Abortion - moral issue, you say?

[Multiplum]

Discuss abortion, go hog wild!

My opinion: Abortion is a source of good for mankind. It's a messy procedure, granted, but it causes no suffering (http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/jun/25/human-foetus-no-pain-24-weeks) for sentient human beings, like opponents like to claim (a priori, obviously). I can't really remember my days as a foetus.

Another argument against, commonly used, is that human life is sacred, that this is a unique specimen of our species... well, so what? Life is mechanical, and biochemistry can't define personhood. If that were the case, wouldn't we be morally obliged to keep cell lines from humans in laboratories under protection? Of course, we are not. A unique human genetic composition can be created in vitro - that is chemistry.

I would say we are morally obliged to abort pregnancies where congenital/genetic defects are proven. Make another one - don't bring human beings who will/has a high chance of living a life of misery and suffering into the world. This is very obvious to me.

The world is already overpopulated, and if you're not ready to be a parent, don't bring in another one.

[The Drunk Girl]

Discuss abortion, go hog wild!

My opinion: Abortion is a source of good for mankind. It's a messy procedure, granted, but it causes no suffering (http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/jun/25/human-foetus-no-pain-24-weeks) for sentient human beings, like opponents like to claim (a priori, obviously). I can't really remember my days as a foetus.

Another argument against, commonly used, is that human life is sacred, that this is a unique specimen of our species... well, so what? Life is mechanical, and biochemistry can't define personhood. If that were the case, wouldn't we be morally obliged to keep cell lines from humans in laboratories under protection? Of course, we are not. A unique human genetic composition can be created in vitro - that is chemistry.

I would say we are morally obliged to abort pregnancies where congenital/genetic defects are proven. Make another one - don't bring human beings who will/has a high chance of living a life of misery and suffering into the world. This is very obvious to me.

The world is already overpopulated, and if you're not ready to be a parent, don't bring in another one.

There is more to: and if you're not ready to be a parent, don't bring in another one. If one isn't ready to be a parent then one should take the proper precautions to try to prevent pregnancy... besides just having an abortion.

What is your definition of having a life of misery and suffering? Is this statement strictly directed to children that are born with disabilities?

[Non Sequitur]

Discuss abortion, go hog wild!

My opinion: Abortion is a source of good for mankind. It's a messy procedure, granted, but it causes no suffering (http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/jun/25/human-foetus-no-pain-24-weeks) for sentient human beings, like opponents like to claim (a priori, obviously). I can't really remember my days as a foetus.

Another argument against, commonly used, is that human life is sacred, that this is a unique specimen of our species... well, so what? Life is mechanical, and biochemistry can't define personhood. If that were the case, wouldn't we be morally obliged to keep cell lines from humans in laboratories under protection? Of course, we are not. A unique human genetic composition can be created in vitro - that is chemistry.

I would say we are morally obliged to abort pregnancies where congenital/genetic defects are proven. Make another one - don't bring human beings who will/has a high chance of living a life of misery and suffering into the world. This is very obvious to me.


I will preface my post by saying that this issue gets way too much attention from Christians as it is

Having said that, my usual comment about abortion is that it is morally wrong in some fashion, but it should probably be legal. It is clear from scripture that life is sacred and valued by God (Genesis 4:10, Exodus 20:13, John 8:7) and that only under certain circumstances that life allowed to be taken (I usually classify these circumstances as the Divine command circumstances and the restraint of evil circumstances). That being said, it is also clear that Abortion is here to stay. Whether abortion is illegal or not there will always be people who have abortions. Also, I am uncomfortable with the precedent of allowing the government to dictate what families decide to do. Given all this, it makes more sense from a secular governmental perspective to have abortion be legal.

[Multiplum]

There is more to: and if you're not ready to be a parent, don't bring in another one. If one isn't ready to be a parent then one should take the proper precautions to try to prevent pregnancy... besides just having an abortion.

What is your definition of having a life of misery and suffering? Is this statement strictly directed to children that are born with disabilities?
Oh, absolutely, contraception is on top of the list of responsible things to do. Kind of obvious, really. I mean, I wouldn't go out there and tell people, you know, "get knocked up, suck it out, whatever". I'm saying it's a very responsible, wise choice in very many cases.

A life of misery and suffering. Well, some people are less fortunate. Dealt a shitty hand. We can pretend we don't feel genuine pity for people born without arms and legs, but that's probably a healthy feeling? And even if these people lead reasonably good lives considering their bad luck, wouldn't they prefer to have arms and legs? The motive is to minimize suffering. To make the choice to insure the best possible starting point for everyone we bring into the world.

You're a mosaic of your grandparents, some people are unlucky. Some genetic diseases are not selected out of the gene pool because they aren't expressed until later in life, after your reproductive peak. When a disease is encoded in every somatic cell of your body, there might be more or less effective treatments. There will not be a cure. Your offspring has a high chance of inheriting the disease. Until we can "design" our offspring at will, the only way to prevent the continuation of these "faulty" genes, is to stop them from being passed on indefinitely. I'm only making the case for picking and choosing minor traits (yet!), but I have yet to hear a convincing argument against using our advances in biotechnology to eradicate diseases. A few weeks into the pregnancy, a test can confirm if the foetus carries a chromosome with a life-threatening/disabilitating allele/combination of these. Everyone wants their children to be happy. That's natural. So I find it very natural to intervene and, to put it crudely, "try again" if the eventual child is certain to lead a less happy life than the theoretical child B.


I will preface my post by saying that this issue gets way too much attention from Christians as it is

Having said that, my usual comment about abortion is that it is morally wrong in some fashion, but it should probably be legal. It is clear from scripture that life is sacred and valued by God (Genesis 4:10, Exodus 20:13, John 8:7) and that only under certain circumstances that life allowed to be taken (I usually classify these circumstances as the Divine command circumstances and the restraint of evil circumstances). That being said, it is also clear that Abortion is here to stay. Whether abortion is illegal or not there will always be people who have abortions. Also, I am uncomfortable with the precedent of allowing the government to dictate what families decide to do. Given all this, it makes more sense from a secular governmental perspective to have abortion be legal.

The passages you pick are good ones, at least, and in line with modern-day values (that I would argue, partially/for the most part, precede Christianity). Plenty of people before me have made points out of picking out passages that paint a less flattering picture of the Judaeo-Christian god. I'm not going to be "that guy" now. The people who told the stories and wrote the bible didn't really anticipate modern-day advances. They did not define life, I believe, or have any concept of the more important question "how does life work". I very much like and respect your views here, and I am not arguing for government interfering either, as it would get too close to organized eugenics even for my comfort.


I have no idea why the quotes are split up like this. I can't even do anything about it in editing. The quote/unquote tags just reappear.

[Multiplum]

I just remembered that there could be future cures for some genetic diseases. Viral vectors designed to introduce fully functional genes is a theoretical possibility. But my, that's not happening anytime soon.

[Michael]

I have no idea why the quotes are split up like this. I can't even do anything about it in editing. The quote/unquote tags just reappear.

There is something odd that happens with some posts where the system software puts in font commands for each post (very tedious and tiresome). I'm guessing this font command is coming from some default setting on the user's computer since it only happens with specific posters. Up until now, it has been only SMadsen's posts that showed this. This is the first time I've seen the exact same thing with a different poster. :shrug:

[Multiplum]

There is something odd that happens with some posts where the system software puts in font commands for each post (very tedious and tiresome). I'm guessing this font command is coming from some default setting on the user's computer since it only happens with specific posters. Up until now, it has been only SMadsen's posts that showed this. This is the first time I've seen the exact same thing with a different poster. :shrug:


Maybe I clicked "multi-quote" by accident? I've never used that before, not sure what it does.

[dilettante]

Discuss abortion, go hog wild!

My opinion: Abortion is a source of good for mankind. It's a messy procedure, granted, but it causes no suffering (http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/jun/25/human-foetus-no-pain-24-weeks) for sentient human beings, like opponents like to claim (a priori, obviously). I can't really remember my days as a foetus.

Another argument against, commonly used, is that human life is sacred, that this is a unique specimen of our species... well, so what? Life is mechanical, and biochemistry can't define personhood. If that were the case, wouldn't we be morally obliged to keep cell lines from humans in laboratories under protection? Of course, we are not. A unique human genetic composition can be created in vitro - that is chemistry.

I would say we are morally obliged to abort pregnancies where congenital/genetic defects are proven. Make another one - don't bring human beings who will/has a high chance of living a life of misery and suffering into the world. This is very obvious to me.

The world is already overpopulated, and if you're not ready to be a parent, don't bring in another one.

In my experience, 90% all debates about abortion boil down to whether or not one values a person's life is sacred and grants the unborn personhood. If one does not, then your reasoning makes good sense with regard to making the human race in general healthier and (probably) happier on average.

However, if one does grant personhood to the unborn and considers their life sacred, then your argument amounts to the assertion that we can increase the average human happiness by, effectively, killing the people who are likely to be unhappy. Technically it's true, but it seems to miss the point. One might ask whether the goal we should be striving for is to help people live happier, better lives or simply to increase the statistical average of happiness-per-human.

[Michael]

Maybe I clicked "multi-quote" by accident? I've never used that before, not sure what it does.
Yes, you definitely did use the multi-quote feature there. :)

Btw, when you do so, it displays the quotes in the order you clicked the multi-quote buttons.

