Comprehend
Res Ipsa Loquitur
Tigress said:
Then I don't get why you said this:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is it moral to support abortion and not capitol punishment?
- Thread starter Comprehend
- Start date
Then I don't get why you said this:
standing_on_one_foot
Well-Known Member
Ah, loaded questions...but yes, I think it's moral to support a woman's choice in whether she will give birth to the potential life she's carrying, but oppose the taking of existing life, particularly in the context of an imperfect justice system.
The whole discussion rests upon when you see life as beginning, really, and when you think ending it is justified. Shades of moral grey and all that.
Another interesting question would be the reverse, of course: is it moral to oppose abortion on the basis that all life is sacred but support the death penalty?
The whole discussion rests upon when you see life as beginning, really, and when you think ending it is justified. Shades of moral grey and all that.
Another interesting question would be the reverse, of course: is it moral to oppose abortion on the basis that all life is sacred but support the death penalty?
Victor said:
I am with Victor on this issue. :yes:
Peace,
Mystic
James the Persian
Dreptcredincios Crestin
MysticSang'ha said:
As am I. I must say that I'm slightly mistified as to why the question in the OP is being ignored by most in this thread. It wasn't 'Is it morally justifiable to abort?' and nor was it 'Are abortion and the death penalty comparable?'. It was 'Is it consistent to support the one and oppose the other?' That said, Victor's answer is probably the only reasonable one that can be given. He and I are also very unlikely to disagree much on the morality of the two acts, but that is an entirely different question from the one originally posed.
James
Fluffy
A fool
Heya lilithu,
I am unsure what the statistics are for America but abortion rate is on a very slow increase in the UK and so roughly 180,000 abortions are performed per year. So if abortions were banned then that would be an influx of an extra 180,000 lives each year. Currently we have a population increase of 0.28% per year and these would double that figure to 0.6%. I don't think that our society would need to change significantly in order to deal with that increase.
And you are right, on this site at least, these threads don't go downhill all that often. Go RF
.
Heya Mr. Guy,
The alternative to capital punishment is rehabilitation.
I am unsure what the statistics are for America but abortion rate is on a very slow increase in the UK and so roughly 180,000 abortions are performed per year. So if abortions were banned then that would be an influx of an extra 180,000 lives each year. Currently we have a population increase of 0.28% per year and these would double that figure to 0.6%. I don't think that our society would need to change significantly in order to deal with that increase.
And you are right, on this site at least, these threads don't go downhill all that often. Go RF
.Heya Mr. Guy,
The alternative to capital punishment is rehabilitation.
lilithu
The Devil's Advocate
Hi Fluffy,
Ironically, abortion rates decreased during the Clinton administration and have now started to rise again during the Bush administration (probably due to rising unemployment and healthcare costs). (http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_fact1.htm#trends)
Even more ironically, many of the same people who are against abortion support a "family cap" on the amount of money that women on welfare can receive. This basically forces women on welfare to have abortions in order to maintain a reasonable standard of living for themselves and the kids they already have. It's things like this that make me wonder whether anti-abortionists actually care about the well-being of children after they are born. (http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_fact1.htm#welfare)
My point is that you can't just add the number of abortions to the existing birthrate to figure out what the new birthrate would be. But I agree with you at any rate that it would not require a significant change.
There were 1.31 million abortions in 1990 which was the lowest it's been since abortion was made legal again in the U.S. (That's 2.13 abortions for each 1000 women between 15-44 in the U.S. and that percentage was the same in the year 2000.) The decrease was due to both the availability of the "morning after pill" and a marked decrease in access to abortions. For all our talk in the U.S. about abortion rights, the fact is that it doesn't matter if it's legal if women can't get access to it and the religious right has successfully restricted access little by little.Fluffy said:
Ironically, abortion rates decreased during the Clinton administration and have now started to rise again during the Bush administration (probably due to rising unemployment and healthcare costs). (http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_fact1.htm#trends)
Even more ironically, many of the same people who are against abortion support a "family cap" on the amount of money that women on welfare can receive. This basically forces women on welfare to have abortions in order to maintain a reasonable standard of living for themselves and the kids they already have. It's things like this that make me wonder whether anti-abortionists actually care about the well-being of children after they are born. (http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_fact1.htm#welfare)
I think it's a little more complicated than that. Not every aborted pregnancy is an unwanted pregnancy; it was just unwanted at that time. There are women who have abortions because the timing the pregnancy was not convenient (Yes, I know that sounds awful - it makes me queasy thinking about it). But these women did intend to have kids so if abortions were banned, they would be having kids sooner than they wanted but then may likely have fewer kids later. Plus having kids changes your sex life and so would affect subsequent pregnancy rates in other ways. And another small consideration is that pregnancies do miscarry, so some of these abortions would not have resulted in live births even if the woman allowed nature to take its course.Fluffy said:
My point is that you can't just add the number of abortions to the existing birthrate to figure out what the new birthrate would be. But I agree with you at any rate that it would not require a significant change.
