Abortion
Moderator: Moderators
Post #81
I agree with Bernee51 on the point that whether or not the fetus is a person is moot. Even if you grant that the fetus is a person, there is still a strong case for allowing abortion, at least until a certain stage of development has occurred.
Argument 1)
Perspective brought this up earlier in the thread, but I don't think it has been adequately addressed. No one is morally obligated to donate the use of their body to another against their will, except in the case of punishment. To mandate otherwise is no less than slavery.
Unless one believes that intercourse should be punished, and slavery is a fair punishment for it, banning abortion outright cannot be justified as it forces the woman to donate the use of her body with or without her consent.
Argument 2)
Abortion can be argued as a form of self defense, even in cases where the womans life is not in danger. Consider this analogy: someone is trying to cut off anothers leg and will not stop without lethal force. Even though the life of person 2 is not at risk, they are justified in utilizing lethal force to protect the state of their body. This is analogous to pregnancy in that pregnancy and birth results in permanent changes in the womans body.
Person 1 may even be morally innocent (with the leg chopping example, person 1 may be drugged, or hypnotized or whathaveyou and completely unable to control their actions), and person 2 would still be justified in their use of force.
Do anti abortionists have a case if they make the concession of fetal personhood in favor of the pro choice position?
Argument 1)
Perspective brought this up earlier in the thread, but I don't think it has been adequately addressed. No one is morally obligated to donate the use of their body to another against their will, except in the case of punishment. To mandate otherwise is no less than slavery.
Unless one believes that intercourse should be punished, and slavery is a fair punishment for it, banning abortion outright cannot be justified as it forces the woman to donate the use of her body with or without her consent.
Argument 2)
Abortion can be argued as a form of self defense, even in cases where the womans life is not in danger. Consider this analogy: someone is trying to cut off anothers leg and will not stop without lethal force. Even though the life of person 2 is not at risk, they are justified in utilizing lethal force to protect the state of their body. This is analogous to pregnancy in that pregnancy and birth results in permanent changes in the womans body.
Person 1 may even be morally innocent (with the leg chopping example, person 1 may be drugged, or hypnotized or whathaveyou and completely unable to control their actions), and person 2 would still be justified in their use of force.
Do anti abortionists have a case if they make the concession of fetal personhood in favor of the pro choice position?
-
Esoteric_Illuminati
- Student
- Posts: 82
- Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2004 3:59 pm
- Location: Montana
Post #82
Otseng's wish is my command. This is the abortion argument I gave in the politics/religion forum.
1.) All living human beings are entitled to fundamental human rights.
2.) An unborn child (from the point of conception) is a living human being.
3.) Therefore an unborn child is entitled to fundamental human rights.
Premise 1 - Fundamental human rights are also called self-evident rights, natural rights or simply human rights. They are acknowledged in the DoI (2nd paragraph) as well as the 5th and 14th Amendments. They are also acknowledged in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. People have these rights by the simple virtue of being human. Animals do not have these rights. Yes, that means fundamental human rights are anthropocentric (sorry Peter Singer). If you're a human being, you deserve these rights - starting specifically with the right to life since all other rights are predicated on this right.
Now, what constitutes a human being?
I believe there are three charecteristics that define a human being. These charecteristics are necessary AND sufficient. That means all three characeterics MUST be present and that it is unnecessary to add any further charecteristic(s). It therefore follows that any charecteristic added to this definition would be arbitrary and unjust since it's only intent is to justify the discrimination of certain human beings. Race was an arbitrary characteristic used in the past to do such a thing.
What are these characteristics?
1.) Alive - (as opposed to dead) - It's common sense that to have the right to life, a human being must first be labelled alive, rather than dead.
2.) Human - As mentioned above, human rights belong to HUMANS. It's absurd to demand that the law provide fundamental human rights to animals.
3.) Unique - By this characteristic I am talking about having the ability to determine when we have a distinct human being. This will make more sense when I apply it.
With this said, I would then appeal to Ockham's Razor to support me that these charecteristics are sufficient to define a human being.
