Abortion

[Marisa]

You had me right up until “entirely ethical.” : )

Re: Libertarianism --- Even though I agree the govt is way too invasive, corrupt and ineffective; giving people the rights to choose everything and anything for themselves doesn’t seem to be working well either. - - - (of course my solutions are not popular at all, so no need to revisit that.)

I don't think rights should be something that everyone gets to vote on. Do you want me voting on YOUR rights? I sincerely doubt you'd jump at that opportunity.

 

[Marisa]

The same thing miscarriage has to do with elective abortion. Nothing.

Nor did my post imply that they had a connection. The connection was in the absurdity of the argument that natural miscarriages in whatever proportion validates elective abortion. It is a stupid argument. One easily shown as such by considering that 100% of lives will naturally end in death and yet all but the depraved would say it is immoral to murder them after they are born.

Are you sure you understood what Tyson's quote (which is actually Sam Harris' misattributed to Tyson) actually means? It means if you believe that god is responsible for everything that happens, then he's as responsible for the conception as he is for the spontaneous miscarriage. Be definition that makes God the most prolific abortionist ever. And if one believes that and objects to abortion because they believe God is against. Then that person does not understand what he/she believes.

“It has been estimated that 50 percent of all human conceptions end in spontaneous abortion, usually without a woman even realizing that she was pregnant. In fact, 20 percent of all recognized pregnancies end in miscarriage. There is an obvious truth here that cries out for acknowledgment: if God exists, He is the most prolific abortionist of all.”

― Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation
Quote by Sam Harris: “It has been estimated that 50 percent of all hu...”

 

[Marisa]

What? If a gang of bikers is pulling out chains and clubs, and then one of them pulls out a gun, then I am 100% justified in the use of deadly force to..."further my own life"

Interesting that you should mention exceptions to a hard and fast "truth" that killing is always wrong in a conversation where anti choice proponents may be professing just that. Can abortion ever be used to prolong a woman's life? Does pregnancy, labor and delivery ever pose a potential threat to a woman's health and/or continued life? I'd wager many anti choice proponents in this conversation are wholly unaware that pregnancy still kills women, as does childbirth.

ETA: your analogy doesn't really fit nonetheless, you aren't asking those bikers for temporary or permanent use af any of their organs, are you?

 

[leibowde84]

This is arbitrary.
I'm arbitrary too, but I see it differently.
To be "pro-abortion" means to favor the legality of abortion. No other interpretation is common.
And as we libertarians say, "We're pro-choice on everything.", including.....
- The right to choose when we die.
- The right to choose serving in the military or not.
- The right to contraception & abortion. (I've never personally used the latter right.)
- The right to choose circumcision or not (for oneself...not for others).
- There are more choices.

I don't disrespect anyone's identifying as "pro-choice", but I'm both that & "pro-abortion".
The latter is more specific, accurate, unambiguous, cromulent, acceptable & entirely ethical.

I guess I would have to disagree. I don't think that the term "pro-abortion" means that you are in favor of keeping the choice available legally. I think it is a way for pro-lifers to pain pro-choicers as people who think that killing babies for convenience is good. I see your point though. You should be able to identify however you want to. My problem is when people on the other side of this debate try to abuse this classification.

 

[leibowde84]

"bodily autonomy" --- that sounds pretty one sided to me. Maybe we can appease the evolution crowd and just refer to it as "natural selection."

(I respect your right to hold your own opinions and ideas of right and wrong. Very few switch sides on this subject.)

Everyone has the right to bodily autonomy. No one can be forced to give up the use of their body to another against their will. It is the underlying basis of all other rights.

 

[Revoltingest]

I guess I would have to disagree. I don't think that the term "pro-abortion" means that you are in favor of keeping the choice available legally. I think it is a way for pro-lifers to pain pro-choicers as people who think that killing babies for convenience is good. I see your point though. You should be able to identify however you want to. My problem is when people on the other side of this debate try to abuse this classification.

They'll make the same arguments & accusations no matter what label we use.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is arbitrary.
I'm arbitrary too, but I see it differently.
To be "pro-abortion" means to favor the legality of abortion. No other interpretation is common.
And as we libertarians say, "We're pro-choice on everything.", including.....
- The right to choose when we die.
- The right to choose serving in the military or not.
- The right to contraception & abortion. (I've never personally used the latter right.)
- The right to choose circumcision or not (for oneself...not for others).
- There are more choices.