I can understand hardness of the heart. But to put yourself ahead of an unborn child does demonstrate a certain level of disregard or selfishness.
Do I think I have a right to judge? No!
A fetus not a child? Perhaps, but an unborn baby that could live outside the mother is a human life and to call it a fetus 10 minutes before it is born is really living in denial.
As far as a moral issue, killing is killing period. How someone could not be OK with one (capital punishment) and fine with the other (abortion) is total hypocrisy.
Do I think I have a right to judge? No!
A fetus not a child? Perhaps, but an unborn baby that could live outside the mother is a human life and to call it a fetus 10 minutes before it is born is really living in denial.
As far as a moral issue, killing is killing period. How someone could not be OK with one (capital punishment) and fine with the other (abortion) is total hypocrisy.
lilithu
The Devil's Advocate
So then we agree that you're just attacking abortion in general. There's nothing magical about late-term abortions. If third trimester abortions, which constitute only around 1% of all abortions, were outlawed you would be attacking 2nd trimester abortions and so on.comprehend said:was that an answer to my question?
The focus on partial birth abortions is because that is where the line is drawn. This is when the disctinction is most readily apparent. One minute it's legal to kill the baby, the next minute it isn't. Do you really think the baby is so radically different in 1 minute? I didn't choose to draw the line. If it were drawn at the 2nd trimester, I would be talking about that point.
No, I don't think that a foetus is radically different from one minute to the next. That's what makes this issue so difficult. But I do think that there is a radical difference between a 7 day old foetus and a 7 month old foetus. It makes no sense to me to lump them in the same category, which is what you seem to be doing.
lilithu
The Devil's Advocate
And yet you do anyway.Reverend Rick said:
Foetus is a biological term. It is used to describe the developmental stage from the time the embryo is implanted in the uterine lining until the time that it and the placenta are detached from the uterus and expelled (ie - born). In other words, so long as it is drawing nourishment from the mother via the placenta it is a foetus. Before that it's an embryo. After that it's an infant.Reverend Rick said:
As for whether the foetus is a "child," the sad truth is that when it is wanted, it is considered to be a child and when it is unwanted, it is not considered to be a child.
Killing is not inherently wrong. Unless you're vegetarian, you have no problem with killing animals for food. You probably have no problem with killing insects or rodents that come uninvited into your house. You probrably have no problem with killing a human intruder who is threatening you and/or your loved ones.Reverend Rick said:
It's murder that's the moral issue. And for the umpteenth time, abortion is only considered murder by those who deem the foetus to be a person. Whether or not you agree with those who do not consider it to be a person, you should at least understand the source of the disagreement.
Killing and murder are two different things.
Reverend Rick said:
Humans are no more special than tigers or frogs, or even ants. The only living thing that values humans more than all other life forms are the humans themselves.
Killing embryos in the 1st trimester don't seem at all a problem to me. But full-born babies should live, IMO
lilithu said:
Nice to meet you lilithu, It is very profound that two people can look upon the same thing and have a completely different view. A compromise is the only solution for this quagmire. Where the line is drawn will appease no one. You are correct about this.
I believe in a woman's right to choose, I just don't think she should have 9 months to make up her mind.
