“You have to take into consideration whether the woman knew she was killing the baby or not.”
Um, I think when a woman makes the decision to get an abortion, she knows that she will be terminating the possibility of life of the baby. And if you have to take considerations for this topic, why don’t they take into the consideration that the mother’s life can be put in grave danger and that an abortion might be the only way to save her life? What about stillborn babies? What about miscarriages that just naturally happened?
I have lived long enough that I can remember when it was illegal and when Roe vs. Wade changed all that. Abortion should be illegal but each case should be tried on it’s own circumstances. If convicted..no less than 6 months, no more than 2 years. I am definately pro-choice but the choice comes with whether or not the woman enters into a sexual relationship willingly. If sex was forced or coerced then the man should be punished (rape/incest)
@mommachatter - What about the women and young girls who were sexually assaulted and impregnated? There was no relationship there for them to enter, yet they were forced against their will.
I have seen pro-life videos that have the same reaction form the other side, which means, like I knew already, both sides have their arguments, and none are all wrong or all right, in my opinion. However, the video seems to suggest if we dont think something should be punished, then it should be ok. I think this is a wrong assumption, some things can also be unethical without being seen as technically morally wrong, so I think that argument is void. The question isnt, what punishment should there be?” but instead “is it wrong/illegal?”, then a punishment should be thought of later.
What I do not have answer for is: Where will the mother get financial help while pregnant if she wanted to abort but could not or thinks she should not? Where will she get help? I think this is a great place for churches to get involved, creating a community to help women, men, and families going through hard decision and hard financial times; however, the church seems to be better at judging than at getting their hands dirty. Anyone who has read even casually some of scripture knows it is not as nice and neat as some preachers and minister claim it to be. Scripture is definitely not rated-G, more like PG-13 or R most of the time actually.
I actually laugh in the faces of people who tell me “abortion is murder.” Because it’s not. “Murder” is a legal term meaning, at common law, “the killing of a person with malice aforethought.” A legal “person” does not include a fetus. “Malice aforethought” includes intent to kill, intent to cause substantial bodily harm, criminal negligence, or killing in the process of committing a murder. It does not include “committing legally sanctioned medical procedures performed in the customary manner and at the election of the mother.” Thus, under the law, abortion is not “murder” in any jurisdiction, unless it falls outside the timeline created in the Casey line of cases.
I find myself saying this over and over again on different sites, but conservatives can’t treat language like they choose to treat reality. Some words and phrases have specific meanings. You can’t simply reassign meanings to expressly defined words in order to promote your personal/political ends. That’s dishonest and, in the case of language, illiterate. I mean, they could argue that abortion SHOULD be murder, but that’s not what any of them do. They argue that it is NOW murder. It’s not. Sorry. Not an opinion. That’s wrong.
@laytexduckie - You may have read something in my comment that wasn’t there. I mentioned that each situation would have to be evaluated and RAPE or INCEST (which I think covers your question) the man should suffer the consequences allowed for in the law.
@mommachatter - I may have missed it, but just wanted to clarify.
It’s not double-think when the subjects aren’t thoughtful enough to think. =P
The video seems to illustrate precisely why public opinion has shifted towards the pro-life camp. We’re forgetting more and more the bad ‘ol days, before Roe v. Wade– when women and their doctors have been jailed or fined for their exercise of reproductive rights. It’s easier to be swept-up in simple-minded righteousness when the issues are unmoored from real-world implications.
I believe abortion is murder because you have the intent to kill and cause bodily harm to the baby, who is another person. Just because they require the mother to survive for a short period of time does not make them any less a person. No less a person than one who is living on a respirator. And yes, I believe there should be jail time for murder.
I came to this stance not based on emotion but based on my belief in natural law and natural rights.
Interesting video. thanks for sharing it here.
If abortion is murder, then it should be prosecuted as “premeditated homicide”. (And not just the woman who gets the abortion, but the doctor who performs it as well.) That’s the inescapable conclusion you have to draw if you say, as pro-lifers typically do, that life begins at conception. And yet, so many pro-lifers seem so squeamish about saying that the woman and the doctor should be given twenty-five to life. I think that’s very telling.
And WHICH” natural law” is that? I notice it comes in a variety of forms…ancient Greek, Christan, Islamic….
Personally, I don’t believe in ANY that says women have to die as a result of sex.
@firetyger - If Roe v. Wade were overturnand if anti-abortion legislation were passed, do you have a view on its enforcement? For instance, should the aborting woman and/or her doctor be fined and jailed?
@firetyger - (1) First degree murder requires the intent to kill [a human being]. Can you explain how a (1) fetus is a human being as a matter of biology and (2) as a matter of law (the law recognizes the fetus as a human being deserving of the rights of a human being)?
As I outlined above, this position is incorrect as a matter of law, not opinion. Abortion is not “murder.” You can’t believe “abortion IS murder” unless you misunderstand what murder means. It’s not murder because abortion is legal. Murder is a definitively illegal act. If an act is legal it cannot, by definition, be “murder.”
(2) The vast majority of medical abortions (over 99%) occur before the third trimester; i.e., before the developing life could honestly be called a “baby”. There are definitive characteristics of a human being that a fetus lacks at that point in time, such as viability, neural development required for pain and perception, etc. If you believe otherwise, explain why.
(3) Natural rights and natural law are inherently emotion-laden philosophies. They are based on emotion to justify having those emotions. You make them seem as if they are objective or scientific. They aren’t.
(4) Please explain how your beliefs in “natural law and natural rights” led you to your current beliefs.
Even assuming a fetus has natural rights (I would argue they don’t, as a fetus is not biologically or legally a person), I am particularly interested in why you believe the natural rights of a fetus, which lacks the ability to suffer, trump the natural rights of its human being mother, human beings who possess the ability to suffer tremendously.
Furthermore, how does this natural rights rationale trump the legal rights of the mother? Do you have any legal justification for making abortion is murder, apart from your philosophical views?
(5) In addition to what celestial teapot wrote, I would be interested to know how you propose we afford caring for the massive influx of new borns that restricting abortion would create (millions of fetuses are aborted annually, which is a number that will only rise. Most of these children will be unwanted, so they will have to be adopted. Our adoption system is currently horribly underfunded. We would need to create an untold number of new orphanages, hospitals, etc. to care for these children. Where will this money come from and what is the justification for it? Why should society bear these costs? What is your argument for the benefit of abortion restrictions outweighing its costs, other than your personal philosophy?
I don’t even think she really believed that. It seemed more like she was dissembling to keep from being viewed in the same light as the others.
@misuriver - I kinda got that feeling too, but like in religion, I’ll take people at their word (ex: if they say they are Christian, I’ll categorize them as Christian).
@mommachatter - What about the women that realized that if they were to have the child, said child would live a life a poverty because she has yet to finish school? I’d also take into consideration women that find that if they were to have to child, then they, the child or both of them will die. Lastly, unlike the murder of those that are born, society doesn’t really feel negative affects of abortion. The women in countries where contraceptives and abortion are not only allowed but are easily accessible, tend to be more prosperous than those that don’t.
@galadrial - Considering how many times I’ve stated my opinion on abortion I did not think it necessary to reiterate that in cases of the mother’s life being in danger, then abortion becomes an option because the baby is infringing on her right to life. All other abortions should be illegal, IMO.
@Celestial_Teapot - I would not think the punishment would be disimilar to what we have for murder charges for anyone else.
@UTRow1 - ”(1) First degree murder requires the intent to kill [a human being]. Can you explain how a (1) fetus is a human being as a matter of biology and (2) as a matter of law (the law recognizes the fetus as a human being deserving of the rights of a human being)?”
As a matter of biology, at what point does a fetus suddenly “morph” into a human being? I’m not trying to be snarky here but the most logical point to call a baby a human is the point of it’s conception. It has it’s own unique set of DNA separate from the mother’s and if allowed to continue to live, will grow and be born just like you and me. Chickens conceive chickens. Humans conceive humans. A human has never given birth to anything other than a human.
“It’s not murder because abortion is legal. Murder is a definitively illegal act. If an act is legal it cannot, by definition, be “murder.”"
This reasoning is logically fallacious. Compulsory sterilization used to be widely practiced as well as the government at the time did not view it as a violation of human rights. Though it was later ruled as that and unconstitutional. Just because the courts do not currently view abortion as murder does not mean that it isn’t murder.
“(2) The vast majority of medical abortions (over 99%) occur before the third trimester; i.e., before the developing life could honestly be called a “baby”. There are definitive characteristics of a human being that a fetus lacks at that point in time, such as viability, neural development required for pain and perception, etc. If you believe otherwise, explain why.”