I'm referring to the font commands in Non Sequitur's post.

[dilettante]

That being said, it is also clear that Abortion is here to stay. Whether abortion is illegal or not there will always be people who have abortions. Also, I am uncomfortable with the precedent of allowing the government to dictate what families decide to do. Given all this, it makes more sense from a secular governmental perspective to have abortion be legal.

I have to admit I've never understood the "it will happen anyway" argument, not just about abortion but about anything. The assertion that "there will always be people who will do it, even if its against the law" applies to every law: drugs, prostitution, rape, murder, theft, speeding...etc. These continue regardless of the laws against them, but that in and of itself hardly seems like a good reason to revoke the law.
Now, there are some cases (e.g. prohibition) where making something illegal actually increased the frequency with which people engaged in it, but (with the possible exception of some drug use) I don't think any of the things listed above, much less abortion, fall into that category.

Of course this isn't an argument that abortion shouldn't be legal, and there are certainly other arguments for it remaining legal. I'm just expressing my bewilderment over this particular line of reasoning, wherever its applied.

[WFCY]

I will preface my post by saying that this issue gets way too much attention from Christians as it is

Having said that, my usual comment about abortion is that it is morally wrong in some fashion, but it should probably be legal. It is clear from scripture that life is sacred and valued by God (Genesis 4:10, Exodus 20:13, John 8:7) and that only under certain circumstances that life allowed to be taken (I usually classify these circumstances as the Divine command circumstances and the restraint of evil circumstances). That being said, it is also clear that Abortion is here to stay. Whether abortion is illegal or not there will always be people who have abortions. Also, I am uncomfortable with the precedent of allowing the government to dictate what families decide to do. Given all this, it makes more sense from a secular governmental perspective to have abortion be legal.

Not that I care about what the scripture or god has to say. But I have a question:

where does it say in the Bible that fetus is a life? just curious.

[Margot]

I will preface my post by saying that this issue gets way too much attention from Christians as it is

Having said that, my usual comment about abortion is that it is morally wrong in some fashion, but it should probably be legal. It is clear from scripture that life is sacred and valued by God (Genesis 4:10, Exodus 20:13, John 8:7) and that only under certain circumstances that life allowed to be taken (I usually classify these circumstances as the Divine command circumstances and the restraint of evil circumstances). That being said, it is also clear that Abortion is here to stay. Whether abortion is illegal or not there will always be people who have abortions. Also, I am uncomfortable with the precedent of allowing the government to dictate what families decide to do. Given all this, it makes more sense from a secular governmental perspective to have abortion be legal.

...Not to go a hair off topic or anything, but you're picking and choosing. If you're going to quote the Old Testy (wakka wakka!), then what about Leviticus 20:9, or 2 Kings 2:23-24? I'm juuuuuuust sayin.' Goddamn back-talking sacred children!


As for abortion, I support legalized abortion because, well, for a lot of reasons. I think most people on this forum will wind up saying that they support abortion. What usually goes straight up people's noses, though, is that I think men should have absolutely no say in the matter.

[Margot]

I have to admit I've never understood the "it will happen anyway" argument, not just about abortion but about anything. The assertion that "there will always be people who will do it, even if its against the law" applies to every law: drugs, prostitution, rape, murder, theft, speeding...etc. These continue regardless of the laws against them, but that in and of itself hardly seems like a good reason to revoke the law.
Now, there are some cases (e.g. prohibition) where making something illegal actually increased the frequency with which people engaged in it, but (with the possible exception of some drug use) I don't think any of the things listed above, much less abortion, fall into that category.

Of course this isn't an argument that abortion shouldn't be legal, and there are certainly other arguments for it remaining legal. I'm just expressing my bewilderment over this particular line of reasoning, wherever its applied.

I was reading an article about Female Genital Mutilation in America the other day, and it was saying that some doctors here feel that they should be allowed to hack away at girly bits because "the parents will just go to their own country otherwise, and that's more dangerous."

Not to sound like a total vicious cunt or anything, but so what? You lay that financial burden on papa bear. Laws is laws, buddy.

That argument is the same every time. So what? Not my problem. If someone wants to make something illegal, "it'll happen anyway" just isn't a valid argument against doing so.

Saving the government(/us/everyone) the financial burden of caring for unwanted children, enforcing anti-abortion laws (catching, prosecuting, retaining...), caring for women who have had botched surgeries, etc, well, now those are valid points that I can squat behind!

The "it'll happen anyway" excuse is the weakest one in the arsenal against anti-abortion advocates. It's foolish for anyone to charge out with that particular gun blazing, but it still seems to be a favorite.

[Non Sequitur]

Not that I care about what the scripture or god has to say. But I have a question:

where does it say in the Bible that fetus is a life? just curious.

ok potential for life then...

More seriously, several places in scripture describe God knowing the person before he/she was born (often before said individual was even conceived). Jeremiah 1:5 is the usual passage quoted by the conservative type, but you can look at most individual's in the Old Testament.

...Not to go a hair off topic or anything, but you're picking and choosing. If you're going to quote the Old Testy (wakka wakka!), then what about Leviticus 20:9, or 2 Kings 2:23-24? I'm juuuuuuust sayin.' Goddamn back-talking sacred children!


Well that is why I said there are exceptions to the rule (Leviticus 20:9 falls into the restraint of evil category). I was trying not to pick and choose and include the passages clearly in scripture where the rule does not hold. 2 Kings is just a weird passage doesn't have much of an explanation. There are a lot of passages like that in scripture.

for a deeper explanation feel free to start another thread on Old Testament theology and the like.

[Margot]

Well that is why I said there are exceptions to the rule (Leviticus 20:9 falls into the restraint of evil category). I was trying not to pick and choose and include the passages clearly in scripture where the rule does not hold. 2 Kings is just a weird passage doesn't have much of an explanation. There are a lot of passages like that in scripture.

for a deeper explanation feel free to start another thread on Old Testament theology and the like.

Glad we agree it has no place here.

[WFCY]

ok potential for life then...

More seriously, several places in scripture describe God knowing the person before he/she was born (often before said individual was even conceived). Jeremiah 1:5 is the usual passage quoted by the conservative type, but you can look at most individual's in the Old Testament.



Christians are the masters of quoting outta context. I had a look at Jeremiah, from the beginning, and if I understood correctly, it was a narrative from Jeremiah, which he summons god's words to grant him more authority/credibility as a prophet.

first, what he says about what god says, is not the same as what god says. Now, Christians may argue that the whole book of Bible is what someone else said about what god says. My reply: 1. there is still a difference between what someone says about what someone else says about what god says, and what someone says about what god says. 2. if what god says always depends on what someone else says, well, god has a problem. But since it is "THE Bible", I will let go of this latter point.

However, since point 1. is nevertheless a valid point, we come to ask ourselves: could it have been possible that Jeremiah was paraphrasing god, and the 1:5 passage was not an accurate paraphrase? Since it never was the point god was trying to make there- that fetus are lives- in that very paraphrase? The whole thing is incidental, or over-interpreted, or simply poor translation/discripencies between languages. Well, very well possible, given the motivation of Jeremiah, and our understanding of metaphors ("Before I formed you in the womb I knew you..." may just as well mean god knew Jeremiah before his mother was even fertilized with him, that it was his destiny to become a "prophet to the nations" prior to his inception. This failure to apply logic to metaphors completely blows that argument for fetus=life outta water).

Not a valid argument if you ask me. and I am not even trying to be an ass, I already gave "THE Bible" the benefit of doubt and took its word for it. But misinterpretations of paraphrases taken out of context is all too common in the press, in academia, if you simply take a close look, they do not hold water, much less an argument about laws and policies. And it's even more rampant with the Bible. I mean, you have to be a willing or unexamined believer to suscribe to that kinda flimsy line of thought.

[Non Sequitur]

I should have known better than to quote the Old Testament :lol:

Christians are the masters of quoting outta context. I had a look at Jeremiah, from the beginning, and if I understood correctly, it was a narrative from Jeremiah, which he summons god's words to grant him more authority/credibility as a prophet.

first, what he says about what god says, is not the same as what god says. Now, Christians may argue that the whole book of Bible is what someone else said about what god says. My reply: 1. there is still a difference between what someone says about what someone else says about what god says, and what someone says about what god says. 2. if what god says always depends on what someone else says, well, god has a problem. But since it is "THE Bible", I will let go of this latter point.

Fundamentally, this boils down to do you trust what the book says about God or don't you... :shrug:. Our senses can't directly comprehend the divine so we are stuck with faith (an admission of a lack of knowledge) and inferring what little we can from indirect sources (scripture).

and yes, truth derived from revelation usually does depend on what someone else said about someone else. That is why the Gospel's are so important. It's God incarnate giving the message. As I said to Margot, If we want to continue this line of discussion we should probably make a separate thread for the Old Testament.

However, since point 1. is nevertheless a valid point, we come to ask ourselves: could it have been possible that Jeremiah was paraphrasing god, and the 1:5 passage was not an accurate paraphrase? Since it never was the point god was trying to make there- that fetus are lives- in that very paraphrase? The whole thing is incidental, or over-interpreted, or simply poor translation/discripencies between languages. Well, very well possible, given the motivation of Jeremiah, and our understanding of metaphors ("Before I formed you in the womb I knew you" may just as well mean god knew Jeremiah before his mother was even fertilized with him, that it was his destiny to become a prophet prior to his inception. This failure to apply logic to metaphors completely blows that argument for fetus=life outta water).

