Abortion (again)

<split from http://rmrk.net/index.php/topic,30654.0.html>



It doesn't really matter. So what, he thinks abortion is ok. That doesn't mean you have to go and get one. Abortion is a stupid thing to base a political argument on. People should have the right to choose. That's all. Anything less is oppressive.

I disagree, but this isn't the place to discuss it so I'll let it be. Also, this isn't the same as abortion. In any case, I was just clarifying as to the possible origin of the claim moo was making.

I disagree, but this isn't the place to discuss it so I'll let it be. Also, this isn't the same as abortion. In any case, I was just clarifying as to the possible origin of the claim moo was making.

If someone doesn't like abortion, then ok. That's fine. They don't have to get one. For those people want to make a law banning abortion, they are only oppressing those who would get one, and that is just getting involved in other people's business. If you are never going to get an abortion, then why would you care if it was legal or not? Also, for the baby thing above, isn't the point of an abortion to kill a baby anyway?

(I'm not trying to start an argument here, I'm just stating how I see things. Nothing personal to you, Modern. I respect your opinions.)

*kitkatkan resists urge to join in abortion debate

 

None taken. I respect yours as well. But I think your argument is not convincing based on the fact that most people who want abortion to be illegal believe the fetus is human life. In that case, it is roughly equivalent to a law against murder. I don't think the argument "If you don't like murder, then don't murder anyone yourself" is particularly convincing. Of course it can be argued that even if it is accepted that a fetus is a human life, abortion only affects one person and is therefore different. Practically, there is a huge difference in that way even if there is no moral distinction to be made. However, I would like to believe that opposition to murder is not based solely on a desire not to be murdered. Ie - a moral belief that a person is entitled to life on the basis of being human, not a belief that murder is wrong simply because I want to restrict others from murdering me or it affects more people.

My point is, people who wish to restrict abortion access believe it to be the equivalent of murder, in which case I don't think it fair to call the belief oppressive, or if it is oppressive, it is oppressive with the goal of restricting a greater oppression - ie the taking of human life by another person. In any case, I will split the topic since this has veered away from Obama fairly significantly.

Of course, there have been a few topics on abortion already. Still, there are new members so maybe it is time to revive the topic, even though all abortion debates in nonpartisan forums always goes down the exact same way.

Besides, Elitist Debate needs a pickmeup

According to data I've found from various websites, America is nearly divided in half on the abortion issue. The figures lean slightly more toward the pro-life, by as much as 5% - 6%, depending on where you look. 69% of Americans are for the death penalty for criminals. Now, fully understanding that an unborn child is not a criminal, I would like to look at these figures from your point of view. If, in fact, the majority cared more about the "sanctity of life" than they do about getting to choose who is killed and who isn't, those figures would be a lot closer together.

Getting into opinions, it is very easy for us to be pragmatists having not been in a situation that directly relates to these arguments. I have friends who have gotten abortions before, and it was for the best. Our lax national childcare services, (which I'm actually a part of, go figure) is already in way over its head with the amount of children without families, not to mention the overwhelming population explosion that has been building since nearly the dawn of man.

Finally, let me ask a hypothetical question:
Would you rather pay the county for a crack-addicted woman to birth her child, and have the child to most likely grow and adapt to his (most likely) poor surroundings, perpetuating her (and the child's) miserable cycle, or would you rather allow the woman to have an abortion, and have more of a chance to overcome her personal challenges in order to make her life better for herself?

the doctors told my mom their medical opinion was to get an abortion because of her current health during pregnancy. Extremely low chance that she would be the one to survive the birth and an even lower chance of having both her and I survive (and I born without defects)

but she loves me 
and everything went against all odds

Abortion is very black and white to me. If you think that you are taking a life, then you usually end up being against abortion. If you don't think you are taking a life, then you usually aren't against abortion. I think the decision should be open to anyone, because that is what they believe, you can't prove right or wrong that you are taking a full life.

I don't intend to speak for all people who are against abortion, but I personally am also against the death penalty. That being said, I am sure that there are those who are opposed to abortion and not to the death penalty, but I do not think it true that they are opposed to abortion simply because they want to control women's bodies, and so I think my argument holds. I think what it comes down to for those people is still a belief in an intrinsic right to human life that is forsaken when someone commits a crime against another human being's right, and possibly also fear of that person. I do not agree with that notion, so I am obviously not the best person to give that argument and it has weaknesses in my opinion, but I still believe that their intentions in restricting abortion are good, not evil.

