Abortion: Pro-life or Pro-choice?

[Glenn]

It makes more sense to draw the line at a fertilised egg, but to me I don't see much difference. The sperm is half a set of dna, the fertilised egg is a full set. It's still just a mass of cells. Technically it has a genetic height/weight roughly encoded already, but in my opinion it doesn't make it remotely human.

Not remotely? It isn't anything else, and it certainly will develop into a full grown human adult, if given the chance. I see your point, but I think that saying that it isn't remotely human may be going a bit far.

Technically yes. If you killed me now, instantly, I wouldn't care less. But in this case, you'd have to think about the implications on my friends/family. But in the case of a mother wanting an abortion, she is the only one (except the father) who has the capability to suffer from the situation. And furthermore, if she wants an abortion in the first place, she'll probably suffer more if it lives, than if she has an abortion.

I don't think that she is the only one who suffers here. Think about the mother and father's parents. Do you think that they don't care about having a grandchild? Do you think that they aren't affected in the least by what the mother does with her child?

Like I said before, just because someone wants to have an abortion doesn't mean that they are in dire straits. There are people who just view it as a convenience issue. Also, how hard is it to not get pregnant or get someone pregnant? If you can't afford to get pregnant, there are measures that you can take to prevent it. If you play with fire, there is the possibility that you will get hurt.

But that's not true for adults. People do care.

Like I said above, people also care about children.

Because originally the main arguments against abortion were 'it's murder' etc, based on the principle of the embryo having a 'soul'. About the children, well, I suppose if a family had a child and killed it before it could even walk because they weren't allowed an abortion, it wouldn't bother me. To me, the organism that can't even move, feed itself, communicate, drink or think rationally has no rights compared to an adult who is in control of themselves and their body. If you think rationally, even if two parents killed their own child, and they were better off for it, and the child had no idea it was going to happen, assuming it couldn't be adopted by anyone, is it that wrong?

Have I argued that the baby has a soul? Have I used any religious rhetoric in my arguments?

If you think that it's OK to kill an infant because it can't fend for itself, then I suppose that you feel that it's OK to kill retarded people, who don't have the mental capacity to keep up with everyone else even at adult age. Also, what about elderly people who aren't totally in control of their body, and who can't feed themselves?

I'm not sure that it would be rational to kill a child for any reason. Would it be rational to kill 1/3 of the people on the planet to avoid overpopulation, even if we were all (what's left of us) better off for it and the 1/3 had no idea that it was coming?

Yes, in my opinion an amoeba is more alive than a human embryo because it can survive on it's own.

I suppose that you think that an amoeba is also more alive than a human baby, or an ape baby, etc.

About the questions, I don't think outside/inside the womb matters.

Apparently not, if you think that it's OK to kill infants, and even children who can't walk and talk. Using this logic, it's OK to kill anyone up until the age of 18, because only then are they considered adults, and only then are they expected to be autonomous and self-sufficient. If we all thought this way, then our species would not be around right now.

 

[chiquiliquis]

Yes, no one is anti-life so you must use these labels in the standard way to be understood.

No one is anti-life?

I'll be more specific in regards to my position: There are choices we make, all of us (faced with an abortion or otherwise) that either affirm life, or allow us to live in a hollow fiction. Hence, affirm life through choice.

The idea that there is a "start" to life is a hollow fictition--a tickling of reason, or massaging of the ego. Starts and ends are objects of representational thought (ideas, like the number 1, or 0). Life is not an object of representational thought; there is no one thought that captivates all of life. Ever try counting to infinity?--go ahead. Like life, the infinite (a.k.a. what is beyond the limits of human thought) has no start. Why?--"start" is a human thought. There is nothing inherently wrong with "start", it is how we use it that makes the difference between affirming life and the mere tickling of reason.

Perhaps a solution to the question at hand requires moving beyond "standard" termanology.

Then again, perhaps not. If what I've said makes no sense, don't think much of it.

 

[Elizabeth]

I'm not sure that it would be rational to kill a child for any reason. Would it be rational to kill 1/3 of the people on the planet to avoid overpopulation, even if we were all (what's left of us) better off for it and the 1/3 had no idea that it was coming?

I don't know what kind of restrictions or in place on third trimester abortions (it was my understanding only where the mother's life was endangered and I thought most abortions occured in the first 9-12 weeks), so I can't comment on that, but anyone looking for a utilitarian approach could champion the "harvesting" of aborted fetus/embryo's developing sperm & egg cells or tissues for medical research or as a genetic donor to save the life of a sibling.....Although I still don't think it should promote abortion in any way or a pregnancy should be deliberately planned with this end in mind regardless of parental desire or rationalizing.