Could be a valid interpretation. If the entire abortion debate hinged on Jeremiah 1:5 for Christians the issue would not get the attention it does. Not all Christians are pro-life. I could give you a lot of other verses like that, but a better argument is the fetus is not really the issue. God is the author of life and that is not something you should disregard.

Not a valid argument if you ask me. and I am not even trying to be an ass, I already gave "THE Bible" the benefit of doubt and took its word for it. But misinterpretations of paraphrases taken out of context is all too common in the press, in academia, if you simply take a close look, they do not hold water, much less an argument about laws and policies.

I will be the first to agree with you that scripture is often quoted out of context.

[evanescence]

Discuss abortion, go hog wild!

My opinion: Abortion is a source of good for mankind. It's a messy procedure, granted, but it causes no suffering (http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/jun/25/human-foetus-no-pain-24-weeks) for sentient human beings, like opponents like to claim (a priori, obviously). I can't really remember my days as a foetus.

Another argument against, commonly used, is that human life is sacred, that this is a unique specimen of our species... well, so what? Life is mechanical, and biochemistry can't define personhood. If that were the case, wouldn't we be morally obliged to keep cell lines from humans in laboratories under protection? Of course, we are not. A unique human genetic composition can be created in vitro - that is chemistry.

I would say we are morally obliged to abort pregnancies where congenital/genetic defects are proven. Make another one - don't bring human beings who will/has a high chance of living a life of misery and suffering into the world. This is very obvious to me.

The world is already overpopulated, and if you're not ready to be a parent, don't bring in another one.

I wonder if people who support abortion would be outraged if animals had to endure come of the various procedures that unborn children have to endure. Don't get me wrong, I do support a woman's right to get an abortion. It's just that consistence is important.

[evanescence]

I should have known better than to quote the Old Testament :lol:



Fundamentally, this boils down to do you trust what the book says about God or don't you... :shrug:. Our senses can't directly comprehend the divine so we are stuck with faith (an admission of a lack of knowledge) and inferring what little we can from indirect sources (scripture).

and yes, truth derived from revelation usually does depend on what someone else said about someone else. That is why the Gospel's are so important. It's God incarnate giving the message. As I said to Margot, If we want to continue this line of discussion we should probably make a separate thread for the Old Testament.



Could be a valid interpretation. If the entire abortion debate hinged on Jeremiah 1:5 for Christians the issue would not get the attention it does. Not all Christians are pro-life. I could give you a lot of other verses like that, but a better argument is the fetus is not really the issue. God is the author of life and that is not something you should disregard.



I will be the first to agree with you that scripture is often quoted out of context.

God is being unreasonable by expecting people to have faith. :lol:

[Non Sequitur]

God is being unreasonable by expecting people to have faith. :lol:

:rofl: I have found, in my own experience, that God is very unreasonable and supremely stubborn.

[Greendruid]

I wonder if people who support abortion would be outraged if animals had to endure come of the various procedures that unborn children have to endure. Don't get me wrong, I do support a woman's right to get an abortion. It's just that consistence is important.

Animals do endure some of the various procedures that women and unborn children have to endure on a regular basis. Animal foetuses that are considered undesirable are aborted. Animals born in the fuzzy warmth of a factory farm never see or know their mothers. Especially males who are usually drowned at birth if their genetic potential to reproduce is not valued or if their muscle mass is not desired in that species. Then there's veal, lamb, foie gras and other mistreatments of living animals. Believe me, factory meat is torture and death all rolled into one tasty hotdog. If you object to the idea of abortion because it's cruel to life, you should be a vegan. :offtopic:

Abortion can be a physically and psychologically painful experience for a woman. Furthermore, she is the one that has to live with that pain, no one else. This is why I somewhat agree with Margot. However, unless she's capable of asexual reproduction, the man had and should have something to do with the decision. Input rather than equal rights is what I would advocate in this case. Abortion should be fully legal and part of any universal health care system in the civilised world. If only to protect all parties involved from the illegal alternatives and the myriad problems that can arise from same.

[dilettante]

Saving the government(/us/everyone) the financial burden of caring for unwanted children, enforcing anti-abortion laws (catching, prosecuting, retaining...), caring for women who have had botched surgeries, etc, well, now those are valid points that I can squat behind!


Those arguments are certainly much better than "it will happen anyway."

Still, they're of limited relevance to one who, as far as the sacredness of human life goes, counts the unborn as persons. Few, if any of us, would suggest that an acceptable way to deal with the financial burden of caring for unwanted children is to kill them (however painlessly), and few would argue that the difficulties in prosecuting the murder of children, however great they might be, justify make it legal. And so on...

Hence my conviction that the core (and perhaps only essential) question in the debate on abortion is how broadly or narrowly one extends the realm of personhood and the sacredness of human life. If that issue is settled, then the matter is essentially decided; if it is not, most other arguments are irrelevant and only lead to angry people talking past each other.

[Margot]

Abortion can be a physically and psychologically painful experience for a woman. Furthermore, she is the one that has to live with that pain, no one else. This is why I somewhat agree with Margot. However, unless she's capable of asexual reproduction, the man had and should have something to do with the decision. Input rather than equal rights is what I would advocate in this case. Abortion should be fully legal and part of any universal health care system in the civilised world. If only to protect all parties involved from the illegal alternatives and the myriad problems that can arise from same.

How do you litigate "input?"

[evanescence]

:rofl: I have found, in my own experience, that God is very unreasonable and supremely stubborn.

Indeed. :D

Animals do endure some of the various procedures that women and unborn children have to endure on a regular basis. Animal foetuses that are considered undesirable are aborted. Animals born in the fuzzy warmth of a factory farm never see or know their mothers. Especially males who are usually drowned at birth if their genetic potential to reproduce is not valued or if their muscle mass is not desired in that species. Then there's veal, lamb, foie gras and other mistreatments of living animals. Believe me, factory meat is torture and death all rolled into one tasty hotdog. If you object to the idea of abortion because it's cruel to life, you should be a vegan. :offtopic:

Abortion can be a physically and psychologically painful experience for a woman. Furthermore, she is the one that has to live with that pain, no one else. This is why I somewhat agree with Margot. However, unless she's capable of asexual reproduction, the man had and should have something to do with the decision. Input rather than equal rights is what I would advocate in this case. Abortion should be fully legal and part of any universal health care system in the civilised world. If only to protect all parties involved from the illegal alternatives and the myriad problems that can arise from same.

As I have said, I believe that abortion should be a woman's choice. I also believe that during the abortion procedure, the fetus should be given pain medication. Fair is fair. Although I admit that fairness is a silly illusion not applicable to reality, and that part of my argument has no real meaning. This idea that laws should exist for the sake of ideals is not applicable. While certain laws are necessary to preserve societal cohesion and prevent utter chaos, most laws are unnecessary and only create less freedom and more necessity for Big Government..a concept I abhor. I do not trust the government. I never will.

Abortion will always happen just like people will always be drug addicts. Both should be allowed.

[evanescence]

Those arguments are certainly much better than "it will happen anyway."

Still, they're of limited relevance to one who, as far as the sacredness of human life goes, counts the unborn as persons. Few, if any of us, would suggest that an acceptable way to deal with the financial burden of caring for unwanted children is to kill them (however painlessly), and few would argue that the difficulties in prosecuting the murder of children, however great they might be, justify make it legal. And so on...

Hence my conviction that the core (and perhaps only essential) question in the debate on abortion is how broadly or narrowly one extends the realm of personhood and the sacredness of human life. If that issue is settled, then the matter is essentially decided; if it is not, most other arguments are irrelevant and only lead to angry people talking past each other.

What makes human life sacred?

[Margot]

Those arguments are certainly much better than "it will happen anyway."

Still, they're of limited relevance to one who, as far as the sacredness of human life goes, counts the unborn as persons. Few, if any of us, would suggest that an acceptable way to deal with the financial burden of caring for unwanted children is to kill them (however painlessly), and few would argue that the difficulties in prosecuting the murder of children, however great they might be, justify make it legal. And so on...

Hence my conviction that the core (and perhaps only essential) question in the debate on abortion is how broadly or narrowly one extends the realm of personhood and the sacredness of human life. If that issue is settled, then the matter is essentially decided; if it is not, most other arguments are irrelevant and only lead to angry people talking past each other.

My point is that I can define why abortion can be kept legal. I can list statistics, I can give you empirical evidence. Opponents can only, well, what? Quote a book that also advocates feeding children to bears?

I am, of course, willing to accept earth-bound empirical evidence as to why it's naughty.

[WFCY]

I have found, in my own experience, that God is very unreasonable and supremely stubborn.

If I were god, the last thing I'd be concerned about is to convince anybody.

Fundamentally, this boils down to do you trust what the book says about God or don't you... :shrug:. Our senses can't directly comprehend the divine so we are stuck with faith (an admission of a lack of knowledge) and inferring what little we can from indirect sources (scripture).

third hand source (author said Jeremiah said god said) is not the same as second hand (author said god said). I think I made that point already. I was able to accept the latter, suppose "god said" was real, but further misinterpreting of the former (author said someone in bible said god said) just makes things so much more unreliable, even given the benefit of the doubt assuming the autheticity of the bible.

