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.

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh?

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.

[BCPVP]

[ 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?

[jt1]

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.

[ 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".

[DCopper04]

[ 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!

[jt1]

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.

[ 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?

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.