Abortion
 

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: Abortion
 

David Sklansky, you're my hero. Not because I agree with you but because this was [censored] hilarious.

Re: Abortion
 

[ QUOTE ]
David Sklansky, you're my hero. Not because I agree with you but because this was [censored] hilarious.

[/ QUOTE ]
So what you're trying to say is you're pro-fetal-murder and you don't have an argument against David's post.

Re: Abortion
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
David Sklansky, you're my hero. Not because I agree with you but because this was [censored] hilarious.

[/ QUOTE ]
So what you're trying to say is you're pro-fetal-murder and you don't have an argument against David's post.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't take a rocket sceintist to figure that out. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Abortion
 

[ QUOTE ]

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you should elaborate on this. From my experience, debating abortion with men or women often ends with the argument being reduced to this point.

Re: Abortion
 

David you have just enunciated an arguement that many would think only religious people would do. However I have know a few non religious people who believe exactly as you have just said regarding abortion, and that furthermore the death penalty is wrong as well. From a Catholic point of view regarding the morning after pill, our church teaches that the soul is infused at conception. Furthermore regarding various types of traditional birth control pills, some of these do not actually prevent conception, but only implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus and thus are referred to as abortifacients. The logic of your arguement regarding being offered two ways to give birth is irrefutable, and taken just a little further, that is if a woman merely carried the child to term and then gave it up for adoption, such a choice is available today. With thousands of American couples adopting overseas, it should be clear that there is no shortage of willing people to adopt healthy children in America, regardless of their race. It is also interesting to note that the founder of Planned Parenthood, one of the premier abortion adovocates in the U.S., was a woman named Margaret Sanger who adovocated in the 1930's and on both birth control and abortion. However her motive, which most pro-abortion people would like to ignore, was one of eugenics, that is, limiting the births of non-whites and lower class persons.

It is a great poverty that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.
-Mother Teresa of Calcutta

Re: 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. 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).

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, 'homicide' would be the right word there. 'Murder' denotes an unlawful homicide. When people say that abortion is murder, they generally mean that it's a homicide that should be unlawful. That's a perfectly acceptable usage as well. But in the paragraph I quoted above, your use of 'murder' doesn't fit either of those definitions. Aborting a six-week-old fetus is not unlawful, nor would everybody agree that it should be.

That small nitpick notwithstanding, that is a very good essay on abortion.

Re: Abortion
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you believe God injects a soul, he hasn't done it yet [by the morning after conception]. So terminating the pregnancy at this point is different than terminating it later.

[/ QUOTE ]
If we don't believe that God injects a soul, then how different is a morning-after-conception abortion from a two-month-after-conception abortion?

Without the soul stuff, I think probably the most important point about the fetus is whether it's cognizant. A two-month-old fetus may be more cognizant than a one-day-old embryo. But is it cognizant enough to make the abortion of a two-month-old fetus much different from using a condom?

Re: Abortion
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
David Sklansky, you're my hero. Not because I agree with you but because this was [censored] hilarious.

[/ QUOTE ]
So what you're trying to say is you're pro-fetal-murder and you don't have an argument against David's post.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am definitely pro-fetal-murder. If I wanted to nitpick there are a number of points I could argue. But I don't feel like nitpicking. Oh what the hell.

My Argument
 

This statement[ QUOTE ]
I don't expect any replies because there will be nothing to argue about when I'm done.

[/ QUOTE ]is clearly wrong. I take issue with this claim:[ 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 argue that abortion is not "wrong." In fact I don't even think this should be up for debate.

Re: Abortion
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you should elaborate on this. From my experience, debating abortion with men or women often ends with the argument being reduced to this point.

[/ QUOTE ]
There are a couple of points here, one trivial and one non-trivial.

The trivial point: Of course not all homicide is illegal. For example, killing in self-defense is not illegal. Also, when the state carries out a death sentence, that's not illegal. Killing opposing soldiers in a war is not illegal.

The non-trivial point: Many people argue that (1) killing humans is wrong, (2) fetuses are human, (3) therefore killing fetuses is wrong. But the first premise seems to be taken for granted more often than it is supported by argument. It is obvious that killing teenagers is wrong. But the argument that killing a fetus is just as wrong as killing a teenager because they're both human is logically invalid. A person may as well argue that killing a mouse is just as wrong as killing a human teen because they are both mammals.

So rather than taking it for granted that killing innocent humans (including fetuses) is always wrong, I'd like to see an argument for why killing an unwanted fetus is more wrong than killing an unwanted mouse or an unwanted pair of human sex cells (sperm and egg).

Don't misunderstand me. I think it is more wrong to kill a human fetus. But I think we make progress by forcing ourselves to rationally justify that belief instead of just taking it for granted.

