Questions for Certain Pro-Choicers

[Marek]

I pretty much agree with everything you've said except for this portion here. There seems to exist some logical flaws with what you are saying.

When you abort a baby/foetus which has not been previously conscious, one is not actually killing anyone. You cannot hurt someone that does not exist and will never exist.

This is all true, but when you abort you are killing something, and it is clear that you can hurt something even if that thing is not a conscious human being.

But when you kill someone who is temporarily unconscious, you are actually killing someone, even though the someone is not currently there.

This is where it gets a little unclear. When someone is unconscious, you seem willing to say that that person is 'not currently there', or what I take to be 'not currently in existence'. (correct me if I'm wrong) Now you said yourself that you cannot hurt someone that does not exist and will never exist. The same seems to hold true for that someone that does not exist and will never exist again. Now if I kill someone that is currently unconscious, that person does not exist and will never exist again. By your logic, how could I be hurting them? Also, you say that when you kill someone that is unconscious, you are actually killing someone, even though the someone is not currently there. This seems impossible. What you are killing is a physical body absent of any consciousness. This seems no different than killing someone that is brain dead. By what you are saying it seems that you are not actually killing someone, you are killing something.

There was a previously conscious person, who had desires, aspirations, dreams, etc. When a person is temporarily unconscious, we should respect the wishes that they previously had, and in all likelihood those wishes do not include being killed.

This seems no different than respecting the wishes of the dead. By disrespecting the wishes of the dead, you are doing no harm to them. They are not around to be harmed. The same seems to hold true in the case of an unconscious person. By killing them, you are not hurting them, they are not around to be deprived of anything. They also will not be hurt in the future; they will not exist then either.

 

[Phred]

I know you guys are having a good time delving deep into the concept of consciouness and personhood... but again, it's irrelevant.

I don't have to give blood even if a person will die if I don't. I don't have to give a kidney even if a person will die if I don't. A woman doesn't have to go through a pregnancy if she doesn't want to. Even if it results in the death of "something". Whether that something is a person, a fetus or a buncha cells. Unless this pre-human has some special claim to life that requires a forced maternity, why do you think it has more rights than an already born, existing human being?

If your goal here is to answer abortion, then you're on the wrong track. If you're enjoying delving into the unknown of consciousness, please excuse the interruption.

.
​

 

[Marek]

I know you guys are having a good time delving deep into the concept of consciouness and personhood... but again, it's irrelevant.

I agree with you here. No matter what it is, taking away its future is wrong and the arguably worst thing you can do to human.

I don't have to give blood even if a person will die if I don't. I don't have to give a kidney even if a person will die if I don't. A woman doesn't have to go through a pregnancy if she doesn't want to. Even if it results in the death of "something". Whether that something is a person, a fetus or a buncha cells. Unless this pre-human has some special claim to life that requires a forced maternity, why do you think it has more rights than an already born, existing human being?

By having an abortion, you are not letting something die. You are intentionally taking away its life. There is a big difference here. Not to say that if I have the power to save a life and I don't, it is okay. If a parent decides to not feed their child because they don't feel like it anymore or it is too much of a burden on her body, she should still be held responsible for the child's death.

If your goal here is to answer abortion, then you're on the wrong track. If you're enjoying delving into the unknown of consciousness, please excuse the interruption.

We merely got sidetracked into an interesting topic. Interruptions are more than welcome.

 

[GrnEyes]

The reason I wouldn't have an abortion is because I don't believe that thats an answer for me. I wouldn't be able to live with that decision. That doesn't mean that I should be able to make up someone else mind. I believe that it's a very personal decision and not one to be made lightly. My best friend had one not that long ago. She was a wreck. She didn't know what to do. She felt she made the best possible decision. I may not agree with her but I will not condem her for it.

 

[Chrysalis Kat]

The reason I wouldn't have an abortion is because I don't believe that thats an answer for me. I wouldn't be able to live with that decision. That doesn't mean that I should be able to make up someone else mind. I believe that it's a very personal decision and not one to be made lightly. My best friend had one not that long ago. She was a wreck. She didn't know what to do. She felt she made the best possible decision. I may not agree with her but I will not condem her for it.

I think you are being a true friend to your friend. Kudos to you.

 

[Jetgirl]

For those that feel abortion should be legal, but would never get one in the case that they got pregnant even if they had to put the child up for adoption:
What are your reasons for not getting an abortion?

I've never carried a child. There's a good possiblity that it would be emotionally impossible for me to have an abortion if I became pregnant. Might not though. Don't know... have never been pregnant.

Why aren't these reasons ground for making abortion illegal?

Because they only apply to me.

Why should a 6 month old fetus have more value than a 2 month old fetus? (and don't just say because a 6 month old fetus has brainwaves or a human form, etc. Please explain why these features make the life of the fetus more valuable)

Because a two month old fetus is not capable of preforming even the most basic functions to sustain life on it's own, even with all the support modern medicine can offer.

The cut off should be IMHO, when a fetus is capable of living ex vitro with medical support WITHOUT incurring such damage as to impair further development.