Do we define one’s humanity by their ability to be independent or by the current state of their body or brain? I do not see how a baby is any different from a patient in a coma who is on life support. People get into accidents all the time that damage their brain and ability to perceive pain, critically think, and a host of other things. Are they suddenly no longer human when this occurs just because they require a machine to keep them alive? As for dependency, a newborn infant would die after birth if not taken care of by it’s parents. It cannot defend itself, feed itself, or provide for itself. Does that mean it isn’t human? What about an elderly person with failing health who must depend on a caretaker? Do they lose their humanity?
“(3) Natural rights and natural law are inherently emotion-laden philosophies. They are based on emotion to justify having those emotions. You make them seem as if they are objective or scientific. They aren’t.”
Do tell how natural law and rights are based on emotion to justify having those emotions.
“(4) Please explain how your beliefs in “natural law and natural rights” led you to your current beliefs.”
This is rather simple. One of the greatest cornerstone’s of my whole world view is that your rights end where another’s begin. My views are very similar to that of the Founders, who based much of our Constitution on natural law. I am free to make whatever decisions I wish so long as they only affect myself. When I become pregnant, it is no longer just my rights that come into play for the decisions made in this unique time of life. Whether it was my choice to have sex or not, the baby did not have a say in the matter. But since they are here, they have the same right to life as every other human being.
The baby’s life does not trump the mother’s. I have stated over and over on Xanga that in cases of the mother’s life being in danger, that is the only time abortion is a justified option as it is a matter of saving life. The decision should be left to the mother to decide to risk her life or not. She is by no means obligated to sacrifice her life for another. Though I do consider those that decide to keep their dangerous pregnancies despite the risks to be quite noble.
“(5) In addition to what celestial teapot wrote, I would be interested to know how you propose we afford caring for the massive influx of new borns that restricting abortion would create (millions of fetuses are aborted annually, which is a number that will only rise. Most of these children will be unwanted, so they will have to be adopted. Our adoption system is currently horribly underfunded. We would need to create an untold number of new orphanages, hospitals, etc. to care for these children. Where will this money come from and what is the justification for it? Why should society bear these costs? What is your argument for the benefit of abortion restrictions outweighing its costs, other than your personal philosophy?”
Cost should never be a determining factor in whether or not you have the right to live. If our right to life is based on nothing more than our dollar worth to our country, then by such reasoning we should be slaughtering millions of elderly who can no longer work or contribute monetarily to society. Which is absolutely disgusting, as well as unethical. My argument for the benefit of restricting abortion? Human life. You cannot put a price tag on human life. Our society has lost those who would have been our future. The next Albert Einsteins, Martin Luther King Jr.’s, Nikola Teslas, and those who would have added their names to our history books. If you are truly worried about costs society must bear due to an influx of citizens, ask the government to enforce our immigration laws and to secure our borders.
@firetyger - “Do we define one’s humanity by their ability to be independent or by the current state of their body or brain? I do not see how a baby is any different from a patient in a coma who is on life support. “
I also like using that analogy, but I don’t view an early-term fetus as any different from a hospital patient that is braindead.
– Yes, the individual has a full genomic assortment – Yes, the individual is “alive” in most biological sense of the word -Yes, the individual is human - Yes, the individual has fingernail (sorry, just had to get in that movie reference)
In many juisdictions it is legal for family members to pull the plug on those with irreversible brain injury. To me, a fetus just like the patient– without the nerological development to percieve the world and for higher order thought.
@firetyger - I see. So basically if it doesn’t fit your narrow view, it doesn’t matter. The thing is “natural law” is something that should be more or less universally accepted as valid. It shouldn’t change shape, form or concept because it belongs to another group. Hence…it is a fallacy, not a law. I think “law of gravity”…
@firetyger - (1) In my view (and I would argue the most logical view), a fetus becomes a human being when it develops the biological characteristics that typically define all human beings, including the mentally handicapped and comatose – e.g., fully formed pharyngeal nerves, viability, etc. Classifying this as a human being is not biologically accurate because it, obviously, it lacks the vast majority of biological characteristics that define and differentiate humans from other animals. Right? It’s common sense. The only reason why pro-life proponents fight so hard to avoid this incredibly obvious conclusion is that they understand once you can differentiate a fetus from a human being using objective, biological criteria, you can justify treating a fetus and human differently under the law pretty easily.
For instance, saying that a fetus is human because it possesses unique, human DNA and has the potential of becoming a human doesn’t really logically lead to the conclusion that it IS human. First, those are pretty arbitrary/limited markers for humanity. A corpse has all the DNA of a human. A skin cell has all the DNA of a human. Yet, those aren’t a human being. Furthermore, why choose DNA as the reference point for humanity? Why not viability? Why not cognizance? Why not birth? Second, to nitpick, but it’s the expression of DNA that matters during development, not really the genetic code. Throughout the development, there are many biological mechanisms altering the expression of zygote/fetus DNA that are definitively non-human. You won’t find a single birthed human being anywhere on Earth with DNA being expressed through manners that are remotely similar. But, again, even if we assume a fetus has human DNA, it’s not being expressed in a way characteristic of the DNA of any baby, child, or adult.
In my view, the best approach is a totality of all factors that define and differentiate human life from non-human entities – DNA, viability, cognizance, anatomical features development, higher order thinking, formation of human relationships, ability to communicate, birth, etc. When you look at all the factors that differentiate humans from other animals, it’s very apparent that a zygote/fetus is different than a human being. It’s indisputable. These differences are not minor, and thus, can support very major distinctions in the way we treat humans and zygotes/fetuses as a society. You may not agree with that ultimate treatment due to non-biological rationales (like natural rights), but it’s obviously very easy to draw major biological distinctions between a human and a fetus.
(2) This analogy is effective for pro-life proponents because it elicits a strong emotional response, but when you untangle its underlying logic, it’s pretty weak. At its heart is pretending that because a coma victim is like a fetus in one respect, or a limited number of respects, abortion poses some moral conundrum, that we can’t rationalize treating the coma victim differently than the zygote/fetus. But that’s patently false. When you look at indicators of humanity (indicia) outside the limited factors presented by the analogy, it’s quite easy to differentiate one from the other and rationalize protecting the life of a coma victim while allowing abortion.
Our society doesn’t permit the killing of a person in a coma, but does allow the abortion of a zygote/fetus, because a person in a coma is different (more “human”) than a zygote or fetus. The person in the coma either has or once had all the biological markers of a human (with, in rare cases, small variations from the biological norm); the coma victim has social relationships with family members, friends, animals, etc. that society values; the person is likely relied on to fulfill employment obligations at work; the person likely has entered into many contracts, and thus, has many contractual obligations they need to fulfill (e.g., mortgage, student loans, etc.); etc. These are all indicia of humanity that the fetus lacks. This is a natural consequence of the person being born and becoming a member of society. Thus, the death of the coma victim would, obviously, have a greater impact on society than the abortion of a fetus/zygote, which has never entered society, never developed human relationships, and is not relied on by others in any capacity. However, if the person in the coma were to die (they don’t always die), she/he wouldn’t be able to fulfill his/her contractual obligations, wouldn’t be able to care for his/her child, wouldn’t be able to fulfill his employment obligations, etc. His/her death would also cause a broader degree of emotional distress than, say, the death of a voluntarily aborted fetus.
Therefore, permitting the abortion of a zygote/fetus doesn’t pose any moral difficulties at all for us, as a society, in determining how we treat comatose individuals. There are obvious, entirely rational distinctions we can make to draw a line in the sand and abort fetuses while preserving the lives of comatose individuals. You may not personally agree with that line, but that disagreement doesn’t spring from a more “rational” or “logical” set of views.
(3) The very process of adopting a natural-rights centered worldview, a opposed to some competing world view is, itself, an emotional process. It’s no different than choosing a conservative theory of constitutional interpretation over a liberal one. It’s often a conclusion-driven, emotive choice in and of itself.
As for the natural rights proponents who view all natural rights as stemming from God, that’s obviously an emotional/irrational presupposition. People must believe that God exists before thinking rights can emanate from him. However, it can be argued (persuasively) that no God exists, and thus, no rights could stem from him. A biblical literalist could even reject the belief because it is not expressly stated in the Bible. The same can be said of any derivation of natural rights views I am aware of.
Basically, what I was getting at, is that there is no such thing as a “non-emotional” approach to virtually anything, particularly issues as emotionally involving as abortion. You must recognize that you can’t wholly or even significantly insulate yourself from emotion on these issues through the adoption of a particular branch of philosophy, particularly one that has a strong tradition of relying on emotional presuppositions.
More if I have time. But I will note that you address most of my questions about the legal status of abortion. I would just point out that the current legal stance on abortion in this country is the result of a long history of very painful health care realizations by our society. It didn’t spring up from nowhere. It represents measured judgment of our society brought about by the experiences of many generations of Americans. Legalized abortion has benefitted society in a lot of ways, and a society without legalized abortions was pretty scary. I am not really sure how you can square prioritizing the ephemeral right to life of a non-thinking/non-feeling entity over those of the living, who can and will suffer as the result of pro-life legislation.
