 |
| |
|
|
Elok
|
 |
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003
time: 00:31
|
|
This is an abortion thread that I am starting with the intention of sticking to entirely factual arguments, with as few appeals to emotion as possible. This cuts both ways; shut up about the coat hangers, and don't tell us how early a fetus can wiggle its fingers either. I'm not discussing any one particular method of abortion either; this is abortion IN GENERAL. Not women's rights, not the particular methods that appear gruesome, but the validity of the action itself as an institution. If you wish to tell me what a cold-blooded ***** I am, please start your own thread. Hopefully we can keep a reasonable argument going for at least a page or two before the eye-rolling smileys start to predominate.
With that said, I'd like to branch out my earlier argument, that the constitutional right to abortion simply does not exist. Abortion is never mentioned in the constitution or any of the amendments, nor are there any references to any subject even vaguely related to it or which can be construed by a reasonable person to include abortion. The Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision is ostensibly valid because of the principle of judicial review, which allows them to declare laws unconstitutional, i.e. that said laws VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF. With no actual constitutional backing, RvW is no more worthy of recognition than a statement by the CIA approving a new drug for human use. RvW excersized powers that the SCOTUS never had, and is therefore in my opinion invalid.
Secondly, "it's the woman's body." Except it isn't, technically. The fetus is genetically distinct from the woman and biologically predisposed to become an independent human being over time. Barring miscarriage, which is the exception not the rule, the fetus will become an infant, which will in turn keep growing until it dies one way or another as a child, adolescent, etc. The fetus is a foreign body within the woman; however, it is distinct and given time will become a man or woman. Note that the fetal form of a human being and the adult form are inarguably the exact same lifeform at different stages of development. It's simple birds and bees. It is the immature form of a lifeform, "just a clump of cells" that will become an infant.
I would argue that an unwanted child is analogous to an unwanted houseguest from a legal perspective. It may cause immense inconvenience, but until it endangers your own life you are not within your rights to kill it. Or shouldn't be, anyway.
Just as a final reminder, I don't want to hear about back-alley abortions. This discussion is of the principle of the act itself.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
Hmm... Well...
Abortion is socially expedient. That is its advantage and the reason why it exists.
Its theoretically morally objectionable, but I'd say that the social benefit far outways any downside in, effectively what we are talking about, a potential human life, not an ACTUAL one.
I am all for expediency. Cultural. Social. Economic.
Pragmatism is just the way to go.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
Oh, and btw... its not analogous to compare a human tenant with a fetus. A fetus is a parasitic organism, abeit a "welcome" one.
If a human tenant gets thrown from a particular residence, he can survive.
If a fetus is instantly removed from the womb, in most cases, it won't survive.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
cinch
|
|
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Jul 2002
time: 22:31
|
|
Well, I think it wiser to take an holistic approach (including women's rights & methods), but if you say that's not so, I will abide for this thread.
****************
The recent abortion bill signed by President Bush bothers me for a couple of reasons:
(1) Late-trimester abortions are almost always done only when:
(a) the mother is under a sever health risk
(b) the child is hopelessly deformed (i.e. enciphilitic (sp?), no brain, etc.)... that is, it is not a case of doctors willy-nilly aborting retarded or limb-missing fetuses.
(2) Ultimately, the government should stay out of the decision. Once the gov't gets into regulating intimate health issues like this, it's a bad sign. So let's not let them get in too deep, here.
quote:
Barring miscarriage, which is the exception not the rule, the fetus will become an infant, which will in turn keep growing until it dies one way or another as a child, adolescent, etc. |
So life begins at conception, period? I don't think that applies. From a technical aspect, the collection of cells that makes up an early "child" is just that, a collection of cells. It will not suffer if it is destroyed, and so destroying it should not be outright banned. Now, I'm not saying abortion is a wonderful thing, but I don't think it's something that needs to be outlawed by the government. The only real reason I see that the gov't wants to get their hands on it is because of some of its members' traditional/religious views & values. I think the right course of action, though, would be to step back and let the parents decide. 99 times out of 100, they will have a better grasp of the situation than Big Daddy Gubmint.
To summarize:
Abortion does not make me happy to think about. But thinking about the gov't deciding what's right and what isn't regarding abortion makes me even less so.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
in a socio-economic way... they could be defined that way. And governments/societies have choices whether to keep them on welfare...
[EDIT] but its theoretically possible for a welfare recipient to survive outside of the welfare system, especially by relocating.
A fetus is a biological parasite. A real, actual, dictionary-definition of a parasite, even.
[EDIT] and relocating may (or probably will) cause significant issues for them...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
cinch
|
|
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Jul 2002
time: 22:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Azazel
quote:
(1) Late-trimester abortions are almost always done only when:
(a) the mother is under a severe health risk
|
do a caesarian, then!
quote:
(b) the child is hopelessly deformed (i.e. enciphilitic (sp?), no brain, etc.)... that is, it is not a case of doctors willy-nilly aborting retarded or limb-missing fetuses.
|
no brain? I thought that this was the result of the procedure? 
missing limbs and retardness can be diagnosed on early stages. |
Hey, he said to wait until the SECOND page to bring out the rolleyes!  Also, if you think abortion methods are bad, you should see a baby who's been needlessly brought to term, whose skull is full of fluid (where a brain should be) that needs to be "shunted" every once in a while. Not pleasant. But we're not supposed to get into procedures and stuff in this thread, so I'll drop it.
