If we simply say: "abortion is bad because it's killing potential babies" it's a slippery slope that leads to "you killed that kid in Harvard? Damn. You killed the next president".
That's not really the case. In the case of a foetus, we know that, barring accident or human intervention, that foetus would be born. In the case of the kid in Harvard, there are too many variables in play to say "you killed the next president".
the gap for the immediate harm between an "embryo" and a "baby" is too large.
Biologically speaking, they are only differentiated by level of development. They are both human, both organisms and both living. If you start placing a time limit on development, it becomes essentially arbitrary.
With that said, an embryo is not "someone" and aborting it wouldn't necessarily be considered as "immediate harm". It can even be reasoned to say that since embryo inherently lacks conscious, the woman supersedes it in priority
No, it can't. It's lack of consciousness is temporary, and it is doing all it can to gain consciousness. You're argument is based on time, not on type, and that's a fundamental flaw. There should not be a "time" in someone's life when it is okay to kill them.
Can we even consider "something" that can be "someone" as a derivative of a woman's body and she can decide what she wants to do with it?
No, because it is genetically distinct. It isn't part of the woman's body just because it is attached.
If you had a stock that's worth 5 dollars that YOU KNEW 100% was going to be 5 million dollars in 9 months, and someone somehow stole that from you... would you consider yourself robbed of 5 dollars or 5 million dollars?
Shanell;e I tried reading all of that blog but my eyes glossed over and crossed then my ADD kicked in. I beg forgiveness for that please ma'am. But I did look over most of it. I think that it really comes down to when that little sucker gets a soul. When is it a person. Whether it cuts down on the rate or has no effect on the rate has nothing to do with whether it should be legal or not to me. If you think it is a person then it shouldn't be legal. It is about the innocent person's life or right to life. If you are like me and don't think of it as a person till last trimester then you are OK morally.
I am of the belief that if one person views abortion as murder that person doesn't have the right to take away that option from someone else.
Why does that argument not work for other crimes. What if I don't believe taking a stereo that you consider "yours" is stealing? Why should I have your version of "crime" imposed on me?
In the blog post they have the numbers of how making abortion illegal has absolutely no affect on the abortion rate.
Yes, and we also havn't eliminated burglary. So I suppose we'll de criminalise it now, since we can't stop it.
Making it illegal won't save the unborn babies.
It will if it works in conjunction with other policies.
I am just don't think you can have a discussion about abortion without discussing birth control whether you are pro life or pro choice.
I agree with birth control, but I disagree with abortion.
Why don't you provide an argument from the blog post that refutes my position specifically?
If you don't understand my position, why on earth were you so rude and dismissive as to believe that the blog post you cited would answer all my points? Maybe you need to come down of your rather arrogant high horse.
The reason I brought up burglary was in response to your point that criminalising abortion may not actually stop it. My response was that criminalising burglary has not stopped that either. Pointing out that criminalising something does not end something is not in itself a reason to not criminalise it. There is no way that criminalising abortion will have zero affect on the number of abortions that occur. What needs to be done though is the creation of an environment where women can have unexpected children without massive stigma.
I just didn't, and still don't, understand how you can engage in a discussion with someone when you never read the beginning statement, which is what I intended that post to be.
You don't get it. You're still being rude, whether you intend to or not. You're inferring that I didn't read the post, and are claiming my arguments are flawed in the light of what the post said, without directly referencing the post. In other words, this is how I see our dialogue going.
You: This post makes arguments X
Me: Okay, but what about argument Y against your position?
You: You're wrong.
Me: Okay, why?
You: Because the post said so. Clearly, if you'd read the post, you wouldn't be making that argument
Me: I did read the post, and I'm still making my argument. Perhaps you can make specific reference to the part of the post that you believe deals with what I said.
You: Your not listening to me.
Me: You havn't said anything for me to listen to.
If you want me to engage with your arguments, actually respond to mine. At the moment, all I'm seeing is me talking to you, and you being rude and not talking back with actual arguments.
I do not think that theft and abortion are interchangeable. The ethical discussions you would have about either would be completely different.
I am simply stating a fact that we do not decriminalise something because we cannot eliminate it 100%. Both theft and abortion have some common characteristics. They both have a victim and a perpetrator. The perpetrator may feel they have a legitimate reason (they're staving, they need X for Y reason) but in the end, their action negatively affects another.
But what if a woman wanted an abortion because she did not want to birth a child? Some women never want to have children. Not raise children, but physically have them
She doesn't have that option if the child is already there. The child deserves the chance to continue living. The mother's wishes do not take precedence over that.
We have different opinions and that's okay because neither of us can be absolutely proven right or wrong and that's the point.
Actually, I can prove that I'm right. The problem with your position is that you can't offer me an objective position that distinguishes the foetus from yourself in terms of defending it's rights. Any line that you do draw is ultimately arbitrary.
That is why abortion should be legal. you can't make this decision for someone. you have to trust them to come to their own conclusion on their own.
By saying that, you're basically denying the existance of an external reality. IE Everything is whatever you say it is.