You stated that I was judging. Our definition of judgement differs, but we both are on the same page about killing and murder.
lilithu
The Devil's Advocate
Hello Rev. Rick. I have an ordination from the Universal Life church as well.Reverend Rick said:
We're not as far apart as you might think. I don't think that a woman should have 9 months to make up her mind either. I believe that the longer the foetus is allowed to develop the more rights it aquires, partly because it is becoming more and more of a person and partly because I think a woman gives up her right to self-determination by default if she fails to act on it responsibly. It would be morally irresponsible to wait until the last trimester.
However, having said that, I reiterate that 88% of abortions happen within the first trimester and 98.5% of abortions happen within the first 5-months. Of the 0.17% of abortions that are done in the last trimester, I would bet that the vast majority of these are performed at the late date because it's been discovered that there is either something wrong with the health of the mother or with the health of the foetus. So in my view, all this talk about late term abortions serves to give the public the incorrect impression that women are being irresponsible in terms of abortion.
I also think that you and I could possibly agree on better sex education for young women, easier access to birth control, and better support services should a woman decide to bring the pregnancy to term, all of this with the goal of minimizing the number of unwanted pregnancies that occur in the first place and providing financial and emotional support for women who may otherwise be overwhelmed by the idea of having to raise a baby by herself.
I would absolutely love it if we could make the abortion rates in this country drop down to next to zero. I just don't want to do that by taking away a woman's right to choose. Upon that I am adamant and so, often find myself in the uncomfortable position of supporting abortion rights when I personally find abortion to be tragic and would never opt for abortion myself.
Mr. Hair
Renegade Cavalcade
Huzzles! *smiles*comprehend said:
It can be; and as a person who holds both such positions on those two issues, and yet sees no logical contradiction between the two, I'll try to briefly explain my understanding of this thorny issue. *nods*comprehend said:
It seems, as others have noted, that the crux of this issue comes down to the definition of what constitutes a person. This in itself is an important distinction. A living entity or a human is (in my opinion) relatively easy to define, a person is a little more complex.
Now, there does appear to be a loose, somewhat intuitive rationale within wider society that is collectively interpreted and implemented in some form as regards the definition of what constitutes a person, and thereby what differentiates and distinguishes between various individuals and groups of humans as regards what society judges they are legally and morally entitled to, expected of and responsible for. In other words, there does seem to be a common agreement that while all people are human, not all humans are people.
Examples abound. Many agree that there should be some legal and moral distinction made between, say, a human who suffers from Parkinson's disease and a coma patient, or between an intellectually medial human who accepts and perpetuates their societal norms and values, and a severely mentally handicapped human who does not. The example cited in the OP is simply yet another one.
Onto the interesting (and rather more relevant) part. I believe there now exists two fundamental and interdependent questions that must be answered, and answered well, before we can go any further. Firstly, is such a legal and moral distinction logically consistent, and if so, can it be demonstratably measured, codified and extrapolated from. I feel that I can at least attempt to answer both questions (a good thing too, or this would be a very long "I don't know" reply
), though perhaps with a little hesitation.From my observations, and little more, I discern that there exist four primary aspects and two secondary aspects that in all are recognised and required to fully constitute a person. A human being who does not have each and all of these aspects at one particular point in time can not, at that particular point in time, be considered a person, and thus their legal and moral entitlements, expectations and responsibilities are amended accordingly.
In short, these six aspects are as follows.
Primarily:
A1 ~ Living existence. This aspect entails that a person must themselves be a living entity.
A2 ~ Genetic compatibility. This aspect entails that a person must be a direct offshoot of the species Homo sapiens^. In short, they must be human.
A3 ~ Perceptive qualities. This aspect entails that a person must, in some measurable quality and quantity, have the ability to observe, reason, experience, judge and emote inherently and independently of their immediate environment.
A4 ~ Collective consciousness. This aspect entails that a person must, in some measurable quality and quantity, have the ability to act and interact with other entities. In short, to hold some existence within society.
Secondarily:
B1 ~ Potential existence. This aspect entails that a person must, in some measurable quality and quantity, have the ability to continue their existence beyond the current point in time.
B2 ~ Retention and recall of information. This aspect entails that a person must, in some measurable quality and quantity, have the ability to store, retain and recall information that arose before the current point in time.
