abortion

[Elok]

Let us resume our beating of the dead horse...

A) I eat meat, therefore abortion ain't too bad.
To me it is as tragic as having to put a puppy to sleep. Sad, but sometimes necessary, perhaps even for economical reasons.

While dogs do have definite personalities, and I love them in some ways just as much as people, dogs will never be human. Dogs can't dabble in philosophy, win Nobel prizes, invent things, make jokes, paint, or do anything but offer their hearts or teeth to humans and each other. That's why we love them so much, but a dog's life doesn't have the significant potential or meaning of a human's.

B) An embryo is human with a unique genetic code:
It isn't just a blob of goo.

Is that a "for" or "against" argument?

C) Noticeable Brainwaves occur at about three months.
But cows have brainwaves too, does this mean we can't make them into steaks?

Again, a cow will never be anything but a stupid cow, deliberately bred by the human race for no purpose but to supply meat, milk, and leather. Human beings, at the moment at least, are not bred for any specific agenda, but exist ostensibly on their own merit.

D) Adoption is a better option.
It is selfish of a woman not to carry a child to term instead of giving it up for adoption.
E) Abortion should not in any way be funded by taxpayer money.
That's just wrong.

No argument here.

F) Zygotes.... who cares? I'm all for the morning after pill.

The MAP is generally accepted because it isn't abortion at all. It prevents the sperm and egg from fusing...I think. I don't know the specifics of it, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't kill an existing embryo. If you're talking about the kind of pill that keeps a fertilized egg from implanting in the endometrium, you're only referring to a VERY early abortion as far as I'm concerned.

G) Rape incest, life of mother:
Destroy the spawn of a rapist if the mother desires. Life of mother, of course, it is up to the mother.

Why? Is the child no more than the consequence of an undesirable action? Is its heredity somehow its fault? Only in Shakespeare are bastards intrinsically evil. The life-of-the-mother cases are analogous to shooting somebody in self-defense, and allowable if unpleasant.

Spiffor: what IS your exact reason for believing that a fetus cannot be classified as a person? That unwanted pregnancies are a problem, I can agree with. But I know of no situations other than LOTM wherein abortion is the *only* answer. If you assume the fetus deserves no rights, abortion is perfectly acceptable. How do you come to that assumption though?

And for others, why would termination be allowable at two months, but not at seven, or when it's sixty-eight years out of the womb for that matter? Granted, it doesn't have a heartbeat, little fingers, whatever, but the simple life terminated at two months is going to become the more complex life at seven months anyway. It's not a matter of probability or chance. We're talking birds and bees here. Barring miscarriage or abortion, which are the exception not the rule, the fetus develops into a baby. There is precisely zero chance that it will become an aardvark, or a slug, or anything else but a human being, if it is allowed to develop. The fact that we regularly turn into humans over the course of nine month is the whole reason we live to type this stuff right now. We're discussing the biological mechanism that determines our existence, not the hypothetical appearance of an alien invader in the womb.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Now, if we do not know when personhood begins, we ought not to kill unborn children.

It begins after birth.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Dissident
There are like millions of people desperate to adopt a baby. But they cannot.

And there are millions of babies that never get adopted. Why? Because they aren't white.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Elok
Spiffor: what IS your exact reason for believing that a fetus cannot be classified as a person? That unwanted pregnancies are a problem, I can agree with. But I know of no situations other than LOTM wherein abortion is the *only* answer. If you assume the fetus deserves no rights, abortion is perfectly acceptable. How do you come to that assumption though?

Nothing. This is purely arbitrary, and this is a debate I refuse even to enter. Because IMHO it has nothing to do with the general debate on abortion.
And again, that's why I think the pro-lifers are completely irrelevant to the topic.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Why not? What is so bad about abortion?

Its not bad, its sad that a person doesnt want to have a child after pregnancy.

Well, when does personhood begin, MRT? Why should the fetus not count?

biologically it can not survive outside the womb. it is not its own person.

I don't see the connection between the right to life and consent.

it stems from the rights of the fetus arguement.

Well, if you never saw a picture of a dog, how could you know what a dog is, except in the intellectual sense. Here's a good website, if you want to see pictures of an unborn child.

are you trying to provoke an emotional reaction out of me? if so, mission failed.

http://www.cyfl.ca/development.html [/QUOTE]

[Ben Kenobi]

MRT:

biologically it can not survive outside the womb.

