Sklansky on Abortion
 

Who read Sklanskies post in the Science forum on abortion?

Your thoughts?

Re: Sklansky on Abortion
 

Looked through there quickly, did not find any thread on that topic. Link?

Re: Sklansky on Abortion
 

It was a month or two ago. May have been the psycology forum at the time.

Re: Sklansky on Abortion
 

We need a little more detail, bro. Is he for it? Against it? Does he believe life begins as soon as you squirt some semen into a girl's box?

Re: Sklansky on Abortion
 

Maybe he means this one. Full text of the OP (author: David Sklansky):

I thought it was probably time to take a break from the controversial stuff. So I decided to explain to everybody what there is to know about abortion. Like whether its wrong, whether its murder, whether it should be illegal. Stuff like that. I don't expect any replies because there will be nothing to argue about when I'm done. But you might learn something.

First of all as to whether abortion is "wrong". Well of course it is. And everybody knows it. The only reason it is not always stated explicitly is because when people argue they often hate to concede even obvious points. But when you stop and think about it you realize that absolutely everybody feels bad about an abortion. Those who argue it should be legal, do to. They simply feel that the arguments for making abortions legal override any other arguments for making it illegal. They realize that at least some of the opposing arguments have merit even if they don't say it.

Before telling you whether abortion is murder I would like to first discuss the "morning after pill". If my understanding of biology is correct, I believe that using this pill is different from lets say an abortion of a two month old embryo. The reason has to do with the creation of twins, triplets etc. It is my understanding that during the first several days in the life of an embryo it is capable of splitting (or BEING SPLIT BY OTHERS, an important point) and becoming more than one person.

That being the case, you can make a strong argument that at this point there is no specific person that mass of cells was destined to be. If you believe God injects a soul, he hasn't done it yet. So terminating the pregnancy at this point is different than terminating it later. That doesn't mean that it could not be considered some sort of sin. You have prevented some future human life from forming. But if it is a sin it would be more along the lines of wearing a condom. And while some religions believe that wearing a condom is a sin, I don't believe that any religions think the government should make it a crime. The same should hold true for the morning after pill.

But what about regular abortions. The ones that happen to six week old or older embryos? Is that murder? Well OF COURSE IT IS. To think otherwise is ridiculous. To see this, one need only to admit that there will come a time that we will have the technology to keep tiny embryos alive outside the womb. A womb is simply a well design incubator. The child's physical destiny is determined at the time of conception. (And his consciousness, self, or soul, is determined a few days later.) Everyone agrees that delivering a six week premature baby and then killing it is murder (possibly homicide would be the better word). Likewise for killing it in the womb to avoid delivering it alive. Because we now can save that baby with an incubator. But there is no real difference between a six week and a six month premature baby except present day lack of technology to save the latter. I could go on here to elaborate on these points but I don't think I need to.

But we are not done. Because I have not said that all homicides should be illegal. And of course they are not. It is possible that the reasons to commit the homicide outweigh the reasons not to. Both from a legal and moral point of view. Plus we have another factor that is rarely mentioned. Namely whether it is somewhat less bad to kill a human that does not "know" it exists (or does not yet know) than to kill one that does. If that is the case than you could argue that the legitimate reasons TO kill a non cognizant person did not have to be quite as strong as they would be if you were killing a cognizant person.

Now the age at which a person becomes cognizant is not clear cut. Most would probably estimate about 15 months after conception. But since few are willing to suggest that killing a two month old baby is anything different than anybody else, it is enough to agree that you have to be within eight months of conception or so, to be surely non cognizant. Keep in mind that the majority of right to lifers do in fact make this distinction. Because they are willing to accept an abortion in the case of incest, rape or even more so, to save the mothers life. But none of these reasons would be strong enough to accept killing the child two weeks after he was born. (I don't know why this would be necessary to save the mothers life. But the rape and incest concepts would still apply).

