Abortion

[Beeblebrox237]

I'm pro choice, but only if the child was either conceived unwillingly (rape, was high/drunk, etc.) or if the child has a serious disease that is either fatal or will cause them to be miserable for most of their life. i don't think abortion should be applied everywhere.

 

[CMvan46]

Me and my girlfriend talked about this, and we already decided if our first shows to be handicapped or something, it will be aborted.

God I couldn't ever live with myself if my soon to be fiance and I ever aborted for that reason. I've got a lifelong disease that costs my parents a ton of money and stress but I like to believe that even if they had known I'd develop this they would have never aborted. Having a handicapped child would undoubtedly be hard and a challenge but that's your kid and I'd love it just the same.

I think aborting for that reason should be illegal.

[QUOTE="homeforsummer]

Also worth noting that it's "pro choice". A mother has the right to choose whether to abort a baby that's the result of a rape or similar. Some may choose not to, but the important thing is that the choice is there. With regards to not taking precautions, that simply strikes me as careless and moronic.[/QUOTE]

Now that's what I agree with. I'm all for pro-choice as I know what decision I would make and if my girlfriend was raped I'd imagine we'd have a lengthy discussion about aborting but I wouldn't ever abort for any other reason.

 

[FoolKiller]

God I couldn't ever live with myself if my soon to be fiance and I ever aborted for that reason. I've got a lifelong disease that costs my parents a ton of money and stress but I like to believe that even if they had known I'd develop this they would have never aborted. Having a handicapped child would undoubtedly be hard and a challenge but that's your kid and I'd love it just the same.

I have a major heart defect and my wife was adopted and does not know her medical history. Because of this we had special ultrasounds done to look for any abnormalities. Never once did we think that if something, no matter how severe, was found we would consider abortion. It was all so that we could have as much treatment as possible from the earliest possible moment.

 

[Mrs. Famine]

Why is it OK to abort under some circumstances and not others? A 16 year old girl loses her virginity and stupidly believes the "you can't get pregnant the first time" because she missed sex ed class due to being unwell... she shouldn't be allowed to abort?

A 30-something using two forms of contraception because they absolutely DO NOT want to become pregnant against all odds falls pregnant... shouldn't be allowed to abort? Or perhaps she should've abstained?

Falling pregnant affects a woman's life dramatically, when unwanted and aborted they never ever forget about it, when accidental and perhaps unwanted but kept then post natal depression and feelings of anger are an almost certainty, when unwanted but adopted, then again they never forget and the child is guaranteed to come looking aged 18.

Unless a woman wants to fall pregnant, perhaps she should abstain as after all that is what intercourse is for? She should perhaps not go out in case she gets raped?

Such an emotive topic and whatever your views someone else will be unhappy with how you feel about it and tell you exactly how *they* feel. It's a bit like having babies ears pierced.

 

[jtv90069]

My Biological parents were 16 and 17 when i was born in 1980. At 4 weeks old my parents decided to adopt me, due to complications during my birth I could not leave the hospital until i was 11 weeks old and was given 50% chances of being mentally and/or physically disabled.
I played many sports including local A-grade cricket and soccer and was also B grade champion at squash. I am dyslexic and have a poor memory but my iq is approximately 128.
I do not think abortion should be taken lightly and should only be used in extreme circumstances such as rape and severe deformation/handicapping. In cases of rape adoption should be considered fully before abortion.

 

[Danoff]

...from another thread.

It's true danoff didn't really make a good argument or explain it in a coherent way. What one could take from the argument of Danoff is that since a year old child isn't aware or has knowledge to respect others rights, that child is up for abortion or the killing of that one year old is fine because it didn't adhere to the rights of others knowingly.

Unless Danoff explains it better, what way do you expect people to take it? Since there are other stages of human growth that can't observe or respect the rights of other humans and not because they don't want to but because they're unable to just like a fetus.