 

[Dennis Moore]

I still feel there's a fundamental flaw in this discussion concerning the equivocating of usages of the word "conscious" and its derivatives. A sleeping person, or even a knocked out person, is "unconscious" in a totally different way than a rock or a fetus. The rock and the fetus aren't just "unconscious" in the usage "loss of consciousness [temporary]," which is probably the most popular usage; they are "unconscious" in the sense of "never ever had consciousness, ever."

That's why I generally prefer to say "nonconscious" in reference to rocks and fetuses, as that is a work with specific usage concerning the lack of consciousness in nonliving things. It avoids some of the equivocation.

 

[Donut Hole]

I don't have to give blood even if a person will die if I don't. I don't have to give a kidney even if a person will die if I don't.

I disagree. I would not ideologically oppose legislation requiring people to help others. I'd rather do it by paying for blood/kidneys rather than forcing people to do so, however.

 

[Spinrad]

I still feel there's a fundamental flaw in this discussion concerning the equivocating of usages of the word "conscious" and its derivatives. A sleeping person, or even a knocked out person, is "unconscious" in a totally different way than a rock or a fetus. The rock and the fetus aren't just "unconscious" in the usage "loss of consciousness [temporary]," which is probably the most popular usage; they are "unconscious" in the sense of "never ever had consciousness, ever."

That's why I generally prefer to say "nonconscious" in reference to rocks and fetuses, as that is a work with specific usage concerning the lack of consciousness in nonliving things. It avoids some of the equivocation.

Shall we call them Aconscious?

 

[Donut Hole]

I pretty much agree with everything you've said except for this portion here. There seems to exist some logical flaws with what you are saying.

This is all true, but when you abort you are killing something, and it is clear that you can hurt something even if that thing is not a conscious human being.

I agree that you are killing something. It's just not a conscious human being. If you kill an ant, for example, you are killing something. But it is not a horrendous thing. Just to be clear, I'm not saying that a baby/foetus is the moral equivalent of an ant - that depends on how far along in pregnancy it is - and theoretically, we should treat animals and foetuses of approximately equal mental capacities in the same way.

This is where it gets a little unclear. When someone is unconscious, you seem willing to say that that person is 'not currently there', or what I take to be 'not currently in existence'. (correct me if I'm wrong) Now you said yourself that you cannot hurt someone that does not exist and will never exist. The same seems to hold true for that someone that does not exist and will never exist again. Now if I kill someone that is currently unconscious, that person does not exist and will never exist again. By your logic, how could I be hurting them? Also, you say that when you kill someone that is unconscious, you are actually killing someone, even though the someone is not currently there. This seems impossible. What you are killing is a physical body absent of any consciousness. This seems no different than killing someone that is brain dead. By what you are saying it seems that you are not actually killing someone, you are killing something.

This seems no different than respecting the wishes of the dead. By disrespecting the wishes of the dead, you are doing no harm to them. They are not around to be harmed. The same seems to hold true in the case of an unconscious person. By killing them, you are not hurting them, they are not around to be deprived of anything. They also will not be hurt in the future; they will not exist then either.

It's certainly a subtle point, and it could well be that I'm just rationalizing.

If you kill someone who is temporarily unconscious, while that person is not currently "there," and so you aren't hurting a person who is "currently there," you are depriving a previously existing person of a future. So let's say that Mark is given general anaesthesia and is totally knocked out. If someone were to kill Mark, (s)he would not be depriving a "present" Mark of anything (after all, "Mark" has no idea what is going on), but (s)he would be depriving a Mark one instant before he fell unconscious of a future existence. If one kills a baby/foetus, you are not depriving a previously existing person of a future. You are depriving a "person" who not only does not exist and will never exist, but has also never existed. In other words, you are preventing a hypothetical future person from coming into existence. But you are not depriving any person of that future existence, because to be deprived of something, one must previously have it. To be deprived of existence, one must already exist. Abortion (at least before consciousness) is in that sense a "victimless crime."

 

[ptgd1st]

So you are saying the a fetus is not a human until a certain point in pregnancy? If that is the case: Lets say we have a brain dead human or at least a human that is brain dead without having to be on life support. They have no consciousness(self awareness) and no hope of ever becoming conscious(self aware) again. Is this mass still a human? Would it still be killing if we were to euthanize? What is growing inside a women is a human. Now one would say that it was a cow or some other animal, and I refer to post 39. You cannot use the comparison of animals and humans with a Christian because the Bible clearly states that we have dominion over them. Meaning we can do what we chose. Albeit I doubt that means indiscriminately.

 

[Donut Hole]

So you are saying the a fetus is not a human until a certain point in pregnancy? If that is the case: Lets say we have a brain dead human or at least a human that is brain dead without having to be on life support. They have no consciousness(self awareness) and no hope of ever becoming conscious(self aware) again. Is this mass still a human? Would it still be killing if we were to euthanize? What is growing inside a women is a human. Now one would say that it was a cow or some other animal, and I refer to post 39. You cannot use the comparison of animals and humans with a Christian because the Bible clearly states that we have dominion over them. Meaning we can do what we chose. Albeit I doubt that means indiscriminately.

