Abortion: Right or wrong?

[F U Clock]

"Did I request thee, Maker, from my clay
To mould me Man, did I solicit thee
From darkness to promote me?"

I don't know if anyone feels particularly GUNG-HO about abortion, but it's a convenience I as a man am glad exists. If my girlfriend got knocked up, it wouldn't be as simply as, "Oh well let's go get you an abortion right quick!" It would probably be a long, painful conversation. I can only imagine how much more severe it would feel being on the woman's side.

I won't argue for when life begins and all that jazz. It's a distraction from what the real issue is, I think. America's birthrate is pretty fantastic so I think it's easy to forget that childbirth is fucking dangerous and causes drastic changes to your body. Telling a woman she has to go through that is pretty fucked, when it's her body. If we outlaw abortion, will she become a murderer if she drinks too much and the baby is stillborn? Will someone else be a murderer if he punches her in the stomach? Will these women who are unable financially or emotionally to care for a baby not seek out any of the more ancient methods of abortion to get rid of it? Or turn to dangerous home-made abortion devices like coathangers? And that's not discussing the whole rape/incest thing.

All in all, I think it's too much of a case-by-case basis to say whether abortion is right or wrong, and it's not something the government should tell you you can't do for reasons provided.

[RenegadeClock]

It's wrong to not have an abortion.

[PirateClock]

under 8 weeks people should be able to decide whether or not to take it away, regardless of the reasons.
GF of a friend of mine had an abortion because she didn't know birth control doesn't work when you are on antibiotics (ear infection). She's 19, both still in school.

[GearBoxClock]

It takes 18 years and a huge amount of money to have a child. Just because someone got pregnant, doesn't mean that they should have to "face the consequences" when those consequences are being driven into near-poverty, being forced to end any post-secondary education prospects and being stigmatized as slutty.

Just my 2c.

[PatriotClock]

im against abortion because im not a baby killing animal.

but thats just me

[Sinister Clock]

I am for abortion and I think that every pregnant woman in the world should be punched in the stomach until they don't have a baby anymore.

[RibsClock]

We kill things with much more intelligence and emotional depth than a 1 month old fetus in the millions for food. What makes this any different?

In one sense it isn't. One might call to mind "A Modest Proposal" though, that it's treating the killing of human beings as simply a matter of procedure and convenience the way we do with animals.

At the same time one might suggest that the lack of ethical consideration we give to unnecessary killing of animals is also wrong.

In reality, human beings have always been given special consideration and rights and protection under the law as opposed to animals simply for being human, and if we look back in history the instances where we have classified any human beings as less than human and thus not meriting of rights and consideration are, without fail, seen in hindsight as shameful periods of barbarism and selfish exploitation, particularly when it involves the empowered preying on the helpless. I strongly suspect that we shall look back on our period of acceptance of abortion with similar sentiment.

In fact in the earliest parts of a pregnancy a fetus isnt all that different from a tumor.

A fetus is when the genetic material of two people is combined to create a different organism. The only real comparison is that they're made of cells and grow out of a person.

Really its impossible to find a compromise here because religious people believe...

...you will note that I specifically did not take it into the realm of the existence of the soul or religious practice and stated why: it's not really going to be a productive area of discussion at this time, unfortunate as that is from my personal religious perspective.

Also: I agree with your conclusion Ribs, but there are many more ways to justify abortion than whether it's a "human" or not.

Aside from life-threatening circumstances (I frankly have no objection to abortion in that instance) I'd like to see one that's actually justifying abortion and not merely refuting poorly formulated arguments against it like the "implicit agreement" argument.

An argument against having to care for babies resulting from rape:

That analogy could have done with a little less of the argumentum ad ridiculum but I'll bite.

Let's use another example. Let's say there's two conjoined twins, and one of them is unable to survive if separated from the other. Does the other one have the right to say "Terminate him, he's clearly not fully developed, he's totally dependent on me (viability) he's part of my body and therefore not a person, I certainly did not agree to be saddled with him, his existence is a source of social, physical, and economic inconvenience and his 'death' is not my problem."

Typically they would not have the right to simply choose to terminate this other person's life because, on being outside of a womb, they were considered to be a human being with rights that could not be legally unilaterally killed -- such a thing is typically classified as murder.

Would it not be especially unacceptable if it were possible instead to separate this individual from their twin in nine months and have them both survive to insist on it prior to that time?

Again it comes back to an involuntary helpless participant being deprived rights, and it's only ever propped up by attempts to semantically deprive that individual of human classification.

Tell me, what makes humans special?

A better question is "what gives a baby outside the womb the right not to be murdered?"

Because babies have that right, whether they're wanted or convenient or happy or born out of wedlock or conceived through rape, they are considered as inherently having rights and protection under the law.

The whole 'potential to be a human' thing, for one, assumes that it does not classify as a distinct human to begin with, a notion which I've already challenged. It's not the "acorn" of a human being, it's a germinated seed that has already begun to sprout which, I might note, classifies already as a tree, as apparently different in many regards as it may seem from a mature oak. A sperm or an egg are "just cells" or "potential humans" but once they meet, the organism they form is genetically distinct from the bodies that produced them.

