Abortion: Murder

[Inter.spem.et.metum]

I'm sorry, let me rephrase. Because all things are an effect of a cause, all things are as they should be in the balance of things, and there is no such thing as right or wrong. Right and wrong is dependent upon perception. So what is right and wrong to me may not be what is right or wrong to you. My evidence is this:

 

1. We all know killing without just cause is wrong.

2. Killing for any other reason is done out fear, fear that is unnecessary.

3. Fear only creates more fear and is a burden on the body.

4. Any killing creates conflict, and conflict is unproductive.

5. Killing for a good cause, whatever kind can be imagined, may be justifiable.

6. Not killing, though, is more righteous.

 

I will never knowledgably kill an animal. I will never kill for the sake of my country. For various reasons, I hope not to kill to protect my own life, although when the time comes I'm not sure what I will do. I would probably kill to protect the ones I love from immediate harm, even though I don't believe it will have the best outcome.

 

And Pyro, I don't think any life is more important than any other life, even though judgements can be passed either way. We can't help judging, that is how we evolved. But we shouldn't act on those judgments. How do we know if our perception of which life is better than the other is right or wrong? How do you know the fetus will not be the person to create a cure for cancer? We don't know. And I won't be the one to make the decision.

 

Let me ask you, are you for or against capital punishment?

[Pyrotex]

I'm sorry, let me rephrase. Because all things are an effect of a cause, all things are as they should be in the balance of things, and there is no such thing as right or wrong. Right and wrong is dependent upon perception. So what is right and wrong to me may not be what is right or wrong to you...

...Let me ask you, are you for or against capital punishment?

Okay, I accept that. I recognize that some folks wouldn't--that they think right and wrong are carved in stone. Actually, they are carved in law and culture and personal experience. (in that order)

 

More to the point, the "intensity" of some wrongs show up differently to different people. Personally, I find the wrong of racial oppression to be far more emotionally upsetting than the wrong of abortion. And I recognize that any argument about which is "worse" is rather pointless.

 

Capital punishment? I tend to be opposed to it. But not on moral grounds. It is just that so many people executed, later turn out to be innocent, or at least not "intentionally" guilty. And despite what some say, it is not cheaper to execute than incarcerate when you count the costs of legal appeals.

 

Abortion? I don't like it and I wish the problem would just go away. But I cannot believe that it is morally wrong to do so in any way like murder. There is nothing there to murder--no thoughts, no memories, no self-awareness. At the size of my little pinkie, a fetus has about the same claim to being a human as a laboratory white rat. "Potential" doesn't count. Any argument that you may be killing the person who cures cancer is negated by an equal but opposite argument that you may be killing the next Adolph Hitler.

 

My position is mostly that I refuse to willingly give the government control of the lives and bodies of my wife, my daughters, as if they were publically owned resources. I refuse to let a small, vocal, and emotionally extreme segment of religion tell me what is "right" and "wrong" and clap legal leg-irons on the women in my family as if they were property. THAT, I feel so intensely about, that it tempts me to become a gun owner.

[Buffy]

Inter,

 

You're new here, so I'll repeat my standard advice when arguments start going this direction:

 

Read some Herman Melville, preferably Billy Budd.

 

I'd prefer not to, :evil:

Buffy

[TheBigDog]

As I see it the abortion argument falls into two categories. One is the biological, and the other is the legal.

 

Biological: Pregnancy goes through three phases.

 

In the first phase you have a fertilized cell that begins its replication process. This can happen in laboratory conditions, and the embryos can even be frozen for long term storage. Test tube babies anyone?

 

The second phase begins when the embryo is no longer viable outside of a living host. This is technically known as "the mother." I do not know at what point this takes place, but for this discussion the timing is not relevant.

 

The third phase begins when the baby is capable of living and developing without the living host. This is what was described by Zyth earlier.

 

My opinion is that in the first phase an embryo is living, but is not yet independent life. In the second stage the transformation from dependent to independent is made. For me this is where the it gets complicated; at some point during this time the mother must assume responsibility for the child that she carries. In the third phase the mother is no longer needed for the viability of the baby, she is more or less getting the crust brown.