@misuriver - Ok, one more time….in cases of incest, rape, even statutory rape, coersion which is stil rape…I would not abort but I can conceed the legitamacy of having an abortion. Terminating a pregnancy (abortion same-same) I can understand if the mothers life were in danger or if the child doesn’t have any chance of survival as in my daughter in laws case. At the 3 month sonogram it was found that the childs brain was forming outside the skull. There are fetuses that do survive pregnancy but in 100% of the cases such as this, the baby lives only a few minutes to two or three hours. Right or wrong? I do know she and my son planned that child and wanted it very much, could support it financially and give it all the love it needed. But the childs birth would have been painful for the child, constant pain for the few hours it might have lived and would have died. Sure I thinkthat was a good decision. I am glad I never had to answer that situation with my own two pregnancies. My thoughts are that unless one of the reasons above apply to that particular pregnancy then it is justified that a woman must carry the child nine months.
Finances be hanged, formal education in reading, ‘riting and ‘ritmatic that would be difficult with a child, public assistance be hanged…none of those things matter where a life is concerned and yes I believe that it is a life when the first cells divide. If these hardships might or do exist for the woman, she should keep her legs crossed. She does have rights over her own body…don’t have sex.
Are you aware that the main reason that abortion was legalized that it was to prevent “kitchen” abortions? Women going to unsanitary conditions with black market type doctors who more or less butchered the baby and the mother? Again, with the exceptions listed above, the woman would not have put herself in that position if she had not had sex.
Lastly you pointed out that unwanted babies would be a drain on society…so is abortion. Who do you think is going to pay for that abortion? Yours and my tax money. I would much rather pay for the support of a living child…but that is not my choice, taxes are enevitable. If we sanction abortion we will have to pay for it through Obamacare or county hospitals or some other tax. I have no problem with paying for the first conditions when they apply.
I’m an old fart but I felt the same way when I was young and single. The best birth control according to my doctor was “asprin”. “When you go on a date, put an asprin between your knees and don’t drop it.”
Other countries may have different societial demands but we are talking, I think, about America. Here the woman does have a choice….USE IT!
@Celestial_Teapot - I think one of the best rationales for permitting abortion but not permitting “pulling the plug” on a comatose patient is actually the effects of those actions on society. Like I described in my response above, a comatose person likely has a family, loved ones, economic and contractual obligations they need to fulfills (like employment obligations), legal liabilities (e.g., mortgage, tort liability), etc. If we pull the plug on a comatose patient, we disrupt a huge number of personal, legal, and economic relationships that other people have with that victim. These relationships are entirely absent with a fetus. As a result, the “death” of a fetus (conceding abortion cause a death) cannot possibly be said to have the same impact on society that the death of a comatose patient would. There are a large number of people relying on that person to recover to resume their role in society. In many cases, the comatose patient does return to normal, or at least a high level of functionality, and resume his/her role in society. A fetus lacks any and all of these valuable relationships. It may acquire them, if allowed to be born, but pretending that the loss of a fetus = the loss of human being in terms of the impact on society is simply absurd.
Anyways, that’s where the analogy really fails in my mind. The fact that the comatose patient is brain dead and has similar neural activity as a fetus (actually not true) ignores the many more important ways that a comatose patient is not at all like a fetus. Taken as a whole with other factors, you’re still left with the obvious conclusion that a comatose person is very different from a zygote/fetus, both in an individual capacity and as a member of society. These differences can easily (or at least rationally) justify different treatment of the two groups under the law.
This demonstrates why I hate arguments by analogy in general. It allows people to focus attention on a selective set of issues or considerations to the detriment of other equally or more important considerations. It’s becoming particularly popular with anti-evolutionists and pro-life proponents, it seems, which drives me fucking nuts.
If abortions were illegal:
- Some doctors would still preform abortions, especially when the life of the woman was at stake. They would go to jail. Doctors in jail means fewer quailifed medical professionals to serve the population. Picture the waiting rooms. Positive or negative outcome?
- Women will still have abortions. They would have to go to jail. This would leave some families with only one parent, or no parent. One parent families need more assistance with childcare and may fall on public assistance. Some children may become wards of the state, costing all of us more to support them. Positive or negative outcome?
- Women would not have abortions. Some would die, leaving some families with one parent or no parents. See above. Positive or negative outcome?
- Women would not have abortions. Some would have to drop out of the workforce and go on public assistance, putting more women and children on the welfare roles. Positive or negative outcome?
- More prisons might have to be built. That would mean jobs for the construction companies, wardens, etc. Positive or negative outcome?
-Doctors and women who have been to prison will have a harder time rejoining the workforce, because who wants to hire an excon? Their families might still require public assistance. Positive or negative outcome?
- Not being able to find a doctor who will preform an abortion, some women will turn to dangerous methods to get rid of the fetus. Many will die. Positive or negaive outcome?
There are more outcomes beyond what I can think of right now, but a picture should begin to emerge: this issue isn’t as simple as some want us to believe. I don’t like abortion – I think it should be used only in the most dire situations. But to prohibit it completely is not the solution, IMHO.
To stop abortion we need to stop, or at least vastly cut back, teenaged pregnacy. If you are anti-abortion then you should be pro-contraception, yet most pro-lifers are anti-contraception and anti-sex education. Go figure.
At my church every year they collect money to “combat abortion.” I never give. But I would gladly give to a fund to support women who choose to have their baby and need finacial support. We don’t raise money for that. Every wonder if our priorities are right? ’cause I do.
@MiDarkLyfe - Precisely. However, some Christians do recognize the costs you mention. They just choose to believe a zygote/fetus has an absolute right to life that is paramount to all other costs, concerns, and risks you mention. It’s pretty insane, in my opinion, but not all of them are ignorant of the issues you bring up. They just have different (I would say perverse) values.
@firetyger - “As a matter of biology, at what point does a fetus suddenly “morph” into a human being? I’m not trying to be snarky here but the most logical point to call a baby a human is the point of it’s conception.”
There isn’t any one particular point. Any place we draw the line is going to be somewhat arbitrary. However, i don’t see how this leads you to your conclusion that the most logical point to give a fetus the same rights as you or I is the point at which it’s only trivially different from a sperm or egg.
@firetyger -Cost should never be a determining factor in whether or not you have the right to live. If our right to life is based on nothing more than our dollar worth to our country, then by such reasoning we should be slaughtering millions of elderly who can no longer work or contribute monetarily to society. Which is absolutely disgusting, as well as unethical. My argument for the benefit of restricting abortion? Human life. You cannot put a price tag on human life. Our society has lost those who would have been our future. The next Albert Einsteins, Martin Luther King Jr.’s, Nikola Teslas, and those who would have added their names to our history books. If you are truly worried about costs society must bear due to an influx of citizens, ask the government to enforce our immigration laws and to secure our borders.
Huh? You conserves speak out of both sides of your mouth. You whine about Obamacare and government spending and stealing from the rich and then say you cannot put a price tag on human life? We get rid of Obamacare…because of the price some people will die. We could get rid of medicare (which is big government) and it would be like slaughtering a bunch of elderly.
@firetyger - Do you know how many women died from abortions before it was legal? Girls would go and have back ally abortions (some of those girls were victims of rape, ectect). Nobody should be forced to be pregnant, that is the real inhumane issue, not a fetus that’s not even formed yet. The best part of living in America is the FREEDOM to make your OWN choices, not being forced by people to do something that you don’t want to do. Our president is not a fan of abortion but he realizes that its not his place to force women to stay pregnant, which is the way it should be. You can have your opinions but when you start infringing on women’s rights, you’re going towards tyranny!
Abortion should remain safe and legal. Those who don’t want to have abortions don’t have to have one, but those who seek them can get them safely, and in a perfect world, without judgment.
I my self am pro-life, but that is for me, not for everyone else. I will never allow me or my future wife to abort a child unless abortion is needed to keep my wife alive. other than that, I am pro-choice. we have free will. we also live in america where we have the freedom to have our own thoughts. yes I am christian and I think it is wrong to never allow a life to never come into this world. but we have a choice, its not our choice to force others to believe what we believe in. im pro-choice abut the world. pro-life about my immediate family.
@UnconventionalButterfly - Just because women made the choice to go in an alley to get an abortion doesn’t mean that legalizing it was the answer. Following that logic, it’s like saying murder is illegal so people were going in the back alley to do it and some got killed. So to solve that we made it legal so it can be done in a safe environment.
I believe the fetus and the mother have equal worth. I will not elevate the mother’s rights above the child’s, or vice versa. If the baby is endangering the mother’s life, then as a matter of self-defense and preservation of life, she can make the decision to abort or continue knowing the risk. But to simply abort a child because it is unwanted is wrong. The baby didn’t ask to be placed in the mother. It has a right to live. If she needs to put it up for adoption, so be it.
