Trigger warning: Personally opposed, but almost prochoice.

[YeshuaRedeemed]

I find it interesting that we all think it's our place to make this decision for everyone else.

Why do we do this?

You are looking for a problem where there is none. I see no issue with being a moderate.

 

[Valjean]

I find it interesting that we all think it's our place to make this decision for everyone else.

Prohibition is part of the social contract. Certain freedoms must be curtailed if we're to live together peaceably. We can't just kill at a whim, walk away with another's property, &c.

Why do we do this?[/QUOTE]
Our brains are wired to value propriety, order, and conformity, and to reject dissidence.

 

[pearl]

Or seem to have no concern for the life of a human post natal.

That's the difference between pro-life and anti-abortion. Pro-life entails all life from conception to death at every stage not simply post uterus. Morally, pro-choice may make sense, but legally pro-choice is for the right to abortion, pro=abortion. I agree abortion should be rare and safe. I think the Court will ultimately send the 'right to abortion' back to the states. I think that would have been the position of Justice Anton Scalia who insisted the Constitution does not speak to abortion. If Roe v Wade were challenged again in the Court, Scalia would have voted against overturning it, again because it has no place in the Constitution, as it is to be by democratic choice. It is not a moral issue, but one of Constitutional law.

 

[PureX]

You are looking for a problem where there is none. I see no issue with being a moderate.

Abortion is an "issue" precisely because most people think it's their right/obligation to decide for other people whether they should be able to have an abortion, or not. And the question I was asking, is why? Why do so many of us assume that we have the right or the obligation to make this decision for everyone else?

 

[PureX]

Prohibition is part of the social contract. Certain freedoms must be curtailed if we're to live together peaceably. We can't just kill at a whim, walk away with another's property, &c.

Something has to live before it can be killed. And it has to be a human being before we can call killing it, murder. The debate rests on how and when this definition occurs, and there is no agreed upon resolution. In fact, it is this lack of resolution regarding when and what is a human being that is at the heart of the issue. Because no one is proposing that it's OK to murder human beings. The debate is about killing POTENTIAL human beings. And the argument stems from the fact that we do not know when, exactly, a human fetus stops being a potential human being, and becomes an actual human being.

The courts have determined that this occurs when the fetus can survive outside the womb (about 22 - 24 weeks). But this is not a very well reasoned, nor easily determined point of delineation. And so it has not really satisfied anyone who prefers some other logical definition of that transition.

But my question comes from the obvious fact that we cannot, and do not all agree on when this transition occurs, and yet nearly all of us seem to feel that we still have the right and even the obligation to decide this for everyone else, and to then force our decision onto everyone else through the law.

Why do we think we have this right?

Our brains are wired to value propriety, order, and conformity, and to reject dissidence.

I think that's way too polite of a description for what's going on. Because what we're all doing is taking on the role of dictator. Even though we have not been given that role by those we would be dictating to. And even though we clearly would not accept such dictation from others.

 

[Cacotopia]

You are looking for a problem where there is none. I see no issue with being a moderate.

He wasn't responding to specifically you. Humans have tendencies in general to think they should bark out orders to everyone else.

 

[Valjean]

Something has to live before it can be killed. And it has to be a human being before we can call killing it, murder. The debate rests on how and when this definition occurs, and there is no agreed upon resolution. In fact, it is this lack of resolution regarding when and what is a human being that is at the heart of the issue. Because no one is proposing that it's OK to murder human beings. The debate is about killing POTENTIAL human beings. And the argument stems from the fact that we do not know when, exactly, a human fetus stops being a potential human being, and becomes an actual human being.

Good points. See post #13. I would confer moral status on the basis of commonly agreed on qualities, defining humanity or personhood by these qualities. Those organisms or structures that have these qualities are persons, and due moral consideration, those who do not, don't.

But my question comes from the obvious fact that we cannot, and do not all agree on when this transition occurs, and yet nearly all of us seem to feel that we still have the right and even the obligation to decide this for everyone else, and to then force our decision onto everyone else through the law.

Why do we think we have this right?
I think that's way too polite of a description for what's going on.

It was intended more as a statement of original cause than a description.

 

[osgart]

Im all for birth control and medical procedures that save a mothers life by ending the fetus' life.

Other then that im pro life, i think its societys responsibility to take care of children.

 

[PureX]

My two cents:
A foetus is a human being, separate from its mother. It's not, however, a person. We have moral obligations toward persons, but not necessarily toward humans.

Moral obligation is accorded to persons, who are sentient and self-aware, with a concept of futurity and desire for continued existence. People are generally capable of fear and suffering, and of joy and happiness.
Independent humans, chickens and little green men from flying saucers would have these qualities. Foetuses, jellyfish and rocks would not.

I still don't think we can set a point in development where this sort of 'personhood' manifests. So that even if we were to adopt it, I doubt it would provide a functional resolution to the disagreement.

 

[Valjean]

I still don't think we can set a point in development where this sort of 'personhood' manifests. So that even if we were to adopt it, I doubt it would provide a functional resolution to the disagreement.

So there is no functional solution?

 

[crossfire]

Always takes two to tango.

That said, I do think there should be more by the way of contraception for men.

What are the chances of men taking a pill everyday without fail?

 

[PureX]

So there is no functional solution?

At present, it does not appear so. At least not a functional solution that most of us could agree on.

In the meantime, my suggestion would be to focus on how to prevent as many unwanted pregnancies as we can. And on how to be as understanding and helpful as possible when it does inevitably happen.

But instead, all we do is seek to impose our own opinions on the matter on everyone else, by force of law. And we're even willing to corrupt our judicial system with blatantly biased judges to make that happen. So, currently, our response seems to be, "when in doubt, use force, at all cost". Which strikes me as being bizarrely unwise, unfair, and irrational.