By taking that decision away from her you are telling her that you do not trust her to make her own decisions, that she is not capable of it. It's very anit-woman.
No, its not. It's not about decisions, and it's not a feminist issue. It's about right and wrong. The foetus is human, it is an organism and it's alive. There is no way for you to get around those three facts. Now you may not view those things as worth protecting, but it isn't up to your perception. Reality is what is more important. The reason this isn't a feminist issue is that the questions I'm raising would be equally relevant if men were the ones that got pregnant.
AIDEN wow that was rather long. So you are OK with pro choice well so am I. What if the yungun was 8 months and 20 days? Is abortion OK then. If you took it out and held it it would look at you and smile. Of course someone in your family would say that it is just gas. You would reply that when you fart on someone you smile too. Of course it wouldn't be OK to abourt that gassy thing. Well what about 20 days prior to that? Still no right? Well at some point you gotta say it is OK prior to this point but not after this level of development. But some people think that the point is when it is implanted and some when egg and spermy guy meet. Who knows when do we get a soul? Think about this. The only real connection to the baby is the umbilical cord. I know that it is inside the broad but it is attached by the cord. What if the baby developed outside rather inside. Could you look at the baby and say sorry she has the right to sever this connection to her body so you die. I couldn't do that and I would look differently at those that could. It is only that it is out of sight that I could even think of doing it. It is like the woman created a Siamese twin then later decides I am getting rid of you.
I'm certainly pro-choice. I think when it boils right down to it, the argument of pro-choice VS. pro-life is whether or not to legalize abortion, but it's kind of void to me, since legalization has nothing to do with whether or not abortion is gonna happen.
This is my stance:
I want to decrease abortion rates, not by making abortion illegal, but just by making it so that people don't HAVE to get to that point. Basically I think it would be awesome if sex education was better, people had way easier access to birth control, condoms, etc. Birth control is really what speaks to me as an anti-abortion device, because it keeps you from getting pregnant in the FIRST place. (Usually.)
If that doesn't end up happening, it's still a good idea to think about what legalization or lack of legalization of abortion MEANS.
It means that people will have to go to different places to get it.
It means that abortion will just be made more DANGEROUS. Plenty of the women in question would be injured, to say the least, more so than if they were able to get abortions safely. They might try to do it by with pills, a coat hanger, with the help of some sketchy person who hasn't been properly trained, because the thing he needs to be trained in is illegal.
This could be a rash opinion of mine, but usually when I hear someone pro-life talking about this subject, they are actually AGAINST birth control, and they're against condoms, and they're against all these amazing things that would actually help their cause more than just forcing women into dangerous situations to get an abortion. At that point, it feels less like they're trying to save this unborn child, and more like they're trying to PUNISH this woman. To force her to deal with the "consequences" of sex, or some other kind of thing.
Anyway, I don't usually talk about this either. It usually ends in someone yelling in my face, and me yelling back in theirs, and neither of us are being very intellectual at that point.
WOO, first forum reply, it's in a super sensitive subject which usually turns heated. I sure know how to pick how I start off!
Shanelle I think the light bulb turned on. Did you hear a bing? HaHa. I think I get it now. You are saying that since it doesn't make any difference at all whether it is legal or not they are going to happen. The real answer is prevention and birth control. I get that and agree and I am pro choice till the last trimester.
VERTIGO I was wondering. If it was illegal what would be the penalty for abortion?
But you can't. No one can and that's why there is even a debate over abortion.
You keep claiming not to be rude and yet you keep doing it. You say I can't prove myself correct, and you assume you are so correct that you don't even bother to engage with my argument. There are plenty of debates where one side can prove itself true, and yet a debate persists. Look at global warming for instance.
Then you're misunderstanding my position. I believe the fetus does not have rights. If you want to know why I think a fetus is different from a person I can do that. A fetus does not reason nor do they have the capacity to reason. They can not come to conclusions about anything. They have zero comprehension of their surroundings, no personality, no communicative skills. They are essentially a mass of cells growing inside a woman, that is growing and figuring out how to live independently of that woman. This is how I view the fetus.
And why do you believe that the foetus being unable to communicate means it lacks rights? That's right, it's your own arbitrary position, which you can do nothing to prove. I on the other hand can prove my position. The rights in question are human rights, therefore held by humans. The foetus is a human, it is made up of unique human DNA, it is an organism (rather than tissue, organ or specialised cell) and it is biologically speaking alive. If you can find me a human rights treaty which limits rights to human beings with the capacity to speak, I'd like to see it. Also, your comment on "a mass of cells" is reductionalist. If you want to go down that territory, you are a mass of cells too. The fact that you can fire chemical transmitters into a pattern that you call "reason" isn't special in a purely reductionalist universe. If you're going to turn reductionalism onto a fetus, you cannot be honest if you do not accept it when reductionalism is turned on you. Also, the inability of the foetus to be independent from the mother is irrelevent. You are not independent of the planet. You require air, food, water, etc. Does that mean you are somehow less deserving of protections of rights?