Pro choice advocates, of course say that a woman's right to do what she wants with her body outweighs the child's right to live. It is not as strong an argument as the rape and incest one but it is not trivial. Though they try to argue that an abortion is not homicide, if forced to admit it they would still say that there right to their body should allow them, legally to do it. Are they right? Sorry but I can't answer that one. I believe I can make a good analogy though. Suppose a child can only survive if its mother gives it a series of direct transfusions. Should the government force her to? If the blood provider was a stranger or even a sister the answer is clearly no. But a mother has a legal obligation to her child. Does that extend to something as uncomfortable as giving blood several times? I believe your answer to that question perhaps dictates the answer to the abortion question.

Except for one thing. As I once mentioned before, I am very skeptical of the reason women give for allowing abortions. I think that many women use the rights to their body as an excuse. Imagine that tomorrow all doctors had the ability to terminate pregnancies in either of two ways. The way it is done now. Or by delivering the baby alive, regardless of its prematurity and keeping it alive with technology. What percentage of woman would opt for the second choice? If doing what they want to with their bodies was their real reason for keeping abortions legal they all should make that second choice. But if their real reason is that they don't want that kid to exist, they have a problem. Because that reason, which I believe is the actual one for the majority of women, no way justifies murder.

Re: Sklansky on Abortion
 

[ QUOTE ]
Your thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree completely.

Re: Sklansky on Abortion
 

Fairly logical until the end. I would not presume to know why any particular woman chooses to have an abortion, much less the whole lot of them.

As for me, I'm pro-choice because I do not want to adopt any kids. If I were willing to adopt a potential abortee, I might consider being anti-choice. I would have much more respect for these so-called "pro-lifers" if they offered to adopt these unwanted babies.

Re: Sklansky on Abortion
 

[ QUOTE ]
I would not presume to know why any particular woman chooses to have an abortion, much less the whole lot of them.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're thinking about it the wrong way. By generalizing, he's actually more correct than applying it to anyone specifically. He never claimed to why any particular woman would choose to have an abortion, only that in general, it's more likely that women get one for this reason than for that.

He doesn't claim to have any emperical evidence to support it, only supposition. In all reality, though, he's very likely correct in his supposition.

Re: Sklansky on Abortion
 

killing not yet cognizent humans

The fact that *cognizant* is not the correct term not withstanding, he at least seems to understand the key issue.

Re: Sklansky on Abortion
 

My guess is it's the one on Stem Cells

Re: Sklansky on Abortion
 

[ QUOTE ]

As for me, I'm pro-choice because I do not want to adopt any kids. If I were willing to adopt a potential abortee, I might consider being anti-choice. I would have much more respect for these so-called "pro-lifers" if they offered to adopt these unwanted babies.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is a weird argument. I have no desire to adopt an eight year-old child, does that mean you don't respect my opposition to the parents killing it?

I can understand it if people are pro-abortion because they think a foetus has no rights, but not because they simply oppose people having to take responsibility for their actions.

Re: Sklansky on Abortion
 

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]



As for me, I'm pro-choice because I do not want to adopt any kids. If I were willing to adopt a potential abortee, I might consider being anti-choice. I would have much more respect for these so-called "pro-lifers" if they offered to adopt these unwanted babies.


[/ QUOTE ]

That is a weird argument. I have no desire to adopt an eight year-old child, does that mean you don't respect my opposition to the parents killing it?

I can understand it if people are pro-abortion because they think a foetus has no rights, but not because they simply oppose people having to take responsibility for their actions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I readily admit that abortion is morally wrong. I think most women will regret having one. However, I don't feel comfortable pushing my views of what is morally right on someone if I'm not willing to do something about it. How can I tell some woman I know nothing about that she can't have an abortion when I myself am willing to do nothing of consequence to help take care of the baby?

Do you feel morally superior just because you want to make abortion illegal? Would you sleep easier at night if abortion were illegal, while thousands of women everyday were giving themselves abortions with coat hangers? Or going to illegal clinics?

Get real, bro. This [censored] is going to happen whether abortion is legal or not. Take a step down off your moral high horse and drink a cup of reality.