Babies have been born and survived after 20 weeks.

So should we ban all abortions after 20 weeks?

Secondly, why should the environment matter? A newborn cannot survive without the mother, neither can the unborn child.

are you trying to provoke an emotional reaction out of me?

You asked for one...I tried.

[Ben Kenobi]

Spiffor:

Because IMHO it has nothing to do with the general debate on abortion.

I think that before we can kill something, we must first determine what that something is.

For example, do you hunt and shoot without making sure that you know the target you aim for?

[Ben Kenobi]

Elok:

The MAP is generally accepted because it isn't abortion at all. It prevents the sperm and egg from fusing...I think. I don't know the specifics of it, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't kill an existing embryo. If you're talking about the kind of pill that keeps a fertilized egg from implanting in the endometrium, you're only referring to a VERY early abortion as far as I'm concerned.

Couple of points. Zygote, not fertilised egg. Sperm and egg cease to exist after conception.

Secondly, the MAP only prevents the unborn child from implanting, it does not prevent conception. Therefore the pill acts as an abortifacient.

The fact that we regularly turn into humans over the course of nine month is the whole reason we live to type this stuff right now.

We do not become human beings over the course of our natural development, we are human beings after the moment of conception. Just as you are no more of a person now than when you were an infant, you did not become more of a person in the womb.

[Ben Kenobi]

Both sides have logical (and illogical) arguments for their case, and both cases are equally valid;

Then show me a logical argument for abortion, skywalker.

Rex Little:

I agree with MRT that abortion should be legal (whether it's right or wrong is another question which I don't propose to answer) until the fetus is viable outside the womb. My reasoning is that even if the fetus is fully human with full human rights, that does not include the right to live inside another person's body without her consent. If the mother wants it out, that's her right. If this can be done without killing it, she has to choose that method. If not. . .

For all you amazed by this argument, this is just Judith Jarvis Thompson's concert violinist, which deserves a post to itself. Don't have time right now to properly rebut.

Regarding partial-birth abortions, does anyone know why they're usually performed? I can't imagine a woman carrying a baby for 9 months, then deciding she wants an abortion. I would think a PB abortion would happen when something has gone very wrong with the pregnancy and the mother's health is threatened. But that's just my thinking; what are the facts?

It is never needed to save the health of the mother, but for reasons of convenience.

Consider this, at this point the child is viable. Should there be a conflict between the life or health of the mother in pregnancy, they can deliver the child through an emergency c-section, preserving both.

I will post a link to the findings of the Congress on the partial birth ban, which came to this precise conclusion.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
MRT:

So should we ban all abortions after 20 weeks?

possibly

Secondly, why should the environment matter? A newborn cannot survive without the mother, neither can the unborn child.

the state can provide for a newborn. the state cant for a newborn, nor should it try.

[David Floyd]

My position is probably closest to that of Rex Little.

[Rex Little]

It [partial-birth abortion] is never needed to save the health of the mother, but for reasons of convenience.

Convenience? That doesn't make sense. Wouldn't it have been a lot more convenient to get the abortion back in the first trimester?

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm home, and I have all my files in front of me.

Francis Beckwith lists five different rebuttals to Thompson, I'll just list the first, and the one I find most convincing. Like all arguments, it helps to list the pertinent assumptions made by Ms. Thompson.

The first is that the unborn is a living human person.

Secondly, she assumes that all duties are voluntary, meaning that people can choose not to do them.

Now I would argue we have several examples of non-voluntary duties. The first is the duty between a children and their parents. I would argue that children have a duty to love, and honour their parents precisely because they are your parents. Now, do we get to pick our parents? No.

In short, we can have duties in which the person does not consent. I would argue pregnancy is one of these duties. The child has no other place to go.

My second point is that Thompson's argument only makes sense in the case of rape. In all other cases, the woman has consented to sex, and all the potential consequences of sex including pregnancy.

Finally, we have the example of a father who does not want a child. Even if he has taken measures to prevent conception, he will still be held liable for child support. How is it right for the mother to refuse care necessary to keep the child alive for nine months, yet not right for the father to refuse to pay child support for a much longer period?

