Abortion

[Illyricum]

What are you thoughts/opinions on abortion?

[perspective]

There is only one issue of morality in play here. The morality of killing an innocent person.

Two brothers, identical twins, grow up separately - away from each other. One of the twins develops a disease - bone marrow cancer. The only way to save the ill twin's life is to receive a bone marrow transplant from the identical twin brother. No other bone marrow transplant would work, because the body rejects bone marrow very easily if it is not exactly the same type. The twin brother does not want to donate bone marrow to his twin. He was raised by a demographer who taught him that the resource of our world are severely overtaxed and that overpopulation is the cause of it. Overpopulation, to this family, is a very dire situation. They believe that cancer is nature's way of keeping our population in check, and without disease keeping our population in check, we will all suffer. So the twin brother, because of his morals and values and respect of the natural way of life, doesn't wish to donate to his brother. As crass as that might seem to religious folks, there are many people who believe that death happens for a very good reason. The twin brother refuses to donate, and the ill brother dies. Society might frown upon the surviving brother, but ultimately, he's not to be used as a means to an end. He can't be required to donate part of his person without his permission, even though no harm would come to him if he did donate. Same thing with the mother. She can't be used as a means to an end.



As far as one of the purposes of sex being procreation - that doesn't mean that the consequences of such an act MUST be interpreted as the intended result of the act.

That's like saying that because one of the purposes of going shopping is to buy things that obviously, everyone who comes out of the mall with a bag intended to buy something. Sometimes, actually a lot of times, you go into the mall not intending to buy anything but end up walking out with a bag. After having some time to think about the impulse buy, you have the option of returning the purchased item. To be impulsive is HUMAN.

Legally, if go into your house and take your television, intending to only use it for a month and then bring it back, legally - that is not defined as theft. Because I intended to bring it back, I can't be charged with theft. Especially if I can prove the intent was to "borrow without permission".

[otseng]

Two brothers, identical twins, grow up separately - away from each other. One of the twins develops a disease - bone marrow cancer. The only way to save the ill twin's life is to receive a bone marrow transplant from the identical twin brother.

The problem with the analogy is that left to the natural course of events, the ill twin would die. However, left to the natural course, the fetus would live.

As far as one of the purposes of sex being procreation - that doesn't mean that the consequences of such an act MUST be interpreted as the intended result of the act.

I'm not saying that sex must result in pregnancy. I'm simply saying it's a purpose of sex.

That's like saying that because one of the purposes of going shopping is to buy things that obviously, everyone who comes out of the mall with a bag intended to buy something. Sometimes, actually a lot of times, you go into the mall not intending to buy anything but end up walking out with a bag. After having some time to think about the impulse buy, you have the option of returning the purchased item. To be impulsive is HUMAN.

I agree that humans are impulsive. However, aborting a baby is not the same as returning some hat that one bought impulsively.

[perspective]

Two brothers, identical twins, grow up separately - away from each other. One of the twins develops a disease - bone marrow cancer. The only way to save the ill twin's life is to receive a bone marrow transplant from the identical twin brother.

The problem with the analogy is that left to the natural course of events, the ill twin would die. However, left to the natural course, the fetus would live.

"Natural course" is subjective. It's perfectly natural for me to make decisions about my body and undergo medical procedures. "Natural" defines what occurs in nature, and I exist in nature, medical knowledge exists in nature - so medical actions cannot be labeled "unnatural". Otherwise, the very aspect of increasing the chances of a safe birthing are unnatural.

As far as one of the purposes of sex being procreation - that doesn't mean that the consequences of such an act MUST be interpreted as the intended result of the act.

I'm not saying that sex must result in pregnancy. I'm simply saying it's a purpose of sex.

I think you misunderstood what I stated. The consequences of going to the mall (sometimes we are persuaded to buy something) are not sufficient to interpret my intent for going to the mall was to buy something. Just because A is sometimes an intended result of action B, you can't conclude that because B happened, A was the intention. That's faulty logic.

I agree that humans are impulsive. However, aborting a baby is not the same as returning some hat that one bought impulsively.

Of course, one is a medical procedure, the other is trivial - but the fact that humans are impulsive still remains. And to some people, aborting a baby is not the same as shooting your next door neighbor that annoys you. Aborting a baby is not the same as giving away one's children in a moment of insanity.

Aborting a baby, to some people, is the same thing as menstruating every month, the same thing as removing a benign but unsightly tumor, the same thing as having one's tonsils removed. Those who see aborting a baby as something more serious than those simple medical procedures - those people can feel free not to ever have an abortion. But the compelling evidence just doesn't exist to me, that a unviable child who is dependant on my bodily functions, is a separate human with rights independent of mine. My blood is necessary to nourish it, just like a tumor - then it's just a part of me, not some other entity.

[otseng]

I think you misunderstood what I stated. The consequences of going to the mall (sometimes we are persuaded to buy something) are not sufficient to interpret my intent for going to the mall was to buy something. Just because A is sometimes an intended result of action B, you can't conclude that because B happened, A was the intention. That's faulty logic.

You're right, I misunderstood. Now that I think I understand what I think you're saying, yes, this line of thinking is not sufficient to argue that pregnancy is a purpose of sexual relations. But I do not base my conclusion simply on that line of reasoning.