Furthermore, how many "rights" is this child going to have if you force some woman on welfare or some women making $5 an hour to have a baby she doesn't want? Is that child going to be loved?

I see in your "pro-life" view a desire to "punish" the mother for her "irresponsiblity." Personally, I don't really care to punish anyone for having sex. It's natural and everyone wants to do it. You, like most pro-lifers, don't give a rat's about the baby. You mostly care about making sure the mother is properly punished by forcing her to keep the kid. If you actually care about that "life," step up to the plate and offer to adopt one of these potential abortees. Then your "pro-life" views will be something more than empty rhetoric.

Re: Sklansky on Abortion
 

Not a bad post. I have a few disagreements though.

[ QUOTE ]
First of all as to whether abortion is "wrong". Well of course it is. And everybody knows it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I detest this whole "right" and "wrong" thing. Let's say an unwed 19-year old college student gets knocked up. (say the rubber bursts) She finds out a month into it when she misses her period.

If she goes through with the pregnancy, she will have a few options: adoption or raising the child. Putting it up for adoption will leave her separated from her child for an indefinate period of time, and there is often a strong sense of guilt and attachment that accompanies this. Raising the child could put both the mother and child in an extremely precarious situation; the mother, unskilled in her profession, would have to absolutely bend over backwards to make any kind of living for her and her child. The drastically increased risk of poverty will lead to an increased chance of poor health, delinquency, and certainly a lower quality of life for the mother. Both options require her to go through a very difficult and physically demanding nine months, and all expenses incurred therein.

If she aborts the baby, she avoids these issues. There may be some guilt-related issues that ensue; it varies from person to person. Not all women are emotionally destroyed after their abortions. (I apologize for not linking you to a study; I cite this only from knowing three women that have had abortions and haven't been devastated from them)

The fetus at this point is a tenth of an inch long. All of its systems are underdeveloped. It does not possess the intelligence of a human child yet. The only argument that I can see against this is religious in nature.

I think it may be more correct for some and less correct for others, but I don't think that abortion is universally "wrong"

Re: Sklansky on Abortion
 

[ QUOTE ]
If she goes through with the pregnancy, she will have a few options: adoption or raising the child. Putting it up for adoption will leave her separated from her child for an indefinate period of time, and there is often a strong sense of guilt and attachment that accompanies this. Raising the child could put both the mother and child in an extremely precarious situation; the mother, unskilled in her profession, would have to absolutely bend over backwards to make any kind of living for her and her child. The drastically increased risk of poverty will lead to an increased chance of poor health, delinquency, and certainly a lower quality of life for the mother. Both options require her to go through a very difficult and physically demanding nine months, and all expenses incurred therein.


[/ QUOTE ]

Let me summarize. The student will have to make tough choices based on her decision to have sex before she was ready to have a child...

[ QUOTE ]
If she aborts the baby, she avoids these issues. There may be some guilt-related issues that ensue; it varies from person to person. Not all women are emotionally destroyed after their abortions. (I apologize for not linking you to a study; I cite this only from knowing three women that have had abortions and haven't been devastated from them)

[/ QUOTE ]

...but she can avoid making these tough choices by destroying an innocent life.

[ QUOTE ]
The fetus at this point is a tenth of an inch long. All of its systems are underdeveloped. It does not possess the intelligence of a human child yet. The only argument that I can see against this is religious in nature.


[/ QUOTE ]

No. I can make a complete argument against this without ever mentioning God. Granted it may get a bit philosophical, but its not religious per se.

[ QUOTE ]
I think it may be more correct for some and less correct for others, but I don't think that abortion is universally "wrong"

[/ QUOTE ]

the only case I consider legitimate is one where the life of the mother is threatened, which is rarely the case.

Re: Sklansky on Abortion
 

Thanks, the summary was necessary, don't know why I was so verbose about it.

[ QUOTE ]
No. I can make a complete argument against this without ever mentioning God. Granted it may get a bit philosophical, but its not religious per se.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please do.

