging in debate rather merely discussing what you think with yourself.
The foetus/baby doesn’t not have a say in whether it is terminated so I don’t see how its value about itself is in the slightest bit relevant.

It can, however, be valued by the woman carrying it. If she values it, it is valuable. If she doesn't, it is not.

Ok.

It is fundamental to who I am, but it is not the only factor which shapes and has shaped who I am.

then your statement was plain wrong

If I had had a different upbringing I would be a different person.

So..?

so reality is appropriate to all not just some.

- I have no right to tell people what their experiences were. They are the authority on their own life experiences. If they say they had no choice, I am not in a position to tell them otherwise.

Yes you do because with abortion you are deciding whether a foetus/baby is life or not and making a choice for it.
Your other comments are of course valid if your statement about a different person is untrue.

 

[cantata]

Ah ok but for you and some all value is bestowed from outside.

Some or all value is bestowed from outside, yes.

I am valuable because I am valued by other people and because I value myself.

You might not be but I am so we are. The physical nature of the foetus/baby is no different.

You are correct.

However, it doesn't matter. Foetuses are not inherently valuable. Nothing is. I can't even imagine how inherent value could be instantiated.

Stop. We are talking about the foetus/baby, otherwise you aren’t engaging in debate rather merely discussing what you think with yourself.

I have no idea what this means.

The foetus/baby doesn’t not have a say in whether it is terminated so I don’t see how its value about itself is in the slightest bit relevant.

It is absolutely relevant. If it were possible for the foetus to value its own life then one might be able to make a case that it is unacceptable to kill it on those grounds.

then your statement was plain wrong

No it wasn't. In response to the claim that DNA is "the only thing that makes me me", here is what I said:

"No it isn't. My experiences and my environment also make me me. If I had had a different upbringing I would be a different person."

This is completely true and completely compatible with my remark that my DNA is fundamental to my identity. I am claiming that my DNA is necessary, but not sufficient, to explain my identity, and that my environment and upbringing are also necessary, but not sufficient, to explain my identity.

so reality is appropriate to all not just some.

How is this relevant to our discussion?

Yes, everyone has DNA. What bearing does that have on the value of a foetus?

Yes you do because with abortion you are deciding whether a foetus/baby is life or not and making a choice for it.
Your other comments are of course valid if your statement about a different person is untrue.

This is just word salad. I stated that I do not have the right to tell someone that they had a choice if they say that they didn't. How does this have anything to do with our discussion about abortion?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To cantata,

Some or all value is bestowed from outside, yes.

No, you are incorrect as you said for the foetus/baby in question

While it is insensible, all its value is bestowed on it from outside.

You said all its value. This is why I challenged you on your remark. Are you now changing your remark?

I am valuable because I am valued by other people and because I value myself.

but if some others don’t value you, like some mothers don’t value their foetus/baby then under your thinking they are entitled not to value you. I think that’s wrong.

However, it doesn't matter. Foetuses are not inherently valuable.

But you have already admitted that it depends on who holds the value judegment. So whilst they may not be for you they are for others.
Please think through your argument.

This is just word salad. I stated that I do not have the right to tell someone that they had a choice if they say that they didn't. How does this have anything to do with our discussion about abortion?

Because according to others they do have a choice and the foetus/baby is a person.

 

[cantata]

You said all its value. This is why I challenged you on your remark. Are you now changing your remark?

Sorry, I thought you were talking about value in general. All of a foetus' value is conferred from outside, yes, because the foetus can't value itself.

but if some others don’t value you, like some mothers don’t value their foetus/baby then under your thinking they are entitled not to value you. I think that’s wrong.

No one has to value me if they don't want to. I'm not that great.

But you have already admitted that it depends on who holds the value judegment. So whilst they may not be for you they are for others.

I believe that foetuses can be valued and therefore extrinsically valuable to those who value them. I do not believe that they can be inherently/intrinsically (i.e. objectively) valuable. That is the whole crux of my argument. You can't say that something is relatively intrinsically valuable. If its value is intrinsic then it is objective, i.e. not relative or subjectively conferred.

Because according to others they do have a choice and the foetus/baby is a person.

So all you're saying is that some people disagree with me? I could have told you that. I still don't see how it's relevant to our discussion.

We are getting miles off the point. My point is this. Everything in the world, including foetuses and born human beings, is valuable insofar as it is valued. It is possible for a life to be valued by its owner and by other people. However, not all lives can be valued by their owners. A foetus' life cannot be valued by its owner because foetuses are insensible. Therefore all of the value of a foetus' life is conferred by external persons who value it. Therefore if no significant value is conferred on it by external persons, it is not valuable.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To cantata,

Sorry, I thought you were talking about value in general. All of a foetus' value is conferred from outside, yes, because the foetus can't value itself.

Ok I accept what you are saying but there are two problems.
Firstly as to what you are claiming the foetus/baby 5 mins before birth can no more value itself than the baby born 5 mins later. So what is stopping the mother terminating the life of the baby at any time she sees fit before the baby can be seen to value itself?

 

[cantata]

Ok I accept what you are saying but there are two problems.
Firstly as to what you are claiming the foetus/baby 5 mins before birth can no more value itself than the baby born 5 mins later. So what is stopping the mother terminating the life of the baby at any time she sees fit before the baby can be seen to value itself?

Can you imagine how frightening it would be to live in a world where it was okay to kill born babies?

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

Can you imagine how frightening it would be to live in a world where it was okay to kill born babies?

Yes.
As frightening as it is now in America with their current abortion laws. Only slightly less hypocritical.

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

Value is not conferred solely and objectively by physical status. It is conferred precisely by how much a thing is valued. A foetus' life cannot be valued by the foetus because of the lack of mental capacity to do so. It can, however, be valued by the woman carrying it. If she values it, it is valuable. If she doesn't, it is not.

Think about this for a moment.
This is an incredibly dangerous statement if followed through to its logical conclusion.

There are many, many people people living in this world who (as far as we can tell) do not have the mental capacity to value their own life. This includes every single person on the planet for probaly the first year of their life.
If they are not valued by others then according to your argument their life is not valuable. Is this correct?
As we are obviously talking about abortion here, it is also implicit in the argument that not valuable = expendable. Or, less euphemistically, those who it is OK to murder if they prove to be an inconvenience.

Let's try another argument. A foetus cannot value its own life and its mother does not value its life either. Prospective adoptive parents, however, do value the foetus' life. The foetus life therefore has value.
Therefore by your rationale it is murder if it is killed.
Discuss...