@tendollar4ways - Having the right to live doesn’t mean you have the right to force people to take care of you once you are of the age you can take care of yourself. There are reasons why we have so many laws regarding the care of minors. I don’t see what is so difficult to grasp about these concepts. It’s not hypocrisy.
@firetyger - What? That “murder” analogy makes no sense….
@UnconventionalButterfly - That is how abortion is viewed by those who are Pro-Life. To us, as I explained in other comments, an unborn child is as much of a person as anyone else.
Definition of murder: 1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. So the analogy does work.
@firetyger - That’s not what I meant by it not making any sense, your way of explaining was confusing. BUT, its good to know you think anybody who gets an abortion is a murderer. They have enough to deal with as it is (depression,ectect) and you just like to lay it on thicker, huh? Rub their noses in the carpet so to speak. God, people like you really piss me off. Especially when i’m going to my obgyn and I see people in front of the clinic with theirpicket signs, screaming at people as they walk in or out. Its sad to watch, because you can’t even conceive the emotional damage that you’re doing to an already emotionally damaged person. You don’t THINK before you open your mouth and twist the laws into your own perceptions. Abortion is not and never will be an easy decision but sometimes women don’t have any other choices. How would you feel if you’ve just went through something traumatic and somebody spit in YOUR face and started calling you a murderer? Don’t care do you? You’re just an insensitive asshole.
@UnconventionalButterfly - Unfortunately, there are ALWAYS other options. Unless the fetus is already dead, or dying, then you can very much as well have the child and give it up for adoption so a family who can NOT have children can take care of it.
I’m sorry, but you’re being a tad rude here… Not that I hate you or anything, I don’t and never will, but I think YOU need to think for a moment.
If you asking someone else to respect your views, calling them an insensitive asshole is not going to convince them, and more importantly, if she’s going to respect your views, then you really should consider respecting hers even if they infuriate you.
You’re kind of lumping Firetyger in with a group of people that she might not be. I can’t say for sure, but I highly doubt that she’s EVER directly called anyone a murderer let alone stood outside a clinic and picketed.
You have a difference of opinions. She believes that a fetus IS a child, and I might say/add here that while THAT might be debate-able, what is NOT debatable is that the fetus has a full nervous system by the time it is only a few weeks old and CAN and WILL feel pain (which is not something often told to young, confused mothers in abortion clinics) something else that is NOT debate-able is that abortions are still performed LONG after a child has been born at such a young/premature age and STILL lived. I’ve heard of cases (rare, but still) of fetus’s living after being birthed as early as five months.
Regardless of your stance of whether it’s a “person” or not, or a mother’s “choice” or not, those things that I’ve listed are NOT debate-able and should be taken into consideration.
Now, I am one hundred percent against abortion- and I will tell you that right now without shame. I firmly and totally believe it is murder. HOWEVER, I never once stood outside of a clinic and held a sign like that, and I have actually tried to have understanding and compassion for women who have decided such a thing.
What I will ALWAYS stand by however is that there is ALWAYS a way out. As I said, unless the fetus is dead or dying, you can ALWAYS have the child, and adopt, and maybe even to someone you know so you’ll have a relationship with the child ^_^, or you can just trust that your friends and family (even just friends) will help you regardless of finances and what not and that somehow you’ll get through.
I know that I am not financially ready to have a child at all, but if I found myself pregnant, I would have it anyways and trust my friends, family and God, that everything would be okay eventually. It might be hard, but we’d do it. I don’t know that that makes me noble at all… but consider this… people have children in TONS of circumstances all over the world, and several hundred years ago, they did it all the time as abortion was scarce, or a rarity. People had children THROUGH the depression…
Where there’s a will, there’s ALWAYS a way.
All I’m saying is that you should consider at least listening to her POV without the backlash. It’s good to give respect and get it in return. It’s also good not to lump her with the people you’ve seen picketing, and what not.
The philosophical implications of separating personhood from being human are frightening. A human is always a person.
@firetyger - It is hyocritcal because many people who get abortions cannot take care of themselves much less a kid. A kid cannot take care of itself. You would eliminate health insurance, welfare etc so you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth. You have the right to be born….then you have the right to left to die by society. In both cases the child has no say either way. Your way….there is alot more suffering all the way around.
@LKJSlain - Do you think you could cite sources that are not clear pro-life websites for the statement that say that fetuses feel pain at just a few weeks old?
I’ve been reading scientific literature, and they mostly say that they determine fetuses to potentially start feeling pain at around 20-25 weeks of age (and the ones that don’t say 20-25 weeks basically say “Hey, this topic is really wishy washy and we don’t have definitive evidence yet, and scientists need to study this more!”). By that time, it’s past first trimester anyway, and most people do not support abortions past first trimester. Also your statement about the nervous system is untrue. The nervous system is not fully developed within the first few weeks; the basic structures are there, but all the “connections” have not developed and matured yet.
I feel like adoption is often pointed out as an alternative to abortion. While I feel like it is a good alternative, there are still a lot of flaws with it, and it’s not as simple as “JUST PUT YOUR BABY UP FOR ADOPTION!”
1) The adoption system itself is extremely flawed. Depending on which agency you go to, some places are not run as well as others. Also, there are already a huge volume of kids already in the adoption system waiting to be adopted. These are younger kids, but not necessarily babies. And if people keep putting babies up for adoption, the chances of those other kids getting adopted become slimmer and slimmer, because most parents want to adopt babies rather than kids.
2) This is just my opinion, but I feel like asking someone to go through 9 months of carrying a baby inside of her just to give it up later is almost as painful and abhorrent as having an abortion in the first place. It’s NINE months of carrying another life inside of you — someone who is a part of you and someone you beautifully created. Some people cannot psychologically handle carrying a baby for nine months and then giving the baby; it may subsequently cause psychological damage to the mother.
Adding on to the 9 months of pregnancy (which would be a horrible reminder of rape, if that were the case in which it was caused), there’s the extra cost of providing nutrients to the baby, changing one’s whole lifestyle, and missing out on work pre and post birth, all of which cost money that the pregnant woman very well might not have. So until the pro-life crowd is willing to support pregnant woman until after they give birth and get back on their feet, I don’t consider their arguments reasonable in the least.
Let’s also not forget the harm done to women in unsafe conditions:
“The World Health Organization (WHO) reports that each year nearly 42 million women faced with unintended pregnancies have abortions, of which 20 million are unsafe, mostly in countries where abortion is illegal.
According to WHO and Guttmacher, approximately 68,000 women die annually as a result of complications of unsafe abortion; and between two million and seven million women each year survive unsafe abortion but sustain long-term damage or disease (incomplete abortion, infection (sepsis), haemorrhage, and injury to the internal organs, such as puncturing or tearing of the uterus). They also concluded abortion is safe in countries where it’s legal, but dangerous in countries where it’s outlawed and performed clandestinely. The WHO reports that in developed regions, nearly all abortions (92%) are safe, whereas in developing countries, more than half (55%) are unsafe.
According to WHO statistics, the risk rate for unsafe abortion is 1/270; according to other sources, unsafe abortion is responsible for one in eight maternal deaths.
Worldwide, 48% of all induced abortions are unsafe.”
@Celestial_Teapot - It seems everyone defending abortion does this sort of static analysis. I have to pick on you though, because I see so many less intelligent people doing the same thing. A brain dead person is most likely going to stay dead. A fetus usually becomes a sentient human being. That seems to constitute a difference to me. That is, your comparison neglects time and rate of change. If a fetus was going to die anyway without being born would it be morally acceptable to terminate it? Much more so than if it were completely viable. I would argue there are many cases when dynamics are much more important than the sort of statics you are basing your analysis on.
@tendollar4ways - You don’t actually know what my stances are in regards to welfare and whatnot. I’m not for totally dismantling the welfare system currently as it is not feasible. I’ve written about this on my own blog before. Here in Minnesota we have a program called the Diversionary Workforce Program that I really, really liked. The way it works is you’re accountable to your social worker to log a certain number of hours job searching which they help you with if you have questions. You had to devote forty hours a week to job searching, twenty-five of that spent at the government workforce center. You had to attend classes for writing cover letters, interviewing, writing resumes, etc. The only thing my husband said he would have changed would be to help people for six or eight of those hours with actual skill advancement. Anyways, you did that and they gave you a place to live, food stamps, and health care for four months. My husband was able to find work quickly, so we didn’t need the full four months only two. But I am totally in support of programs like that which are only used for temporary emergencies to get people back on their feet and off of welfare. I want the abuse minimized – my husband would have gladly taken random drug tests often.
Comments (45)
“You have to take into consideration whether the woman knew she was killing the baby or not.”