Unfortunately we can't really establish "the truth of the matter", so it's really just a matter of how we define things. I agree that it's pointless to talk about it being human or alive or not, but that's because I don't think anyone should be forced to carry someone around inside of them if they don't want to, whether that person will die or not. You don't force kidney transplants on eligible donors.

Again, it's arguing the "rights" of a "someone" at the expense of the rights of someone else. Again one could apply that to a parent saying "I shouldn't be forced to keep track of/feed/care for this baby, or be forced to bother with the adoption process" and again, if we fairly consider it from the perspective of the fetus being classified as a person abortion would never be acceptable, hence why it always comes back to that (frankly ad hoc) semantic argument that they're not.

[Sinister Clock]

Foetuses aren't human is the thing. Under like 4 or 5 months or whatever they don't have enough brain cells for a conciousness and are just a collection of cells at that point. If something doesn't have a consciousness then who the fuck cares. It's like caring about a plant's feelings.

[FloundermanClock]

I personally have no qualms killing something without a brain, or has a non functional brain. It cannot suffer. How can you wrong something that has no mind? Its like pulling a weed or something like that. If it's an endangered species or has some sort of use, then yes, its wrong to kill it. Because you'd be hurting the species. But a single individual of a mindless species that is not limited has no life value. The only reason people are perturbed by killing a fetus that has no brain or a person in vegetative state with no chance of recovery is due to us relating to it as another member of our species. Its kinda like how we get offended when chinese people kill and eat dogs but we have no problems with the shitty way we treat the animals we eat here. Humans are animals, they just happen to be the ones that are posting on the internet and run the world.


EDIT: sinister beat me to it

[AmberArachnidClock]

Aside from life-threatening circumstances (I frankly have no objection to abortion in that instance) I'd like to see one that's actually justifying abortion and not merely refuting poorly formulated arguments against it like the "implicit agreement" argument.

That argument is part of a much larger essay that argues against a bunch of formulated arguments that vary in quality. Honestly I think it's a perfectly acceptable way to approach this topic since it's so convoluted anyway.

That analogy could have done with a little less of the argumentum ad ridiculum but I'll bite.

hey its from a feminist essay from the 70's what do you expect

Let's use another example. Let's say there's two conjoined twins, and one of them is unable to survive if separated from the other. Does the other one have the right to say "Terminate him, he's clearly not fully developed, he's totally dependent on me (viability) he's part of my body and therefore not a person, I certainly did not agree to be saddled with him, his existence is a source of social, physical, and economic inconvenience and his 'death' is not my problem."

Typically they would not have the right to simply choose to terminate this other person's life because, on being outside of a womb, they were considered to be a human being with rights that could not be legally unilaterally killed -- such a thing is typically classified as murder.

Would it not be especially unacceptable if it were possible instead to separate this individual from their twin in nine months and have them both survive to insist on it prior to that time?

I don't think your example works as well as the violinist one. With friends, family, and conjoined twins, you have a sense of obligation. You could never kill your own twin. The violinist example uses a stranger because it is these people that we "feel" the least morally obligated to. She does this so we think about the problem from a more logical standpoint because she wants us to disregard our previous ideas and emotions as much as possible. Sure the unborn fetus is technically "family", but that's not enough of a reason to distinguish whether or not it's morally permissible to abort it.

Again it comes back to an involuntary helpless participant being deprived rights, and it's only ever propped up by attempts to semantically deprive that individual of human classification.

The writer wasn't doing that at all, she was just arguing that the rights to body are more important than the fetus' right to life in that situation.

Also ribs, how do you feel about legislating abortion?



Just to be a devil's advocate, I have an argument against those saying that fetuses aren't human beings. Wouldn't you agree that the reason killing is so morally wrong is that it deprives the victim of it's future? And by that standard are fetuses any different than us in regards to their deaths?

[Munglai]

Honestly I can't see why it matters if you kill a fetus. If someone feels like their unborn child doesn't deserve to die or whatever then that's their call but scientifically speaking it's a much less significant creature than any of the thousands of animals animal we kill every day.

[RibsClock]

I don't think your example works as well as the violinist one. With friends, family, and conjoined twins, you have a sense of obligation. You could never kill your own twin. The violinist example uses a stranger because it is these people that we "feel" the least morally obligated to. She does this so we think about the problem from a more logical standpoint because she wants us to disregard our previous ideas and emotions as much as possible. Sure the unborn fetus is technically "family", but that's not enough of a reason to distinguish whether or not it's morally permissible to abort it.

That seems to imply that the individual is portrayed as a stranger because it's more morally acceptable to kill a stranger for selfish reasons than someone you were actually familiar with.

And I sincerely doubt that's what you think. Perhaps you could clarify?

The writer wasn't doing that at all, she was just arguing that the rights to body are more important than the fetus' right to life in that situation.

Okay, then it's depriving the right of life of a human being for a right less than life for another human being.

Also ribs, how do you feel about legislating abortion?

Exasperated? Eh...