With second hand (author said god said), it takes faith. With third or even foruth hand (author said someone said someone said god said), it takes stupidity.

Not all Christians are pro-life. I could give you a lot of other verses like that, but a better argument is the fetus is not really the issue.

U mean there are quotes in bible which can be read as pro-choice in some way? If I missed it in this thread, do let me know which ones, thanks!

God is the author of life and that is not something you should disregard

Well, I don't really believe that. I am supposing you'd probabily know by now that I have a lot of contempt for god or similar figures, by simply looking at my political affiliations and philosophies.

But suppose it is the case, "God is the author of life ", the relevant question as far as the discussion goes remains- did god say the fetus is life? Because if he did not, then either 1. he was not the author of fetus, but of born human beings. or 2. If the Christians argue that "god is the author of everything", well, that still doesn't answer the question whether abortion is murder/killing lives- because all lifeless objects, such as rocks and mountains too, are authored by god, as is "everything" else, maybe a fetus is on their level in god's eye. Who knows?

If there is not a directly supporting verse from god himself- then there is nothing god has to say about the issue of abortion. This is not even rhetorical, I am only going with plain logic and honest academic methodologies.

[Greendruid]

How do you litigate "input?"

I never suggested litigating such a thing. I'm simply advocating a behaviour in society. In terms of legal codification of choice, I think that the power must rest solely and squarely on the shoulders of the woman. If we do not consider the foetus to have personhood under the law, and thus we absolve practitioners and pregnant women from charges of murder in the process, then we must be consistent and apply to the woman the foetus as an article of her own body, belonging to no one else under the law. However, this is unsatisfactory to me in pragmatic decision making. If the pair of progenitors in question are still on speaking terms, I think that the civil thing for the woman to do is to at least discuss the decision with the man. This reflects the potential of the foetus to become a life-form and his input might be useful both to her and to himself in going through the process. Some may wish to grieve the loss even. While I'm not one for advocating the selfish act of "closure", it seems to keep many people psychologically sound to be able to do so.

As I have said, I believe that abortion should be a woman's choice. I also believe that during the abortion procedure, the fetus should be given pain medication. Fair is fair. Although I admit that fairness is a silly illusion not applicable to reality, and that part of my argument has no real meaning. This idea that laws should exist for the sake of ideals is not applicable. While certain laws are necessary to preserve societal cohesion and prevent utter chaos, most laws are unnecessary and only create less freedom and more necessity for Big Government..a concept I abhor. I do not trust the government. I never will.

Abortion will always happen just like people will always be drug addicts. Both should be allowed.

I have no problem with your response to this. My point about equating the suffering of animals to humans seems to have been side-stepped by you here and I will point out that you brought it up as a point of comparison. If you believe in all these cautions for the unborn foetus, and to be consistent, shouldn't you also believe in these procedures for animals slaughtered in the meat industry?

You do ask dilettante the very poignant question of what makes human life sacred and I'd point that one back at you in this instance. What makes human life, even the rhythmic dividing of human foetal cells, so much more special than any other life on the planet?

My larger point in this discussion is that this is all about drawing lines around some very old topics pertaining to life in this world. Some draw a line at eating meat but not meat made from people because the latter is somehow different and defined as murder. Others are perfectly comfortable ending the life of 100-year old trees so that they can make wood for their houses but then turn around and say no to abortion of a potential human life that hasn't even started contributing anything useful to the world yet. Ultimately, these lines are very human and fascinate me to no end. Each culture has them and within those there are many versions of the same lines. We are arrogant apes.

[MeMyselfAndI]

I am divided on this topic. My people frown on abortion. It is legal, but there is a big stigma associated with it. Particularly in rural areas, women in villages who get an abortion get shunned by everyone, they have to leave eventually, because it is unberable for them, nobody talks to them, nobody invites them to their home, or says hello on the street. They are childmurderers. I don't think that's necessarily fair. But, at the same time, abortion has done much damage to our country. Back in 1990s, in Russia, 2 babies were aborted per 1 live birth. It was a demographic catastrophe. Today, it is 0.5 aborted to 1 live, much better. Today, our population is growing again. I think that is good.

[Non Sequitur]

I moved your post around a little because my answer in in a couple of parts. I hope you don't take offense.

If I were god, the last thing I'd be concerned about is to convince anybody.

Well, I don't really believe that. I am supposing you'd probabily know by now that I have a lot of contempt for god or similar figures, by simply looking at my political affiliations and philosophies.

that's a whole other issue :D

third hand source (author said Jeremiah said god said) is not the same as second hand (author said god said). I think I made that point already. I was able to accept the latter, suppose "god said" was real, but further misinterpreting of the former (author said someone in bible said god said) just makes things so much more unreliable, even given the benefit of the doubt assuming the autheticity of the bible.

With second hand (author said god said), it takes faith. With third or even foruth hand (author said someone said someone said god said), it takes stupidity.

If there is not a directly supporting verse from god himself- then there is nothing god has to say about the issue of abortion. This is not even rhetorical, I am only going with plain logic and honest academic methodologies

:lol: there is nothing logical or academic about scripture. Most of it wasn't even written down for a thousand years. If you look at scripture and say third and fourth hand sources aren't valid then the book isn't useful at all. As I said, most of the book wasn't written, but oral for a good thousand years. I'm really not trying to convince you using scripture when I quote it, more just throwing out the source material for where I get some of my opinion.

U mean there are quotes in bible which can be read as pro-choice in some way? If I missed it in this thread, do let me know which ones, thanks!

Well what I mean is that you are right after a fashion. Scripture isn't clear on the subject and many people read those exact same passages and are pro-choice.

But suppose it is the case, "God is the author of life ", the relevant question as far as the discussion goes remains- did god say the fetus is life? Because if he did not, then either 1. he was not the author of fetus, but of born human beings. or 2. If the Christians argue that "god is the author of everything", well, that still doesn't answer the question whether abortion is murder/killing lives- because all lifeless objects, such as rocks and mountains too, are authored by god, as is "everything" else, maybe a fetus is on their level in god's eye. Who knows?

Well if we are going to be that specific, there is no place in scripture where God says the fetus is life.... But then scripture isn't that clear on almost everything.

Funny enough, in a strange way you are being a better Lutheran than I am. A while back the Lutherans and Calvinists had a debate over what was allowed in worship and what wasn't. The Lutherans argued that unless it was expressly forbidden by scripture it was permitted (essentially your opinion on this issue). :D

[Multiplum]

I wonder if people who support abortion would be outraged if animals had to endure come of the various procedures that unborn children have to endure. Don't get me wrong, I do support a woman's right to get an abortion. It's just that consistence is important.

It's more than likely that some fully developed mammals have a higher level of cognition - if that phrase makes sense - than a human toddler. A few weeks into pregnancy, I can't see how the growing foetus "endures" anything. No more than a tree does when it is cut down.

I don't understand how life is sacred. Life is everywhere, and life itself is void of emotion, purpose, will, foresight and ambition.

What makes human life, even the rhythmic dividing of human foetal cells, so much more special than any other life on the planet?
I keep asking people this. Not as elegantly phrased, though.


My larger point in this discussion is that this is all about drawing lines around some very old topics pertaining to life in this world. Some draw a line at eating meat but not meat made from people because the latter is somehow different and defined as murder. Others are perfectly comfortable ending the life of 100-year old trees so that they can make wood for their houses but then turn around and say no to abortion of a potential human life that hasn't even started contributing anything useful to the world yet. Ultimately, these lines are very human and fascinate me to no end. Each culture has them and within those there are many versions of the same lines. There are some potential downsides to cannibalism, I suppose. It does seem to be a taboo in most independently developed human cultures. I don't know much about genetically determined behaviours, but peoples with protein-rich diets seem unlikely to resort to cannibalism. If someone knows more about this, I'd be interested to learn. I wonder if it is selection that works against cannibalism, either as a side-effect of social behaviour or a defense against disease. Maybe it's a bad thing because people in cannibalistic cultures always have to worry that their friends are hungry. :lol:


We are arrogant apes. I agree here. I get the feeling many, and the western religious crowd in particular, have a panicky fear of insignificance. If it is so, it is so. :shrug:

[WFCY]

Funny enough, in a strange way you are being a better Lutheran than I am. A while back the Lutherans and Calvinists had a debate over what was allowed in worship and what wasn't. The Lutherans argued that unless it was expressly forbidden by scripture it was permitted (essentially your opinion on this issue). :D

I am just a scientist. My whole education has been about how to solve problems using logic, credible, direct and verifiable sources, basically, scientific methods.

[Zarquon]

I agree here. I get the feeling many, and the western religious crowd in particular, have a panicky fear of insignificance. If it is so, it is so. :shrug:
Antropocentrism is rather prevalent, probably a part of our nature since we were tribals.

[Zarquon]

I am just a scientist
Or you could also say critical thinker, which almost every secular profession involves.