I don't disrespect anyone's identifying as "pro-choice", but I'm both that & "pro-abortion".
The latter is more specific, accurate, unambiguous, cromulent, acceptable & entirely ethical.

To me, "pro-abortion" just means "I'm in favour of more abortions happening." It doesn't say to me "I'm in favour of keeping the option of abortion available legally" except to the extent that making abortion illegal would presumably reduce the number of abortions that happen.

While I'm certainly in favour of keeping abortion safe and legal, I'd be perfectly happy if the alternatives to abortion were all so wonderful that every woman chose something else and no abortions happened at all.

... and I don't see how being in favour of a hypothetical scenario with no abortions could ever be seen as "pro-abortion".

 

[leibowde84]

To me, "pro-abortion" just means "I'm in favour of more abortions happening." It doesn't say to me "I'm in favour of keeping the option of abortion available legally" except to the extent that making abortion illegal would presumably reduce the number of abortions that happen.

While I'm certainly in favour of keeping abortion safe and legal, I'd be perfectly happy if the alternatives to abortion were all so wonderful that every woman chose something else and no abortions happened at all.

... and I don't see how being in favour of a hypothetical scenario with no abortions could ever be seen as "pro-abortion".

I wholeheartedly agree. Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[BilliardsBall]

PP isn't in the business of talking people into or out of anything. Which is not something a CPC can say.

I'm going to repeat myself. I worked as the Assistant Director of a CPC for years. I've no earthly or unearthly reason or agenda to lie to you when I tell you I both saw PP coercion firsthand and offered at our center a safe place for people to come and talk. Our agenda wasn't merely pro life, and it really wasn't even pro life advocacy. It was saving souls, not by coercion but by showing love to others.

As an aside, it's a little demeaning to our clients themselves to say my CPC (which again, was a place where I worked and counseled others) "talked people into doing things". As if adults, even young adults, cannot make up their own minds on the issues! As if we'd see someone two weeks pregnant and be so utterly beguiling and hypnotic that they were under our magical spell for months on end where we had no contact... we were also pro-choice. Abortion is legal in this country and a choice. Put a better way, we would "let" the client have an abortion (PLEASE read my post, "let" is in quotes--you kind of make it sound like we held guns to people's heads for nine months emotionally) knowing they would often avail themselves of post-abortion counseling and put their trust in Jesus for salvation.

 

[1robin]

Tell me, how do you feel about the Death Penalty?

I do believe that crime should face stiff penalties if those penalties are shown to lower crime.

It means that the fetus is not yet a person. And as others have mentioned, even if it is a person, no one is obligated to keep someone else alive. No one, man or woman, is obligated to be a host-organism or organ-farm for anyone against their will. Not to mention that abortions will happen. Making them illegal just opens up a black-market for the service, to funnel more money into organized crime, and removing all possible regulation & oversight.

Yet that does not actually explain anything. If I am going to make arguments that will result in millions of deaths then I would demand of myself a much better justification than a subjective label arbitrarily assigned to a living being. What humans consider a person is infinitely meaningless. I think you argument is the attempt to suggest that since we must make some laws that we are justified in making those laws despite their being mere contrivances. This is not the case. We do not need to decide at what time a fetus is less than a person (a 100% meaningless label anyway). WE can do as I have suggested, admit we have no flipping idea and gamble on life instead of death and not allow abortions for the sake of convenience at any point.

You have two options regarding abortion if you don't want the black-market thing to happen;

The black market thing is going to happen regardless. Laws are not made only if they have no negative consequences. Laws are supposed to based on moral justifications (IOW laws are supposed to be just). Laws do not force anyone to the black-market, people themselves do. We must make just laws even if a few people mistakenly use those laws to justify doing wrong. For example we do not legalize drugs because making them illegal results in lower drug quality.

1. Keep it legal.

As morally insane as legalizing abortion carte blanche would be, it would at least be more philosophically consistent to do even that than to contrive complete fantasy about what day a fetus is a person and has rights.

2. Render it illegal and then be prepared to foot the bill to care for the woman carrying the child(that she does not want) and also to pay for the care the child will need after it is born.