Re: Sklansky on Abortion
 

[ QUOTE ]
I readily admit that abortion is morally wrong. I think most women will regret having one. However, I don't feel comfortable pushing my views of what is morally right on someone if I'm not willing to do something about it. How can I tell some woman I know nothing about that she can't have an abortion when I myself am willing to do nothing of consequence to help take care of the baby?

[/ QUOTE ]

I refer to my pevious post: Unless you are willing to adopt someone's four year-old child, do you feel comfortable telling the parents not to kill it? If you think a fetus automatically has less rights than a child that has already been born, then you should use that argument instead.


[ QUOTE ]
Do you feel morally superior just because you want to make abortion illegal?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have never said abortion should be made illegal, I said that your argument for why it should remain legal was bad.


[ QUOTE ]
Would you sleep easier at night if abortion were illegal, while thousands of women everyday were giving themselves abortions with coat hangers? Or going to illegal clinics?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is completely irrelevant - the only thing that matters is whether a fetus has any rights. If it does (I'm not clear what I think about this myself), it shouldn't matter if some people may hurt themselves in the proccess of trying to violate those rights.


[ QUOTE ]
Get real, bro. This [censored] is going to happen whether abortion is legal or not. Take a step down off your moral high horse and drink a cup of reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just questioned the way you made your argument, you should stop making unsupported conclusions.


[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, how many "rights" is this child going to have if you force some woman on welfare or some women making $5 an hour to have a baby she doesn't want? Is that child going to be loved?

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, this applies to the same extent with a child that has already been born. If life as an unwanted child is so hard, do you support euthanasia?


[ QUOTE ]
I see in your "pro-life" view a desire to "punish" the mother for her "irresponsiblity." Personally, I don't really care to punish anyone for having sex. It's natural and everyone wants to do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does forcing parents to care for their offspring always amount to 'punishing them for having sex'? If so, you must really hate the fact that deadbeat dads might be forced to pay child support. Also, I find it strange that a liberal (?) would use the fact that something is natural as an argument, is abortion 'natural'?


[ QUOTE ]
You, like most pro-lifers, don't give a rat's about the baby. You mostly care about making sure the mother is properly punished by forcing her to keep the kid.
If you actually care about that "life," step up to the plate and offer to adopt one of these potential abortees. Then your "pro-life" views will be something more than empty rhetoric.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you're telling me to get off my high horse. I again refer to my original question: I have no intention of ever adopting any child whatsoever, does that make my opposition to parents killing their eight year-olds empty rhetoric? If not, why?

Re: Sklansky on Abortion
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

As for me, I'm pro-choice because I do not want to adopt any kids. If I were willing to adopt a potential abortee, I might consider being anti-choice. I would have much more respect for these so-called "pro-lifers" if they offered to adopt these unwanted babies.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is a weird argument. I have no desire to adopt an eight year-old child, does that mean you don't respect my opposition to the parents killing it?

I can understand it if people are pro- choice because they think a foetus has no rights, but not because they simply oppose people having to take responsibility for their actions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Get the terminology right.

Re: Sklansky on Abortion
 

[ QUOTE ]
Imagine that tomorrow all doctors had the ability to terminate pregnancies in either of two ways. The way it is done now. Or by delivering the baby alive, regardless of its prematurity and keeping it alive with technology. What percentage of woman would opt for the second choice? If doing what they want to with their bodies was their real reason for keeping abortions legal they all should make that second choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

As a woman who is currently pro-choice I would fully support making the second choice the only legal method of terminating a pregnancy.

Re: Sklansky on Abortion
 

My first thought after reading it was: this is a good example of how atheists are not immune to irrationality. This part: "The child's physical destiny is determined at the time of conception. (And his consciousness, self, or soul, is determined a few days later.)" Somehow DS thinks a glob of cells with no brain can have a consciousness. This is irrational.

Re: Sklansky on Abortion
 

If you are pro-choice, then you go on the foster parent list.