[WFCY]

Or you could also say critical thinker, which almost every secular profession involves.

depends though. I generally have a lot of problems with people working with religion, or even some of the university subjects like political "science" or neoclassical economics. The fuction of the latter two is more to legitimize the decisions and the actions of the power that be, than to actually describe past events and predict future ones. To give an obvious example, "Social Darwinism", nothing but ideological hackery, its metaphor with natural selection is proven to be flawed and baseless, there is no science behind it, but a disguise of science.

[dilettante]

My point is that I can define why abortion can be kept legal.

Technically, all you've done is defined why legal abortion is economically advantageous to the government/tax-payers and why it simplifies law enforcement. And you're quite correct, but its a logical leap to go from there to "abortion should be kept legal." Simply lessening social costs and simplifying enforcement doesn't always justify an action, particularly if the actions are believed to result in the death of a human.

I can list statistics, I can give you empirical evidence. Opponents can only, well, what? Quote a book that also advocates feeding children to bears?


Actually, I think the most relevant empirical statistic an anti-abortion proponent has to offer is that eliminating abortion decreases the number of innocent people killed and dismembered every year.
If one looks on the unborn as people, then the mass murder of children tends to completely overshadow any arguments about economy or the difficulties of enforcing law. That's why its the major, and often the only, issue.

[Non Sequitur]

I am just a scientist. My whole education has been about how to solve problems using logic, credible, direct and verifiable sources, basically, scientific methods.

And the method works brilliantly for a great many things. Religion happens to not be one of them.

Or you could also say critical thinker, which almost every secular profession involves.

I'm not going to take the bait on that one.

[Margot]

Actually, I think the most relevant empirical statistic an anti-abortion proponent has to offer is that eliminating abortion decreases the number of innocent people killed and dismembered every year.
If one looks on the unborn as people, then the mass murder of children tends to completely overshadow any arguments about economy or the difficulties of enforcing law. That's why its the major, and often the only, issue.

I can also find statistics on how many religious, anti-abortion families adopt unwanted children. (I mean, I probably could. If I cared. Life? Don't talk to me about life!)

I suppose you're right, though. I think that sacred life stuff is bullshit, and I just can't fathom it. I can't see eye-to-eye there. What I can see is hypocrisy.

[WFCY]

And the method works brilliantly for a great many things. Religion happens to not be one of them.

u r pretty cool for a Christian. I like that.

[Michael]

u r pretty cool for a Christian. I like that.

Yes, Non Sequitur is in a class by himself when it comes to Christian theists. Alas, that he seems quite unique.

[Michael]

Discuss abortion, go hog wild!
Indeed!

As for my own view of the matter, it is my observation that society does not recognize any right to life for anyone - that is just propaganda.

In reality, society deems it quite acceptable to kill sometimes. USA assassinates civilians with drone missiles on a weekly basis, Texas fries them with full judicial and legislative permission, several hundred thousand were considered mere 'collateral damage' during the US invasion of Iraq, and thousands die preventable deaths on the roads and highways everyday - and there is often no penalty to killing a person with your car.

On this basis, I conclude that society has no serious aversion to killing people under particular circumstances. Any assertion that 'killing is wrong' just ends up sounding hollow to me. Some killing is indeed quite legal, popular and obscenely common.

Indeed, any ban on abortion would strike me as entirely arbitrary bullshit unless it was part of an actual ban on killing people (which it never is).

Ergo, abortion is just another technique of approved killing no different and probably less obnoxious than most of the killing that society routinely approves of.

[evanescence]

I have no problem with your response to this. My point about equating the suffering of animals to humans seems to have been side-stepped by you here and I will point out that you brought it up as a point of comparison.

Perhaps, but I brought it up because the most rabid abortion supporters are usually very..I guess you could say..protective of animal rights. Animals do not posses cognition by in large.

If you believe in all these cautions for the unborn foetus, and to be consistent, shouldn't you also believe in these procedures for animals slaughtered in the meat industry?

Sure. I do not believe that animals should be tortured, and I hate the idea of eating food that comes from filthy meat factories.

You do ask dilettante the very poignant question of what makes human life sacred and I'd point that one back at you in this instance. What makes human life, even the rhythmic dividing of human foetal cells, so much more special than any other life on the planet?

It's not, really. :(

My larger point in this discussion is that this is all about drawing lines around some very old topics pertaining to life in this world. Some draw a line at eating meat but not meat made from people because the latter is somehow different and defined as murder. Others are perfectly comfortable ending the life of 100-year old trees so that they can make wood for their houses but then turn around and say no to abortion of a potential human life that hasn't even started contributing anything useful to the world yet. Ultimately, these lines are very human and fascinate me to no end. Each culture has them and within those there are many versions of the same lines. We are arrogant apes.

That why laws should be based on practicality rather than idealism.

[dilettante]

What makes human life sacred?

That depends on who you ask I suppose. In essence, to me the 'sacredness' of human life means that one should not, except (perhaps) in dire circumstances, torment, abuse, enslave or kill other people. Or, to put it in a moral framework, tormenting, abusing, enslaving and murdering killing people is a moral evil, justifiable (perhaps) only in dire circumstances.

I don't think of that as a radical or unusual concept; it seems to exist in some form in every culture, though the bounds of who is considered to be a real 'person' varies and has varied dramatically. Incidentally, I can't imagine how any society would long survive without some version of this belief; it would be an entire society of pure sociopaths.

I suppose you're right, though. I think that sacred life stuff is bullshit, and I just can't fathom it. I can't see eye-to-eye there. What I can see is hypocrisy.

Perhaps we were speaking past each other. Does the meaning of 'sacredness of life' above help clarify anything, or do you still find it unpalatable.

[dilettante]

Indeed!

As for my own view of the matter, it is my observation that society does not recognize any right to life for anyone - that is just propaganda.

In reality, society deems it quite acceptable to kill sometimes. USA assassinates civilians with drone missiles on a weekly basis, Texas fries them with full judicial and legislative permission, several hundred thousand were considered mere 'collateral damage' during the US invasion of Iraq, and thousands die preventable deaths on the roads and highways everyday - and there is often no penalty to killing a person with your car.

On this basis, I conclude that society has no serious aversion to killing people under particular circumstances. Any assertion that 'killing is wrong' just ends up sounding hollow to me. Some killing is indeed quite legal, popular and obscenely common.

Indeed, any ban on abortion would strike me as entirely arbitrary bullshit unless it was part of an actual ban on killing people (which it never is).

Ergo, abortion is just another technique of approved killing no different and probably less obnoxious than most of the killing that society routinely approves of.

It sounds like you're suggesting that since society sanctions killing in some circumstances, it's therefore arbitrary for it condemn killing in any circumstance. Couldn't you replace 'abortion' with any form of homocide and make just as much sense based on this reasoning? E.G. "any ban on killing one's banker would strike me as entirely arbitrary bullshit unless it was part of an actual ban on killing people..."
There may be good arguments for and against letting people kill their bankers (or have abortions), but the fact that Texas uses capital punishment on some convicted criminals isn't one of them.

Your point that society "sometimes" sanctions the killing of people "under particular circumstances" is well taken. But it doesn't follow that, therefore, any objection to killing in the particular circumstance of abortion must be arbitrary. Each particular circumstance requires, or should require, its particular justification.

[Non Sequitur]

I have to admit I've never understood the "it will happen anyway" argument, not just about abortion but about anything. The assertion that "there will always be people who will do it, even if its against the law" applies to every law: drugs, prostitution, rape, murder, theft, speeding...etc. These continue regardless of the laws against them, but that in and of itself hardly seems like a good reason to revoke the law.
Now, there are some cases (e.g. prohibition) where making something illegal actually increased the frequency with which people engaged in it, but (with the possible exception of some drug use) I don't think any of the things listed above, much less abortion, fall into that category.

Of course this isn't an argument that abortion shouldn't be legal, and there are certainly other arguments for it remaining legal. I'm just expressing my bewilderment over this particular line of reasoning, wherever its applied.

the point is bold is a good one and I must concede the issue to you sire :bowdown:

[evanescence]

That depends on who you ask I suppose. In essence, to me the 'sacredness' of human life means that one should not, except (perhaps) in dire circumstances, torment, abuse, enslave or kill other people. Or, to put it in a moral framework, tormenting, abusing, enslaving and murdering killing people is a moral evil, justifiable (perhaps) only in dire circumstances.

Do you think that killing people can ever become necessary or is it always wrong? If so, which dire circumstance? And isn't that subjective in and of itself?

I don't think of that as a radical or unusual concept; it seems to exist in some form in every culture, though the bounds of who is considered to be a real 'person' varies and has varied dramatically. Incidentally, I can't imagine how any society would long survive without some version of this belief; it would be an entire society of pure sociopaths.



Perhaps we were speaking past each other. Does the meaning of 'sacredness of life' above help clarify anything, or do you still find it unpalatable.

Not believing that human life is sacred does not make one a sociopath. It simply makes one humble. That is, he or she can see the futility and insignificance of human life when compared with the vastness of the universe.

[dilettante]

the point is bold is a good one and I must concede the issue to you sire :bowdown:

LOL. When I saw the little 'bow down' smiley coming from you my mind immediately jumped to Acts 12:21-23 with Herod and the worms (or to that story anyway, I had to look up the reference). :)

[dilettante]

Do you think that killing people can ever become necessary or is it always wrong? If so, which dire circumstance?