That is absurd. We do not make laws about things with the expectation that there will never be anyone who will use it as an excuse to do something else wrong. Laws are supposed to represent one of two things.

1. Malum prohibitum (plural mala prohibita, literal translation: "wrong [as or because] prohibited") is a Latin phrase used in law to refer to conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute, as opposed to conduct evil in and of itself, or malum in se.

Or

2. Malum in se (plural mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct. It is distinguished from malum prohibitum, which is wrong only because it is prohibited.

There is no third criteria which is to have no one who uses them for an excuse to do something else wrong. If so we would have to repeal all laws because almost all of them are used as an excuse to do other wrong things.

BTW only with God do you have the second case. In a secular world you can only have the first case.

Or Hitler 2.0. All things being equal and such. Don't toss around the "cancer cure" and the like without recognizing that we've also gotten rid of an equal or greater number of monsters.

Are you actually validating abortion by the idea that maybe there was a second Hitler coming and we were right to abort a few hundred million lives to prevent his arrival. If so then you have just justified Nuclear self extermination or universal incarceration.

Quibble time; the Ubermench is attainable by all people. It's a state of mind or system of philosophy brought about by choice.

Nietzsche while being insane was also practical. I do not think even an atheist philosopher of his caliber would suggest that this super enlightened state would be universal or even the majority. He talked about humanity being led into this promise land be rare individuals, not spontaneously arriving at this state through simply time. IOW it will depend on one or a few leaders leading the rest of the sheeple to this status. We very well could have aborted these leaders. However this was a satirical side note and not important.

Appeals to emotion aren't going to work with me.

I intentionally avoid appeals to emotion and could not find one in what you responded to. 100 million inexcusable deaths is not primarily an emotional issue, it is a moral or ethical issue.

Deaths? 88%(or more) abortions are done before the 12-week mark. This is something about the size of a lime at this point. It's also just now forming the most basic nerves. It's less developed neurologically at this stage than most invertebrates.

This is a perfect example of my point. You do not have any idea at what stage abortion is right or wrong, I cannot prove that my basis for knowing when or if it is justifiable to kill a human life for the sake of convenience. We are both ignorant. I admit the ignorance and gamble on life. You ignore the ignorance and justify death. I do not care where you draw this imaginary line, it is drawn ultimately in complete ignorance and from preference. I would hope decisions of this magnitude were made on better grounds. If not then this is moral insanity.

 

[BilliardsBall]

But that's what laws are for. There is no reason for you to be unable to buy beer or cigarettes the day before you turn whatever the legal age happens to be. That extra 24 hours isn't going to change much of anything. But that law is in place because otherwise we're just winging it, relying entirely on individual experiences that can and will run the gambit from good to terrible. Same thing applies to abortion. It being legal until X or Y is for the sake of simplicity, functionality and applicability.

A fetus becomes a person, it doesn't start as one. Neither you nor I expect sperm & eggs to have the same rights & laws as people. They are just as much an intermediary stage to becoming a person as a fetus(prior to being viable outside the womb) is. But we classify sperm & eggs as parts of the individual they come from. Because without that person, they're dead. Wholly dependent on that individual to survive. A fetus is no different except in regards to it being "more human" than sperm or eggs are.

It is better to err on the side of a person we know exists rather than a person that might exist.

I wouldn't shoot a gun into a room where there might be another person.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Personally, I am anti-abortion, but that is a personal preference. Even more so I am pro-choice, and that is a matter of principle and human compassion. I do not believe life starts at conception. I believe life started once. I believe every sperm is alive, and therefore every act of sex is the abortion of 10 to 20 million possible humans. I believe every ova is alive, and therefore every menstrual cycle is the death of a potential child.

When it is scientific fact that 70% of fertilized fetuses result in spontaneous abortions, I must strive to justify forcibly refusing early term abortions based merely on MY EVAUATION of the situation; I find myself believing only the pregnant party can make that choice.

Plants do it, animals do it, god does it! Only a self-righteous individual could raise themselves above all nature and god and decide for others.