The point is whether a fetus is classified as a human being and afforded all of the protections under the law that human beings are afforded. And to determine that we must understand WHY human beings are afforded rights and, say, a fully grown chimp, isn't afforded human rights. The answer? Highly developed brains. I argue that not only does the fetus need to have a brain, but it needs to have a well developed brain before it can receive human rights protection.

And, as I have argued earlier in this thread, since that line occurs after birth, I support a practical (rather than principled) cutoff at birth. Birth is a convenient place to begin protecting human rights. It's less convenient to determine when your child's brain is further developed than a cow, and so killing the child is less acceptable than killing the cow.

Killing a 4-month old child is likely the human-rights equivalent of killing a puppy dog. It's reprehensible, but it's not murder. I think it makes sense to set the law at birth so that we don't have to draw the line at medically changing/fuzzier place. Practically speaking the line is extremely convenient to draw at birth.

From a logical and reasoned standpoint, the line could be drawn after birth.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

...from another thread.





Killing a 4-month old child is likely the human-rights equivalent of killing a puppy dog. It's reprehensible, but it's not murder. I think it makes sense to set the law at birth so that we don't have to draw the line at medically changing/fuzzier place. Practically speaking the line is extremely convenient to draw at birth.

From a logical and reasoned standpoint, the line could be drawn after birth.

From what logic can it be drawn. You're logic is greatly flawed and when you say "From a logical and reasoned standpoint, the line could be drawn after birth." That right there is something that is an opinion, don't sell it as fact, to you it can be but to the rest of the world you would be put away if you did such a thing. 4 months and 4 days after conception are vastly different, scientifically and morally. This will be the only post I put here because there is no reason to argue you on this and probably a multitude of other things, you wont accept the other person's viewpoint which is fine, but doesn't make a debate/argument. You obviously have it set in stone that this is right and the rest of the world should just accept it.

 

[Danoff]

From what logic can it be drawn.

From the only possible place it can be drawn - the basis for human rights. Tell me, do you think human rights (specifically a right to life) exists? If so, why? Do fetuses meet that basis? These are the only relevant questions in the discussion of abortion.

So please, supply me with your answers. I think you know mine.

 

[Danoff]

After-birth abortion becomes a hot topic:

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...r_infanticide_.html?google_editors_picks=true

My take:

These people are exactly right, nothing special happens in terms of development from pre-birth to post-birth, and infants don't really have the characteristics that cause the right to life to exist in the first place.

That being said, I still think birth is the bright line and a practical place to draw the line. Even the authors indicate that a big change happens at birth in terms of circumstance. I would tend to agree with the authors though that after-birth abortions might be practical and appropriate for severe infant medical conditions. I don't buy the argument that financial burdens justify after-birth abortion.

 

[Caz]

...from another thread.

Killing a 4-month old child is likely the human-rights equivalent of killing a puppy dog. It's reprehensible, but it's not murder.

I've been reading alot of this thread but tried to stay away from posting. But this may just be the single most idiotic thing I have read on GTP.
You seriously cannot tell me you believe that taking.g the life of a 4 month old baby is not murder.........
By the afterbirth abortion standards you can techincally abort your child until they are fully developed. So whatsthat...... 16,17,18. When puberty is finished?????

 

[Danoff]

I've been reading alot of this thread but tried to stay away from posting. But this may just be the single most idiotic thing I have read on GTP.
You seriously cannot tell me you believe that taking.g the life of a 4 month old baby is not murder.........

Legally it is defined as murder. Morally it's probably wrong too, but not really murder (I'm willing to listen to why you think it is of course). It's something else depending on the circumstances. If done by a 3rd party it's horrific property damage and should be treated as murder. If done by the parents it ranges from irresponsible and extreme cruelty at worst, to humane at best.

By the afterbirth abortion standards you can techincally abort your child until they are fully developed. So whatsthat...... 16,17,18. When puberty is finished?????

The after-birth abortion people would say:

an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her

 

[Azuremen]

I've been reading alot of this thread but tried to stay away from posting. But this may just be the single most idiotic thing I have read on GTP.
You seriously cannot tell me you believe that taking.g the life of a 4 month old baby is not murder.........
By the afterbirth abortion standards you can techincally abort your child until they are fully developed. So whatsthat...... 16,17,18. When puberty is finished?????