Personally, I think killing another person is always an evil, a sign that something is fundamentally not as it should be. But I'm not a complete pacifist; at times a think its a justifiable evil. As to exactly when it is and isn't justifiable to use lethal force, that's a complex subject. Suffice it to say that if someone broke into my house and tried to attack my wife, I'd consider those circumstances to be dire and blow their head off.
Though I would still (or, at least, I hope I would still) mourn their death and the circumstances that brought their life to that point.

A thread on the acceptable uses of violence might be interesting something.

And isn't that subjective in and of itself?

Of course. It's a judgment call.


Not believing that human life is sacred does not make one a sociopath. It simply makes one humble. That is, he or she can see the futility and insignificance of human life when compared with the vastness of the universe.

I don't see how the belief that causing the suffering and death of other people is wrong should be attributed to an absence of humility. But it does seem that the complete absence of such a belief would certainly qualify one for an antisocial disorder.
After all, there are two ways to view the vastness of the universe: you can decide that all of the single relatively-tiny components are all insignificant and futile, or that they're all significant and important. The scope and breadth of the universe can lead to exaltation as well as to nihilism.

[Michael]

It sounds like you're suggesting that since society sanctions killing in some circumstances, it's therefore arbitrary for it condemn killing in any circumstance. Couldn't you replace 'abortion' with any form of homocide and make just as much sense based on this reasoning? E.G. "any ban on killing one's banker would strike me as entirely arbitrary bullshit unless it was part of an actual ban on killing people..."
There may be good arguments for and against letting people kill their bankers (or have abortions), but the fact that Texas uses capital punishment on some convicted criminals isn't one of them.
No, the crime of murder (specifically defined) is routinely recognized as a serious crime. I've said nothing that would assert that the crime of murder ought not to be a crime.

My argument only asserts that the "right to life" argument to justify anti-abortion is arbitrary nonsense and thus irrelevant. And once you strip that argument away, the anti-abortion supporters really don't have principle to stand on.

Besides which, you are apparently trying to take my argument and apply it as an absolute argument applied to all situations - which I didn't do and the argument doesn't support that.

Your point that society "sometimes" sanctions the killing of people "under particular circumstances" is well taken. But it doesn't follow that, therefore, any objection to killing in the particular circumstance of abortion must be arbitrary. Each particular circumstance requires, or should require, its particular justification.
Yes it should, but it doesn't.

How does society justify letting car-killers go free? Essentially the argument here is that car-killing is usually 'accidental', but that's nonsense since 'accidental' killing is defined as the crime called manslaughter.

But that's beside the point. My argument merely asserts that there is no fundamental justification for banning abortion on the basis of 'killing is wrong'.

I'm not making a positive argument, I'm making a negative argument here. My argument doesn't justify anything - it merely deligitimizes the anti-abortion argument.

I don't think you can apply this argument to assert that killing your banker ought to be legal since the justification for the crime of murder is entirely non-dependent upon 'right to life' arguments.

[Michael]

Perhaps, but I brought it up because the most rabid abortion supporters are usually very..I guess you could say..protective of animal rights. Animals do not posses cognition by in large.
I don't think this is true.

Sure that may be true of the "rabid" supporters, but by and large, they are a tiny minority. Abortion is legal policy because it is supported by pragmatic moderates on the basis of asserting a woman's absolute right over her own body. That's the fundamental principle of justification that most abortion supporters are standing on.

As a general rule, pro-abortion supporters are standing on 'woman's rights'. It is the anti-abortion supporters that need to focus the entire issue entirely upon the fetus (and thus, they are the ones playing the 'feel pain' argument). From the perspective of woman's rights, fetal pain is irrelevant.

[Michael]

I have to admit I've never understood the "it will happen anyway" argument, not just about abortion but about anything. The assertion that "there will always be people who will do it, even if its against the law" applies to every law: drugs, prostitution, rape, murder, theft, speeding...etc. These continue regardless of the laws against them, but that in and of itself hardly seems like a good reason to revoke the law.
Now, there are some cases (e.g. prohibition) where making something illegal actually increased the frequency with which people engaged in it, but (with the possible exception of some drug use) I don't think any of the things listed above, much less abortion, fall into that category.

Of course this isn't an argument that abortion shouldn't be legal, and there are certainly other arguments for it remaining legal. I'm just expressing my bewilderment over this particular line of reasoning, wherever its applied.
The reasoning behind this idea is that having laws that normal law-abiding citizens are going to routinely ignore fundamentally harms the whole principle of law and order and thus, in some cases, it is better to remove the law rather than put the law into the position of being routinely ignored.

In short, laws that are routinely ignored tends to weaken the standing of the institution of law itself.

[evanescence]

I don't see how the belief that causing the suffering and death of other people is wrong should be attributed to an absence of humility. But it does seem that the complete absence of such a belief would certainly qualify one for an antisocial disorder.
After all, there are two ways to view the vastness of the universe: you can decide that all of the single relatively-tiny components are all insignificant and futile, or that they're all significant and important. The scope and breadth of the universe can lead to exaltation as well as to nihilism.

Then way more than 2% of the human population suffers from anti social personality disorder, I'd say. Lots of killing goin on.. :shrug:

I don't think this is true.

Sure that may be true of the "rabid" supporters, but by and large, they are a tiny minority. Abortion is legal policy because it is supported by pragmatic moderates on the basis of asserting a woman's absolute right over her own body. That's the fundamental principle of justification that most abortion supporters are standing on.

As a general rule, pro-abortion supporters are standing on 'woman's rights'. It is the anti-abortion supporters that need to focus the entire issue entirely upon the fetus (and thus, they are the ones playing the 'feel pain' argument). From the perspective of woman's rights, fetal pain is irrelevant.

Perhaps you're right about that. I support a woman's right to an abortion on the grounds that it really isn't my business what other people do unless it effects me, and that doesn't. Also, there are instances where I would want the right to an abortion and I sure as hell don't want other people telling me I couldn't get one.

[dilettante]

The reasoning behind this idea is that having laws that normal law-abiding citizens are going to routinely ignore fundamentally harms the whole principle of law and order and thus, in some cases, it is better to remove the law rather than put the law into the position of being routinely ignored.

In short, laws that are routinely ignored tends to weaken the standing of the institution of law itself.

That makes sense.

It seems to me the key question is whether the existence of the law and whatever enforcement is possible actually decreases the incidence of the crime. E.G. There are still lots of burglaries, even though its against the law, but presusmably there would be a lot more if such laws were voided.

And I think the numbers show that the legalization of abortion in the early 1970s dramatically increased the number of abortions performed in the United States (the abortion rate roughly doubled in less than a decade). It therefore seems likely that placing and enforcing legal restrictions on abortions would see a significant corresponding decline in the number performed, especially if such restrictions were accompanied (as they unquestionably should be) with expanded assistance for mothers during pregnancy and child-rearing.

[dilettante]

Then way more than 2% of the human population suffers from anti social personality disorder, I'd say. Lots of killing goin on.. :shrug:


Well, not all killings are done callously or without call for justification. Incidentally, I wonder that percentage of the global population has actually intentionally and directly killed another human. It doesn't seem like it would take very many.

Anyway, the essence of the 'sacredness of life' position for most people is that you don't kill a person without a damn good reason. In the ~10% of abortion cases where there's a significant issue related to the health of the mother and/or child, there might be a case to make that there's reason enough to take a human life. But in the vast majority of cases, if one extends personhood to the unborn (always the pivotal question, IMO), then the reasons given for wanting an abortion don't justify taking a human life. Inconvenience, even serious and prolonged inconvenience, doesn't justify killing someone. Or at least such is the 'sacredness of life' position, as I understand it.

[evanescence]

Well, not all killings are done callously or without call for justification. Incidentally, I wonder that percentage of the global population has actually intentionally and directly killed another human. It doesn't seem like it would take very many.

Anyway, the essence of the 'sacredness of life' position for most people is that you don't kill a person without a damn good reason. In the ~10% of abortion cases where there's a significant issue related to the health of the mother and/or child, there might be a case to make that there's reason enough to take a human life. But in the vast majority of cases, if one extends personhood to the unborn (always the pivotal question, IMO), then the reasons given for wanting an abortion don't justify taking a human life. Inconvenience, even serious and prolonged inconvenience, doesn't justify killing someone. Or at least such is the 'sacredness of life' position, as I understand it.

Sometimes, it a matter of what is best for the rest of the family. For instance, let's say a woman was pregnant with a Downs Syndrome baby but she had a family to care for already and not a lot of resources. It should be someone's personal choice.

[Michael]

That makes sense.

It seems to me the key question is whether the existence of the law and whatever enforcement is possible actually decreases the incidence of the crime. E.G. There are still lots of burglaries, even though its against the law, but presusmably there would be a lot more if such laws were voided.
The key distinction is that criminals will routinely break laws regardless. It is the normally law-abiding citizens that are the most important element to pay attention to. If they are 'forced' into breaking the law, the law has a big problem.

And I think the numbers show that the legalization of abortion in the early 1970s dramatically increased the number of abortions performed in the United States (the abortion rate roughly doubled in less than a decade). It therefore seems likely that placing and enforcing legal restrictions on abortions would see a significant corresponding decline in the number performed, especially if such restrictions were accompanied (as they unquestionably should be) with expanded assistance for mothers during pregnancy and child-rearing.
I don't think it is possible to justify this argument.