And what I'm trying to say is not that you have to decide for others right now, although if it comes to a vote, you have the opportunity to vote and let the majority decide. Rather, I'm saying that it sounds like most everyone here is for the fewest abortions possible and that all here affirm life. The path to fewer abortions includes counseling people to not hide sexual activity via abortion but to trust that chances are, if your mom had kids, she had sex, too.

 

[1robin]

Yes, it does. This argument is about whether a woman's bodily autonomy is as precious as anyone else's. It's just that simple.

Yes stating the potential argument is that simple. Concluding that argument is infinitely more complicated. This discussion necessitates the conclusion not merely the argument. Re-stating the argument no matter how simple is of little value.

I'm not wrong because our society does not accept the idea of special pleading.

This is an argument founded on either might makes right or popular opinion. If what societal fashions of the moment dictate what is right then Hitler's Germany was morally justified in 1942.

ETA: "abortionist" is only slightly offensive. FYI.

I do not play the political correct game. Arguments require labels or terminology. I only have so much time and have none to spare perusing lists of what over sensitive people have at this moment determined from preference are acceptable terms.

BTW justifying hundreds of millions of deaths for those who cannot defend themselves, and simultaneously objecting to terminology as morally unacceptable is moral insanity and would be humorous if not so infinitely sad. Reminds me of a story about the commandant of a German concentration camp. He went to work everyday and killed tens of thousands of innocents without breaking stride. He came home one day and found someone had run over his dog and did not stop to apologize. He said he could not live in a world of such immorality and committed suicide.

 

[Nietzsche]

I do believe that crime should face stiff penalties if those penalties are shown to lower crime.



Yet that does not actually explain anything. If I am going to make arguments that will result in millions of deaths then I would demand of myself a much better justification than a subjective label arbitrarily assigned to a living being. What humans consider a person is infinitely meaningless. I think you argument is the attempt to suggest that since we must make some laws that we are justified in making those laws despite their being mere contrivances. This is not the case. We do not need to decide at what time a fetus is less than a person (a 100% meaningless label anyway). WE can do as I have suggested, admit we have no flipping idea and gamble on life instead of death and not allow abortions for the sake of convenience at any point.

The black market thing is going to happen regardless. Laws are not made only if they have no negative consequences. Laws are supposed to based on moral justifications (IOW laws are supposed to be just). Laws do not force anyone to the black-market, people themselves do. We must make just laws even if a few people mistakenly use those laws to justify doing wrong. For example we do not legalize drugs because making them illegal results in lower drug quality.

But I would legalize drugs because it's safer for the majority. Yes, a black market will always exist. But you can cripple it.

As morally insane as legalizing abortion carte blanche would be, it would at least be more philosophically consistent to do even that than to contrive complete fantasy about what day a fetus is a person and has rights.

I'm good with that.

That is absurd. We do not make laws about things with the expectation that there will never be anyone who will use it as an excuse to do something else wrong. Laws are supposed to represent one of two things.

1. Malum prohibitum (plural mala prohibita, literal translation: "wrong [as or because] prohibited") is a Latin phrase used in law to refer to conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute, as opposed to conduct evil in and of itself, or malum in se.

Or

2. Malum in se (plural mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct. It is distinguished from malum prohibitum, which is wrong only because it is prohibited.

There is no third criteria which is to have no one who uses them for an excuse to do something else wrong. If so we would have to repeal all laws because almost all of them are used as an excuse to do other wrong things.

BTW only with God do you have the second case. In a secular world you can only have the first case.

I'm not going to argue "secular vs religious morality" with you again. You reject all morality except that which comes from your God. There is no point in arguing it if you flat-out reject any other notion of morality except that which you claim your God(and no one elses') has given.

Are you actually validating abortion by the idea that maybe there was a second Hitler coming and we were right to abort a few hundred million lives to prevent his arrival. If so then you have just justified Nuclear self extermination or universal incarceration.

No, just pointing out the absurdity of the cancer-cure argument.

I intentionally avoid appeals to emotion and could not find one in what you responded to. 100 million inexcusable deaths is not primarily an emotional issue, it is a moral or ethical issue.

This is a perfect example of my point. You do not have any idea at what stage abortion is right or wrong, I cannot prove that my basis for knowing when or if it is justifiable to kill a human life for the sake of convenience. We are both ignorant. I admit the ignorance and gamble on life. You ignore the ignorance and justify death. I do not care where you draw this imaginary line, it is drawn ultimately in complete ignorance and from preference. I would hope decisions of this magnitude were made on better grounds. If not then this is moral insanity.