Believe it or not, sometimes there are things called "complications" which can arise, and sometimes, just sometimes, things will be missed in the early stages. Does that mean that the concerns are any less valid?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Az
|
 |
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000
time: 07:31
|
|
cinch:
quote:
Hey, he said to wait until the SECOND page to bring out the rolleyes! |
That's what happens when you don't read the openning post.
quote:
Also, if you think abortion methods are bad, you should see a baby who's been needlessly brought to term, whose skull is full of fluid (where a brain should be) that needs to be "shunted" every once in a while. Not pleasant. But we're not supposed to get into procedures and stuff in this thread, so I'll drop it.
Believe it or not, sometimes there are things called "complications" which can arise, and sometimes, just sometimes, things will be missed in the early stages. Does that mean that the concerns are any less valid?
|
I have no problems with those. I am talking about "risk to the mother's health" which can be avoided by doing a caesarian.
quote:
And for the last time, the baby DOES NOT die from cranial evacuation |
The method of life-stopping (sic) isn't the thing that bothers me. The thing that bothers me is aborting a baby so late, if there is another choice.
quote:
but its theoretically possible for a welfare recipient to survive outside of the welfare system, especially by relocating. |
How about a handicapped, blind, deaf person? I guess it's ok to let him die, then. 
quote:
Also, theres simply no way the public health, medical, and welfare infrastructure could handle all the babies being brought to term. The system already has enough problems with the existing birthrate among the poor and underserved.
|
If that's what bothers you, why not ban pregnancies for the poor, altogether? You know they won't be able to carry their own weight.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
Morality is relative.
The question should be should modern society do that. The answer is yes, right now, because there are very few blind handicapped people.
If the number got so large as to overwhelm society (as allowing all currently arborted babies to live would,) then I'd say... no.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Elok
|
|
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003
time: 00:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Combat Ingrid
When people finally realise that women should be seen as mindless baby incubators you will not need to debate this anymore |
You would seem like less of a mindless baby incubator if you would give the appearance of having actually read the first post. This thread is for actual arguments. Take the histrionics elsewhere.
Thank you, Jac, for acknowledging that there are more solutions to overpopulation than just abortion. I agree that we need to take care of problem pregnancies better. The first step IMO should be to outlaw IVF. There are enough children being aborted already without people custom-making kids for the sake of their own vanity and flushing all but one or two down the toilet. That's what adoption is for.
I'm too lazy to quote again, but in response to cinch, why does the presence or absence of pain or other faculties determine humanity? Is this not comparable to pulling the plug on a comatose person who's only been under for two months? Worse, actually, because you know that the subject in question is essentially GOING to attain normal human function in nine months or less, end of story. The difference is pretty much academic from where I'm standing.
I don't take a "holistic approach" here because I think that, when choosing between the importance of two or more concerns, the first consequence to be weighed should be the most serious. If a fetus is human, it's a question of human life, which would seem to vastly outweigh questions of rights or happiness. Decide that first.
Spec: that's your personal decision. How do you know that such would be the choice of all aborted people? What distinction makes it acceptable to kill a fetus conceived of a prostitute, but not the child of a prostitute?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:31
|
|
Hence the word Hysterectomy.
Elok:
I waited to see what bait people would give you after his first post. My argument without emotional appeals amounts to this:
1. Abortion kills an unborn child.
2. An unborn child is a living human person.
3. Killing persons is wrong.
4. Therefore, abortion is wrong.
For premise 1, the terminology need not be 'unborn child', it can simply be the entity in the womb. All I need to say here is that abortion kills something.
For premise 3, I assume that human persons have intrinsic worth and value.
For premise 2, then becomes the heart of this debate.
What makes an unborn child living? He or she, gender being determined at conception, is living because living things can only come from other living things. An infant is alive, and so is sperm. Therefore the unborn child must also be alive.
Secondly, humans can only come from other humans. The parents of the unborn child are human, and so is the infant. Therefore the unborn child must also be a human being.
Finally, we have personhood. What makes a person? I would say that to have the intrinsic capacity for sentience makes a person, and this we can see in an infant without the current capacity to reason. We also see this in the unborn child, who at conception, recieves the instructions necessary to grow and develop as a human person. Therefore, from conception onwards, the unborn child is not a potential person, her or she is a person.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
quote:
Secondly, humans can only come from other humans. The parents of the unborn child are human, and so is the infant. Therefore the unborn child must also be a human being. |
Nope. Sorry.
A 2 cell zygote doesn't classify as being a human being... takes more than those two cells to become a viable human being.
Also... I'd say the ability to function outside the womb is an important indicator as to a human being.
quote:
Finally, we have personhood. What makes a person? I would say that to have the intrinsic capacity for sentience makes a person, and this we can see in an infant without the current capacity to reason. We also see this in the unborn child, who at conception, recieves the instructions necessary to grow and develop as a human person. Therefore, from conception onwards, the unborn child is not a potential person, her or she is a person. |
Again... 2 cell argument. Not sentient. Not by a long shot.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-11-2003 23:17
I dont have an opinion on this.. theres the libertarian argument vs the right of life and how you define that. Can either side convince me?
|