As for the next question, there is obviously a different political system in place then what I have here so I may make generalizations that are not true. In Canada, all abortions are funded by the province that you are in. I, personally, would rather see all that money go towards better childcare services and I think that they could be significantly improved if it were. Obviously, America is in a pretty drastic situation with regards to money and I do not think that abortions are federally funded there, but I would still think it a better alternative to put more money into childcare then to allow abortion. Childcare in most countries is neglected. Maybe that money doesn't exist in America - the money does exist in Canada and could easily bolster childcare here.

I have to go to class now, but when I get back I will address the hypothetical.

EDIT::

k, back now. For the hypothetical, I think that the scenario is to difficult to analyze effectively. I think that first of all, if the woman is not giving the child up for adoption it is fairly likely that she would not have had an abortion anyway. It suggests that she wants the child, and so no problems are avoided by legalizing abortion in this scenario as she would not abort anyway. As for bettering herself, it is not clear that not having a child will allow her to do so, nor is it clear that having a child will prevent her. I know of many women who are motivated to better themselves solely because they have a child to care for. Also, even though children born into a bad situation are not likely to overcome it, it is at least mildly troubling to use that as an excuse that they should not be alive or would be better off dead / never born.

Further, even if it is true in this case that having an abortion would better her situation or would be better in general, it is an extreme case in that most abortions do not happen in a situation as bad as this. As such, even if abortion is not morally wrong in a situation such as this, it does not suggest that abortion as a practice is not morally wrong.

To illustrate that a judgment in a special case does not necessarily validate the general case: I do not believe it to be morally wrong to commit murder in self-defense. If someone is attacking you and in your defense you end up killing them, then that is certainly not morally wrong, but it does not validate the more general hypothesis that murder is not morally wrong.


@Anski - Proof is not something I consider necessary to validate a moral truth. In fact, morality is not based on any proof or truth, but rather on collective agreement. Even in the Declaration of Independence, the wording is "We hold these truths to be self-evident...". It is the agreement on these things that is significant: "We hold". The "truths" are certainly not actually self-evident unless you believe in some intrinsic moral fibre of human nature. The holocaust is enough to suggest this to be false I should think. We can't prove the Holocaust to be wrong, we can only make judgments that say it is and that will either agree or disagree with others

Maybe there is some objective moral code; maybe the Holocaust would still be intrinsically wrong even if the Nazis had won and most people believed it was not - I don't know. However, if such a thing exists, there is certainly no way to scientifically prove what is wrong and what is right on the list. Thus your argument that something needs proof to be immoral, for me, suggests that morality cannot exist as no moral statement or judgment can be proven as right or wrong. I don't know, maybe I'm missing something.

I don't believe in abortion personally, but people should always have the choice. Sometimes abortion is necessary, and sometimes the mother's life may be saved if there is health complications, and yeah, sometimes abortion happens because the mother isn't ready for the child.

I'm not saying abortion is right or wrong, but it should be legal, at the very least.

Modern, your post was wonderfully written and you had some very valid points. I don't feel like writing a big post out right now, though, so I'll get back to this sometime soon.

To illustrate that a judgment in a special case does not necessarily validate the general case: I do not believe it to be morally wrong to commit murder in self-defense. If someone is attacking you and in your defense you end up killing them, then that is certainly not morally wrong, but it does not validate the more general hypothesis that murder is not morally wrong.

If that's the case, would you still be against abortion if the birthing were to be fatal to the mother?

To illustrate that a judgment in a special case does not necessarily validate the general case: I do not believe it to be morally wrong to commit murder in self-defense. If someone is attacking you and in your defense you end up killing them, then that is certainly not morally wrong, but it does not validate the more general hypothesis that murder is not morally wrong.

If that's the case, would you still be against abortion if the birthing were to be fatal to the mother?

Well, no and yes. I would not be against that woman having an abortion in that special case. I would still be against abortion in general.

That was my point. Abortion should be legal for that exact reason. As i said before, i don't agree with people giving up their babies when there is no good reason, but if the mother is going to die then it shouldn't be prohibited.

Let's make a baby kitkat ._.

okay later 

I want in on this.

Holk, regarding the hypothetical question. If it came down to that, it would simply be a matter of convenience. Assuming that the fetus is a human life (it is human biologically, but the debate is usually over whether or not it is a life), the act of abortion in that instance is a matter of convenience - much like Jimmy Hoffa's  (sp?) murder.

Now, I realize that this is a complete jump, but I'm only making a parallel between the two regarding the fact that both the abortion and Jimmy Hoffa's murder can be considered acts of convenience. It would be convenient for us if the baby was aborted, and it was convenient for the mob to kill Jimmy Hoffa.