I fully cop to being a selfish prick. I don't have any problems with it. However, I still find it to be more moral to argue from a stance of personal liberty. Again, no one is obligated to keep anyone else alive. You are not obligated to give a piece of your liver to your brother. A father or mother is not obligated to give any of their organs to their child. Therefore, a mother is not obligated to give her entire body to a fetus she has no intention of raising.

 

[Nietzsche]

I wouldn't shoot a gun into a room where there might be another person.

Good on you. What about giving up your liver to something that might be a person?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

100% of live births result in death. Ergo, it is acceptable to kill whomever we please.

'Tis a silly and specious argument.

It may be silly and specious, but it (and your attempt at argument from absurdity) flows directly from the presumption that God is perfectly good and is therefore an example to follow.

 

[thau]

Everyone has the right to bodily autonomy. No one can be forced to give up the use of their body to another against their will. It is the underlying basis of all other rights.

Who are you quoting? Plato? Jesus? The Supreme Court?

Bodily autonomy means not much to me personally. Not when there is another life / person inside of you who also should be respected with the value of a human person, and has dignity and rights. No other case resembles this if you are going to use some bodily autonomy argument.

Speaking of autonomy, a person does not have the right to kill themselves (except now with these bizarre assisted suicide advocacy groups for the terminally ill). But no healthy adult can swallow 50 sleeping pills and we are allowed to ignore it. We have an obligation to have them medically saved, their "rights" do not trump our laws. So at a minimum, no mother should have the right to terminate the life an unborn that could reasonably survive outside the womb. Yet, that is not the case or even the law in many states or countries.

 

[leibowde84]

Who are you quoting? Plato? Jesus? The Supreme Court?

Bodily autonomy means not much to me personally. Not when there is another life / person inside of you who also should be respected with the value of a human person, and has dignity and rights. No other case resembles this if you are going to use some bodily autonomy argument.

Speaking of autonomy, a person does not have the right to kill themselves (except now with these bizarre assisted suicide advocacy groups for the terminally ill). But no healthy adult can swallow 50 sleeping pills and we are allowed to ignore it. We have an obligation to have them medically saved, their "rights" do not trump our laws. So at a minimum, no mother should have the right to terminate the life an unborn that could reasonably survive outside the womb. Yet, that is not the case or even the law in many states or countries.

What about an adult who chooses not to donate an organ to save a child? Should they be legally forced to give up their bodily autonomy in this case, assuming that the adult in question is the only viable doner?

 

[thau]

What about an adult who chooses not to donate an organ to save a child? Should they be legally forced to give up their bodily autonomy in this case, assuming that the adult in question is the only viable doner?

Well I cannot say? I would guess 'no.' I would not try to conflate the two because there are significant differences in personal responsibility here, IMO.

I mean, if you made that a law, then I think it should follow all citizens have to donate their organs once they pass, if those organs can be reasonably harvested.

 

[Marisa]

I'm going to repeat myself. I worked as the Assistant Director of a CPC for years. I've no earthly or unearthly reason or agenda to lie to you when I tell you I both saw PP coercion firsthand and offered at our center a safe place for people to come and talk. Our agenda wasn't merely pro life, and it really wasn't even pro life advocacy. It was saving souls, not by coercion but by showing love to others.

As an aside, it's a little demeaning to our clients themselves to say my CPC (which again, was a place where I worked and counseled others) "talked people into doing things". As if adults, even young adults, cannot make up their own minds on the issues! As if we'd see someone two weeks pregnant and be so utterly beguiling and hypnotic that they were under our magical spell for months on end where we had no contact... we were also pro-choice. Abortion is legal in this country and a choice. Put a better way, we would "let" the client have an abortion (PLEASE read my post, "let" is in quotes--you kind of make it sound like we held guns to people's heads for nine months emotionally) knowing they would often avail themselves of post-abortion counseling and put their trust in Jesus for salvation.

I value your assessment of PP about as much as you value my opinion of your CPC. Despite your protestation of innocence of the strong arm tactics used by every. Other. CPC. Ever.