Ellipses are only three periods, like ...

One question mark suffices.

As for your question, I am pretty sure he just, seriously, told you that he doesn't define taking the life of a 4 month old baby as murder.

Especially given he was referring mostly to extreme medical conditions, in which case it very well could be considered humane. Much like allowing someone to die who has a terminal illness and is in extreme pain.

 

[arora]

Pretty sure if the child is born and living it can no longer be aborted, euthenasia?

 

[photonrider]

Spin-doctors come up with these terms - Pro-choice, Pro-life.. . .

The opposite of Pro-choice is seemingly Pro-NO choice.

The opposite of Pro-life is Pro-death. It seems like the vote for NO Pro-choice is No-choice. In effect what happens then is that those who are ALSO opposed to abortion ( depending on circumstances) fall under the Pro-Choice choice, while it seems like those who are against abortion (unless there are mitigating circumstances) fall under Pro-life.

This debate has been around for decades, maybe even centuries.

I believe in the end only the mother (apart from the usual extenuating circumstances) has a say in the matter. The moral consequences are entirely her responsibilty.

Further - one must remember that the definitions of 'Life' and 'Death' play a part in this. If growth = life, then there is something growing from the moment of conception. To stop its growth is to kill it.

The following was a Full Page Newspaper Advertisement (Company and Products removed - I hold the copyright) created in '87 by me, that might illustrate what I'm trying to say:

 

[BobK]

The right of every living being: The right to be born, to grow, to flourish in a peaceful environment.

Yeah, sounds good, until you think about it for a couple seconds.

Let's take a baby gazelle, for instance, who according to the above has a right to life, the "right to flourish" etc. Now consider a young lion, whose metabolism can only process meat such as that from for instance a baby gazelle. The lion's right to life is in direct conflict with the gazelle's.

For a more extreme example, what about the right to life of the lettuce I had in my salad last night?


I find the thought of killing a four month old infant to be appalling regardless of the reason.

As for abortion itself, I'm perfectly okay with the "morning after" pill but I'm against partial birth abortions. I'm not at all sure where the line should be drawn, or even if one can be drawn at all that would cover most cases.

 

[Caz]

I will apologize if I came of harsh. It wasn't my intent, being my first post in this thread it probably came of a little more aggressive as most, if not all, do not know me.

Again apologies especially to the poster I quoted in my original post here.
But the grammar lesson is uneeded. If a couple extra keystrokes really bother you, I would suggest lightening up a little.

I would contribute more, but don't want my posts graded as if I was still in school.


... sorry to have interrupted your discussion ...
Which ways the exit??

 

[Roger the Horse]

The important thing to remember about abortion is that there is a difference between whether abortion is morally right and abortion being legal is morally right.
In my view abortion itself cannot be called morally right in many cases (cases of rape and failed contraception being the exceptions), because if the person has had a choice in becoming pregnant then they should really have thought about it earlier. It is also known that many people regret getting abortions afterwards. (Which is understandable, due to the simple 'what if...' that such situations create.)
However abortion being legal is, IMHO, morally right, because at the end of the day, if a person really wants an abortion, they'll get one anyway in the form of a backstreet abortion.
Backstreet abortions are highly dangerous and many people are killed as a result of them in countries where abortion is illegal, whereas safe, legal, clinical abortions are, in their nature, much safer.
That is all I have to say for now.

 

[Danoff]

In my view abortion itself cannot be called morally right in many cases (cases of rape and failed contraception being the exceptions), because if the person has had a choice in becoming pregnant then they should really have thought about it earlier. It is also known that many people regret getting abortions afterwards. (Which is understandable, due to the simple 'what if...' that such situations create.)
However abortion being legal is, IMHO, morally right, because at the end of the day, if a person really wants an abortion, they'll get one anyway in the form of a backstreet abortion.
Backstreet abortions are highly dangerous and many people are killed as a result of them in countries where abortion is illegal, whereas safe, legal, clinical abortions are, in their nature, much safer.
That is all I have to say for now.

ick

So much I don't like about the reasoning above. Abortions should be illegal because the person had a choice? I have a choice whether I eat a sandwich for lunch. Should it be illegal for me to abort eating the sandwich halfway through? Choice has nothing to do with it.