The current trend to criminalize abortion is more to keep poor people poor than any 'moral' reason. Sure there are those who have a real objection to it; but those in BushCo see criminalizing it as a way to fill more sets of army boots with warm bodies.

For all you people on the fence about this issue, the next step is to criminalize contraception, an idea the DEA is salivating over.

Re: Sklansky on Abortion
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you are pro-choice, then you go on the foster parent list.



[/ QUOTE ]

You mean pro-life, yes?

To quote George Carlin: Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be DEAD SOLDIERS.

Re: Sklansky on Abortion
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you are pro-choice, then you go on the foster parent list.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh?

Re: Sklansky on Abortion
 

Here are some DS quotes from that other thread:

[ QUOTE ]
"An embryo is not a human being just as a sperm isn't."

That is just wrong. Except for those first few days when twinning can occur. Unless you define a human being as something that knows it is alive. In which case a 7 1/2 month old fetus and probably a 3 month old baby is not a human being either.

The point is that there is no distinction between a two month old embryo and a 7 month old fetus other than the fact that at this particular point in time one needs a human womb and one doesn't. Right now they are in different boats. But 100 years ago and 1000 years from now they are in the same boat.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"They just do not have the ability to think, reason, feel emotions or function as a person the way we do or a more developped unborn child would."

Aha. Very Nice. You have thought of a way to get out of my trap. Push back my "gaining cognizance" date to several months after conception but before the date a fetus would presently be viable outside the womb. Doubt most would agree with this but it does work. But to be consistent you must agree that if technology allows us to remove two month old embryos and sustain them in incubators, killing them is less of a crime than killing an older baby.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll be even more consistent. Killing a pre-person fetus is not a crime at all -- regardless of societal technology.

THE question is: what criteria denotes a person's existence? Or: when does personhood begin?

If you want to be consistent, you should use the same criteria to denote when a person ceases to exist. If you look at the Terry Schiavo case, you can see what science thinks we should look at: higher brain activity. Before you get it, you are't a person. After you lose it, you aren't a person. In either case, the family is the one that gets to decide what happens with the body.

Re: Sklansky on Abortion
 

[ QUOTE ]
The current trend to criminalize abortion is more to keep poor people poor than any 'moral' reason. Sure there are those who have a real objection to it; but those in BushCo see criminalizing it as a way to fill more sets of army boots with warm bodies.

[/ QUOTE ]
What a stupid comment...

[ QUOTE ]
For all you people on the fence about this issue, the next step is to criminalize contraception, an idea the DEA is salivating over.

[/ QUOTE ]
Huh? How much weed did you smoke before typing that post?

Re: Sklansky on Abortion
 

This is one of the best threads I've read so far in this forum! I've always believed that killing a fetus was the same as killing a newborn infant. The law says otherwise. I disagree with the law, but I think that there are more important things to worry about. If the law were to be changed, I'd have no problem with that.

The pro-choicers are confused. They've understandably confused feminism with this issue. They were wrong to so and now they are stuck in their faith/ideology. There is no way to convince them otherwise.

The pro-life crowd has been manipulated by the churches and politicans for the sake of votes and money. This is an easy issue to get people all charged up over. It's much easier than advocating for an end to abject poverty or an end to all war. The politicians and church leaders have convinced them that changing this law is the single greatest moral imperative of our generation.

As a result, our nation is stuck. Even more so when you consider that Chrisitianity already feels threatened by secularism. And abortions are the most obvious argument against Secularism. They understandably feel that if secularism leads to killing innocent children then secularism should be challenged wherever it rears its' ugly head. They have a point.

Re: Sklansky on Abortion
 

[ QUOTE ]
The pro-choicers are confused. They've understandably confused feminism with this issue. They were wrong to so and now they are stuck in their faith/ideology. There is no way to convince them otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has absolutely nothing to do with feminism in my book. I never make the argument that it's the "woman's choice" or "her body" or "it's a private decision". There is a SINGLE issue here: when does personhood begin.

Those who claim it begins at conception, or a few days later when God gives it a soul, are the ones truly being "stuck in their faith/ideology".

