Sklansky on Abortion

[ QUOTE ]
Hey Kip, If you were talking about reducing the miscarridge rate to zero, I simply misunderstood.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. My understanding is that up to 50% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. If we had the technology to save all of those miscarried embryos, someone who claimed that the right to life began at conception, would logically need to be for women using the technology to ensure their embryos did not miscarry. This would be bad, I think.

(PS: a zygote is a fertilized egg -- a single-celled post-conception organism.)

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
If we had the technology to save all of those miscarried embryos, someone who claimed that the right to life began at conception, would logically need to be for women using the technology to ensure their embryos did not miscarry.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not necessarily. There is a difference in killing something and letting it die. A miscarriage is the latter, while abortion is the former.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If we had the technology to save all of those miscarried embryos, someone who claimed that the right to life began at conception, would logically need to be for women using the technology to ensure their embryos did not miscarry.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not necessarily. There is a difference in killing something and letting it die. A miscarriage is the latter, while abortion is the former.

[/ QUOTE ]

See's DS's post on "acts of omission".

If there is a baby laying on the street dying, I think if you choose to just walk by and not try to save it, then most people wouldn't think too highly of you.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
See's DS's post on "acts of omission".

[/ QUOTE ]
Already have.

[ QUOTE ]
If there is a baby laying on the street dying, I think if you choose to just walk by and not try to save it, then most people wouldn't think too highly of you.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, but if instead I was to put a gun to someone's head and say "Go save that baby or else.", that's not much better than just killing the baby or the person I'm threatening. I'm committing uninitiated aggression against someone.

I don't really have a fully formed opinion on that matter. That's why I said "not necessarily". I haven't thought much about it.

Sorry to interupt your unending debate. Carry on.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If there is a baby laying on the street dying, I think if you choose to just walk by and not try to save it, then most people wouldn't think too highly of you.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, but if instead I was to put a gun to someone's head and say "Go save that baby or else.", that's not much better than just killing the baby or the person I'm threatening. I'm committing uninitiated aggression against someone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most pro-lifer's would rather have someone forced to save another's life, than have the person be able to choose an action that resulted in another's death (ie: the removal of a fetus).

[ QUOTE ]
I don't really have a fully formed opinion on that matter. That's why I said "not necessarily". I haven't thought much about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. I mistook your statement to be something you had actually thought about. My bad.

[lerxst337]

How so? Roe v. Wade stated that states may only regulate abortion, not forbid it. Overturning this decision would not make abortion illegal in all states, only in those states that would choose to make it so.

But you all are smarter than this. The REAL question is whether the Lacy/Connor law will have 14th Amendment ramifications as it pertains to abortion. In THAT scenario, you would be correct to say that such a decision would make abortion illegal across the country,.

[hmkpoker]

A lot of people have said that abortion is wrong because it is the killing of a potential person.

What does this matter? There is an unlimited number of "potential" persons out there. Women produce eggs (and almost always continue to do so after an abortion), and men are never in short supply of seed. Human beings are a vastly renewable resource.

How can it be wasteful or wrong to get rid of something that's practically infinite? Shouldn't we be selective and choose the cream of the crop? What's wrong with killing a potential person?

(And please, no statments like "the child could go on to invent the cure for cancer." It could just as well go on to kill the person that would otherwise invent the cure for cancer.)

[UATrewqaz]

Kip,
I've read most of this thread and have to tell you that if you are looking for a solid, undebatable definition of what constitutes a person or human existence you will not find it.

Some of the greatest minds on earth have thought deeply on this for years, even before science FURTHER complicated the issue.

Nobody really has a good answer.

The best Descartes could do was "I think, hence I am."

That having been said, coming back to the topic of abortion, your position seems to be "since nobody can effectively prove that a fetus is a person it's ok to abort them"

Why is the opposite not correct? Until you can prove a fetus is NOT a person you shouldn't?

Tangling up the complex issue of abortion with an impossible to answer question ("What constitutes human existence/personhood") just makes things more difficult.

We as a society must come to definitive answers when it comes to things, even if no such philosophical definitive exists.

Thus I believe having a debate about existence, which spirals further and further into the great beyond, does not contribute much to the question at hand.

[hmkpoker]

In that case, shouldn't we just do what makes our lives easiest?

[ QUOTE ]
The best Descartes could do was "I think, hence I am."

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that's pretty good. And, thinking requires a functional brain (cerebral cortex).

[ QUOTE ]
That having been said, coming back to the topic of abortion, your position seems to be "since nobody can effectively prove that a fetus is a person it's ok to abort them"

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all. My position is that whether or not it is wrong to abort a fetus, depends entirely upon whether or not that fetus is a person. Further, it is my position that there is a rational discourse that can be had in order to determine to the best of our ability whether and when a fetus becomes a person.


[ QUOTE ]
Why is the opposite not correct? Until you can prove a fetus is NOT a person you shouldn't?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not talking about proofs here. Science can only tell us so much. Math/logic are mostly useless in this question. What we can do, however, is come up with a rational understanding and agreement. In fact, we have -- nobody ever questions whether someone that is brain dead is still a person (for the most part). The recent Terri Schiavo case brought to light an important medical science idea: a person requires higher brain activity; without which, they are not a person (ie: they do not have the "right to life").

[ QUOTE ]
We as a society must come to definitive answers when it comes to things, even if no such philosophical definitive exists.

[/ QUOTE ]

We must come to consensual answers. Not definitive, as our understanding can change.

[ QUOTE ]
Thus I believe having a debate about existence, which spirals further and further into the great beyond, does not contribute much to the question at hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since it is THE defining question in the debate, I think most other avenues of discussion are moot. If I thought it was not possible to have a rational agreement on what defines personhood, I wouldn't be wasting my time. However, I think there is. Unfortunately, I think rationality is often suppressed by emotion and religiosity.