Things that people are going to do anyway should be legal? People will murder anyway, should it be legal to murder?

Things that are dangerous in the black market should be legal because they'll be safer otherwise? Child pornography is safer if it's legal, should it be legal?

I reject all of your reasons for your opinion on abortion. Abortion should be legal because human beings have rights for a reason - and fetuses don't satisfy that reason.

 

[Strittan]

This is 2012, not 1912. It's definitely up to the women who is carrying to decide.

 

[Roger the Horse]

ick

So much I don't like about the reasoning above. Abortions should be illegal because the person had a choice? I have a choice whether I eat a sandwich for lunch. Should it be illegal for me to abort eating the sandwich halfway through? Choice has nothing to do with it. Where did I say abortions should be illegal because the person had a choice. I didn't. I said that it may be seen as morally wrong by some people if the person had already committed to being pregnant. I don't think that abortions should be illegal if the person had a choice, I personally believe that the choice involved here is the abortion, not the conception, and that anyone who wants to get an abortion should be allowed to do so. (Well, up to a point, I think that there is a 'point' in development where the foetus becomes a human, but that isn't until later on, and isn't a point rather than a gradual transition throughout the later stages of pregnancy. I read a very interesting article by Richard Dawkins about humanities obsession with set points of definition once, I'll have to find it. I also remember my Critical Thinking teachers famous speech from a long time ago about how some peoples argument can be destroyed by the fact that their argument is effectively that )

Things that people are going to do anyway should be legal? People will murder anyway, should it be legal to murder? If you make murder legal some people may be more likely to commit murder as they will not feel that there is a need to stay within the law and not get arrested. Although as a psychological and sociological experiment making murder legal would be very interesting, as people may actually be more adverse to committing crimes as they will know that there is a good chance that if you do commit one someone may set out for revenge and murder you, free of any legal consequences.

Things that are dangerous in the black market should be legal because they'll be safer otherwise? Child pornography is safer if it's legal, should it be legal? No form of Child Pornography should be legal. I don't personally believe that any form of stronger pornography should be legal, although I don't find much wrong with having adult people dress in a way that may be considered sexy by someone with a stronger sex drive than mine, as long as it's not done in a misogynistic way.

I reject all of your reasons for your opinion on abortion. Abortion should be legal because human beings have rights for a reason - and fetuses don't satisfy that reason.

I believe that if someone wants an abortion they should be able to get one. I don't believe that they're right or wrong to do so. If it's nothing to do with me it's nothing to do with me, and I don't really care.
I was trying to base my reasoning from a balanced perspective, abortion is unpleasant, there are a lot of things that some people could consider very morally wrong about it, and a lot that others may consider to be morally right. It is a grey area, I personally think that they should get some east German builders in so that they can build a wall to separate the two sides of what I see as different arguments from each other.
My point was that abortion may be morally wrong, but it's morally better for one person to be killed legally than two illegally. (The legal and illegal parts are largely irrelevant when you're simply speaking of morals here.) If you make abortion legal you can save lives while still destroying them.

I apologise if my original statement was badly worded and made no sense. I have a tendency to do that.

This is 2012, not 1912. It's definitely up to the women who is carrying to decide.

This is one of those simple, easy to read statements that manages to sum up everything that I just tried to say in about 5,000 paragraphs using only 2 sentences.

My argument is probably hard to read and comprehend because the original meaning, that abortions should be legal, because it's a persons choice to do so, is lost among a mish mash of complex moral philosophy, and refers back to the original reason that abortion was legalised in many countries in the first place, a matter that I notice most modern debates surrounding abortion forget.