Re: Sklansky on Abortion
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't expect any replies because there will be nothing to argue about when I'm done. But you might learn something.

[/ QUOTE ]

This made me chuckle....

[ QUOTE ]
First of all as to whether abortion is "wrong". Well of course it is. And everybody knows it. The only reason it is not always stated explicitly is because when people argue they often hate to concede even obvious points. But when you stop and think about it you realize that absolutely everybody feels bad about an abortion. Those who argue it should be legal, do to. They simply feel that the arguments for making abortions legal override any other arguments for making it illegal. They realize that at least some of the opposing arguments have merit even if they don't say it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with all that. Abortion is wrong, however, the alternative to it is far worse. Forcing a pregnant woman to gestate against her will is about as close to slavery as one can come in this society. Regardless of the reason a woman desires an abortion, she should not be forced to donate her bodily resources to an unwanted child inside of her.

[ QUOTE ]
Before telling you whether abortion is murder I would like to first discuss the "morning after pill". If my understanding of biology is correct, I believe that using this pill is different from lets say an abortion of a two month old embryo. The reason has to do with the creation of twins, triplets etc. It is my understanding that during the first several days in the life of an embryo it is capable of splitting (or BEING SPLIT BY OTHERS, an important point) and becoming more than one person.

That being the case, you can make a strong argument that at this point there is no specific person that mass of cells was destined to be. If you believe God injects a soul, he hasn't done it yet. So terminating the pregnancy at this point is different than terminating it later. That doesn't mean that it could not be considered some sort of sin. You have prevented some future human life from forming. But if it is a sin it would be more along the lines of wearing a condom. And while some religions believe that wearing a condom is a sin, I don't believe that any religions think the government should make it a crime. The same should hold true for the morning after pill.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would also agree with this, although "sin" can be a tricky word. It's subjective at best. And some people have no concept of what a sin is, exactly. For these reasons, it is very difficult to use sin (or any other religious or ethical reasoning) as an argument against abortion.

[ QUOTE ]
But what about regular abortions. The ones that happen to six week old or older embryos? Is that murder? Well OF COURSE IT IS. To think otherwise is ridiculous. To see this, one need only to admit that there will come a time that we will have the technology to keep tiny embryos alive outside the womb. A womb is simply a well design incubator.

[/ QUOTE ]

So let me see if I have this right... Abortion is murder because sometime in the future, we will be able to keep premature fetuses alive after they are removed from the womb? I don't see how that makes it murder.

[ QUOTE ]
The child's physical destiny is determined at the time of conception. (And his consciousness, self, or soul, is determined a few days later.) Everyone agrees that delivering a six week premature baby and then killing it is murder (possibly homicide would be the better word). Likewise for killing it in the womb to avoid delivering it alive. Because we now can save that baby with an incubator. But there is no real difference between a six week and a six month premature baby except present day lack of technology to save the latter. I could go on here to elaborate on these points but I don't think I need to.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand. The previous paragraph talks about how we MAY have the technology to save these babies sometime in the future. And here it says that we have this technology now? I'm confused, maybe I'm misreading something?

At any rate, I agree that if a baby can be saved by being put in an incubator, then he/she certainly should. But if the technology does not exist, then this should not prevent a woman from receiving an abortion. I do not like the fact that fetuses are being killed, but as I already stated, it beats the alternative.

[ QUOTE ]
But we are not done. Because I have not said that all homicides should be illegal. And of course they are not. It is possible that the reasons to commit the homicide outweigh the reasons not to. Both from a legal and moral point of view. Plus we have another factor that is rarely mentioned. Namely whether it is somewhat less bad to kill a human that does not "know" it exists (or does not yet know) than to kill one that does. If that is the case than you could argue that the legitimate reasons TO kill a non cognizant person did not have to be quite as strong as they would be if you were killing a cognizant person.