Premise 2:
If the given definition of a human being stands, this is a corollary to premise 1. From the point of conception the unborn child is:
1.) Alive - Charecterized by cell growth and division and all that good stuff. No embryological textbook would argue with me there. I already provided a link and scientific testimony to this fact.
2.) Human - We know it's not a dog or cat growing inside the mother, it is a human being - a potential moral agent.
3.) Unique - The unborn child is genetically unique from the mother. It is not as insigificant as a mere fingernail that you can clip at your leisure. It contains DNA with traits in the process of developing and manifesting themselves.
The most important thing to note here is #3. The common objection in an abortion debate is that the unborn child is "just a clump of cells." This charecteristic refutes that justification for abortion because this "clump of cells" is unique/distinct from the mother. To label it a "clump of cells" belonging to the mother is to logically compare it to a fingernail or a strand of HER hair. We know for a fact that from the point of conception, we have a unique human being living inside of the mother. TWO lives, not one.
Therefore since all three of these factors are necessary and sufficient to qualify an unborn child as a unique human being that should be endowed with the same natural rights that any other child is given at any arbitrary point in it's development, namely the right of life, that ought to be secured and protected by the government.
That's a brief summary of my argument which I'm willing to debate.
1.) All living human beings are entitled to fundamental human rights.
2.) An unborn child (from the point of conception) is a living human being.
3.) Therefore an unborn child is entitled to fundamental human rights.
Premise 1 - Fundamental human rights are also called self-evident rights, natural rights or simply human rights. They are acknowledged in the DoI (2nd paragraph) as well as the 5th and 14th Amendments. They are also acknowledged in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. People have these rights by the simple virtue of being human. Animals do not have these rights. Yes, that means fundamental human rights are anthropocentric (sorry Peter Singer). If you're a human being, you deserve these rights - starting specifically with the right to life since all other rights are predicated on this right.
Now, what constitutes a human being?
I believe there are three charecteristics that define a human being. These charecteristics are necessary AND sufficient. That means all three characeterics MUST be present and that it is unnecessary to add any further charecteristic(s). It therefore follows that any charecteristic added to this definition would be arbitrary and unjust since it's only intent is to justify the discrimination of certain human beings. Race was an arbitrary characteristic used in the past to do such a thing.
What are these characteristics?
1.) Alive - (as opposed to dead) - It's common sense that to have the right to life, a human being must first be labelled alive, rather than dead.
2.) Human - As mentioned above, human rights belong to HUMANS. It's absurd to demand that the law provide fundamental human rights to animals.
3.) Unique - By this characteristic I am talking about having the ability to determine when we have a distinct human being. This will make more sense when I apply it.
With this said, I would then appeal to Ockham's Razor to support me that these charecteristics are sufficient to define a human being.
Premise 2:
If the given definition of a human being stands, this is a corollary to premise 1. From the point of conception the unborn child is:
1.) Alive - Charecterized by cell growth and division and all that good stuff. No embryological textbook would argue with me there. I already provided a link and scientific testimony to this fact.
2.) Human - We know it's not a dog or cat growing inside the mother, it is a human being - a potential moral agent.
3.) Unique - The unborn child is genetically unique from the mother. It is not as insigificant as a mere fingernail that you can clip at your leisure. It contains DNA with traits in the process of developing and manifesting themselves.
The most important thing to note here is #3. The common objection in an abortion debate is that the unborn child is "just a clump of cells." This charecteristic refutes that justification for abortion because this "clump of cells" is unique/distinct from the mother. To label it a "clump of cells" belonging to the mother is to logically compare it to a fingernail or a strand of HER hair. We know for a fact that from the point of conception, we have a unique human being living inside of the mother. TWO lives, not one.
Therefore since all three of these factors are necessary and sufficient to qualify an unborn child as a unique human being that should be endowed with the same natural rights that any other child is given at any arbitrary point in it's development, namely the right of life, that ought to be secured and protected by the government.
That's a brief summary of my argument which I'm willing to debate.
-EI
"Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper or your self confidence."
Robert Frost
"Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper or your self confidence."