However, both actions are still murder (once again, assuming the fetus is a human life).

That's my point of view at least. I personally believe that we live in a society of convenience, and that everything we do is based on how convenient it is. Whether we procrastinate or not, what we eat, picking up the remote instead of walking to the television, abortion... shoot, even the presidential elections are matters of convenience. Ever hear the phrase - "Things will get worse before they get better" ? I'm not saying the economy is a result of a greater solution (Lord knows we need another Teddy Roosevelt), but we tend to elect a president to fix our problems, then complain and elect someone else halfway through the process. We ourselves, will simply sit and complain instead of doing something OURSELVES to fix the problem. Sure, we voted, but we still sit around all day asking one man to fix a nation by himself - a man with limited powers.

Sorry for going off on a tangent, but my main point is - Should convenience for a single person, or even society as a whole be raised above an innocent's (this includes civilians killed in wartime) right to life?

If you had a deadly virus, you would take an anti-viral to get better. This is an act of convenience, too.

True, but the virus isn't human. It has no right to life. You are not considering your own convenience over the right to life of another person.

EDIT : If you're equating a human fetus to a virus, then that's a question of dehumanization which would be an entirely different discussion. Yay eugenics.

I don't believe that a fertilized egg is a human until it reaches a certain point of maturation.

Well, biologically it is human, even having the same DNA as a human. To me the "Is it life?" debate rests solely on when the fetus becomes "alive". I don't know, and I don't think there ever will be a way to tell, so I find it easier (convenient) to just consider the fetus to be alive. There is a point where the fetus is definitely alive however (Silent Scream), but it's too difficult to tell when that starts.

I can agree with what you're saying to the extent that I don't believe a fertilized egg is a life until a certain point.

True, but the virus isn't human. It has no right to life. You are not considering your own convenience over the right to life of another person.

so dogs aren't human so have no right to life?  it's ok to kill a dog?
All living beings have a right to life, which is why they live.
(this might sound hypocritical coming from someone who is against vegetarians, but I do believe everything has a right to life, and that it's part of nature itself for some creatures to give their lives for the existence of others.  proper respects just need to be paid to those that lost theirs that another's might be prolonged.)

That being said, I'm subjective.  If the mother's life is in danger, or it's a young teen, or the person was raped, then yes, they should be allowed the abortion.  I don't see any other good reasons to abort an unborn child.

All living beings have a right to life, which is why they live.

While they contain DNA, viruses aren't actually living beings.

Fine then, fucking bacteria. Christ, you're going to nitpick yourself into a heart attack someday.

Anyway, silent scream is bullshit. I can make you a movie that makes it look like dolphins cry when you flush your toilet, but that doesn't make it true.

All living beings have a right to life, which is why they live.

While they contain DNA, viruses aren't actually living beings.

I was responding to the 'it's not a human, it has no right to life'

Fine then, fucking bacteria. Christ, you're going to nitpick yourself into a heart attack someday.

why are you irritated? that wasn't even directed at you =/

All living beings have a right to life, which is why they live.

While they contain DNA, viruses aren't actually living beings.

I was responding to the 'it's not a human, it has no right to life'

I wasn't saying that if "it's not a human, it has no right to life". I said what I said because in context, the only organisms being discussed were a human, a fetus, and a virus.

As for animals having right to life, I believe they do, but I also believe that man was given dominion over the earth and all of its plants and animals. If a person requires meat, they should eat the animal. I believe it is admiral to be a vegetarian, but I don't believe it's a sin to eat meat. I'm not saying that people have more of a right to life than animals, but I just believe - biblical - that we have a right to kill the animals in a humane manor and eat them.

When it gets to the point where it endangers the mother's life... I don't know. I don't think I can find an example in the Bible regarding this, but logically I would abort the baby if things get to a life - or - death point. I don't know if that is a sin or not, but if it got to an extreme circumstance I believe (personally) that it is better to ask forgiveness than permission.

I'm not having double standards. I think that there are some things that are subjective (right word?) to the circumstance.  I also think that there are some things that are absolute.

Subjective - murder. (Bad normally, but self-defense, wartime, etc cetera...), there's a quote I've heard that I also believe is subjective - "Don't pretend to know something you don't and don't deny something you do know".
Absolute - Adultery, Renouncing Faith, raping little children, et cetera....

Please don't get mad if I say something that you don't like, just address the issues you have with what I said and I'll try to reconcile. This board is for intelligent discussion, not heated bashing.

Also, nitpicking isn't needed. If someone tries to make a point, and it's obvious what the point is, even if they say the wrong thing, there's no need to correct them.