Um, I think when a woman makes the decision to get an abortion, she knows that she will be terminating the possibility of life of the baby. And if you have to take considerations for this topic, why don’t they take into the consideration that the mother’s life can be put in grave danger and that an abortion might be the only way to save her life? What about stillborn babies? What about miscarriages that just naturally happened?
I have lived long enough that I can remember when it was illegal and when Roe vs. Wade changed all that. Abortion should be illegal but each case should be tried on it’s own circumstances. If convicted..no less than 6 months, no more than 2 years. I am definately pro-choice but the choice comes with whether or not the woman enters into a sexual relationship willingly. If sex was forced or coerced then the man should be punished (rape/incest)
@mommachatter - What about the women and young girls who were sexually assaulted and impregnated? There was no relationship there for them to enter, yet they were forced against their will.
I have seen pro-life videos that have the same reaction form the other side, which means, like I knew already, both sides have their arguments, and none are all wrong or all right, in my opinion. However, the video seems to suggest if we dont think something should be punished, then it should be ok. I think this is a wrong assumption, some things can also be unethical without being seen as technically morally wrong, so I think that argument is void. The question isnt, what punishment should there be?” but instead “is it wrong/illegal?”, then a punishment should be thought of later.
What I do not have answer for is: Where will the mother get financial help while pregnant if she wanted to abort but could not or thinks she should not? Where will she get help? I think this is a great place for churches to get involved, creating a community to help women, men, and families going through hard decision and hard financial times; however, the church seems to be better at judging than at getting their hands dirty. Anyone who has read even casually some of scripture knows it is not as nice and neat as some preachers and minister claim it to be. Scripture is definitely not rated-G, more like PG-13 or R most of the time actually.
I actually laugh in the faces of people who tell me “abortion is murder.” Because it’s not. “Murder” is a legal term meaning, at common law, “the killing of a person with malice aforethought.” A legal “person” does not include a fetus. “Malice aforethought” includes intent to kill, intent to cause substantial bodily harm, criminal negligence, or killing in the process of committing a murder. It does not include “committing legally sanctioned medical procedures performed in the customary manner and at the election of the mother.” Thus, under the law, abortion is not “murder” in any jurisdiction, unless it falls outside the timeline created in the Casey line of cases.
I find myself saying this over and over again on different sites, but conservatives can’t treat language like they choose to treat reality. Some words and phrases have specific meanings. You can’t simply reassign meanings to expressly defined words in order to promote your personal/political ends. That’s dishonest and, in the case of language, illiterate. I mean, they could argue that abortion SHOULD be murder, but that’s not what any of them do. They argue that it is NOW murder. It’s not. Sorry. Not an opinion. That’s wrong.
@laytexduckie - You may have read something in my comment that wasn’t there. I mentioned that each situation would have to be evaluated and RAPE or INCEST (which I think covers your question) the man should suffer the consequences allowed for in the law.
@mommachatter - I may have missed it, but just wanted to clarify.
@laytexduckie - No problem
It’s not double-think when the subjects aren’t thoughtful enough to think. =P
The video seems to illustrate precisely why public opinion has shifted towards the pro-life camp. We’re forgetting more and more the bad ‘ol days, before Roe v. Wade– when women and their doctors have been jailed or fined for their exercise of reproductive rights. It’s easier to be swept-up in simple-minded righteousness when the issues are unmoored from real-world implications.
I believe abortion is murder because you have the intent to kill and cause bodily harm to the baby, who is another person. Just because they require the mother to survive for a short period of time does not make them any less a person. No less a person than one who is living on a respirator. And yes, I believe there should be jail time for murder.
I came to this stance not based on emotion but based on my belief in natural law and natural rights.
Interesting video. thanks for sharing it here.
If abortion is murder, then it should be prosecuted as “premeditated homicide”. (And not just the woman who gets the abortion, but the doctor who performs it as well.) That’s the inescapable conclusion you have to draw if you say, as pro-lifers typically do, that life begins at conception. And yet, so many pro-lifers seem so squeamish about saying that the woman and the doctor should be given twenty-five to life. I think that’s very telling.
And WHICH” natural law” is that? I notice it comes in a variety of forms…ancient Greek, Christan, Islamic….
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law
Personally, I don’t believe in ANY that says women have to die as a result of sex.
@firetyger - If Roe v. Wade were overturnand if anti-abortion legislation were passed, do you have a view on its enforcement? For instance, should the aborting woman and/or her doctor be fined and jailed?
@firetyger - (1) First degree murder requires the intent to kill [a human being]. Can you explain how a (1) fetus is a human being as a matter of biology and (2) as a matter of law (the law recognizes the fetus as a human being deserving of the rights of a human being)?
As I outlined above, this position is incorrect as a matter of law, not opinion. Abortion is not “murder.” You can’t believe “abortion IS murder” unless you misunderstand what murder means. It’s not murder because abortion is legal. Murder is a definitively illegal act. If an act is legal it cannot, by definition, be “murder.”
(2) The vast majority of medical abortions (over 99%) occur before the third trimester; i.e., before the developing life could honestly be called a “baby”. There are definitive characteristics of a human being that a fetus lacks at that point in time, such as viability, neural development required for pain and perception, etc. If you believe otherwise, explain why.
(3) Natural rights and natural law are inherently emotion-laden philosophies. They are based on emotion to justify having those emotions. You make them seem as if they are objective or scientific. They aren’t.
(4) Please explain how your beliefs in “natural law and natural rights” led you to your current beliefs.
Even assuming a fetus has natural rights (I would argue they don’t, as a fetus is not biologically or legally a person), I am particularly interested in why you believe the natural rights of a fetus, which lacks the ability to suffer, trump the natural rights of its human being mother, human beings who possess the ability to suffer tremendously.
Furthermore, how does this natural rights rationale trump the legal rights of the mother? Do you have any legal justification for making abortion is murder, apart from your philosophical views?
(5) In addition to what celestial teapot wrote, I would be interested to know how you propose we afford caring for the massive influx of new borns that restricting abortion would create (millions of fetuses are aborted annually, which is a number that will only rise. Most of these children will be unwanted, so they will have to be adopted. Our adoption system is currently horribly underfunded. We would need to create an untold number of new orphanages, hospitals, etc. to care for these children. Where will this money come from and what is the justification for it? Why should society bear these costs? What is your argument for the benefit of abortion restrictions outweighing its costs, other than your personal philosophy?
I don’t even think she really believed that. It seemed more like she was dissembling to keep from being viewed in the same light as the others.
@misuriver - I kinda got that feeling too, but like in religion, I’ll take people at their word (ex: if they say they are Christian, I’ll categorize them as Christian).
@mommachatter - What about the women that realized that if they were to have the child, said child would live a life a poverty because she has yet to finish school? I’d also take into consideration women that find that if they were to have to child, then they, the child or both of them will die. Lastly, unlike the murder of those that are born, society doesn’t really feel negative affects of abortion. The women in countries where contraceptives and abortion are not only allowed but are easily accessible, tend to be more prosperous than those that don’t.
@galadrial - Considering how many times I’ve stated my opinion on abortion I did not think it necessary to reiterate that in cases of the mother’s life being in danger, then abortion becomes an option because the baby is infringing on her right to life. All other abortions should be illegal, IMO.
@Celestial_Teapot - I would not think the punishment would be disimilar to what we have for murder charges for anyone else.
@UTRow1 - ”(1) First degree murder requires the intent to kill [a human being]. Can you explain how a (1) fetus is a human being as a matter of biology and (2) as a matter of law (the law recognizes the fetus as a human being deserving of the rights of a human being)?”
As a matter of biology, at what point does a fetus suddenly “morph” into a human being? I’m not trying to be snarky here but the most logical point to call a baby a human is the point of it’s conception. It has it’s own unique set of DNA separate from the mother’s and if allowed to continue to live, will grow and be born just like you and me. Chickens conceive chickens. Humans conceive humans. A human has never given birth to anything other than a human.
“It’s not murder because abortion is legal. Murder is a definitively illegal act. If an act is legal it cannot, by definition, be “murder.”"
This reasoning is logically fallacious. Compulsory sterilization used to be widely practiced as well as the government at the time did not view it as a violation of human rights. Though it was later ruled as that and unconstitutional. Just because the courts do not currently view abortion as murder does not mean that it isn’t murder.
“(2) The vast majority of medical abortions (over 99%) occur before the third trimester; i.e., before the developing life could honestly be called a “baby”. There are definitive characteristics of a human being that a fetus lacks at that point in time, such as viability, neural development required for pain and perception, etc. If you believe otherwise, explain why.”
Do we define one’s humanity by their ability to be independent or by the current state of their body or brain? I do not see how a baby is any different from a patient in a coma who is on life support. People get into accidents all the time that damage their brain and ability to perceive pain, critically think, and a host of other things. Are they suddenly no longer human when this occurs just because they require a machine to keep them alive? As for dependency, a newborn infant would die after birth if not taken care of by it’s parents. It cannot defend itself, feed itself, or provide for itself. Does that mean it isn’t human? What about an elderly person with failing health who must depend on a caretaker? Do they lose their humanity?