Important note: None of these aspects are intended to be regarded as absolute constants, and indeed some are rather less constant then others, and should be treated as such. For example, generally an 89-year old person suffering from the beginnings of dementia will, whilst possessing every afore-mentioned aspect, will hold each aspect in differing amounts to, say, a nominally-healthy 19-year old person. 'Tis a scale within a scale. I am, after all, trying to provide a brief overview of my thinking.
Now, to try and tie it all back together again. We can observe that in this scenario a convicted felon has, at the point in time they become a convicted felon, measurably each and every aspect that fully constitutes a person, and are thus fully appropriated by society their legal and moral entitlements, expectations and responsibilities. (Rather neatly, if a severely mentally handicapped human commits a crime, as they do not hold each and every aspect required to constitute a person, they are not held fully responsible for their actions by society and cannot thus be a convicted felon)
A foetus simply does not, at one particular point in time whilst it exists as a foetus, hold each and every aspect required to constitute a person either, and so their legal and moral entitlements, expectations and responsibilities within society are (and indeed should be) amended accordingly too. Because of this, any direct comparison between the treatment given and received by the two entities as suggested in the scenario above is inaccurate and incomplete, as it does not take into account the differing natures of the two.
This, from my limited perspective at least, is how I can reconcile my position on both these issues while remaining logically consistent.
*smiles*
Finally, I'd more then welcome any and all feedback and criticism of my current thinking, provided of course such refutations were both logical and consistent. I can personally think of two major problems/contradictions as things stand with my reasoning above, but even together I don't think they can sufficiently kill it off. Fruballs for anyone who can help convince me of my errors, and so help me understand better myself and the world around me, and coins if anyone guesses which problems I'm referring to.
(Unless, of course, that would take this thread off-topic, in which case I'll apologise, delete and perhaps make a new thread about this
)(That's also assuming anyone actually read this gobble-dee-gook)
^Not being a scientist or an expert in this field, if I've made a mistake I'd gladly appreciate anyone telling me.
*crosses fingers, and hopes*
lilithu
The Devil's Advocate
Yup, yup, yup. :yes:Nordicßearskin said:
lol, whenever someone writes something like this I always wonder whether they're hoping they haven't made any mistakes or hoping that people won't rip them a new one if they have.Nordicßearskin said:
No real complaints from me. I do worry however, if one were to take your requirements to heart, what implications they have for:
1. a new born baby. Cognitive psychology shows that the ability to reason and judge and other things that we generally associate with consciousness are not fully present at birth. Rather they are aquired over time via interactions with the environment. In fact, in some cultures infanticide is acceptable but it isn't to me.
2. someone suffering from severe dementia. In my view, it can never be the case, no matter how severe the dementia, that a person loses their right to life. I support a person's right to die, should he or she so choose, but I would never want a situation where someone else can decide that a person's life is no longer worth continuing. Obviously, this is another difficult ethical issue, especially in the cases where someone is brain dead but his or her heart is still beating, which is why I would urge everyone to make out a living will so that your wishes are clearly stated.
Primarily:
A1 ~ Living existence. This aspect entails that a person must themselves be a living entity. *Nods* I don't believe there are any reasonable doubts that a fetus is a living entity.
A2 ~ Genetic compatibility. This aspect entails that a person must be a direct offshoot of the species Homo sapiens^. In short, they must be human. *Nods* I don't believe there is any doubt that a baby in question would be of the correct species.
A3 ~ Perceptive qualities. This aspect entails that a person must, in some measurable quality and quantity, have the ability to observe, reason, experience, judge and emote inherently and independently of their immediate environment. Here is a study that involves fetuses whose gestational age is 28 to 36 weeks with a measurable response to light. Here is a study that involves fetuses at 31 weeks responding to sound. Here is a study involving fetuses and memory with success as early as 32 weeks. Of course it would also be interesting to read about the responses of the very premature baby (less than 22 weeks gestational age) who is doing well.
A4 ~ Collective consciousness. This aspect entails that a person must, in some measurable quality and quantity, have the ability to act and interact with other entities. In short, to hold some existence within society. You've already stated this was an overview of your thinking, but I would be curious to know the reasoning behind the last bit in red because I can think of a great many cases where there would be a great deal of seperation between an individual and society beyond the few that you mentioned (like your example of a comatose patient). Regardless, I do feel the previously linked articles showing interaction are a good starting point for this as well.