 

Legal: Roe versus Wade

 

The Roe v Wade decision is the center of the legal controversy in the US. There were several decisions that lead up to Roe v Wade that opened the door for the decision. At the time of Roe v Wade abortion of some form was legal in 28 states and on the rise. When Roe v Wade was passed it turned abortion into an all or nothing proposition, thus the severe divide on the issue. The "pro choice" crowd has their hat hanging firmly on Roe v Wade. Their fear of judicial decisions leading to a slippery slope that ultimately disassembles the foundation that Roe v Wade is laid upon causes them to have to support all abortions in all cases. The "right to privacy" that justifies protecting a woman and her doctor from prosecution for abortion causes other laws, such as ones which allow a girl of any age to get an abortion without parents being informed, yet would not allow her to get a mole removed without parental permission. The trimester language built into the decisions locks science into a moment of time and removes scientific advances from being utilized in construction and application of law.

 

I am pro-choice. That being said, I think that Roe v Wade is a decision that does not reflect the language or intention of the Constitution. The issue of the legality of abortion should be a matter of state or local law until such time that an amendment is ratified with language specific to the issue. If Roe v Wade were to be overturned then the pro choice movement needs to be prepared to move the legal battle back to the local levels. it is very plain that some states will likely never legalize abortion. Other states will fund it and give you cab fare to boot.

 

It is time to stop telling nightmare stories and lies about what would happen to America if Roe v Wade were overturned. Yes, it would make getting an abortion more difficult in many cases, but it would not make it impossible in any case. The well funded pro-choice crowd would give free bus fare to any woman who wanted it to abortion friendly states and localities. Anecdotal examples would be run up the flag pole to show how women are oppressed by the decision. In the end it is a celebration of the diversity of America that wins. Folks who want to live where abortion is legal can move to such a place and live peacefully with like minded folks. People who want to live where abortion is illegal can do the same. Others will want to be crusaders and seek to overturn public law to favor their own opinion, but that is the nature of American politics, and part of what makes the US so great; the ability for us to vehemently disagree and still live peacefully together.

 

The overturn of Roe v Wade would provide a country less divided and closer to solutions to the issue, in my opinion.

 

Bill

[Inter.spem.et.metum]

I agree with abortion for completely different reasons. Let me ask you:

 

1.When does the woman have to take responsibility for her actions?

2.When does the male, who's DNA makeup is also in the fetus, get a choice?

 

I agree with abortion as a choice for a woman who wasn't given a choice to begin with. If her own choice was the cause of her pregnancy, then the next choice shouldn't be so easy. I think the male counterpart should have a say in the matter, and if men are given no choice over the birth, they shouldn't be responsible when the decision is made. And women shouldn't be given the option of unlimited procedures.

[Buffy]

I agree with abortion as a choice for a woman who wasn't given a choice to begin with.

As a practical matter then, how are you going to prove "intent?"

I think the male counterpart should have a say in the matter, and if men are given no choice over the birth, they shouldn't be responsible when the decision is made.

Does a rapist have a say?

 

Who truly bears the cost of unwanted children?

And women shouldn't be given the option of unlimited procedures.

How many is too many? 3? 12? 87? Who are *you* to decide?

 

A simple, logically consistent set of rules on abortion runs headlong into the gray, ugly, amorphous tangle of reality. Trying to make it clear and simple, fails in every case: its a situation fraught with emotion and moral ambiguity in every real-world case.

 

Stop making it so abstract: this is your daughter we're talking about here.

 

Only if mandatory castration is an option,

Buffy

[Cedars]

As I see it the abortion argument falls into two categories. One is the biological, and the other is the legal.

 

I am pro-choice. That being said, I think that Roe v Wade is a decision that does not reflect the language or intention of the Constitution. The issue of the legality of abortion should be a matter of state or local law until such time that an amendment is ratified with language specific to the issue. If Roe v Wade were to be overturned then the pro choice movement needs to be prepared to move the legal battle back to the local levels. it is very plain that some states will likely never legalize abortion. Other states will fund it and give you cab fare to boot.

 

Yes, it would make getting an abortion more difficult in many cases, but it would not make it impossible in any case. The well funded pro-choice crowd would give free bus fare to any woman who wanted it to abortion friendly states and localities. Anecdotal examples would be run up the flag pole to show how women are oppressed by the decision. In the end it is a celebration of the diversity of America that wins. Folks who want to live where abortion is legal can move to such a place and live peacefully with like minded folks. People who want to live where abortion is illegal can do the same. Others will want to be crusaders and seek to overturn public law to favor their own opinion, but that is the nature of American politics, and part of what makes the US so great; the ability for us to vehemently disagree and still live peacefully together.

 

The overturn of Roe v Wade would provide a country less divided and closer to solutions to the issue, in my opinion.

 

Bill

 

I am not sure how you can come to such conclusions. First you forgot the most dominant factor, the emotional issue.