Robert Frost
-
Esoteric_Illuminati
- Student
- Posts: 82
- Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2004 3:59 pm
- Location: Montana
Post #83
Reply to Corvis from the John Kerry and Abortion thread. Since it's a reply dealing more with the abortion argument rather than John Kerry.
Letter from Birmingham Jail - Here's a great example.
It comes down to choice, and if a woman will not live with a 9 month inconvenience of a pregancy, then she deserves to be in jail. There is no justification for abortion based on inconvenience. Any woman who believes there is, is a moral barbarian, and so is any person who defends her is also.
1.) Criminal law involves moral wrongs deemed harmful to society in addition to the victim. They are public matters.
2.) Civil law involve torts which are moral wrongs deemed harmful to victim alone. They are private matters.
3.) Legal rules/regulations have no immediate moral significance - i.e. traffic regulations, building codes, etc.
I do not place bus tickets in the same catagory as torts. Civil law involves violating a social contract to the same extent criminal law does. Both criminal and civil laws are based on a person's rights, which are derived from morality.
The victimless crime debate is an interesting one and cannot be argued at length on this thread. Should dumping oil in the alley behind your house be a crime? It has no victim and certainly a few quarts of oil isn't going to hurt anything.
But I will respond to your conclusion by saying that an unborn child is a living human being, therefore it is a member of humanity, therefore entitled to the same fundamental human rights.
And I don't think the status quo of society or on this board determines whether or not an unborn child is a human being. It's a scientific and medical fact. Whether or not the status quo accept it as fact is another thing.
**Edit** http://www.abortiontv.com/images/01_07.JPG **Edit**
7 WEEK old - "clump of cells" (i.e. fingernail) or an obvious human being? You can see it's limbs and chest in the on-going process of developing.
To pick and choose any random point in the development of an unborn child is purely arbitrary. It is silly to say that for example on day 23 the child is a non-human human and on day 24 it magically becomes a human-human complete with fundamental human rights. There exists an objective point where the child becomes a living human being and that is conception. This is the necessary and sufficient point to determine fundamental human rights.
Of course not. Certainly immoral laws can exist. We debate whether they ought to exist. Slavery and segregation are prime examples. MLK made some of the best arguments against immoral laws.Corvus wrote:Since you yourself are opposed the death penalty and euthanasia, you understand that because something is legal does mean it cannot be immoral.
Letter from Birmingham Jail - Here's a great example.
Actually I disagree with that slippery slope. The reason is because the child is distinct from the woman. The child is not comparable to one of the woman's organs. And in fact the goverment already does possess such jurisdiction via fetal homicide laws. So you (and John Kerry) don't believe if a man kicks a pregnant woman, causing her to abort that the man ought to be held accountable for murder?Take note of the second part of the quote. It seems to me that Kerry believes a woman's womb is outside of the jurisdiction of the federal government, and I believe this is quite right. The contents of a persons body are under the complete jurisdiction of its owner (up until the person takes illicit substances, which are illicit for the reason that they alter behaviour that cause harm to the greater society). To say otherwise sets a dangerous precedent. If the government could force a woman to bring a child to full term against the woman's will, then it could just as easily force you to relinquish an organ in order to save the life of a citizen you care nothing about. I have strong objections to this sort of authority.
That's a terrible justification for abortion. The same justifiable logic could lead us to legalize murder, rape, etc. because people are going to go out and do it anyways.Also, in one the links you very kindly provided, Kerry explains how the ramifications of denying a woman the services of a doctor if she wishes to abort will...
....take us back to the days of back alleys, gag doctors.., etc.
The only option for women in such circumstances are to obey the law, or simply, upon discovering they are pregnant, concoct some home-made abortifacient, drink alcohol, fall on their stomach or use a coat hanger. I'd much rather they do it safely, with the help of medical professionals.
It comes down to choice, and if a woman will not live with a 9 month inconvenience of a pregancy, then she deserves to be in jail. There is no justification for abortion based on inconvenience. Any woman who believes there is, is a moral barbarian, and so is any person who defends her is also.