Secondarily:
B1 ~ Potential existence. This aspect entails that a person must, in some measurable quality and quantity, have the ability to continue their existence beyond the current point in time. The little girl born at less than 22 weeks, gestational age, was able to continue her existence beyond being born extremely premature.
B2 ~ Retention and recall of information. This aspect entails that a person must, in some measurable quality and quantity, have the ability to store, retain and recall information that arose before the current point in time. See the article on memory.
In light of these articles showing responses to stimuli and even memory, as well as the article regarding the baby who survived despite being born at less than 22 weeks, I fail to see your conclusion:
A foetus simply does not, at one particular point in time whilst it exists as a foetus, hold each and every aspect required to constitute a person...
A1 ~ Living existence. This aspect entails that a person must themselves be a living entity. *Nods* I don't believe there are any reasonable doubts that a fetus is a living entity.
A2 ~ Genetic compatibility. This aspect entails that a person must be a direct offshoot of the species Homo sapiens^. In short, they must be human. *Nods* I don't believe there is any doubt that a baby in question would be of the correct species.
A3 ~ Perceptive qualities. This aspect entails that a person must, in some measurable quality and quantity, have the ability to observe, reason, experience, judge and emote inherently and independently of their immediate environment. Here is a study that involves fetuses whose gestational age is 28 to 36 weeks with a measurable response to light. Here is a study that involves fetuses at 31 weeks responding to sound. Here is a study involving fetuses and memory with success as early as 32 weeks. Of course it would also be interesting to read about the responses of the very premature baby (less than 22 weeks gestational age) who is doing well.
A4 ~ Collective consciousness. This aspect entails that a person must, in some measurable quality and quantity, have the ability to act and interact with other entities. In short, to hold some existence within society. You've already stated this was an overview of your thinking, but I would be curious to know the reasoning behind the last bit in red because I can think of a great many cases where there would be a great deal of seperation between an individual and society beyond the few that you mentioned (like your example of a comatose patient). Regardless, I do feel the previously linked articles showing interaction are a good starting point for this as well.
Secondarily:
B1 ~ Potential existence. This aspect entails that a person must, in some measurable quality and quantity, have the ability to continue their existence beyond the current point in time. The little girl born at less than 22 weeks, gestational age, was able to continue her existence beyond being born extremely premature.
B2 ~ Retention and recall of information. This aspect entails that a person must, in some measurable quality and quantity, have the ability to store, retain and recall information that arose before the current point in time. See the article on memory.
In light of these articles showing responses to stimuli and even memory, as well as the article regarding the baby who survived despite being born at less than 22 weeks, I fail to see your conclusion:
A foetus simply does not, at one particular point in time whilst it exists as a foetus, hold each and every aspect required to constitute a person...
Mr. Hair
Renegade Cavalcade
In that case, wonder no more. That's exactly what I'm hoping won't happen.lilithu said:
(By the by, the biologist-footnote-thingie was purely to do with my use of the scientific term 'species', of which I'm not too knowledgeable on)
*mulls, and mulls some more*lilithu said:
I suspect I know where this worry stems from, and how I can answer it. But it's late, and I'm trying to make sure I don't get ripped a new one, as an eloquent member once put it... *smiles*
------
When I said or say something along the lines of:-
I mean just that; that a new born baby (as an example) does not fulfil each and every aspect required and therefore does not fully constitute a person, and thus should not be granted the entire legal and moral entitlements, expectations and responsibilities that society appropriates to a fully constituted person. No more and no less. As a brief example, most societies entitle all persons to hold the ability to consume alcohol, with assorted expectations and responsibilities included alongside such an entitlement. (The legal drinking age being used as a rough means of ensuring that enough sociological, biological and psychological development has occurred to ensure that anyone who does consume alcohol fully constitutes a person) Simply because a new born is not legally and morally entitled to drink alcohol, does not entail that they have no legal and moral entitlements, expectations and responsibilities whatsoever.NordicBearskin said:
The exacting overall nature of those legal and moral entitlements, expectations and responsibilities within a particular society seems to me to be a rather different question to answer, and one which would take me from the hypothetical to the practical.