Re: My Argument
 

[ QUOTE ]
This statement[ QUOTE ]
I don't expect any replies because there will be nothing to argue about when I'm done.

[/ QUOTE ]is clearly wrong. I take issue with this claim:[ 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 argue that abortion is not "wrong." In fact I don't even think this should be up for debate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I also agree that abortion is not "wrong", but only because I don't think anything is "wrong" or "right".

Re: Abortion
 

[ QUOTE ]
The non-trivial point: Many people argue that (1) killing humans is wrong, (2) fetuses are human, (3) therefore killing fetuses is wrong. But the first premise seems to be taken for granted more often than it is supported by argument. It is obvious that killing teenagers is wrong. But the argument that killing a fetus is just as wrong as killing a teenager because they're both human is logically invalid. A person may as well argue that killing a mouse is just as wrong as killing a human teen because they are both mammals.

So rather than taking it for granted that killing innocent humans (including fetuses) is always wrong, I'd like to see an argument for why killing an unwanted fetus is more wrong than killing an unwanted mouse or an unwanted pair of human sex cells (sperm and egg).

Don't misunderstand me. I think it is more wrong to kill a human fetus. But I think we make progress by forcing ourselves to rationally justify that belief instead of just taking it for granted.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't argue (1). And I don't think it's obvious that killing teenagers is wrong. So I would also like to "see an argument for why killing an unwanted fetus is more wrong than killing an unwanted mouse or an unwanted pair of human sex cells (sperm and egg)."

Re: Abortion
 

Just because I expect no one else to ask, what about
the case where either society, the lawmakers, or the
specific pregnant woman does not believe that there
is a 'soul' injected into the body?

It does not neccesarily make it more or less right
to terminate prior to birth, but it clearly affects
many people's arguments. In some cases, their entire
arguments.

Re: Abortion
 

A soul by definition is really what we think of as "life". Perhaps animation is a better word. People tend to confuse the notion of soul with some sort of magical smoky thing zapped into us.

A rational being (a person) is deemed to have an immortal soul because it is capable of immaterial understanding. Irrational beings, such as animals, have mortal souls.

Re: Abortion
 

[ QUOTE ]
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.


[/ QUOTE ]

For the record I'm pro-choice. A large reason why is exactly what is stated above. I cant feel all that sorry for a being that isnt even able to consciously exist yet. I also belive that women should have the right to choose to do as they will with their bodies. As men we will never be faced with the dilemma of having to give birth. I wonder how many pro-life men would change their stances if they were placed in the shoes of a knocked up college freshman? If you were raped would you really have the rapist's child? If you were dead broke, the father of the child said if you had it he wanted nothing to do with you, you had no family or support to rely on, would you never think of abortion as an option? I think as men we forget that we have the easy route when it comes to this issue.

Mike Emery

Re: Abortion
 

Sklansky has made the very important moral distinction of murder and killing. I don't think we should use the word homicide simply because it clouds the matter (legal killing is not necessarily morally right).

Anyway, we can conclude that the dying party in a murder has absolutely no choice or blame in the matter, and yet they are still killed. While in a morally justified killing, the dead party is culpably in circumstances that warrant it.

Therefore, the only illogical people in the abortion debate are "Pro-lifers" who think that abortion is justified in certain cases of rape and incest etc. and those "pro-choicers" who hypocritically do not attempt to justify all cases of murder regardless of circumstance. People with the above mindset are making irrational arguments based on emotion and not on reason.

Thus, the only logical conclusions are that all murder of innocent life is morally evil (the position of the Catholic Church) or that all murder is justified so long as the murderer is fulfilling a desire. The latter thinking is chaotic and incapable of practice in a civilized society, therefore, abortion in all circumstances is wrong.

Re: Abortion
 

My father used to tell us that he believed in abortion until 18 years old.

Re: Abortion
 

Hi Bluffthis,

You make some very interesting points. But I would like to point out that the Catholic Church has never taught that the death penalty is wrong, or that life begins at the very moment of conception.

In fact, the Church has always advocated the death penalty to protect the common good when a state deems that this is fit. Only some heretical modernists have been toying with this point of moral theology.

Also, there is no Catholic doctrinal teaching I am aware of telling us the exact moment of new human life. The soul is there when there is "life". If the science tells us that animation takes place when the sperm enters the egg, than that's where life begins. If it happens a few days after or something, that is when it happens. Regardless, it probably does begin at the moment of conception or shortly after as Sklansky was mentioning in his post.

Re: Abortion
 

That's a well laid-out post.

Since I'm not convinced that a "soul" even exists, I'll just mention that I think AN important dividing line is when the fetus begins to have brain activity (I don't know at what stage of development that might be, or if it is externally measurable while the fetus is in the womb).

Re: Abortion
 

How old need the fetus be before someone can take out a life insurance policy for it? Whole life/term?