 

[Glenn]

The idea that there is a "start" to life is a hollow fictition--a tickling of reason, or massaging of the ego. Starts and ends are objects of representational thought (ideas, like the number 1, or 0). Life is not an object of representational thought; there is no one thought that captivates all of life. Ever try counting to infinity?--go ahead. Like life, the infinite (a.k.a. what is beyond the limits of human thought) has no start. Why?--"start" is a human thought. There is nothing inherently wrong with "start", it is how we use it that makes the difference between affirming life and the mere tickling of reason.

Alright, so are you saying that someone who will be born in 20 years is already alive, and even after they die they will still be alive, thereby saying that his life doesn't ever start or end, and only is? If so, does that also mean that you are against abortion?

 

[Dan B]

Glenn,

It occurs to me that an interesting implication of this view might be that we are all part of a single life.

If a human egg, even as a haploid cell, is alive (as we might consider every other cell in a human body, though they are certainly not necessarily individually independent of the larger organism), then where does life begin and end? Might it be possible to argue that, once life started--however it may have started, some 10-14 billion years ago--it has never stopped?

Instead, we might say that smaller elements of that singular life have stopped functioning in the interim due to biochemical limitations, accidents, or violence.

Even if valid, this argument would not seem to take away from your larger point.

Just a thought. Regards,

Dan

 

[Glenn]

Glenn,

It occurs to me that an interesting implication of this view might be that we are all part of a single life.

If a human egg, even as a haploid cell, is alive (as we might consider every other cell in a human body, though they are certainly not necessarily individually independent of the larger organism), then where does life begin and end? Might it be possible to argue that, once life started--however it may have started, some 10-14 billion years ago--it has never stopped?

Instead, we might say that smaller elements of that singular life have stopped functioning in the interim due to biochemical limitations, accidents, or violence.

Indeed, and I too thought that this may be the case. However, if this is the case, then we are talking about the smaller elements of singular life, and not the collective (with regards to the abortion debate). That is why I can't make heads or tails of why it would be brought up. However, if he meant something else by what he said, then he may have a perfectly valid point that I just can't understand.

 

[Elizabeth]

No one is anti-life?

I'll be more specific in regards to my position: There are choices we make, all of us (faced with an abortion or otherwise) that either affirm life, or allow us to live in a hollow fiction. Hence, affirm life through choice.

Are you saying women should have the choice of an abortion as an affirmation of life in general (or, that this is a consequence of their own choosing?) :?

 

[Dan B]

Glenn,

Indeed, and I too thought that this may be the case. However, if this is the case, then we are talking about the smaller elements of singular life, and not the collective (with regards to the abortion debate).

Agreed. Of course, this could lead to other philosophical arguments about the relative import of any given element of this singular life. Then again, I would tend towards categorically rejecting an implication that any given element is "worth less" than any other (as a rough extension of Khutoryansky's thoughts on Objective Morality).

That is why I can't make heads or tails of why it would be brought up. However, if he meant something else by what he said, then he may have a perfectly valid point that I just can't understand.

True. I'm certainly no closer to understanding what he really meant than you are.

Regards,

Dan

 

[kirei_na_me]

I say it's not fair for anyone to judge this until they are faced with it themselves. It's pretty easy to have all kinds of opinions when you have never been in a certain situation yourself(of which no one can really understand the contributing factors).

 

[chiquiliquis]

Are you saying women should have the choice of an abortion as an affirmation of life in general (or, that this is a consequence of their own choosing?) :?

This is diffucult. But if you have a background in Buddhist philosophy (or if you have a strong background in Nietzsche or Kierkegaard, and some postmoderns), it may help--particularly as regards the "singular" distinction of life--which leaves no room for individuation of any kind (Grant) apart from that ventured by reason (nothing more than a thought exercise, albeit a fancy one).

Terms (Dan B) like "any given element", or "someone" (Grant), are perfect examples of the principle of individuation (above); it is a mental inclination towards dissection. Within the context of "life", such distinctions/judgments are valueless (meaningless). Close your eyes, like some buddhists might(--not physically), and experience a world with no boundaries--no individuation, no parts, no elements, no someones.

The activity of the mind (while not capable of grasping the beyond--life, the infinite, "why", etc.), however, is not inherently bad. Still, when the activity of the mind becomes a lie--it is given priority and command over "life"--things become fuzzy.

Objective morality, the dualism of Plato and (to a great extent) Christianity, Descartes' cogito, Kant's transcendental aesthetics--they have all been wonderous and amazing exercises of the mind; they all show human productivity at it's most brilliant. They also give preference to reason over (a "flawed", incomprehensible, and utterly beyond) "life", without recalling that "life" is the one key ingrediant to any and all reason.