I'm basically in favor of illegality except in life-threatening situations and a well-funded and highly supervised nationalized system of child care for orphans and children separated from their birth parents. The present institutions in place are inadequate, even for our current needs. There should also be nationally sponsored sexual education for all children (not late-teens, prepubescent, because half the point of it is it's preventative).

However, more important (and more difficult) than that is a paradigm shift, a change in typical practice and perspective to address the root of the problem and make the legality of abortion a moot point. We need a change in how people think and feel about sex, about childbirth and children and pregnant women, about rape and rape victims, and frankly about the self-centered mentality.

However, that's quite beyond this particular debate.

Just to be a devil's advocate, I have an argument against those saying that fetuses aren't human beings. Wouldn't you agree that the reason killing is so morally wrong is that it deprives the victim of it's future? And by that standard are fetuses any different than us in regards to their deaths?

Certainly a poignant thought, but by the devil's advocate qualifier I take it you have a refutation handy, I'd like to hear it.

If someone feels like their unborn child doesn't deserve to die or whatever then that's their call

Care to substantiate that?

[AMPEEEM]

Honestly I can't see why it matters if you kill a fetus. If someone feels like their unborn child doesn't deserve to die or whatever then that's their call but scientifically speaking it's a much less significant creature than any of the thousands of animals animal we kill every day.

Yeah, really. We can kill billions of baby cows and chickens, torture them, even, because they aren't one of us, but an unborn thing we share a race with, now THAT is fucking important to preserve.

I'm not religious, I don't know what the religious see so precious in this fetus, and I would say we should simple be allowed to do what we will with these sort of things. This woman who has certainly lived longer than this fetus has should have the right to decide, and if not that, than it's a religious debate, and at that point we have to ask if this is a religious government. Someone would say "No, but we should still fight for our opinion that this baby is decidedly God's, not yours," and of course there are those who would say, "No, but it sure as hell should be!"

I am so fucking curious as to when a debate like this would come to a head, but I feel like it's just not. It's about as potent as the Islam and Palestinian conflict, in the way that it's not just about "I want the land!" it's also "I want the land because God wants me to have it!" and that just adds the thickest layer of Oh, Fuck in the whole deal, because it's so incredibly difficult to even understand what God is, or whatever another person is talking about when they say God. It's fucking madness.

[Marlin Clock]

I was going to let Ribs handle this thread since he seems to have a really good handle on things and his views really gel with mine, but as a biologist I feel I need to address this kind of argument.

Honestly I can't see why it matters if you kill a fetus. If someone feels like their unborn child doesn't deserve to die or whatever then that's their call but scientifically speaking it's a much less significant creature than any of the thousands of animals animal we kill every day.

Scientifically speaking, at the moment of conception a zygote is a human organism with a complete and absolutely unique set of DNA which classifies it as an individual. I have never understood the idea that a fetus is somehow not human because it literally is not true.

[F U Clock]

Personally I am offended that all of you who CLEARLY masturbate kill millions of tiny babies every day, flushing them down the toilet crammed into so much tissue.

[AMPEEEM]

I was going to let Ribs handle this thread since he seems to have a really good handle on things and his views really gel with mine, but as a biologist I feel I need to address this kind of argument.
Scientifically speaking, at the moment of conception a zygote is a human organism with a complete and absolutely unique set of DNA which classifies it as an individual. I have never understood the idea that a fetus is somehow not human because it literally is not true.

Yes, but is it absolutely necessary, no holds barred, to give birth to said individual?

Also, just another thought that came into mind, regardless of the on going debates about whether or not abortion is wrong, I just don't think the law in America is ever going to fully crack down on it. There will always be a place to get abortions, and people who really want to get them will get them. Is this debatable, what do you guys think?

[pop-tart]

Anyone who uses the argument "we kill cows and chickens" is too stupid for me to even listen to. Life feeds on life. I have the same view on when life begins as Marlin.

It is fucked up that the most advanced species on Earth is the only one that uses extermination of its own offspring to enhance its own quality of life. You watch polar bears on Animal Planet walking thousands of miles in search of food for its young... then switch over to MTV to see some 16 year old whore who was too stupid to practice safe sex with a goddamn coat hanger up her twat trying to make sure she can still fit her homecoming dress.

That's the issue. Not rape or incest or threat to mother's safety or all the other .0001% reasons for abortion. Whether those should be protected, I have mixed feelings on.

But the people who are flat out selfish, careless, imprudent pieces of shit that use abortion as a form of birth control.. should be terminated themselves.

I am spiritual but not religious. I believe the ability to create life is a gift. Those who treat it with such disrespect deserve death.

[FloundermanClock]

Actually that's not true, lots of animals kill and eat their own young.

[pop-tart]

Actually that's not true, lots of animals kill and eat their own young.

Not for the same reason. Or do you know a few giraffes that ate their babies because they got drunk and forgot to put in their diaphragm?

[FloundermanClock]

Not for the same reason. Or do you know a few giraffes that ate their babies because they got drunk and forgot to put in their diaphragm?

The purpose of a lot of species eating their young is so they dont have to take care of them, so its similar. Though they usually take care of the rest, only eating a few.