Right/Wrong judgements presuppose a standard or a law by which we can make those judgements. What I was trying to distinguish by posting the definitions of morals/mores is that morals are "what ought to be" and beg the question of the standard/law which determines that. Mores are "what is" and serve as a simple description or behaviour as to how we act, regardless of the standard. I think it's important to make that distinction when discussing morality.I do not misdefine morality. Your own source states morality is "A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct". Since the idea is a judgement of something, one can call it a perspective. Mores are something very different.
Actually I view it like this:It is important to understand you are referring to one specific type of law: Criminal law. Civil law is something quite different which deals with matters of business, trade, credit, insurance, and even bus tickets. Bus tickets do not need to be "predicated", and neither does any other law. Criminal law deals with people who have broken the social contract by committing a crime. A crime is not just committed against an individual, but also against the entire state (or society). Not only are things like murder and theft covered by criminal law, which, coincidentally, are considered immoral things, but also the act of "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre". A rule that, I am certain, is a foremost in any person's system of ethics.Many of these cannot be predicated on anything by any stretch of imagination. Neither is it necessary.
Recently we have seen that any law that is not "values neutral" has been abandoned. Suicide is no longer a crime, and antiquated laws against sodomy have been expunged.
1.) Criminal law involves moral wrongs deemed harmful to society in addition to the victim. They are public matters.
2.) Civil law involve torts which are moral wrongs deemed harmful to victim alone. They are private matters.
3.) Legal rules/regulations have no immediate moral significance - i.e. traffic regulations, building codes, etc.
I do not place bus tickets in the same catagory as torts. Civil law involves violating a social contract to the same extent criminal law does. Both criminal and civil laws are based on a person's rights, which are derived from morality.
The victimless crime debate is an interesting one and cannot be argued at length on this thread. Should dumping oil in the alley behind your house be a crime? It has no victim and certainly a few quarts of oil isn't going to hurt anything.
First off, that quote is ignorant to the relationship between morality and the law. I really don't want to get into that debate here since it deserves it's own thread.<i>The Guinness Encyclopedia:
Crimes and the State.
The notion that the criminal law always enforces morality is a mistaken one. While the criminal law can be used to enforce the Ten Commandments, for example, it can also be used to bolster the most repressive regimes, such as Nazi Germany. For the society that has made the law, crimes are wrongs committed not just against an individual victim, but against society as a whole. Thus prosecutions are almost always brought by the state and only rarely by individual citizens.
</i>
A foetus is not a member of society. Its death is also of no consequence to anyone but the parents.
But I will respond to your conclusion by saying that an unborn child is a living human being, therefore it is a member of humanity, therefore entitled to the same fundamental human rights.
So experience is morally significant? That is another arbitrary characteristic defining humanness. Does that make a 5 month old infant less human than a 50 year old? We give the same fundamental human rights to all humans regardless of "experience of the world."The unborn child does not have any experience of the world. The blank page has nothing to do with inherited advantages. The blank page has been bleached, cut, and ruled up with lines and margins. But no one has yet written on it, which is why nothing is lost, and if this page is used for the purposes of adding another page to a work-in-progress (stem cell research), then I am all for it. Since this has to do with my own belief of what gives value to a human life, I will end this note here, as it has nothing whatsoever to do with this particular topic.
Call it what you want, I will continue to call it murder because it OUGHT to be illegal. It's not an emotional appeal, it's a philosophical appeal. The intentional killing of any other human being is considered murder. It's silly to think that intentionally killing unborn children is not the same.If murder is legal it is not murder. Murder is defined as "an unlawful killing". Any attempt to mischaracterise it as such is, I believe, entirely emotional. Abortion is, as I understand it, legal at the present moment, so cannot be termed "murder". You obviously disagree with the decision that made it legal, but there are three of us (correct me if I am wrong, gentlemen) who do, and disagree with your assessment that a foetus, zygote, or whatever you want to call it is entitled to rights before it has developed into something recognisably human. I would not treat an egg with the same courtesy as I would treat a chicken.
And I don't think the status quo of society or on this board determines whether or not an unborn child is a human being. It's a scientific and medical fact. Whether or not the status quo accept it as fact is another thing.