 

The issue of abortion should remain between a doctor and a patient and has no business being over ruled by a lobby effort instigated by people who retain their choice to bring a fetus to term under the existing laws. There is no one who is mandated by law to get an abortion in the USA that I am aware of.

 

AFAIK, even when there were legal abortions in one state and not another, I know of no organization that funded the access to people to receive these procedures. I know people who had to borrow money to pay for their abortions. Please provide a link to these sources so I can pass them along to women who havent the money laying around in portfolios.

 

While I am not sure who the "It is time to stop telling nightmare stories and lies about what would happen to America if Roe v Wade were overturned." was directed to, I would point you to this snippet from a book about infanticide.

 

And I quote:

"The major difference between the nature of infanticide in the twentieth century, when compared to the rest of recorded history, however, is due to the impact of one modern medical advancement: the widespread availability of safe, and legal, means of abortion. The ability to easily terminate a pregnancy, and thereby eliminate an unwanted child before it is born, has had a profound effect on the prevalence of infanticide. The human species has killed almost 10% - 15% of all children born."

 

"In 1966, the United States had 10,920 murders, and one out of every twenty-two was a child killed by a parent."

 

"Of approximately 6.4 million pregnancies in the United States in 1988, 1.6 million of those pregnancies resulted in abortion."

 

History of Infanticide

 

In 1989 288 children under 1 year old and 140 under 2 but over 1 year old were killed by a parent.

 

I think that covers the 4.8 million pregnancies in 1988 (though I dont know exactly how many came to term).

 

Bureau of Justice Statistics Homicide Trends in the United States: Trends in infanticide by age of victim table

 

You can do the math to figure out what percentage resulted in infanticide for that year.

 

If anything we have gotten better at determining whether a child was murdered or died of natural causes since Row v Wade. Unfortunatly, the DOJ stats do not show what the numbers were before 1975 and I wasnt going to spend alot of time trying to hunt these things down.

 

Would you support the banning of contraceptives in one state and suggest those who want to use BC pills should just move somewhere else, rather than hold to the idea that what birth control/family planning method a person chooses to use should not be mandated by a legislative body (other than safety issues like IUDs)? Contraceptives are not specifically outlined in the Bill of Rights either. It would only make it more difficult for the people in Utah who are not mormons and not bound by the morality instilled by that religious doctrine. Possibly Boston couples would have to go somewhere else for their birth control, I hear theres alot of catholic influence in that region.

 

Of course, they wouldnt be able to use their regular doctor cuz its out of network for them to access family planning methods equally with the people living in Rhode Island. So it will cost more for the birth control. But they could just move right?

 

Around 17% of abortions are married couples deciding whether or not to begin/expand their family. I know someone who had an illegal abortion back in the 40s or 50s (would have to ask someone for exact details cuz she isnt with us anymore). It left her unable to have children later. It was a decision her and her husband came to, and it was her husband who found the person willing to perform the procedure. Hell of a price to pay living under other peoples ideas of right and wrong.

 

It is simply no ones business except the people having to make that determination for themselves in the varied life situations we find ourselves in.

[Inter.spem.et.metum]

As I've said before, the justifiable taking of life is an effect of fear. I refuse to live through fear. I would rather my daughter have the child so that we can give it a chance to experience existance as we have. But that is my choice and I'm not making yours for you. I have already conceded that I agree there are justifiable reasons for the procedure.

 

But can you give me one piece of evidence that isn't purely opinionated? It is not an issue that is clearly right or clearly wrong. Its an opinion. I have only attempted to show evidence of reason on both sides. The inability to see all aspects of a situation prevents you from making educated decisions.

 

You say its a womans choice. Well of course it is. Its legal. Would you say it isn't a woman's choice if it were illegal? Of course you wouldn't. Because you already have it set in your mind that it is ok and any opinion otherwise is "bad".

[Buffy]

As I've said before, the justifiable taking of life is an effect of fear. I refuse to live through fear.

The only real issue I have with the opinions you've expressed is their pejorative nature: "taking of life" *is* an *opinionated* view of what abortion is, and one that throws the word "murderer" about based only on that opinion.

 

So I can agree with you on your objection:

But can you give me one piece of evidence that isn't purely opinionated? It is not an issue that is clearly right or clearly wrong. Its an opinion.

...but of course in using the emotionally loaded, and hardly unquestionably justifiable phrase "taking of a life" without any qualification, you contradict yourself in action what you say with words.