I addressed all this in earlier posts in this thread. I suggest you go back and read them if you have not already done so.

 

[Chrysalis Kat]

You cannot use the comparison of animals and humans with a Christian because the Bible clearly states that we have dominion over them. Meaning we can do what we chose. Albeit I doubt that means indiscriminately.

Meow!
Having Dominion, biblically speaking, is a position of grave responsibility! It is not a license to commit any and all acts, especially cruelty.

I know you didn't necessarily mean that but my kitty cats are very very sensitive to this topic.

 

[enlightenment]

I understand those who feel that abortion should be morally acceptable in all cases and those who feel that it should be unacceptable in all cases, but it is the people that lie somewhere in between that confuse me. I have a few questions for them so that I can further understand their views.

For those that feel abortion should be legal, but would never get one in the case that they got pregnant even if they had to put the child up for adoption:
(a) What are your reasons for not getting an abortion?
(b) Why aren't these reasons ground for making abortion illegal?

(a) I have a personal fear of abortion. I fear all needles, shots, surgeries, etc.
(b) lol, that becomes funny in context with a. I think a is self-explanatory.

Those who feel abortion should only be legal before a certain point in the pregnancy, but illegal afterwards (example: legal in 1st trimester, illegal in 2nd and 3rd trimester):
What are your reasons for this division?

Well that's not me.

 

[enlightenment]

A simple answer to the abortion question...

No, the fetus does not have an inherent right to live. Why? Because the fetus is living inside its host, using her food, sucking up her energy, making her stomach bulge, making her have morning sickness, and everything else that accompanies pregnancy.

 

[Romany]

also people must understand that the majority does not see the featus as a human being so the murder arguement is not going to work

Yeah, but you know beyond reasonable doubt that it will become a human being, and your taking away it's chance to live. How is that not murder?

 

[Romany]

A simple answer to the abortion question...

No, the fetus does not have an inherent right to live. Why? Because the fetus is living inside its host, using her food, sucking up her energy, making her stomach bulge, making her have morning sickness, and everything else that accompanies pregnancy.

But loads of women are willing to go through all that to have a child, it's not exactly the foetus's fault it's not self-sufficient yet. You could say a small child has no inherent right to live because it's whiny and annoying, it wastes money, it can't feed itself, and always makes a mess. You could say a teenager has no inherent right to live because they are moody and rebellious, they eat to much, they waste even more money than a small child, they won't listen to their parents, and they don't see the value of studying hard. Maybe I missed the point of your post; if id did, can you elabourate?

Romany

 

[Sascha Fitzpatrick]

I don't want abortion to be made illegal, but I do not think abortion in all cases is a suitable option. In some cases, and for some women, abortion is the only option.

If it was to be made illegal, there would be no policies made then to ensure it was done safely and did not compromise the health of the woman. There would be no assessments done to ensure the facility carrying out the termination was accredited, or practising safely and aseptically.

If it was made illegal, then ectopic pregnancies could not be operated on and removed, and women could not receive funding for this from healthcare companies (seeing that is medically classed as an abortion/termination as well).

If it was made illegal, then a miscarriage would ALSO be classified as illegal, and procedures that help 'heal' a woman post-miscarriage would be unable to occur. Again, like above, women would be unable to receive funding for those procedures, if abortions were made illegal.

As much as we hate it as Christians, not everyone is born with the same moral code as we are, and may not believe as powerfully in prayer healing people, as others do. Sometimes, abortion is the easier option, when you're options are 'carry a child that will be born with a terminal illness' (and have to deal with the death of a child), or 'terminate the pregnancy early on', to avoid that (which is still a horrible situation, but to SOME people, is less painful than dealing with a child in the grave at an early age). I know for us it is easy to say 'God can work a miracle', but when you aren't a christian, and don't have that kind of belief, you literally DO only have two options (have a termination, or have a child die).

I know this can be a very hard area for both sides to understand, but I hope my giving of an explanation such as the one above will help some understand, why, from a medical perspective, making an abortion illegal under ANY circumstances, is highly dangerous and ethically wrong.

Sasch

 

[Dennis Moore]

Shall we call them Aconscious?

Why? "Nonconscious" is an existing word in the lexicon, with a specific denotation that works for the debate and clears up the equivocating of "unconscious."

I wouldn't be pushing for it, but in this very thread there's been too much "so, when someone is temporarily unconscious, you're saying they're not human / not alive / lose value?" It's a specious argument that only has legs when you equivocate definitions. Nonconscious eliminates that.

 

[John812]

If there is a medical complication and the fetus will die anyway and if not aborted also endangers the woman's life then an abortion is acceptable, I think. If the developing child is healthy and is not threatening the mothers life, why destroy it? Perhaps God will ensure that it is taken care of and grows up to be an excellent servant of the Lord helping many people. There is adoption too. In Western societies I never hear of a child being left out in the cold with nothing to eat, someone always (I think always) has the resources to take care of it, or the state or some other organization.

The root of the problem is people foolishly having sex when they are not ready for the responsibility to have children. Christians should be sure that they and their wife/husband are ready to have a child before they have sex so that they are able to take care of the life they bring into this world.


God Bless!