Now the age at which a person becomes cognizant is not clear cut. Most would probably estimate about 15 months after conception. But since few are willing to suggest that killing a two month old baby is anything different than anybody else, it is enough to agree that you have to be within eight months of conception or so, to be surely non cognizant. Keep in mind that the majority of right to lifers do in fact make this distinction. Because they are willing to accept an abortion in the case of incest, rape or even more so, to save the mothers life. But none of these reasons would be strong enough to accept killing the child two weeks after he was born. (I don't know why this would be necessary to save the mothers life. But the rape and incest concepts would still apply).

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.

[ QUOTE ]
Pro choice advocates, of course say that a woman's right to do what she wants with her body outweighs the child's right to live. It is not as strong an argument as the rape and incest one but it is not trivial. Though they try to argue that an abortion is not homicide, if forced to admit it they would still say that there right to their body should allow them, legally to do it. Are they right? Sorry but I can't answer that one. I believe I can make a good analogy though. Suppose a child can only survive if its mother gives it a series of direct transfusions. Should the government force her to? If the blood provider was a stranger or even a sister the answer is clearly no. But a mother has a legal obligation to her child. Does that extend to something as uncomfortable as giving blood several times? I believe your answer to that question perhaps dictates the answer to the abortion question.

[/ QUOTE ]

The answer to this question is obvious. No. How could the government force anyone to donate any bodily resources to another independent person? Such an idea is preposterous. The government can't force a mother to breast feed her child, much less give blood. Does anyone here think that mothers should be forced to breast feed?

I would like to think that mothers would be willing to donate blood in order to save their child, but by no means can the government demand it.

[ QUOTE ]
Except for one thing. As I once mentioned before, I am very skeptical of the reason women give for allowing abortions. I think that many women use the rights to their body as an excuse. Imagine that tomorrow all doctors had the ability to terminate pregnancies in either of two ways. The way it is done now. Or by delivering the baby alive, regardless of its prematurity and keeping it alive with technology. What percentage of woman would opt for the second choice? If doing what they want to with their bodies was their real reason for keeping abortions legal they all should make that second choice. But if their real reason is that they don't want that kid to exist, they have a problem. Because that reason, which I believe is the actual one for the majority of women, no way justifies murder.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with the idea that most women have abortions simply because they don't want the child to exist. In my opinion, when a woman is stuck with an unwanted pregnancy, it is very emotionally taxing on her. She has a thousand different feelings swirling through her head at any given time. She doesn't always know what to do. She is worried about her health, her future, what people will think of her, etc. Her mind is restless. She is often very desperate for an escape from this awful situation. And when she finally makes the decision to go through with the abortion, she doesn't care what happens to the fetus. All she knows is that she wants it out of her body. Whether or not it dies is immaterial to her. Therefore, if we had the technology to keep alive ALL aborted fetuses, and the government enacted legislation to require this technology to be used in ALL cases, I don't think it would have any effect on the number of abortions in this country. If anything, the number would increase, because mothers would feel less guilty about having one.

In conclusion: I don't pretend to know everything; therefore, I suspect that there will be some replies to this post, and there will be some who argue against my points. But I sure hope everybody learned something!

Re: Sklansky on Abortion
 

Mothers are and should be required to care for their children. Otherwise they are rightfully charged with neglect. Granted, carrying a baby is more taxing than spending money on it. Even if it is a lot of money.

Yes, mothers can choose to give up an infant for adoption. But having decided not to do that then responsibility of its upbring rest squarely on the mother. Similarly, a woman can choose not to have sex, but once she does, responsibility for an unwanted pregnancy rests squarely with her.

Similarly, I just had lasik surgery done. Right now my vision is pretty blurry. The odds of it staying that way are exceedingly rare but possible. If they do stay that way, the responsibility of coping with that disability would rest squarely on me -- not the Doctor or inventor of the laser or the state.

Re: Sklansky on Abortion
 

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with all that. Abortion is wrong, however, the alternative to it is far worse.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is abortion wrong? And why is 9 months of slavery far worse? If the fetus is a person, then abortion is murder. Maybe you are saying that 9 months of slavery is far worse than murder, but in my opinion, it's the other way around. Murder is far worse than 9 months of slavery. If it's not murder, then the fetus is not a person. If it's not a person, then it has no rights. If it has no rights, then abortion is not wrong. So, again, why is abortion wrong, and why is 9 months of slavery far worse?