The rise in 'known' abortions with legalization might well come from a increase in reporting of the procedure. When abortion was illegal, one can reasonably assume that a majority of the cases where the procedure was done, was not reported (for obvious reasons).

Similarly, if abortion were to become illegal, the number of "reported" abortions will certainly fall, but that doesn't mean the "actual" number of abortions will also fall since the procedure would merely go underground and be impossible to track.

Indeed, many have pointed out that the USA has a serious social class problem with abortion. All the rules, laws and barriers that may be legally erected to stop abortions really only affect the working class or poor people. Upscale citizens have no trouble slipping across borders to get such procedures in the event that they become illegal in the USA.

That is indeed the 'old' status quo. No abortions for poor people (or really messy ones in back alleyways), but the wealthy still access them very easily in proper medical environments.

[dilettante]

I don't think it is possible to justify this argument.


The core of the argument is that severely restricting the legality of abortion would decrease the frequency. That's simply common sense: adding the increased difficulty and expense associated with great restrictions, along with the stigma of illegality will change the cost-benefit analysis of someone considering an abortion. If such restrictions were coupled with programs designed to assist expectant and new mothers (as they should be) the effect would be greater.

The open question is how much would it decrease the frequency; for how many people would changing the cost-benefit ratio change behavior.


The rise in 'known' abortions with legalization might well come from a increase in reporting of the procedure. When abortion was illegal, one can reasonably assume that a majority of the cases where the procedure was done, was not reported (for obvious reasons).

Actually, the tracking I'm looking at only begins after legalization, not before, so there's no need to try and guess how many abortions were performed illegally before RvW.

There may or may not have been a sudden 'spike' in abortions immediately following legalization (figuring that out would require tracking numbers before legalization, which, as you point out, is difficult). But there was certainly a steady and dramatic rise over the next ten years. Simply legalizing the procedure, over time, made it more acceptable (as well as easier to access) and hence more common.

It follows that a similar process would work in the face of significant restrictions. Illegality, over time, making the procedure less acceptable (as well as more difficult) and hence less common.

Would the practice disappear? Certainly not. But it would decrease, and while there's no way to perfectly predict by how much it would decrease, I think the dramatic rise over the decade following legalization indicates that the decrease would, eventually, be significant.

[dilettante]

Sometimes, it a matter of what is best for the rest of the family. For instance, let's say a woman was pregnant with a Downs Syndrome baby but she had a family to care for already and not a lot of resources. It should be someone's personal choice.

This makes perfect sense if the unborn are not taken to be human persons. Working on that premise, there's little sense in any major restrictions on abortion.

Under the alternative premise, that the unborn are human persons, this simply doesn't work, or at the least it becomes barbaric. The same logic would apply to infants after birth, or even to growing children who placed a significant strained on family resources. After all, the could be killed just as painlessly as any aborted fetus.
And of course the idea that actively killing another individual should be someone else's "personal choice" is dangerous in the extreme, particularly when someone else involved has an economic interest in their death.

Again, the essential issue is how widely or narrowly human personhood is to extended. If the unborn are people, then abortion is something to be done only in dire situations, because we should not lightly engage in the intentional slaying of another person. If they are not people, then there's little justification for restricting voluntary abortion.

[evanescence]

This makes perfect sense if the unborn are not taken to be human persons. Working on that premise, there's little sense in any major restrictions on abortion.

Under the alternative premise, that the unborn are human persons, this simply doesn't work, or at the least it becomes barbaric. The same logic would apply to infants after birth, or even to growing children who placed a significant strained on family resources. After all, the could be killed just as painlessly as any aborted fetus.
And of course the idea that actively killing another individual should be someone else's "personal choice" is dangerous in the extreme, particularly when someone else involved has an economic interest in their death.

Again, the essential issue is how widely or narrowly human personhood is to extended. If the unborn are people, then abortion is something to be done only in dire situations, because we should not lightly engage in the intentional slaying of another person. If they are not people, then there's little justification for restricting voluntary abortion.

A line must be drawn somewhere. I draw it at birth. Of course, I believed my unborn children were people, and would only consider abortion under circumstances that I believed to be dire. But that is different for everyone, and no one has a right to force a woman to continue a pregnancy against her will.
Also, a fetus is still physically attached to the mother and depends on her for everything. That makes it dependent, not independent. "Persons" are independent/individual.

[Greendruid]

A line must be drawn somewhere. I draw it at birth. Of course, I believed my unborn children were people, and would only consider abortion under circumstances that I believed to be dire. But that is different for everyone, and no one has a right to force a woman to continue a pregnancy against her will.
Also, a fetus is still physically attached to the mother and depends on her for everything. That makes it dependent, not independent. "Persons" are independent/individual.

My one-year old is certainly not independent, yet is not attached to his mother via umbilical cord. The law draws the line of personhood variably depending on the act involved. 18 is considered legal personhood for many things. This is a slippery slope but so many of them are.

[Michael]

My one-year old is certainly not independent, yet is not attached to his mother via umbilical cord. The law draws the line of personhood variably depending on the act involved. 18 is considered legal personhood for many things. This is a slippery slope but so many of them are.
Indeed, an excellent point about legal personhood - a very slippery slope and an entirely inconsistent one.

The real answer is "politics". The legal age of personhood is determined by politics for each individual issue - the science of the matter is essentially irrelevant.

In other words, the science of pregnancy stage/developments has nothing to do with the determination of legal personhood. The matter is 100% political.

[evanescence]

My one-year old is certainly not independent, yet is not attached to his mother via umbilical cord. The law draws the line of personhood variably depending on the act involved. 18 is considered legal personhood for many things. This is a slippery slope but so many of them are.

Neither are my kids. But they can breathe and eat on their own, and they are not attached to my body. When I gave birth to them, I had the option of giving them to someone else who could care for them. This seems like the easiest point to draw the "official" line as far as personhood is concerned.

Indeed, an excellent point about legal personhood - a very slippery slope and an entirely inconsistent one.

I think starting it at birth seems easiest and most consistent.

The real answer is "politics". The legal age of personhood is determined by politics for each individual issue - the science of the matter is essentially irrelevant.

That is true for everything.

In other words, the science of pregnancy stage/developments has nothing to do with the determination of legal personhood. The matter is 100% political.

How do you determine personhood? I think you'd find that everyone has a slightly different opinion on the matter.

[Michael]

How do you determine personhood? I think you'd find that everyone has a slightly different opinion on the matter.
On the issue of fetus/baby, I draw it at birth.

However, as Greendruid pointed out, when it comes to legal responsibility, society draws that same line at age 18 (or at 12 in the US and the crime is serious enough). Or at 21 for alcohol.

Society tends to draw the line where it is most convenient for any given issue.

[dilettante]

A line must be drawn somewhere. I draw it at birth...I think you'd find that everyone has a slightly different opinion on the matter.

My one-year old is certainly not independent, yet is not attached to his mother via umbilical cord. The law draws the line of personhood variably depending on the act involved. 18 is considered legal personhood for many things. This is a slippery slope but so many of them are.

Indeed, an excellent point about legal personhood - a very slippery slope and an entirely inconsistent one.

The real answer is "politics". The legal age of personhood is determined by politics for each individual issue - the science of the matter is essentially irrelevant.

In other words, the science of pregnancy stage/developments has nothing to do with the determination of legal personhood. The matter is 100% political.

I agree. Further, I think this is one of the most important things to remember about this issue and, tragically, one of the things people most often forget/ignore: the core issue is how one determines personhood, and that issue is extremely subjective and uncertain.

It seems like in abortion debates the various 'sides' often act as if this question has some obvious, objective answer and presume that the other side secretly "knows" that the unborn really should/should-not be looked upon as persons and is therefore sinisterly either promoting infanticide or pointlessly restricting women's rights. In truth, we're dealing with a difficult and age-old philosophical question about what it means to be a person. Perhaps if people kept that in mind there might be considerably less acrimony, if not more agreement, in the debate. I'm glad there isn't/hasn't-been any real venom spewing over it here.


Society tends to draw the line where it is most convenient for any given issue.

I'm not sure if convenience necessarily sums it up; compromise is also an important factor. After all, there's nothing terribly convenient about 16, 18 or 21; they aren't even round numbers. But since we realize that people can and will legitimately disagree about how old one should be before they can drive/vote/drink, we end up with these rather odd numbers as compromises. And like all compromises they're subject to change as sentiments and understanding shift.

In many (most?) developed countries, similar compromises exist with regard to abortion, with restrictions increasing after a certain number of weeks or at the somewhat ambiguous point of viability.

Strictly speaking, I'd think that either initiating strict restrictions at conception or removing all restrictions prior to birth would be the most convenient, but its unlikely that either of those options will be an acceptable compromise (at least in the US), and neither would really be consistent with the way we treat people in other situations.

[evanescence]

On the issue of fetus/baby, I draw it at birth.

However, as Greendruid pointed out, when it comes to legal responsibility, society draws that same line at age 18 (or at 12 in the US and the crime is serious enough). Or at 21 for alcohol.

Society tends to draw the line where it is most convenient for any given issue.

of course. Convenience is important. In fact, i would say that convenience ranks extremely high in American society. I can see that in my own life.