 

In some parts that's called hypocrisy. I'll try to be more charitable and call it something you should consider about your arguments in this thread.

 

You should consider the fact that some of the opinions expressed are based purely on "logic" (albeit in many cases with very selective use of "facts") as opposed to being based on what actually happens in the real world and the Melvillian dilemmas posed by those real world circumstances.

 

As a consequence of this, its easy to blithely to take your own seemingly comfortable position and extrapolate it to the entire population:

I would rather my daughter have the child so that we can give it a chance to experience existance as we have.

Cool! I hope your daughter gets to make that decision rather than you telling her what to do though!

 

More importantly, I do assume from your demeanor that you would indeed give your daughter any and all necessary support for the very expensive and exhausting task of bringing up a child. There are many people who either do not have the means to do so adequately, or worse who simply don't care: I would much rather pay for the abortion for one of Ronald Reagan's belovedly Apocryphal "Welfare Queens" than put out another angry, nihilistic gang member, or child molester, or meth-head, or crack addict on the streets.

 

Sure one of them might be the next Beethoven, but good kids rarely come from bad parents, so the odds are pretty darn good that this is actually good public policy.

 

As long as its the burden of the one who has to have and take care of the kid who makes the decision.

 

So when you say:

But that is my choice and I'm not making yours for you.

I say, "thank goodness!"

Because you already have it set in your mind that it is ok and any opinion otherwise is "bad".

Promise to stop putting words in my mouth, and I'll promise to stop putting them in yours.

 

God bless Captain Vere, :)

Buffy

[Southtown]

Who truly bears the cost of unwanted children?

The children. :)

[Buffy]

Who truly bears the cost of unwanted children?

The children. ;)

 

Ah, yup....

 

What is the color, when black is burned, :)

Buffy

[tmaromine]

I haven't been following this (just saw it !..), but I've 2¢ (if it isn't worth more... :) ):

 

If a male does not use every drop of sperm he can make, is he not wasting it ?– wasting *possible* life ? If a female is not pregnant every possible nine month intervals that she can bear, is she not *denying* life ? How does a fetus already formed mean any different than wasting away / not using sperm that will be there again after one ejaculation and eggs that'll return every month for years that could make millions of more precious human life than we already have ? Now, human life is important, but there's a lot of importance being wasted away without being allowed even the slimmest chance, let alone that which gets a chance only to be terminated.

 

Forget aborting life. Men: if you're not getting as many women as you can meet (or your wife if heterosexual and monogamous...) pregnant as many times as you and she are possible, and women: if you are not getting pregnant every time you possibly can , then all of you are denying life. Imagine all the beings that could be ! How dare you !!!!

 

Clearly, that's ridiculous. I used to be proabortion only in the cases of the birth probably resulting in death, or a baby as a result of a rape case. If one wants to start arguing how people are ending so-preciously-important lives, one better start telling people to start having a lot more reproductive-based sex and stop denying lives. I will [falsely] assume that all people antiabortion have opposite-sex spouses and are sexing away with a new family member every nine months.

[freeztar]

What is the color, when black is burned, :)

Buffy

It depends. Is it the pot or the kettle that is burned? ;)

[TheBigDog]

I haven't been following this (just saw it !..), but I've 2¢ (if it isn't worth more... :) ):

 

If a male does not use every drop of sperm he can make, is he not wasting it ?– wasting *possible* life ? If a female is not pregnant every possible nine month intervals that she can bear, is she not *denying* life ? How does a fetus already formed mean any different than wasting away / not using sperm that will be there again after one ejaculation and eggs that'll return every month for years that could make millions of more precious human life than we already have ? Now, human life is important, but there's a lot of importance being wasted away without being allowed even the slimmest chance, let alone that which gets a chance only to be terminated.

 

Forget aborting life. Men: if you're not getting as many women as you can meet (or your wife if heterosexual and monogamous...) pregnant as many times as you and she are possible, and women: if you are not getting pregnant every time you possibly can , then all of you are denying life. Imagine all the beings that could be ! How dare you !!!!

 

Clearly, that's ridiculous. I used to be proabortion only in the cases of the birth probably resulting in death, or a baby as a result of a rape case. If one wants to start arguing how people are ending so-preciously-important lives, one better start telling people to start having a lot more reproductive-based sex and stop denying lives. I will [falsely] assume that all people antiabortion have opposite-sex spouses and are sexing away with a new family member every nine months.