Re: Abortion
 

[ QUOTE ]
A soul by definition is really what we think of as "life". Perhaps animation is a better word. People tend to confuse the notion of soul with some sort of magical smoky thing zapped into us.

A rational being (a person) is deemed to have an immortal soul because it is capable of immaterial understanding. Irrational beings, such as animals, have mortal souls.

[/ QUOTE ]

In that case, my pet cat has a soul. Humane shelters
are inhumane because they put animals to sleep.

Try again, you're immaterial

Re: Abortion
 

[ QUOTE ]
But I would like to point out that the Catholic Church has never taught that the death penalty is wrong

[/ QUOTE ]

I was stating the position of certain non-religious persons who believe both the death penalty and abortion to be wrong. However the church does teach the death penalty should not be used in most cases.

Catechism: "The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent." link

[ QUOTE ]
or that life begins at the very moment of conception.

[/ QUOTE ]

Catechism:"Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being" link

"Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception." (see first link above)

Also for those Christians who think they can maintain that abortion is permissible in certain circumstances because the word "abortion" is not used in the bible, they should consult a book called the Didache, also called the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. This book while not being part of scripture, was written most likely in the 2nd century A.D. and gives the shortest and most clear exposition of Christian moral principles and life ever written outside scripture, and denounces both abortion as well as infanticide, thus making clear Christians cannot try to imply that the bible only condemns infanticide since early Christians not far removed from apostolic times taught otherwise. link

Re: Abortion
 

[ QUOTE ]
A soul by definition is really what we think of as "life". Perhaps animation is a better word. People tend to confuse the notion of soul with some sort of magical smoky thing zapped into us.

A rational being (a person) is deemed to have an immortal soul because it is capable of immaterial understanding. Irrational beings, such as animals, have mortal souls.

[/ QUOTE ]

The big thing that is "wrong" with what you are saying
is that it did not address my post.

Christian infanticide
 

Yes I think abortion is wrong, but surely the christian argument has a few problems.

1 Samuel 15:3 - Divinely ordained infnticide

"...Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'"


Psalm 137 v. 8-9 - Condoning it?>

"8 O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us--
9 he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks."

Oh yes and we are all looking forward to the day of the lord when he punishes the wicked.

Isiah 13:16

"Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives ravished."

Oh by the way I do actually believe the book is innerrant.
Just trying to understand the 'religious argument.'
The book clearly condones infanticide in certain contexts but abortion is condemned by its later interpreters- what gives.
I personally find both abortion and infanticide abhorrent, but know better than to ask God what he was doing when he wrote the above text.

Re: Christian infanticide
 

Obviously if God orders something in a particular instance as when he ordered the Israelites to slaughter all their enemies, then it is correct. He however was not giving a general permission for infanticide. Surely this is obvious.

Re: Abortion
 

[ QUOTE ]
I also belive that women should have the right to choose to do as they will with their bodies. As men we will never be faced with the dilemma of having to give birth.

[/ QUOTE ]

But we will face the dilemma of raising children and developing a 20+ year relationship with the mother. If we're going to have reproductive freedom -- then let's have it both ways. How about if I as the father decide, within the first trimester, that I am going to exercise my choice not to have the child. Do I get a financial waiver for life if the mother has the child anyways? Think of how drastically that would change the dynamics of the argument -- even if it didn't change anyones mind. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Genie is out of the Bottle
 

Everyone has an opinion, and whether it's legal or not -- it will never go away.

There are other issues though, like States rights and the right of association. When I was in young, a woman had to go to New York or California. It wasn't illegal, it just was where I lived.

Clearly there is no Constitutional right to abortion, so it's a States right issue.

I like the idea that cities with contrasting laws like Provo Utah and Las Vegas Nevada can co-exist so close together. That gets to the right of free association.

Re: Abortion
 

6 months after birth. Go with Universal life instead of term or perm.

Re: Abortion
 

The new Catholic Catechism, as everything introduced post Vatican II is seriously flawed. It cannot be held as authoritative as there is a serious modernist influence on the book, and certain passages go so far as to contradict previous teachings, which in Catholic circles is anathema.

Moral questions are best answered by a pre 1963 Moral Theology guide. Fr. Heribert Jone's guide translated by Fr. Urban Adelman is the standard.

The direct killing of a foetus is murder and always wrong. However, the indirect killing of a foetus in a grave circumstance is not sinful.

Those "pro-lifers" whether religious or not, who insist that we should never kill anybody for any reason are wrong.

We are even allowed to kill people for the preservation of temporal goods if a grave reason exists.

Re: Abortion
 

[ QUOTE ]
The new Catholic Catechism, as everything introduced post Vatican II is seriously flawed.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is very true. It is almost as flawed as the pre-Vatican II stuff.