Before I try to show reasons why I believe pregnancy is a purpose of sex, let me ask - do you believe pregnancy is not one of the purposes of sex?

But the compelling evidence just doesn't exist to me, that a unviable child who is dependant on my bodily functions, is a separate human with rights independent of mine. My blood is necessary to nourish it, just like a tumor - then it's just a part of me, not some other entity.

Here, we get to the heart of the matter. And I think this is where the debate should concentrate on. Is a fetus just like a tumor or is it a person?

Yes, a fetus is dependent on it's carrier. But, like I've mentioned before, dependency is still an attribute of a baby after it is born.

Your blood is necessary to nourish the fetus, but that in itself doesn't show that it is not a totally separate entity. Parasites feed off of hosts, yet parasites are completely separate organisms from the host.

[mrmufin]

An unborn child also eats, breathes, and excretes.

Yes, with complete dependency on the female.

A born baby also has complete dependence on the female (and/or male).

Not a specific female. Once the umbilical cord is severed, the born baby is dependent, but the dependency is transferable. Prior to birth, complete dependency on the female for sustenance is required.

How would you define sentient and independent?

Capable of perception and not reliant upon another body for life sustenance.

Again, a born baby would also not fit into this description.

And again, the dependency is only transferable after birth.

Regards,
mrmufin

[perspective]

Before I try to show reasons why I believe pregnancy is a purpose of sex, let me ask - do you believe pregnancy is not one of the purposes of sex?

Yes, 'to create a child' is sometimes the intended purpose of sex. The way you said it: "pregnancy is one of the purposes of sex" makes it sound like every single time I have sex, I have many purposes in mind, one of which is to get pregnant. This is obviously not so. Women live well into their 80s these days. To hope that they will only have sex the number of times they want to give birth is ridiculous. Obviously most of a woman's lifetime is spent having sex without the intention of getting pregnant. Not only is it natural, but it's necessary to have sex without intending to get pregnant more often than with the intention to get pregnant - which is why in nature, miscarriage occur.

Yes, a fetus is dependent on it's carrier. But, like I've mentioned before, dependency is still an attribute of a baby after it is born.

Your blood is necessary to nourish the fetus, but that in itself doesn't show that it is not a totally separate entity. Parasites feed off of hosts, yet parasites are completely separate organisms from the host.

As mrmufin pointed out, until the umbilical cord is severed, the baby is dependant on one particular person. Completely and totally dependant.

[otseng]

The way you said it: "pregnancy is one of the purposes of sex" makes it sound like every single time I have sex, I have many purposes in mind, one of which is to get pregnant. This is obviously not so.

I think we can agree on this.

As mrmufin pointed out, until the umbilical cord is severed, the baby is dependant on one particular person. Completely and totally dependant

A born baby is also completely and totally dependent on another person. My point is, independency cannot be used as a definition of what constitutes a human being nor can dependency show that a fetus is not a human being.

Not a specific female. Once the umbilical cord is severed, the born baby is dependent, but the dependency is transferable. Prior to birth, complete dependency on the female for sustenance is required.

How does the fact that the fetus is dependent on a specific female show that it is not a person?

[perspective]

As mrmufin pointed out, until the umbilical cord is severed, the baby is dependant on one particular person. Completely and totally dependant.

A born baby is also completely and totally dependent on another person. My point is, independency cannot be used as a definition of what constitutes a human being nor can dependency show that a fetus is not a human being.

Actually it can. There is currently no definition of a human being. There is no specific scientific criteria, there is no legal criteria. If you define anything that has the potential to become a human a person, then you've just dubbed amoebas and apes persons too. For those of us who believe in evolution, a baby ape is just as much a person (by your definition) as a bundle of cells in the uterus. I don't believe that the potential to become a human is sufficient to define personhood.

How does the fact that the fetus is dependent on a specific female show that it is not a person?

One of the definitions of personhood ought define the person as being able to provide his or her own involuntary functions on his or her own. (Of course this is my opinion, but I personally don't see it as an unreasonable expectation) The baby's involuntary functions - breathing, waste removal, eating, heartbeat - are dependant upon another being at an involuntary level. At a completely different level than if the umbilical cord was already cut. If the umbilical cord is cut, sure the baby depends upon another being for food and shelter and protection - but all of these are voluntary functions (ie, not taken care of automatically by the baby's own body without conscious effort), and can be provided by anyone.

[Angry McFurious]

So I mean that gives it the right to die? Just because it has to depend on someone? Ok you if your ever in a comma remind us to pull the plug cause thats what your making it sound like.

[perspective]

if your ever in a comma remind us to pull the plug cause thats what your making it sound like.

Actually - the issue about abortion is the rights of the person who is inconvenienced by the dependant organism (the woman). If I was in a coma, even if I could not perform the involuntary body functions (breathing, waste removal, blood circulation, etc) without depending on a machine - the machine itself is not inconvenienced by my dependance. I, personally, am for not keeping people alive in this manner for very long. I believe that the person doesn't have the right to limitlessly consume resources from the rest of society unless that society is rich enough to spare the resources. If the person still functions on his/her own, and we are caring for, maintaining, this person's health while they are in a coma - that is an entirely different situation that falls under health care. But before we get further off-topic - the discussion here is about abortion. If you'd like to discuss morality in a more general sense, there is the Value of Life thread.