Since we're posting pictures:I reject the notion that this:
http://images.google.com.au/images?q=tb ... embryo.jpg
is entitled to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
**Edit** http://www.abortiontv.com/images/01_07.JPG **Edit**
7 WEEK old - "clump of cells" (i.e. fingernail) or an obvious human being? You can see it's limbs and chest in the on-going process of developing.
To pick and choose any random point in the development of an unborn child is purely arbitrary. It is silly to say that for example on day 23 the child is a non-human human and on day 24 it magically becomes a human-human complete with fundamental human rights. There exists an objective point where the child becomes a living human being and that is conception. This is the necessary and sufficient point to determine fundamental human rights.
Last edited by Esoteric_Illuminati on Fri Oct 15, 2004 4:46 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-EI
"Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper or your self confidence."
Robert Frost
"Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper or your self confidence."
Robert Frost
Re: Abortion
Post #84[Day] She is free to do whatever she wants. If such a law ever passed, "even the rocks would cry out." (Luke 19:40) No law will ever stop believers from praising and praying because it doesn't have to be out loud.bernee51 wrote:No I'm not angry - why do you think I am? What anger have you seen in my post?Daystar wrote:You sound angry, like you really have a chip on your shoulder.
[Day] Sorry, bad read on my part
I do, however, get a little miffed at those who hold a particular stance e.g. abortion is wrong, and want their POV to apply to all. This is particulary so when the decision an individal may or may not make is not going to impact on those pushing a particular POV.
[Day] Since women are lawuflly permitted to destroy their unborn babies, they have seven justices to thank. But my question is, what language in the constitution gives women this right? I argue that these seven justices twisted, turned and tortured the text of certain amendments to squeeze out a decision that is far beyond their intent. For some reason, these justices felt that it was necessary for women to have this right.
Tell me, what is the effeect on you if your neighvbour chooses to abort?
[Day] In other words, live and let live. This is a paradigm that says, "I will make my own rules and live by them." We happen to have laws and traditions that govern our communities, and there is a law that says killing another human being is murder. Where do you think that law came from? (Exo. 20:13). Anyone who thinks what a woman carries in her womb is not a human being just doesn't get it. The womb was designed by the Creator for a human life, not a blob of cells that represents something else.
What right do you have to tell her what she can and cannot do with her body.
[Day] I don't believe in "telling," but "sharing." I would share with her what God says, that her body belongs to Him because he created her. He didn't create her to do whatever she wants with her body, but to love him, serve him and bring glory to his name. I would say that killing what he created is murder, not just by his standard, but our own. If she doesn't want me to share that with her, fine. It's between her and God.
How would you feel if she pushed to enact a law that prevented you from praying?
As a matter of fact, God hears the prayers and praises of his children as much from their hearts as their mouths. Have you ever prayed, or praised God from your heart? If you haven't, try it
Post #85
The child may be a person in its own right, but it is using the woman's organs. Even if it is a person, it does not have the right to usurp the ownership of anothers organs. Denying someone the use of your body is not an immoral act, and before the fetus is capable of surviving outside of the womb, that is all an abortion is: denying the use of one's organs by someone else.Esoteric_Illuminati wrote:Actually I disagree with that slippery slope. The reason is because the child is distinct from the woman. The child is not comparable to one of the woman's organs.
Re: Abortion
Post #86my heart is a pump, it functions to help in the oxygenation of my body. It does not pray, think or do anything other than pump.Daystar wrote: Have you ever prayed, or praised God from your heart? If you haven't, try it
And it, so far, has been doing a damn good job of that.
cheers
Re: Abortion
Post #87[Day] Your sillybernee51 wrote:my heart is a pump, it functions to help in the oxygenation of my body. It does not pray, think or do anything other than pump.Daystar wrote: Have you ever prayed, or praised God from your heart? If you haven't, try it
And it, so far, has been doing a damn good job of that.
cheers
Of course, the "heart" I'm talking about is not that organ that distributes blood around your body, but the essence of who you are. If you love your wife from your heart, you are saying that you love her deeply and that she is the most important thing in your life. Our heart is the symbolic seat of our emotions, intellect, soul. See what I mean?God will hear the heart-felt prayer over any that come from the lips.