Re: Abortion
 

Heathen.

Re: Abortion
 

DS --
"I thought it was probably time to take a break from the controversial stuff."

David, you must be one of the few people on the planet who could introduce the topic of Abortion as a "break from the controversial stuff".

I have a hard time seeing a few fetal cells as being a human being. It looks like just a few fetal cells to me. Something that has yet to grow into a human being. A seed is not a plant until it grows into a plant. I don't see any way of knowing when the fetal cells have grown enough to become a human being. However it does seem clear to me that after a couple of weeks they are not but after 8 or 9 months they are.

Of course this view can be attacked on all sides. However, I'm not going to say I see black or white because of social pressures when what I see is grey.

PairTheBoard

Re: Abortion
 

[ QUOTE ]
I have a hard time seeing a few fetal cells as being a human being. It looks like just a few fetal cells to me. Something that has yet to grow into a human being. A seed is not a plant until it grows into a plant. I don't see any way of knowing when the fetal cells have grown enough to become a human being. However it does seem clear to me that after a couple of weeks they are not but after 8 or 9 months they are.

Of course this view can be attacked on all sides. However, I'm not going to say I see black or white because of social pressures when what I see is grey.

[/ QUOTE ]
Good post.

Re: Abortion
 

[ QUOTE ]
I have a hard time seeing a few fetal cells as being a human being. It looks like just a few fetal cells to me. Something that has yet to grow into a human being. A seed is not a plant until it grows into a plant. I don't see any way of knowing when the fetal cells have grown enough to become a human being. However it does seem clear to me that after a couple of weeks they are not but after 8 or 9 months they are.

[/ QUOTE ]

I happen to agree with you here.

It seems that we will one day be able to clone people from any cell. I wonder if it will become a crime to destroy DNA because it could be turned into a person.

Re: Abortion
 

There are reasonable arguments for both sides, so you have to find the proper pespective before you make up your mind. Here is my approach:
1.When the human race is on the brink of extinction I go with the "anti-abortionists".
2.When the planet is overpopulated by humans I vote for the "baby-killers".
.

Your Post is an Opinion not an Argument (n/m)
 

.....

Re: Abortion
 

I agree with everything in this post. Just two other variables not addressed.

(1) Murder of the premeditated sort is a big deal in society (abortion). Manslaughter is not. As a rule if an intelligent person commits murder its a life sentence. If an idiot goes out and runs someone over drunk its a relativly minor ordeal. It should be just the opposite as the idiot is a greater threat to society and the smart person is only a threat to the specific person they kill.

(2) If a woman has the right to determine if a child is delivered or not than the man should have that same right as well as the right to decide if he is going to support that child or not if she wants the child and he does not.

Re: Abortion
 

Yes, your cat does have a soul, but it is merely a mortal one, like a vegetable soul, so it is ok to kill it. We need to get our definitions straight before making points, so I have presented the philosophical definition of soul.

To answer your question directly, if a woman does not believe in the definition of soul provided above (which means she denies the concept of animated life) she should be placed in a white jacket and taken to the happy place on the hill.

Re: Abortion
 

I'm going to throw in the opposite view of this to stir things up a little [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

It goes like this. Abortion at any stage up to the severing of the umbilical cord isn't a moral issue at all, it's a private matter, concerning a single individual. Up to this point there is no division. One can choose what one wishes with one's own body, and this includes whatever manifestations it can have.

Whether or not the potential independent entity can be made to sustain life either on its own or artificially isn't really the issue here with this line.

Assuming we can do what we wish with our own bodies, you need to prove a sufficient enough distinction here. We can sever other parts of our body, and while this is a different matter, is it different enough?

That's just the first hurdle though. In order to proceed you also have to show that we have a moral duty to carry the potential child to term and give birth. This is much more problematic than it may appear though.

We need to be particulary careful here as our emotions tend to get in the way in most discussions of morality, by which our thinking can very easily be clouded over, where our arguments reduce to merely emotive displays of babble. The great majority of so called philosophy on this subject is included here as well.

Now as a general principle of ethical theory based upon reason, in other words ethical theory not merely based upon a disagreement over preferences, enforcable positive duties arise out of convention. For example, we may enter into a contract where we both agree to do certain things and we can be bound by it providing the agreement was legitimate and consentual.

We can much more easily establish negative duties, as you shall not... You shall though is going to be much much more difficult to justify.

Is the decree here with regard to abortion a positive or negative duty? Well this is in the gray area it seems which makes the situation more interesting. Some procedures are clearly proactive. Others merely bring the fetus to term prematurely.

And remember, with any sort of interference, the onus lies on those seeking to interfere. If we cannot justify these actions we are thus not justified in taking them.

Just some stuff to chew on here [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

KC