Abortion

[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.

[Spladle Master]

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

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

[ 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.

[[censored]]

[ 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]

[Zygote]

[ 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.

[BluffTHIS!]

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

[maurile]

[ 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.

[maurile]

[ 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?

[Spladle Master]

[ 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.

[Spladle Master]

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.