Abortion: The unexplored issue

[Brian S.]

That argument would be perfectly valid if the argument were in fact over the freedom of one individual to do as she will with her own body. The problem is that in practice the argument revolves around giving a one woman the absolute choice not only over herself but two other people. The lie that it is a matter of choosing what to do with her own body gets very tiresome. Giving her the power to murder one other person and/or control at least two decades of yet another person's life, neither of whom get any choice in the matter is most reprehensible.

Did you read the entire article?

It addresses your point fairly well.

The very idea that it is a full human life at conception with all of the rights of an adult human being completely drops the context of what "human life" means, what defines a "right", and the physical/metaphysical relationship between the mother and the fetus. It is one based on faith and faith alone, and laws based on nothing more than religious faith have no place in the American system.

That's really all I have to say on the subject. A proper discussion of this issue goes beyond the bounds of my patience and the rules of this forum.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Did you read the entire article?

It addresses your point fairly well.

The very idea that it is a full human life at conception with all of the rights of an adult human being completely drops the context of what "human life" means, what defines a "right", and the physical/metaphysical relationship between the mother and the fetus. It is one based on faith and faith alone, and laws based on nothing more than religious faith have no place in the American system.

That's really all I have to say on the subject. A proper discussion of this issue goes beyond the bounds of my patience and the rules of this forum.

I would have to disagree. The viability argument could be stretched to make it legal to kill your children at any time before they are self-supporting.

By the economic freedom argument presented, I could make the same argument for it being proper to hang out my shingle as a hitman (which an abortionist is nothing but a specialized hitman anyway).

It signally fails to address the present state of law in which, even if you reject the personhood of the unborn, you still have a man who stands to have decades of his life controlled by a decision in which he has absolutely no influence. That should have had Ayn Rand sh*tting bricks.

 

[indiucky]

I don't agree.

And that is why it is still legal. It is very hard to argue for the rights of someone who hasn't proved they are worthy of those rights. It's tough to make your case floating around in a sack of placenta and the unborn are unaware of the debate going on about whether they should be given a shot at this rollercoaster we call life.

 

[lucky4034]

WOW - an abortion debate on INGO. OK I'll bite

Fundamentally you have to ask yourself if the unborn child is a unique human being or not. If it is then you have to ask when it becomes unique. Science has demonstrated it is unique at the moment of conception (ie the DNA is unique and it is uniquely human.) So at comception you have a unique human entity - you can call it an embryo, fetus or unborn child. All stages are uniquely human. Even identical twins have unique DNA - science has shown this. Furthermore the epi-genetics of identical twins are also different.

Anyway, if the unborn child is a unique human then it has rights afforded to it by the natural law/God/or whatever you think your rights come from. As such to end it's life is to end the life a a unique human entity and would be murder/manslaughter/whatever.

Science has revealed the uniqueness AND the humanity of the unborn to a degree never contemplated before. I am a scientist and I am convinced through data/facts and rational thought (not emotion) that abortion is unjust to the unborn (and unjust to the mother for that matter, but that is another discussion altogether). There may be extenuating circumstances when an unborn child must be removed from the mother however in those cases everything must be done to save it if possible. That said the internet chatroom is a terrible place for such a debate since one cannot have proper discourse in short snippets like this.

This is the "interesting thing" isn't it?

A completely agnostical answer, and yet is produces a logical answer to the question on when exactly a "human" is created....

What is more interesting is that your solution lends itself to religious reasoning more than the religious conjecture that a fetus becomes a human when it obtains a "soul".... (which is completely unidentifiable or even quantifiable)

Not very often you see science come to the rescue of religion. Well done....

 

[lucky4034]

Whatever promotes liberty for the most amount of people is the right solution. Have people forgotten about adoption?

Boy this statement opens a can of worms... I'd like to know exactly what percentage of unborn fetuses would have turned out to be government dependent.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Boy this statement opens a can of worms... I'd like to know exactly what percentage of unborn fetuses would have turned out to be government dependent.

A reasonable question, but the reverse is also true. How much good may have been done by those we have killed? Any one of those lives ended at the beginning may have been the person who would have cured diseases, brought sanity to government, invented a more practical source of energy than we now have, or stepped up to the plate to fill the vacuum left by someone like Steve Jobs who himself came from humble beginnings as I recall.

 

[lucky4034]

Reasonable argument, but on the other hand, if abortion as primary birth control were not available, I am inclined to believe that it would serve as a motivation to find a quarter in the couch cushions to drop in that machine in the restroom at the station on the way to wherever they are going. Realistically the 'practical' arguments tend to bolster the pro-choice argument. That said, there is no way that I could support the execution of innocents over someone else's bad decisions.