Re: Sklansky on Abortion
 

Really, at least in America, the morality of abortion is pretty much moot. The Supreme Court cannot make abortion illegal. All they can do is allow the individual states to make it illegal. Therefore, if you are a pro-life person, then you are just against women in the red states getting abortions. Abortion will still be legal in the blue states. As a pro-life person, all you are really doing is making women from Oklahoma or Nebraska or Kansas drive to Illinois to get an abortion.

However, at least you so-called pro-lifers will be able to sit up tall and proud on your moral high horses if Roe is overturned. Even though in reality you will have accomplished very little.

Re: Sklansky on Abortion
 

I thought Sklansky was giving women 2 decent outs: non-surgical methods (morning after pill etc) which don’t really count and allowing doctors to deliver the fetus at any premature stage then trying to save him/her with technology. So if the rubber breaks she can either get the pill immediately or if she finds out too late for that (say she is on depo and does not have a period) she can have the doctor deliver the child early and give him/her up for adoption. Yes, adoption is traumatic for the mother, but I cannot see how it would be any worse than a surgical abortion.

Re: Sklansky on Abortion
 

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with all that. Abortion is wrong, however, the alternative to it is far worse. Forcing a pregnant woman to gestate against her will is about as close to slavery as one can come in this society. Regardless of the reason a woman desires an abortion, she should not be forced to donate her bodily resources to an unwanted child inside of her.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't see it this way. We already have social and legal obligations to the children we create. Can two parents, having just had their child delivered leave that child in the street and have nothing happen to them? Of course not. That's called neglect. The same can be said of child support. The government forces a person to pay their former spouse money against their will. How is this much different?

[ QUOTE ]
So let me see if I have this right... Abortion is murder because sometime in the future, we will be able to keep premature fetuses alive after they are removed from the womb? I don't see how that makes it murder.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're right, this was not a good argument for why abortion is murder. It's homicide because it is the ending of human life. Many consider it murder because they believe that embryo represents a person with rights such as the right to not be unjustly killed.

[ QUOTE ]
I do not like the fact that fetuses are being killed, but as I already stated, it beats the alternative.

[/ QUOTE ]
I fail to see how 9 months of pregnancy outweighs the taking of an innocent life. And why should anyone feel bad about someone exercising their "rights"? Shouldn't we be rejoicing everytime someone has an abortion?

Re: Sklansky on Abortion
 

But the belief in a soul is not required in order to hold this position.

Re: Sklansky on Abortion
 

George Carlin is one of our nation's most treasured political scholars. It's a shame he has to divide his time between this and his theological treatises. Oh, and of course, fart jokes.

Re: Sklansky on Abortion
 

Your argument crumbled as soon as you casually threw the word "slavery" in there.

Re: Sklansky on Abortion
 

If you are going to quote the pro-life literature, then you should provide citations.

Re: Sklansky on Abortion
 

[ QUOTE ]
And why should anyone feel bad about someone exercising their "rights"? Shouldn't we be rejoicing everytime someone has an abortion?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you rejoice when someone has a tumor removed? It is their right to have it surgically removed.

Re: Sklansky on Abortion
 

[ QUOTE ]
Your argument crumbled as soon as you casually threw the word "slavery" in there.

[/ QUOTE ]

You obviously didn't read the post I was responding to.

Re: Sklansky on Abortion
 

[ QUOTE ]
But the belief in a soul is not required in order to hold this position.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say it was.

Re: Sklansky on Abortion
 

[ QUOTE ]
The pro-choicers are confused. They've understandably confused feminism with this issue

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok then, lets make this not about feminism. Sklansky made an analogy to the state forcing a woman to have a series of blood transfusions to keep her infant alive. If the state can force her to do that, then could the state also force the father to give his infant a bone marrow transplant if needed?