[Dis]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


And there are millions of babies that never get adopted. Why? Because they aren't white.

I can't force people to adopt black babies. Would you force them to adopt black babies?

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Well, if we go by science, human life begins at conception. Many religions teach the same.

On the other hand, Reform Judaism teaches the following. During confirmation class the Rabbi at our temple advised us that according to his interpretation of passages in the Kabballa, abortions are not objectionable from a religious perspective. The reason for this is when several Rabbis are providing commentary on whether a baby being born can be killed in order to save a mothers life, one Rabbi argues that it is permissible because the baby has no soul until it draws its first breath. Since the key distinction between animals and humans is the posession of a soul, there is therefore no difference between fetuses and animals.

It certainly seems that when a fetus is recognized as a full human life depends on which religion you happen to follow.

[Zevico]

Orthodox Judaism is more strict about abortion, but shares this view as well, Mordoch.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Then show me a logical argument for abortion, skywalker.

IF you assume that a fetus isn't a person/doesn't have an inherent right to life, then abortion is okay. If you don't, it's not.

It is not a conflict of logic; it is a conflict of premises.

I don't really see any reason to view one premise as more valid than the other, so I'm neutral on this issue.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Nothing. This is purely arbitrary, and this is a debate I refuse even to enter. Because IMHO it has nothing to do with the general debate on abortion.
And again, that's why I think the pro-lifers are completely irrelevant to the topic.

Yes, but why? Dude, you're talking in circles here. You dismiss the position out of hand but provide no reason why. You begin from the assumption that the statement is ridiculous, with no compelling reason to back that assumption up.

If the statement is true, it's certainly relevant, as it makes abortion at least comparable to manslaughter. If not, whatever. But why do you dismiss it out of hand.

And thanks for the correction, Ben. I knew there were pills out there that did that, but I thought the MAP was just a superstrong dose of normal birth control. The fact that it actually disposes of a developing life needs to be better-known.

[David Floyd]

I can't force people to adopt black babies. Would you force them to adopt black babies?

As I recall, Chegitz didn't even do that

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by Mordoch

On the other hand, Reform Judaism teaches the following. During confirmation class the Rabbi at our temple advised us that according to his interpretation of passages in the Kabballa, abortions are not objectionable from a religious perspective. The reason for this is when several Rabbis are providing commentary on whether a baby being born can be killed in order to save a mothers life, one Rabbi argues that it is permissible because the baby has no soul until it draws its first breath. Since the key distinction between animals and humans is the posession of a soul, there is therefore no difference between fetuses and animals.

It certainly seems that when a fetus is recognized as a full human life depends on which religion you happen to follow.

Your abusing the view of Jews.

That is aplicable ONLY IN THE CASE OF THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER-Unless you want to discount the Talmud as being worthless-your taking it out of context.

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Vesayen
Your abusing the view of Jews.

Who the heck are you to argue that you know better than a highly respected Reform Rabbi on what the religious beliefs of Jews are???!!!! To be specific, the Rabbi who gave the previously mentioned explanation is Rabbi Zwerin, the founder and head Rabbi of the second largest Reform temple in Colorado with over 1100 families as members. The only part I specificly added which I don't believe was in his original explanation is the no distinction between animal life and fetuses. Here's a much more comprehensive article co-written by Rabbi Zwerin with the following conclusion.

For Judaism, the evidence in matters of abortion, then, is reasonably clear. The legal and rabbinic teachings tend to depict the fetus as simply part of a woman's body...The fetus is not a person, it has nor rights.

http://www.rcrc.org/pdf/jewish%20perspectives.pdf

While the passages under discussion involved whether a baby can be killed to spare a mother's life, if a baby has no soul until it draws it first breath, this is true regardless of the circumstances of the question being asked. The Rabbi in the previously passage of the Kabalah did not suggest that the statement applied only in that circumstance, but left it open as a general statement.

The Orthodox Jews argue that fetuses can be killed only in circustances where otherwise the mother's life is at risk, but Reform Judaism has a different interpretation. Some Orthodox Jews might argue that they are the only true Jews, but this is obviously the sort of thing that happens with other religions as well. I suggest examining the linked to article before arguing that this Jewish interpretation on abortion has no basis behind it.