This may be my entry in the inaugural "Hypography Flawed Argument of the Month Awards". :doh:

 

Bill

[tmaromine]

I really should know better not to argue in anything BUT a science forum because I have strong opinions even though Ive only lived 16 years. BUT I shall argue a LITTLE bit. Please tell me if I get aggressive or I'm totally wrong or anything.

When you ejaculate is that murder? you kill lots of sperm

When you step on a bug, is that murder? you kill the AWARE bug

When the goverment asks you to go to war or to help the war effort is that murder? you kill "enemies" of The United States of America, or where ever you live.

And what about that steak sitting on your plate that you have no trouble devouring. was THAT murdered?

 

Just some things to think about.

-Theory

 

(Emphasis mine. My 16th birthday is this month...)

 

Yes, that'd be killing loads of sperm (though giving at least one a surviving chance), but they reproduce within a day, if not shorter. By not using any of the sperm, you're essentially wasting it / 'denying' it... It's not exactly wasting it, because it lives on, but you're not using it to let another load be generated to be used so that another usable load of sperm will be generated. It's an ongoing process for many years. To not get every last drop from it before it ends is wasting it in the long run.

 

As I see it, any forced killing is murder in the literalmost sense. But I think the problem is that it's *human* murder. The bug is aware, and so was the host of that steak. But did either of them feel mutual – or any – emotions like we do ? I think it's incorrect to say that many of the creatures we kill don't... Simply, humans literally rule, and we in general don't have time to ponder over the feelings of things that won't tell us them. Some do though, and then some don't even care about humans' feelings. Most people seem find it impossible to level our "superior" and "special" "intellectuality" to that of "inferior" and "meaningless" and "mindless" animals. At least with apes, we probably have nearly as many emotions as they do. ...All we are are the greatest animal. And that makes people think we're exceptionally special.

 

 

I didn't think to mention the stages of the fetus in my proabortionness. I think it should be done before the brain fully (at least to a baby's standard) develops. So what if there's a heart ?, a liver ?, a stomach ? They're just more atoms until the brain develops to control them. If the brain functionally develops after the other organs that is... If they all develop at the same time (which really makes sense, but who knows with this god-person's "intelligent" design {I'm atheist...}), then I simply think abortion should be before any of the development. But what all-certain ruling and all-knowing being do I have ruling over me to tell me abortion should be before things develop ?

 

 

". . . The human species has killed almost 10% - 15% of all children born."

 

I'm no mathematician, but, with 6 billion people – and probably about that many able to reproduce in the first place – hasn't the human species not even allowed. . .100% of human life ? Can ~6 billion people able to make ~3 billion more humans in 9 months not make infinitely more humans ––– infinite amounts of this so precious life ––– until an uncontrollable event or an idiot kills the species out ?

 

 

 

Abortion is as ok as a family's mother not being pregnant every nine months is.

 

TheBigDog: Do I get an award ? :doh:

[CraigD]

If a male does not use every drop of sperm he can make, is he not wasting it ?– wasting *possible* life ?

…

Clearly, that's ridiculous.

This may be my entry in the inaugural "Hypography Flawed Argument of the Month Awards".

Do I get an award ? :D

Though tmarimine’s argument does appear to be an obvious example of a straw man fallacy, its straw man is very close to actual, serious arguments of the Abrahamic religious traditions (source: wikipedia article “Onan”). This disqualifies it, I contend, from consideration for the HFAotMA. ;)

[tmaromine]

Oh well.

 

Never heard of a straw man fallacy ; interesting...

 

There's still a lot more life that could exist though. To complain about the termination of only that which exists over that which could but does not seems. . .incomplete, to me. More life could exist than the life that people complain about being ended. The majority of the prochoice complainers are probably marriedly and monogamously religious, so why don't they just have tens of children and leave the evil life-terminating people alone ? A woman married at 25, and arriving at menopause 50, could technically have 33 children. No? One every nine month interval. Do we see that ? (And if I did, I don't even know what my reaction would be.) Prochoicers can "murder" as they please, but these prolifers aren't doing their absolute most to repopulate after all these "murders".

 

And then there's emotions on both side of this, so it gets even more complicated than mere numbers. One must be mad to want to have 33 children simply to get every use of their reproductive system... And not everyone wants to terminate to-be life, even if they do in the end. Abortion is the choice of the person who is (otherwise) legally able to abort. Maybe the prolifers should simply have so many children and teach them all "correctly" and there would be 33 children that wouldn't dream ending a life, over this prochoice person who is terminating any life that the idea of prochoice could be passed onto parent-to-child–wise.