 

[Danoff]

My point was that abortion may be morally wrong, but it's morally better for one person to be killed legally than two illegally.

Is it? Why?

 

[arora]

Is your stance based on property rights Danof? You've already said you believe it to be morally wrong above.

"Legally it is defined as murder. Morally it's probably wrong too"

I'm not grasping how you can say after birth abortion is ok and then say in another thread you think I child should have the right to compensation if conceived under the possibility of defect?(incest thread).

I know you have a train of thought, I just can't see it.

 

[Danoff]

Is your stance based on property rights Danof? You've already said you believe it to be morally wrong above.

"Legally it is defined as murder. Morally it's probably wrong too"

I'm not grasping how you can say after birth abortion is ok and then say in another thread you think I child should have the right to compensation if conceived under the possibility of defect?(incest thread).

I know you have a train of thought, I just can't see it.

Human beings have a right to life in part because they are able to grasp reality, their own existence, and the concept of rights. Fetuses (and newborns) have none of this, and so they have no right to life. However, harming a fetus (even if it has no rights) can eventually result in a harmed individual with rights - and that individual can seek damages for the harm they have been caused. If they never become someone with rights, there is no legal/moral issue.

 

[arora]

So it starts with conscience, I get that, why I mentioned property rights.

But, harming a fetus with no rights can result in harm to one with rights(later date) ok, but if you kill that one, he would have no future rights as he is terminated? The parents would have rights though, unless of course they are the ones who terminated the life.

I could have said that better but I think you see.

 

[Danoff]

So it starts with conscience, I get that, why I mentioned property rights.

But, harming a fetus with no rights can result in harm to one with rights(later date) ok, but if you kill that one, he would have no future rights as he is terminated?

Correct.

The parents would have rights though, unless of course they are the ones who terminated the life.

There's no issue with terminating the life of something that does not have rights.

 

[arora]

You consider the fetus the property of the parents, in fact, until it grows a conscience.

 

[Roger the Horse]

Is it? Why?

Because less people are killed. It's morally wrong to kill 1 random passer by, but it's even worse to nuke the whole freaking city. (Strawman argument, I know.)

That's how I see it. I don't really have much of a view of abortion, when I try to look at it I get confused by the tangled moral mess that it is and half the time wind up spouting nonsense. Ignore me and pretend that nobody killed a passer by or the whole freaking city.

You consider the fetus the property of the parents, in fact, until it grows a conscience.

Now the argument begins. What is a conscience? You could define a conscience as being something you develop along with your long-term memory. After all, the youngest I remember being is two, who's to say that I had a 'conscience' at a time before I can remember?
On the other hand you could say that one develops a 'conscience' along with their Central Nervous System, in which case they'd have a conscience at a pretty early age.

I'm getting into my stride now, I'm not just typing confused nonsense trying to get a point across that I don't actually know what is any more.

 

[arora]

LOL, it's an extremely difficult question to me as well, I do believe there is a definitive answer though.

 

[Danoff]

My point was that abortion may be morally wrong, but it's morally better for one person to be killed legally than two illegally.

Because less people are killed. It's morally wrong to kill 1 random passer by, but it's even worse to nuke the whole freaking city. (Strawman argument, I know.)

But why is it important legally vs illegally?

 

[Roger the Horse]

But why is it important legally vs illegally?

What I am saying is that to somebody who really, genuinely wants an abortion, legality is not an issue, as they will get one illegally if they have to. In countries where abortions are illegal people get abortions illegally, but these are often dangerous due to lack of control over how it is done. I don't believe that abortion is morally right or wrong, and I don't think it's legality affects the morality of abortion itself, but I do believe that it affects the morality of the law. If a country does not offer abortions legally, it may also create a taboo that will encourage people who are rebellious by nature to get abortions, but do so illegally, which is dangerous, and may often result in both individuals involved dying.
This is similar to drugs. I believe that drugs should be legal, but only so that governments can control the strength of the drugs so that they do less harm to less people, and also to remove the taboo around the word 'illegal'.