I think the pressure of getting an abortion is plenty motivation... I don't see how outlawing it would change that motivation. Either you are responsible or you aren't... either you are under the illusion that MTV's Teen Moms is a good fit for you or you aren't.

Again, you can't really quantify that... but this is more of a societal issue than it is a technical issue and I think its important to identify the two.

I am pro-choice because the societal impact is most important to me... Its hard to argue this against "when the fetus becomes a human".

 

[lucky4034]

A reasonable question, but the reverse is also true. How much good may have been done by those we have killed? Any one of those lives ended at the beginning may have been the person who would have cured diseases, brought sanity to government, invented a more practical source of energy than we now have, or stepped up to the plate to fill the vacuum left by someone like Steve Jobs who himself came from humble beginnings as I recall.

Steve Jobs is that ******* that invented the $100 phone bill is he not? My point exactly

Steve Jobs = Obamaphone

 

[IndyDave1776]

I think the pressure of getting an abortion is plenty motivation... I don't see how outlawing it would change that motivation. Either you are responsible or you aren't... either you are under the illusion that MTV's Teen Moms is a good fit for you or you aren't.

Again, you can't really quantify that... but this is more of a societal issue than it is a technical issue and I think its important to identify the two.

I am pro-choice because the societal impact is most important to me... Its hard to argue this and "when the fetus becomes a human".

The issue becomes much easier when you honestly believe this. For the rest of us, you can say what you will to the rest of the world but it is not possible to sneak condoning what you have no doubt is murder past yourself.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Steve Jobs is that ******* that invented the $100 phone bill is he not? My point exactly

Steve Jobs = Obamaphone

Your timing is perfect. I really needed a good laugh. This isn't shaping up to be a good day.

 

[lucky4034]

The issue becomes much easier when you honestly believe this. For the rest of us, you can say what you will to the rest of the world but it is not possible to sneak condoning what you have no doubt is murder past yourself.

I understand ... I just think that they are two separate arguments completely. Until you can define when a fetus becomes a human, then its hard to move on with any other discussion.

I heard a radio host bring up a good point yesterday... he asked: "If a man kicks a pregnant lady in the stomach and kills her unborn child... is it murder?"

I think just about anyone on both sides of the spectrums knee jerk response would be "ABSOLUTELY!!" However, if its murder, then so is abortion... and vice versa.

If abortion is not murder, then you can only charge that guy with assault on the mother... You can't have your cake and eat it too.... This is an angle I hadn't previously given much thought too really.

After reading the argument about DNA merging being the beginning of Humanity... I now agree... both cases above are clearly murder.

So for me the question now is to determine under which conditions is murder allowable. Death Row is murder, War victims are murdered, "Pulling the plug" is murder, second hand smoke could constitute attempted murder?

Why are some forms of murder allowable and some not? And the answer I see to that question is... "for the greater good" and everyone is going to have their own criteria and therefore disagree on that. I personally feel that abortion should be allowable for the greater good and have no problem giving that authority to the person ultimately responsible... the mother.

 

[Tsigos]

Boy this statement opens a can of worms... I'd like to know exactly what percentage of unborn fetuses would have turned out to be government dependent.

Not completely on point but in the book Freakenomics the economist authors offer compelling evidence that the reduction in crime experienced in the 1990s was a direct result of Roe v. Wade. Those unloved and unwanted children who would ordinarily have been reaching their criminal peak years were aborted.

 

[rpsthirteen]

Not completely on point but in the book Freakenomics the economist authors offer compelling evidence that the reduction in crime experienced in the 1990s was a direct result of Roe v. Wade. Those unloved and unwanted children who would ordinarily have been reaching their criminal peak years were aborted.

EXACTLY. Sadly another persons abortion makes the world a better place for you to raise your child. The book also explains that "tougher gun control laws" was the number 5 most popular thing the media attributed to this drop in crime, and totally debunks it.

The book can be read for free at this link. The section on abortion/gun control is about half way down the page. Its in section 4 "Where have all the criminals gone?"

Freakonomics by Ritesh - read the free ebook now from ePub Bud!

 

[lucky4034]

Not completely on point but in the book Freakenomics the economist authors offer compelling evidence that the reduction in crime experienced in the 1990s was a direct result of Roe v. Wade. Those unloved and unwanted children who would ordinarily have been reaching their criminal peak years were aborted.

I hadn't read that... but yeah, I'm not a religious guy so this is pretty much what drives my stance. (or at least my guess of the likely result of abortion)

Thanks for sharing, I'll have to research that a bit.