“(3) Natural rights and natural law are inherently emotion-laden philosophies. They are based on emotion to justify having those emotions. You make them seem as if they are objective or scientific. They aren’t.”
Do tell how natural law and rights are based on emotion to justify having those emotions.
“(4) Please explain how your beliefs in “natural law and natural rights” led you to your current beliefs.”
This is rather simple. One of the greatest cornerstone’s of my whole world view is that your rights end where another’s begin. My views are very similar to that of the Founders, who based much of our Constitution on natural law. I am free to make whatever decisions I wish so long as they only affect myself. When I become pregnant, it is no longer just my rights that come into play for the decisions made in this unique time of life. Whether it was my choice to have sex or not, the baby did not have a say in the matter. But since they are here, they have the same right to life as every other human being.
The baby’s life does not trump the mother’s. I have stated over and over on Xanga that in cases of the mother’s life being in danger, that is the only time abortion is a justified option as it is a matter of saving life. The decision should be left to the mother to decide to risk her life or not. She is by no means obligated to sacrifice her life for another. Though I do consider those that decide to keep their dangerous pregnancies despite the risks to be quite noble.
“(5) In addition to what celestial teapot wrote, I would be interested to know how you propose we afford caring for the massive influx of new borns that restricting abortion would create (millions of fetuses are aborted annually, which is a number that will only rise. Most of these children will be unwanted, so they will have to be adopted. Our adoption system is currently horribly underfunded. We would need to create an untold number of new orphanages, hospitals, etc. to care for these children. Where will this money come from and what is the justification for it? Why should society bear these costs? What is your argument for the benefit of abortion restrictions outweighing its costs, other than your personal philosophy?”
Cost should never be a determining factor in whether or not you have the right to live. If our right to life is based on nothing more than our dollar worth to our country, then by such reasoning we should be slaughtering millions of elderly who can no longer work or contribute monetarily to society. Which is absolutely disgusting, as well as unethical. My argument for the benefit of restricting abortion? Human life. You cannot put a price tag on human life. Our society has lost those who would have been our future. The next Albert Einsteins, Martin Luther King Jr.’s, Nikola Teslas, and those who would have added their names to our history books. If you are truly worried about costs society must bear due to an influx of citizens, ask the government to enforce our immigration laws and to secure our borders.
@firetyger - “Do we define one’s humanity by their ability to be independent or by the current state of their body or brain? I do not see how a baby is any different from a patient in a coma who is on life support. “
I also like using that analogy, but I don’t view an early-term fetus as any different from a hospital patient that is braindead.
– Yes, the individual has a full genomic assortment
– Yes, the individual is “alive” in most biological sense of the word
-Yes, the individual is human
- Yes, the individual has fingernail (sorry, just had to get in that movie reference)
In many juisdictions it is legal for family members to pull the plug on those with irreversible brain injury. To me, a fetus just like the patient– without the nerological development to percieve the world and for higher order thought.
@firetyger - I see. So basically if it doesn’t fit your narrow view, it doesn’t matter.
The thing is “natural law” is something that should be more or less universally accepted as valid. It shouldn’t change shape, form or concept because it belongs to another group. Hence…it is a fallacy, not a law. I think “law of gravity”…
@firetyger - (1) In my view (and I would argue the most logical view), a fetus becomes a human being when it develops the biological characteristics that typically define all human beings, including the mentally handicapped and comatose – e.g., fully formed pharyngeal nerves, viability, etc. Classifying this as a human being is not biologically accurate because it, obviously, it lacks the vast majority of biological characteristics that define and differentiate humans from other animals. Right? It’s common sense. The only reason why pro-life proponents fight so hard to avoid this incredibly obvious conclusion is that they understand once you can differentiate a fetus from a human being using objective, biological criteria, you can justify treating a fetus and human differently under the law pretty easily.
For instance, saying that a fetus is human because it possesses unique, human DNA and has the potential of becoming a human doesn’t really logically lead to the conclusion that it IS human. First, those are pretty arbitrary/limited markers for humanity. A corpse has all the DNA of a human. A skin cell has all the DNA of a human. Yet, those aren’t a human being. Furthermore, why choose DNA as the reference point for humanity? Why not viability? Why not cognizance? Why not birth? Second, to nitpick, but it’s the expression of DNA that matters during development, not really the genetic code. Throughout the development, there are many biological mechanisms altering the expression of zygote/fetus DNA that are definitively non-human. You won’t find a single birthed human being anywhere on Earth with DNA being expressed through manners that are remotely similar. But, again, even if we assume a fetus has human DNA, it’s not being expressed in a way characteristic of the DNA of any baby, child, or adult.
In my view, the best approach is a totality of all factors that define and differentiate human life from non-human entities – DNA, viability, cognizance, anatomical features development, higher order thinking, formation of human relationships, ability to communicate, birth, etc. When you look at all the factors that differentiate humans from other animals, it’s very apparent that a zygote/fetus is different than a human being. It’s indisputable. These differences are not minor, and thus, can support very major distinctions in the way we treat humans and zygotes/fetuses as a society. You may not agree with that ultimate treatment due to non-biological rationales (like natural rights), but it’s obviously very easy to draw major biological distinctions between a human and a fetus.
(2) This analogy is effective for pro-life proponents because it elicits a strong emotional response, but when you untangle its underlying logic, it’s pretty weak. At its heart is pretending that because a coma victim is like a fetus in one respect, or a limited number of respects, abortion poses some moral conundrum, that we can’t rationalize treating the coma victim differently than the zygote/fetus. But that’s patently false. When you look at indicators of humanity (indicia) outside the limited factors presented by the analogy, it’s quite easy to differentiate one from the other and rationalize protecting the life of a coma victim while allowing abortion.
Our society doesn’t permit the killing of a person in a coma, but does allow the abortion of a zygote/fetus, because a person in a coma is different (more “human”) than a zygote or fetus. The person in the coma either has or once had all the biological markers of a human (with, in rare cases, small variations from the biological norm); the coma victim has social relationships with family members, friends, animals, etc. that society values; the person is likely relied on to fulfill employment obligations at work; the person likely has entered into many contracts, and thus, has many contractual obligations they need to fulfill (e.g., mortgage, student loans, etc.); etc. These are all indicia of humanity that the fetus lacks. This is a natural consequence of the person being born and becoming a member of society. Thus, the death of the coma victim would, obviously, have a greater impact on society than the abortion of a fetus/zygote, which has never entered society, never developed human relationships, and is not relied on by others in any capacity. However, if the person in the coma were to die (they don’t always die), she/he wouldn’t be able to fulfill his/her contractual obligations, wouldn’t be able to care for his/her child, wouldn’t be able to fulfill his employment obligations, etc. His/her death would also cause a broader degree of emotional distress than, say, the death of a voluntarily aborted fetus.
Therefore, permitting the abortion of a zygote/fetus doesn’t pose any moral difficulties at all for us, as a society, in determining how we treat comatose individuals. There are obvious, entirely rational distinctions we can make to draw a line in the sand and abort fetuses while preserving the lives of comatose individuals. You may not personally agree with that line, but that disagreement doesn’t spring from a more “rational” or “logical” set of views.
(3) The very process of adopting a natural-rights centered worldview, a opposed to some competing world view is, itself, an emotional process. It’s no different than choosing a conservative theory of constitutional interpretation over a liberal one. It’s often a conclusion-driven, emotive choice in and of itself.
As for the natural rights proponents who view all natural rights as stemming from God, that’s obviously an emotional/irrational presupposition. People must believe that God exists before thinking rights can emanate from him. However, it can be argued (persuasively) that no God exists, and thus, no rights could stem from him. A biblical literalist could even reject the belief because it is not expressly stated in the Bible. The same can be said of any derivation of natural rights views I am aware of.
Basically, what I was getting at, is that there is no such thing as a “non-emotional” approach to virtually anything, particularly issues as emotionally involving as abortion. You must recognize that you can’t wholly or even significantly insulate yourself from emotion on these issues through the adoption of a particular branch of philosophy, particularly one that has a strong tradition of relying on emotional presuppositions.
More if I have time. But I will note that you address most of my questions about the legal status of abortion. I would just point out that the current legal stance on abortion in this country is the result of a long history of very painful health care realizations by our society. It didn’t spring up from nowhere. It represents measured judgment of our society brought about by the experiences of many generations of Americans. Legalized abortion has benefitted society in a lot of ways, and a society without legalized abortions was pretty scary. I am not really sure how you can square prioritizing the ephemeral right to life of a non-thinking/non-feeling entity over those of the living, who can and will suffer as the result of pro-life legislation.