I agree. Further, I think this is one of the most important things to remember about this issue and, tragically, one of the things people most often forget/ignore: the core issue is how one determines personhood, and that issue is extremely subjective and uncertain.

It seems like in abortion debates the various 'sides' often act as if this question has some obvious, objective answer and presume that the other side secretly "knows" that the unborn really should/should-not be looked upon as persons and is therefore sinisterly either promoting infanticide or pointlessly restricting women's rights. In truth, we're dealing with a difficult and age-old philosophical question about what it means to be a person. Perhaps if people kept that in mind there might be considerably less acrimony, if not more agreement, in the debate. I'm glad there isn't/hasn't-been any real venom spewing over it here.



I'm not sure if convenience necessarily sums it up; compromise is also an important factor. After all, there's nothing terribly convenient about 16, 18 or 21; they aren't even round numbers. But since we realize that people can and will legitimately disagree about how old one should be before they can drive/vote/drink, we end up with these rather odd numbers as compromises. And like all compromises they're subject to change as sentiments and understanding shift.

In many (most?) developed countries, similar compromises exist with regard to abortion, with restrictions increasing after a certain number of weeks or at the somewhat ambiguous point of viability.

Strictly speaking, I'd think that either initiating strict restrictions at conception or removing all restrictions prior to birth would be the most convenient, but its unlikely that either of those options will be an acceptable compromise (at least in the US), and neither would really be consistent with the way we treat people in other situations.

Abortion is an issue in which dogma is used instead of reason and compromise.

[Michael]

Abortion is an issue in which dogma is used instead of reason and compromise.

That seems to describe most of US politics in fact. It certainly describes US foreign policy, drug policy and economic policy. :shrug:

I guess the point here is that the USA is a particularly dogmatic place. Foreign policy, drug policy and economic policy (and abortion policy) tend to be governed by reason and comprimise in most other western nations.

[evanescence]

That seems to describe most of US politics in fact. It certainly describes US foreign policy, drug policy and economic policy. :shrug:

I guess the point here is that the USA is a particularly dogmatic place. Foreign policy, drug policy and economic policy (and abortion policy) tend to be governed by reason and comprimise in most other western nations.

I never saw it until recently..

[Michael]

I never saw it until recently..

Agreed. In the past, I've never perceived US politics as primarily driven by dogmatism, but I am increasing doing so as that explanation does seem to accurately describe several political issues and the debates that go on.

With foreign policy, abortion or economics, there is no debate about any relative merits of any given policy. Insead, there are just two polarized and dogmatic positions that scream at each other. Whichever side can scream the loudest wins.

[Americano]

Agreed. In the past, I've never perceived US politics as primarily driven by dogmatism, but I am increasing doing so as that explanation does seem to accurately describe several political issues and the debates that go on.

With foreign policy, abortion or economics, there is no debate about any relative merits of any given policy. Insead, there are just two polarized and dogmatic positions that scream at each other. Whichever side can scream the loudest wins.

As someone who formerly participated in US politics as an active supporter I can assure you that they've always been dogmatic. Official party lines? Slogans? Policy? Debate? All from the top down and party membership supporting them without question or be shunted off like a Christian losing faith and condemned to their hell.

I find dogmatism a normal status at personal peer group levels (why else would common people of like minds band together in a tribal manner) and in professional associations. With the exception of students and others with nothing material to lose, most people including public leadership 'go with the flow' and any change becomes a feared factor in life.

[dilettante]

Abortion is an issue in which dogma is used instead of reason and compromise.

That's quite often true. More's the pity.

[Michael]

As someone who formerly participated in US politics as an active supporter I can assure you that they've always been dogmatic. Official party lines? Slogans? Policy? Debate? All from the top down and party membership supporting them without question or be shunted off like a Christian losing faith and condemned to their hell.

I find dogmatism a normal status at personal peer group levels (why else would common people of like minds band together in a tribal manner) and in professional associations. With the exception of students and others with nothing material to lose, most people including public leadership 'go with the flow' and any change becomes a feared factor in life.

But why then is not the politics in other western countries equally dogmatic?

I'm not saying that dogmatism is unique to the USA, rather that it seems to be dominant in US politics when it isn't nearly so dominant in other countries (though often present).

[Americano]

But why then is not the politics in other western countries equally dogmatic?

I'm not saying that dogmatism is unique to the USA, rather that it seems to be dominant in US politics when it isn't nearly so dominant in other countries (though often present).

I attribute it to the US general public illusion of democracy and sound party leadership. Few Americans will criticize their own political party regardless of how stupid that leadership might appear in words or actions. Not much difference there between politics, religion and other loyalties.

[Michael]

I attribute it to the US general public illusion of democracy and sound party leadership. Few Americans will criticize their own political party regardless of how stupid that leadership might appear in words or actions. Not much difference there between politics, religion and other loyalties.
Yes, that could be it. The USA does seem to have particularly hardcore partisanship on so many issues ('my way or the highway', 'my country, right or wrong', etc).

Personally, I would think the high level of dogmatism in the USA correlates to the high level of religiousness in the USA.

[evanescence]

But why then is not the politics in other western countries equally dogmatic?

I'm not saying that dogmatism is unique to the USA, rather that it seems to be dominant in US politics when it isn't nearly so dominant in other countries (though often present).

Special interests benefit from a polarized population. It's easier to keep a population from uprising if they're too busy fighting amongst themselves.

[Americano]

Yes, that could be it. The USA does seem to have particularly hardcore partisanship on so many issues ('my way or the highway', 'my country, right or wrong', etc).

Personally, I would think the high level of dogmatism in the USA correlates to the high level of religiousness in the USA.

Faith in mythology covers a lot of ground with many Americans. Rendering reasonable debate on partisanship issues based on faith, politics or religion, out of the question.

[Americano]

Special interests benefit from a polarized population. It's easier to keep a population from uprising if they're too busy fighting amongst themselves.

That doesn't take much effort.

[evanescence]

Faith in mythology covers a lot of ground with many Americans. Rendering reasonable debate on partisanship issues based on faith, politics or religion, out of the question.

It amazes me how well received people like this are on political forums. :lol: (Some forums even makes such irrational individuals moderators).

[Americano]

It amazes me how well received people like this are on political forums. :lol: (Some forums even makes such irrational individuals moderators).

As Michael stated, many Americans have a tendency to place their irrational beliefs far above logic or reason. As TDG stated, everyone has a list of priorities, some being downright scary when religion and nationalism are at the very top.

[Michael]

It amazes me how well received people like this are on political forums. :lol: (Some forums even makes such irrational individuals moderators).
Indeed, this is so true. Seems like one has to be a dogmatic partisan to become a moderator at so many forums. :lol:

And in case you were curious, one of the main reasons this forum was set up (if not THE reason) was to create an environment where discussion could take place without dogmatic/partisan moderators interferring.

[Americano]

Indeed, this is so true. Seems like one has to be a dogmatic partisan to become a moderator at so many forums. :lol:

Definitely the rule rather than the exception. I doubt that I'd like those individuals any better in person.

And in case you were curious, one of the main reasons this forum was set up (if not THE reason) was to create an environment where discussion could take place without dogmatic/partisan moderators interferring.

You've certainly been a target for dogmatic, partisan moderators on other forums. As has anyone who posts opinions (or facts) that don't toe their party line or belief system.

[evanescence]

Indeed, this is so true. Seems like one has to be a dogmatic partisan to become a moderator at so many forums. :lol:

And in case you were curious, one of the main reasons this forum was set up (if not THE reason) was to create an environment where discussion could take place without dogmatic/partisan moderators interferring.

No mods here so no foreseeable problems. :lol:

Definitely the rule rather than the exception. I doubt that I'd like those individuals any better in person.



You've certainly been a target for dogmatic, partisan moderators on other forums. As has anyone who posts opinions (or facts) that don't toe their party line or belief system.

It seems that the particular mod I am referring to is still in "power". I checked back today.

[Michael]

No mods here so no foreseeable problems. :lol:

Alas, I am the one and only.

Its not like we have much need for mods here anyway. If we ever get up past the 100 posts a day mark, and a steady stream of new members, then we might need to have one (besides me), but until then, there really isn't much need for one.

It seems that the particular mod I am referring to is still in "power". I checked back today.
They always are. If they are good ones, they will be gone. The worst ones will be there forever it seems!

* * *

Speaking of which, now I need to put my moderator's hat on and say this is all :offtopic: (yes, I am guilty of this!)

Lets try to keep this thread focused on the abortion issue please. :)

[evanescence]

k, sorry. :)

[Michael]

Special interests benefit from a polarized population. It's easier to keep a population from uprising if they're too busy fighting amongst themselves.

But similar special interests exist in all other western countries, and the same ruling elites would profit from the same pattern. My question is how come this produces 'polarization' in the USA, but not elsewhere?

[evanescence]

But similar special interests exist in all other western countries, and the same ruling elites would profit from the same pattern. My question is how come this produces 'polarization' in the USA, but not elsewhere?

It's benefitting those in power for the country to be divided. The American people exist as a resource to be used and exploited. In order for that to continue, people cannot be aware of what is actually happening. Keeping the simpletons distracted with mindless entertainment and overly bias newsources is necessary to royally fuck people up the ass while they smile about it.