I think I agree with Kirei na Me here: It's not really fair for anyone to judge this until they are faced with it themselves. This is probably one reason why I have been so darned cryptic with what I want to say. I don't particularly want to force my opinion, but this is a forum, and I had understood it (my opinion) to at least be welcome. If you have ears for it, great. If you don't, no sweat--don't let it bother you.

I would say, nonetheless, that when you are faced with abortion, you ought to be as true to yourself, your lived experience, and the limits of your knowledge, as possible. Know who you are, know what you are, and know as best you can what life is, before judging. In doing so, you would be affirming life.

 

[Glenn]

I say it's not fair for anyone to judge this until they are faced with it themselves. It's pretty easy to have all kinds of opinions when you have never been in a certain situation yourself(of which no one can really understand the contributing factors).

True. However, we can discuss our opinions (this is the opinions forum) on the subject, and try to come to a conclusion for ourselves about whether we believe it to be right or wrong, or in what situations it could be right or wrong. I don't mind whether someone is pro-life or pro-choice, as long as they have valid reasons for it that stand up to logic and reason. To me, though, it seems to be getting closer and closer to an immoral act, and I have argued this point without deteriorating the discussion into a flame war, or by using religiously based arguments. I believe that the arguments that I have made are good ones, and they should be taken into consideration. Do my arguments come off as being judgemental of women who have had abortions? I feel as though I am just trying to specifically categorize the act into one of two categories: moral or immoral. Any offense was not intended. :sorry:

As a note, judging people at this point is, well, pointless. They've done what they've done. If it comes to pass that we, as a (human) race, conclude that abortion is wrong, then all that we can do is not do it from that point forward. Looking at the past wouldn't help at all. But if it is deemed immoral, then people who partake in the process should be judged as people who murder should be judged. However, we have not reached that point, so judgement at this stage would be too early. As I said before, it was not my intention to judge people's actions with my comments.

 

[kirei_na_me]

No, no. I think you've been excellent about this, Glenn. I wasn't aiming that at anyone. Just making a statement.

It might sound bad to some people, but this(I can't even say it) can be very bittersweet. Bitter in the sense that you know a 'life' is coming to an end, and (not very) sweet because it has saved you from a hellacious life(in a lot of cases). Sometimes, things are complete accidents and mistakes do happen. It's a fact of life. And sometimes, in order to save one's self from heartache and a miserable life, very difficult decisions have to be made. Decisions that are not taken lightly and weigh heavily on one's mind, even for years after they've been made.

It just seems kind of not fair to hear men, especially, talk about this subject. It's not a part of their body, like it is a woman's.

 

[Golgo_13]

Nice post!

I think everyone has had a chance to say what they wanted. Maybe it's time to close this thread.

 

[bossel]

It just seems kind of not fair to hear men, especially, talk about this subject. It's not a part of their body, like it is a woman's.

To me it seems unfair to exclude men from that discussion.

Re "part of their body": That's part of the question, isn't it? How long (if ever) can the foetus/embryo be considered part of the female body? I don't think it's very ethical to say "As long as it's inside me, I can do whatever I want!"

For what I know it has been shown that a foetus can feel pain beyond a certain stage of development. From then on it should at least have the same right as any pet: not to be treated in an unnecessary cruel way.

Now the question is, what to consider unnecessary. IMO this means that after this point only for reasons which threaten the health or life of the mother abortion should be an option.

Yep, accidents & mistakes do happen (always afraid of something like that myself), but if they do you should take your responsibility!

 

[kirei_na_me]

Yep, accidents & mistakes do happen (always afraid of something like that myself), but if they do you should take your responsibility!

Well, that is taking repsonsibility, isn't it? It's a choice one can make, and one shouldn't be judged by it either. Sometimes, it is the only option one has.

Like I said, it's very easy to go around casting judgement, isn't it? Everyone has different ways of dealing with different situations. Everyone's circumstance is different, and no one has any way of knowing exactly what it's like to be another person, do they?

Besides, as I said earlier in the thread, abortion isn't a good thing. It's not good for a woman physically and it isn't good for anyone emotionally either. It is definitely not something to take lightly.

I could tell you stories.

 

[Glenn]

To me it seems unfair to exclude men from that discussion.

Re "part of their body": That's part of the question, isn't it? How long (if ever) can the foetus/embryo be considered part of the female body? I don't think it's very ethical to say "As long as it's inside me, I can do whatever I want!"

I agree with bossel here. Also, this issue doesn't just affect women, so it shouldn't be left exclusively to women. I do, however, understand how it could be awkward for you to hear only men discussing the issue. But then again, where are all of the women? And are the men's opinions any less important just because we don't carry the baby/fetus/embryo/whatever you want to call it?