@misuriver - Ok, one more time….in cases of incest, rape, even statutory rape, coersion which is stil rape…I would not abort but I can conceed the legitamacy of having an abortion. Terminating a pregnancy (abortion same-same) I can understand if the mothers life were in danger or if the child doesn’t have any chance of survival as in my daughter in laws case. At the 3 month sonogram it was found that the childs brain was forming outside the skull. There are fetuses that do survive pregnancy but in 100% of the cases such as this, the baby lives only a few minutes to two or three hours. Right or wrong? I do know she and my son planned that child and wanted it very much, could support it financially and give it all the love it needed. But the childs birth would have been painful for the child, constant pain for the few hours it might have lived and would have died. Sure I thinkthat was a good decision. I am glad I never had to answer that situation with my own two pregnancies. My thoughts are that unless one of the reasons above apply to that particular pregnancy then it is justified that a woman must carry the child nine months.
Finances be hanged, formal education in reading, ‘riting and ‘ritmatic that would be difficult with a child, public assistance be hanged…none of those things matter where a life is concerned and yes I believe that it is a life when the first cells divide. If these hardships might or do exist for the woman, she should keep her legs crossed. She does have rights over her own body…don’t have sex.
Are you aware that the main reason that abortion was legalized that it was to prevent “kitchen” abortions? Women going to unsanitary conditions with black market type doctors who more or less butchered the baby and the mother? Again, with the exceptions listed above, the woman would not have put herself in that position if she had not had sex.
Lastly you pointed out that unwanted babies would be a drain on society…so is abortion. Who do you think is going to pay for that abortion? Yours and my tax money. I would much rather pay for the support of a living child…but that is not my choice, taxes are enevitable. If we sanction abortion we will have to pay for it through Obamacare or county hospitals or some other tax. I have no problem with paying for the first conditions when they apply.
I’m an old fart but I felt the same way when I was young and single. The best birth control according to my doctor was “asprin”. “When you go on a date, put an asprin between your knees and don’t drop it.”
Other countries may have different societial demands but we are talking, I think, about America. Here the woman does have a choice….USE IT!
@Celestial_Teapot - I think one of the best rationales for permitting abortion but not permitting “pulling the plug” on a comatose patient is actually the effects of those actions on society. Like I described in my response above, a comatose person likely has a family, loved ones, economic and contractual obligations they need to fulfills (like employment obligations), legal liabilities (e.g., mortgage, tort liability), etc. If we pull the plug on a comatose patient, we disrupt a huge number of personal, legal, and economic relationships that other people have with that victim. These relationships are entirely absent with a fetus. As a result, the “death” of a fetus (conceding abortion cause a death) cannot possibly be said to have the same impact on society that the death of a comatose patient would. There are a large number of people relying on that person to recover to resume their role in society. In many cases, the comatose patient does return to normal, or at least a high level of functionality, and resume his/her role in society. A fetus lacks any and all of these valuable relationships. It may acquire them, if allowed to be born, but pretending that the loss of a fetus = the loss of human being in terms of the impact on society is simply absurd.
Anyways, that’s where the analogy really fails in my mind. The fact that the comatose patient is brain dead and has similar neural activity as a fetus (actually not true) ignores the many more important ways that a comatose patient is not at all like a fetus. Taken as a whole with other factors, you’re still left with the obvious conclusion that a comatose person is very different from a zygote/fetus, both in an individual capacity and as a member of society. These differences can easily (or at least rationally) justify different treatment of the two groups under the law.
This demonstrates why I hate arguments by analogy in general. It allows people to focus attention on a selective set of issues or considerations to the detriment of other equally or more important considerations. It’s becoming particularly popular with anti-evolutionists and pro-life proponents, it seems, which drives me fucking nuts.
If abortions were illegal:
- Some doctors would still preform abortions, especially when the life of the woman was at stake. They would go to jail. Doctors in jail means fewer quailifed medical professionals to serve the population. Picture the waiting rooms. Positive or negative outcome?
- Women will still have abortions. They would have to go to jail. This would leave some families with only one parent, or no parent. One parent families need more assistance with childcare and may fall on public assistance. Some children may become wards of the state, costing all of us more to support them. Positive or negative outcome?
- Women would not have abortions. Some would die, leaving some families with one parent or no parents. See above. Positive or negative outcome?
- Women would not have abortions. Some would have to drop out of the workforce and go on public assistance, putting more women and children on the welfare roles. Positive or negative outcome?
- More prisons might have to be built. That would mean jobs for the construction companies, wardens, etc. Positive or negative outcome?
-Doctors and women who have been to prison will have a harder time rejoining the workforce, because who wants to hire an excon? Their families might still require public assistance. Positive or negative outcome?
- Not being able to find a doctor who will preform an abortion, some women will turn to dangerous methods to get rid of the fetus. Many will die. Positive or negaive outcome?
There are more outcomes beyond what I can think of right now, but a picture should begin to emerge: this issue isn’t as simple as some want us to believe. I don’t like abortion – I think it should be used only in the most dire situations. But to prohibit it completely is not the solution, IMHO.
To stop abortion we need to stop, or at least vastly cut back, teenaged pregnacy. If you are anti-abortion then you should be pro-contraception, yet most pro-lifers are anti-contraception and anti-sex education. Go figure.
At my church every year they collect money to “combat abortion.” I never give. But I would gladly give to a fund to support women who choose to have their baby and need finacial support. We don’t raise money for that. Every wonder if our priorities are right? ’cause I do.
@MiDarkLyfe - Precisely. However, some Christians do recognize the costs you mention. They just choose to believe a zygote/fetus has an absolute right to life that is paramount to all other costs, concerns, and risks you mention. It’s pretty insane, in my opinion, but not all of them are ignorant of the issues you bring up. They just have different (I would say perverse) values.
@firetyger - “As a matter of biology, at what point does a fetus suddenly “morph” into a human being? I’m not trying to be snarky here but the most logical point to call a baby a human is the point of it’s conception.”
There isn’t any one particular point. Any place we draw the line is going to be somewhat arbitrary. However, i don’t see how this leads you to your conclusion that the most logical point to give a fetus the same rights as you or I is the point at which it’s only trivially different from a sperm or egg.
@firetyger -Cost should never be a determining factor
in whether or not you have the right to live. If our right to life is
based on nothing more than our dollar worth to our country, then by such
reasoning we should be slaughtering millions of elderly who can no
longer work or contribute monetarily to society. Which is absolutely
disgusting, as well as unethical. My argument for the benefit of
restricting abortion? Human life. You cannot put a price tag on human
life. Our society has lost those who would have been our future. The
next Albert Einsteins, Martin Luther King Jr.’s, Nikola Teslas, and
those who would have added their names to our history books. If you are
truly worried about costs society must bear due to an influx of
citizens, ask the government to enforce our immigration laws and to
secure our borders.
Huh? You conserves speak out of both sides of your mouth. You whine about Obamacare and government spending and stealing from the rich and then say you cannot put a price tag on human life? We get rid of Obamacare…because of the price some people will die. We could get rid of medicare (which is big government) and it would be like slaughtering a bunch of elderly.
@firetyger - Do you know how many women died from abortions before it was legal? Girls would go and have back ally abortions (some of those girls were victims of rape, ectect). Nobody should be forced to be pregnant, that is the real inhumane issue, not a fetus that’s not even formed yet. The best part of living in America is the FREEDOM to make your OWN choices, not being forced by people to do something that you don’t want to do. Our president is not a fan of abortion but he realizes that its not his place to force women to stay pregnant, which is the way it should be. You can have your opinions but when you start infringing on women’s rights, you’re going towards tyranny!
@UnconventionalButterfly - I agree with you on this subject.
Abortion should remain safe and legal. Those who don’t want to have abortions don’t have to have one, but those who seek them can get them safely, and in a perfect world, without judgment.
@Saridactyl - Exactly.
I my self am pro-life, but that is for me, not for everyone else. I will never allow me or my future wife to abort a child unless abortion is needed to keep my wife alive. other than that, I am pro-choice. we have free will. we also live in america where we have the freedom to have our own thoughts. yes I am christian and I think it is wrong to never allow a life to never come into this world. but we have a choice, its not our choice to force others to believe what we believe in. im pro-choice abut the world. pro-life about my immediate family.
@UnconventionalButterfly - Just because women made the choice to go in an alley to get an abortion doesn’t mean that legalizing it was the answer. Following that logic, it’s like saying murder is illegal so people were going in the back alley to do it and some got killed. So to solve that we made it legal so it can be done in a safe environment.
I believe the fetus and the mother have equal worth. I will not elevate the mother’s rights above the child’s, or vice versa. If the baby is endangering the mother’s life, then as a matter of self-defense and preservation of life, she can make the decision to abort or continue knowing the risk. But to simply abort a child because it is unwanted is wrong. The baby didn’t ask to be placed in the mother. It has a right to live. If she needs to put it up for adoption, so be it.