Post #88
To pick and choose any random point in the development of an unborn child is purely arbitrary. It is silly to say that for example on day 23 the child is a non-human human and on day 24 it magically becomes a human-human complete with fundamental human rights. There exists an objective point where the child becomes a living human being and that is conception. This is the necessary and sufficient point to determine fundamental human rights.[/quote]
[Day] Excellant post, Illuminati. It's an amazing thing that you can go to jail for destroying a turtle egg, or eagle egg, but not for taking the life of the human "egg." BTW, that's an incredible picture of the aborted baby along side the dime. Anyone who can see that and conclude that the unborn are not fully human just doesn;t get it.
I think Roe v Wade is going to be challenged pretty soon. Should be very interesting.
[Day] Excellant post, Illuminati. It's an amazing thing that you can go to jail for destroying a turtle egg, or eagle egg, but not for taking the life of the human "egg." BTW, that's an incredible picture of the aborted baby along side the dime. Anyone who can see that and conclude that the unborn are not fully human just doesn;t get it.
I think Roe v Wade is going to be challenged pretty soon. Should be very interesting.
Re: Abortion
Post #89Warning...off topic
If he did he would do as he promised in the NT and actually answer prayers. He doesn't so he either doesn't care or doesn't exist. My money is on the latter.
Sri Ramana Maharshi once said about prayer: "I see what the problem is - when you pray you always ask for something you want, never for anything you don't want"
Just so you have an idea of where I am coming from on the deity issue, I offer the following for your consideration.
"Seek Him inside yourself, and learn who it is that says: "My God, my spirit, my understanding, my soul and my body. Understand the source of sorrow and joy, and love and hate, and waking though you dont want to, and sleeping though you dont want to, and getting angry when you dont want to, and falling in love though you dont want to. For if you closely investigate these things, you will find Him inside yourself." Monoimos, Gnostic, 3rd century CE
thanks, that's the nicest thing anyone has said to me in the last five minutesDaystar wrote:[Your silly
so why did you say heart? The essence of who I am is "the void". It is the "nothingness" that is the true Self. My heart (and other organs for that matter) are impermanent. The essence of who I am is infinite and indestructible. Try meditating for a few years - you may then get an inkling of what I mean.Daystar wrote: Of course, the "heart" I'm talking about is not that organ that distributes blood around your body, but the essence of who you are.
actually I usually say that I love her deeply. I don't use the heart metaphor - i don't believe it truly represents the manner and depth of my love.Daystar wrote: If you love your wife from your heart, you are saying that you love her deeply and that she is the most important thing in your life.
I know what you are trying to say.Daystar wrote: Our heart is the symbolic seat of our emotions, intellect, soul. See what I mean?
no he won't - he doesn't exist.Daystar wrote: God will hear the heart-felt prayer over any that come from the lips.
If he did he would do as he promised in the NT and actually answer prayers. He doesn't so he either doesn't care or doesn't exist. My money is on the latter.
Sri Ramana Maharshi once said about prayer: "I see what the problem is - when you pray you always ask for something you want, never for anything you don't want"
Just so you have an idea of where I am coming from on the deity issue, I offer the following for your consideration.
"Seek Him inside yourself, and learn who it is that says: "My God, my spirit, my understanding, my soul and my body. Understand the source of sorrow and joy, and love and hate, and waking though you dont want to, and sleeping though you dont want to, and getting angry when you dont want to, and falling in love though you dont want to. For if you closely investigate these things, you will find Him inside yourself." Monoimos, Gnostic, 3rd century CE
-
otseng
- Savant
- Posts: 20984
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Has thanked: 218 times
- Been thanked: 393 times
- Contact:
Post #90
I would like to respectfully ask everyone to not post images directly in this thread. Please provide only a link to the images, even if you consider the image to be non-controversial.
Suffice it to say that I am experienced with debates on abortion when images are provided. And that directly posting images will escalate an already heated topic into an explosive one.
This will be my only warning in this. If images are posted in this thread, I will be deleting the post.
Thank you for your cooperation in this request.