For what I know it has been shown that a foetus can feel pain beyond a certain stage of development. From then on it should at least have the same right as any pet: not to be treated in an unnecessary cruel way.

Now the question is, what to consider unnecessary. IMO this means that after this point only for reasons which threaten the health or life of the mother abortion should be an option.

I agree with these points also (which I probably didn't need to say).

Yep, accidents & mistakes do happen (always afraid of something like that myself), but if they do you should take your responsibility!

I feel the same way. There are measures that can be taken to avoid pregnancy. If you become complacent and get pregnant because you didn't take those measures, you should have to face the consequences of your actions. I'm speaking about men and women here. The father should be financially responsible and also should help to raise the child in an environment conducive to healthy growth in all areas, and the mother should be responsible for raising the child in the same manner (and I don't mean to say that she shouldn't be excluded from financial responsibility, but it usually is on the man).

Of course, if having the child means the mother will die or be otherwise seriously injured, then abortion should be an option. If having the child means you can't have that new TV, then abortion should not be an option past the second trimester, and maybe even earlier. I'm trying to think of a hellacious situation that could result from having a child, and I'm doing a poor job of it. Here's about the worst scenario that I can imagine:

A single woman who doesn't have a job or living parents or relatives gets pregnant. The father skips out on her, or she just doesn't know who he is. She would be constantly ridiculed for being pregnant and not having a serious life partner. She doesn't have any money.

That's the worst that I can think of, but I doubt that it is very likely (well, then again, in today's world...). In such a scenario, I'm sure most women would have an abortion, and I would say that it is understandable. But I'm not so sure that I would agree with that decision.

Well, that is taking repsonsibility, isn't it? It's a choice one can make, and one shouldn't be judged by it either. Sometimes, it is the only option one has.

I have also thought this. It is taking responsibility. The question, though, is whether it is like taking responsibility for having been seen counterfeiting money by killing someone, and thereby solving the situation by silencing them, or whether it is like taking responsibility by throwing out the rest of your beer before you get in a car. Finding which situation is closer to abortion is what this discussion is all about, as far as I can see.

 

[mdchachi]

> I don't mind whether someone is pro-life or pro-choice, as long as they have valid reasons for it that stand up to logic and reason.

Glenn, you're asking a lot here. Humans rarely make decisions based on logic or reason even when they think that that is what they're doing.

 

[kirei_na_me]

Have you been there? Probably not. Have I? Yes.

I guess I should stop reading this thread because of that. It hits extremely close to home and I take it very personal.

I wouldn't have the family I have today if I hadn't made that decision. I would be stuck with an SOB who was mean to me and threatened me into having it done in the first place. I was 18 and scared to death. I would've had a miserable life. I could never explain it so that you could understand. It is something you would've had to witness, and even then, you probably still wouldn't be able to know to the extent one would have to know in order to really understand.

So, go ahead and judge me now.

 

[bossel]

Kirei, you should remember that we're talking theoretical here. I certainly cannot judge you or any other individual case, for this has to be considered individually (not that I want to judge you, anyway). I don't want to give you a hard time, but I also won't stop saying my opinion. Maybe in the US you have too many of those pro-life activists which makes you a bit overly suspicious of others' intentions.

When I give my opinion it is usually not to judge people but to show my point of view, & in this particular case to make people think about the fact that they might destroy a valuable life (a feeling human being) if they have an abortion. To me, it is essential whether this life is able to feel pain, or not. As long as it's just a bunch of cells without nervous system, I don't have any problem with abortion. If there is a nervous system, see above...

By coincidence, just today there is an interesting article on BBC regarding foetal development:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3846525.stm
It's about a new scanning technology to see the foetus inside the womb.

Quote:
"The images have shown:

* From 12 weeks, unborn babies can stretch, kick and leap around the womb - well before the mother can feel movement

* From 18 weeks, they can open their eyes although most doctors thought eyelids were fused until 26 weeks

* From 26 weeks, they appear to exhibit a whole range of typical baby behaviour and moods, including scratching, smiling, crying, hiccoughing, and sucking.

Until recently it was thought that smiling did not start until six weeks after birth."

 

[mdchachi]

> The father should be financially responsible and also should help to raise the child in an environment conducive to healthy
> growth in all areas, and the mother should be responsible for raising the child in the same manner

It's easy to say this but the question is what do you do when you live in an imperfect world when people often don't do what they "should" do.

In my opinion, "pro-lifers" should spend their time taking care of the lives that are already born (especially the ones which are born due to their opposition to abortion). Making sure that they are not abused or malnourished and that they are loved and taken care of -- making sure that all the "shoulds" that should happen do happen. Once these lives are safe, then they can worry about the unborn.