@tendollar4ways - Having the right to live doesn’t mean you have the right to force people to take care of you once you are of the age you can take care of yourself. There are reasons why we have so many laws regarding the care of minors. I don’t see what is so difficult to grasp about these concepts. It’s not hypocrisy.
@firetyger - What? That “murder” analogy makes no sense….
@UnconventionalButterfly - That is how abortion is viewed by those who are Pro-Life. To us, as I explained in other comments, an unborn child is as much of a person as anyone else.
Definition of murder: 1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
So the analogy does work.
@firetyger - That’s not what I meant by it not making any sense, your way of explaining was confusing. BUT, its good to know you think anybody who gets an abortion is a murderer. They have enough to deal with as it is (depression,ectect) and you just like to lay it on thicker, huh? Rub their noses in the carpet so to speak. God, people like you really piss me off. Especially when i’m going to my obgyn and I see people in front of the clinic with theirpicket signs, screaming at people as they walk in or out. Its sad to watch, because you can’t even conceive the emotional damage that you’re doing to an already emotionally damaged person. You don’t THINK before you open your mouth and twist the laws into your own perceptions. Abortion is not and never will be an easy decision but sometimes women don’t have any other choices. How would you feel if you’ve just went through something traumatic and somebody spit in YOUR face and started calling you a murderer? Don’t care do you? You’re just an insensitive asshole.
@UnconventionalButterfly - Unfortunately, there are ALWAYS other options. Unless the fetus is already dead, or dying, then you can very much as well have the child and give it up for adoption so a family who can NOT have children can take care of it.
I’m sorry, but you’re being a tad rude here… Not that I hate you or anything, I don’t and never will, but I think YOU need to think for a moment.
If you asking someone else to respect your views, calling them an insensitive asshole is not going to convince them, and more importantly, if she’s going to respect your views, then you really should consider respecting hers even if they infuriate you.
You’re kind of lumping Firetyger in with a group of people that she might not be. I can’t say for sure, but I highly doubt that she’s EVER directly called anyone a murderer let alone stood outside a clinic and picketed.
You have a difference of opinions. She believes that a fetus IS a child, and I might say/add here that while THAT might be debate-able, what is NOT debatable is that the fetus has a full nervous system by the time it is only a few weeks old and CAN and WILL feel pain (which is not something often told to young, confused mothers in abortion clinics) something else that is NOT debate-able is that abortions are still performed LONG after a child has been born at such a young/premature age and STILL lived. I’ve heard of cases (rare, but still) of fetus’s living after being birthed as early as five months.
Regardless of your stance of whether it’s a “person” or not, or a mother’s “choice” or not, those things that I’ve listed are NOT debate-able and should be taken into consideration.
Now, I am one hundred percent against abortion- and I will tell you that right now without shame. I firmly and totally believe it is murder. HOWEVER, I never once stood outside of a clinic and held a sign like that, and I have actually tried to have understanding and compassion for women who have decided such a thing.
What I will ALWAYS stand by however is that there is ALWAYS a way out. As I said, unless the fetus is dead or dying, you can ALWAYS have the child, and adopt, and maybe even to someone you know so you’ll have a relationship with the child ^_^, or you can just trust that your friends and family (even just friends) will help you regardless of finances and what not and that somehow you’ll get through.
I know that I am not financially ready to have a child at all, but if I found myself pregnant, I would have it anyways and trust my friends, family and God, that everything would be okay eventually. It might be hard, but we’d do it. I don’t know that that makes me noble at all… but consider this… people have children in TONS of circumstances all over the world, and several hundred years ago, they did it all the time as abortion was scarce, or a rarity. People had children THROUGH the depression…
Where there’s a will, there’s ALWAYS a way.
All I’m saying is that you should consider at least listening to her POV without the backlash. It’s good to give respect and get it in return. It’s also good not to lump her with the people you’ve seen picketing, and what not.
@firetyger - I agree entirely with you.
The philosophical implications of separating personhood from being human are frightening. A human is always a person.
@firetyger - It is hyocritcal because many people who get abortions cannot take care of themselves much less a kid. A kid cannot take care of itself. You would eliminate health insurance, welfare etc so you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth. You have the right to be born….then you have the right to left to die by society. In both cases the child has no say either way. Your way….there is alot more suffering all the way around.
@LKJSlain - Do you think you could cite sources that are not clear pro-life websites for the statement that say that fetuses feel pain at just a few weeks old?
I’ve been reading scientific literature, and they mostly say that they determine fetuses to potentially start feeling pain at around 20-25 weeks of age (and the ones that don’t say 20-25 weeks basically say “Hey, this topic is really wishy washy and we don’t have definitive evidence yet, and scientists need to study this more!”). By that time, it’s past first trimester anyway, and most people do not support abortions past first trimester. Also your statement about the nervous system is untrue. The nervous system is not fully developed within the first few weeks; the basic structures are there, but all the “connections” have not developed and matured yet.
I feel like adoption is often pointed out as an alternative to abortion. While I feel like it is a good alternative, there are still a lot of flaws with it, and it’s not as simple as “JUST PUT YOUR BABY UP FOR ADOPTION!”
1) The adoption system itself is extremely flawed. Depending on which agency you go to, some places are not run as well as others. Also, there are already a huge volume of kids already in the adoption system waiting to be adopted. These are younger kids, but not necessarily babies. And if people keep putting babies up for adoption, the chances of those other kids getting adopted become slimmer and slimmer, because most parents want to adopt babies rather than kids.
2) This is just my opinion, but I feel like asking someone to go through 9 months of carrying a baby inside of her just to give it up later is almost as painful and abhorrent as having an abortion in the first place. It’s NINE months of carrying another life inside of you — someone who is a part of you and someone you beautifully created. Some people cannot psychologically handle carrying a baby for nine months and then giving the baby; it may subsequently cause psychological damage to the mother.
Adding on to the 9 months of pregnancy (which would be a horrible reminder of rape, if that were the case in which it was caused), there’s the extra cost of providing nutrients to the baby, changing one’s whole lifestyle, and missing out on work pre and post birth, all of which cost money that the pregnant woman very well might not have. So until the pro-life crowd is willing to support pregnant woman until after they give birth and get back on their feet, I don’t consider their arguments reasonable in the least.
Let’s also not forget the harm done to women in unsafe conditions:
“The World Health Organization (WHO) reports that each year nearly 42 million women faced with unintended pregnancies have abortions, of which 20 million are unsafe, mostly in countries where abortion is illegal.
[3][8]
According to WHO and Guttmacher, approximately 68,000 women die
annually as a result of complications of unsafe abortion; and between
two million and seven million women each year survive unsafe abortion
but sustain long-term damage or disease (incomplete abortion, infection
(sepsis), haemorrhage, and injury to the internal organs, such as
puncturing or tearing of the uterus). They also concluded abortion is
safe in countries where it’s legal, but dangerous in countries where
it’s outlawed and performed clandestinely. The WHO reports that in
developed regions, nearly all abortions (92%) are safe, whereas in
developing countries, more than half (55%) are unsafe.
[8]
According to WHO statistics, the risk rate for unsafe abortion is
1/270; according to other sources, unsafe abortion is responsible for
one in eight maternal deaths.
[9]
Worldwide, 48% of all induced abortions are unsafe.”
@Celestial_Teapot - It seems everyone defending abortion does this sort of static analysis. I have to pick on you though, because I see so many less intelligent people doing the same thing. A brain dead person is most likely going to stay dead. A fetus usually becomes a sentient human being. That seems to constitute a difference to me. That is, your comparison neglects time and rate of change. If a fetus was going to die anyway without being born would it be morally acceptable to terminate it? Much more so than if it were completely viable. I would argue there are many cases when dynamics are much more important than the sort of statics you are basing your analysis on.
@tendollar4ways - You don’t actually know what my stances are in regards to welfare and whatnot. I’m not for totally dismantling the welfare system currently as it is not feasible. I’ve written about this on my own blog before. Here in Minnesota we have a program called the Diversionary Workforce Program that I really, really liked. The way it works is you’re accountable to your social worker to log a certain number of hours job searching which they help you with if you have questions. You had to devote forty hours a week to job searching, twenty-five of that spent at the government workforce center. You had to attend classes for writing cover letters, interviewing, writing resumes, etc. The only thing my husband said he would have changed would be to help people for six or eight of those hours with actual skill advancement. Anyways, you did that and they gave you a place to live, food stamps, and health care for four months. My husband was able to find work quickly, so we didn’t need the full four months only two. But I am totally in support of programs like that which are only used for temporary emergencies to get people back on their feet and off of welfare. I want the abuse minimized – my husband would have gladly taken random drug tests often.