Your assumption that any point I raise or argument that I make is based on a random choice of personal whim just shows how you view this conversation everyone is having on this discussion board. Any point that anyone makes that does not agree or support your viewpoint you will look down upon as it is ultimately arbitrary. And if you do not hold this view point towards everyone and just towards me, what's the point of continuing the conversation if I'm below reasoning?
Please notice the language I am using. I said arbitrary, not random. Many people choose various different points on the foetus's developmental scale as when it is deserving of "rights". However, none of them can provide substantive reasoning as to why their point is more apt than another. They do it often because it feels right. My argument, that it is alive all the time, is based on the nature of the rights in question, and the nature of the individual. IE they are human rights. Can you demonstrate to me an objective reason, not your own beliefs, why the foetus is not human untill later into its developmental stage, keeping in mind that at every stage, the foetus is an organism, human, and alive.
I wouldn't say that I'm denying that the world exists outside of myself I'd say that I'm embracing that it does. I just so happen to also believe in an external reality, and I've decided that I can not control that reality. I have to trust it to work on it's own. And I have to trust the people who exist in that reality to make their own decisions and trust that those decisions will not harm me. I do not understand how allowing someone to come to their own conclusions is saying that everything is whatever I say it is.
I don't think you've understood my point. You are denying an external reality because your argument was that women should be allowed to choose when the baby is human, and thus should be able to choose when/if to have an abortion. In other words, you are claiming that there is no external real "truth" as to when the baby is human, but rather it is only a matter of perception on the part of the woman. The problem with that argument though, is why does it apply to the foetus and not to you. Why can the woman decide for herself if its okay to destroy the foetus, yet anoter person can't decide it's okay to kill you. The problem with your system is that it arbitrarily chooses when to make the world something we can't understand and something we can.
Also what excludes moral issues from being feminist issues?
Because in this case, there is no specific threat to the issues of women. The fact that it is women who carry the child is incidental to the pro-life case. If the foetus were carried by men, the argument would still be that the foetus is alive and should be kept alive. Feminist issues are concerning the rights and affairs of women. This isn't what this is about.
As of 2012 a fetus can not live outside of a woman. This makes it an issue for a woman. A fetus can not be created without a man, this makes if an issue for man. It is the woman who has to carry the infant through gestation and ultimately I believe it is her choice as it's her body, whether or not to follow through with her pregnancy.
It's not her choice though. She doesn't get to choose whether it's alive or not. Just the same way as I don't get to choose whether your alive or not. You are talking about letting people's choices impact reality, when in fact reality actually exists. Can you imagine the chaos of what would happen if we let your logic go further. Imagine if I could choose what colour the traffic lights were. And say I caused a car accident, and I said "well I chose to see the red light as green" etc. You are denying the existance of an external reality by allowing people to choose what they believe the reality is and act accordingly, when in fact the reality is right there.
I agree a fetus is human, yes it is an organism, and yes it is alive, but only so long as it is inside of a woman. The fetus is not an independent organism. It is completely interwoven with it's mother.
So? You are interwoven with the planet. Why is it's dependence on someone else an important consideration?
And as I have established earlier I do not see it as a person. If a woman wants the fetus to become a child then yes she should protect it with everything she's got, but she has the right to make that decision.
You havn't provided an objective reason as to why it is not a person. You have merely provided your own subjective viewpoint. I on the other hand have provided a scientific, independent argument. IE
Human rights protect all living humans
The foestus has human DNA
It is alive
It is an organism.
Any judgement you make that it is not worthy of rights must be based on an objective view point. So show me the basis on which you deny that a foetus is worthy of human rights.
I should have been more specific. Express itself. This does not necessarily mean with words. Also this, in my opinion, is not the defining characteristic that defines a person, it, along with other things, help to differentiate between a human and a person.
The problem is that your disticntion between a human and a person is based on your personal beliefs, not any external reality. Personal beliefs should not be the basis of laws. Hard facts should be.
1. Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
Yes, personal whim rather than a system. It isn't random, random is just pulling a number out of a bag etc. You are choosing your side because it feels right to you. I am choosing mine because of the argument that supports it.
You have a right to freedom of thought. You can reach your own conclusion of when a human becomes a person. You have reproduction rights. You can choose when and if you are going to start a family. And a human being has a right to live. But the issue with that is the definition of being.
Yes, you can choose to believe what you like. I'm not questioning your freedom to believe what you like, I am questioning the accuracy of your belief, and its logcial foundations.
Also, the existence of reproductive rights do not grant you a right to an abortion, any more than the existence of freedom of speech permits you to commit libel without a criminal reprisal.
Another person can decide it's okay to kill me.
So you think that the law against murder is wrong and people should be allowed to kill others as their beliefs permit.
There is nothing restricting them from coming to that conclusion. I am choosing to go about my day under the belief, or possibly delusion, that no one has reached this conclusion. I differentiate between myself and fetus, because of the definition that I have come to in regards to the idea of a person.
You differentiate because you choose to differentiate. That's circular.
I do not randomly come to conclusions about what can be universally agreed upon and what cannot. I have done research, I have read theories, and these have informed my decisions.
Yet you have only provided opinions and not evidence. I have provided evidence that supports my case, you have not.
The threat is to a woman's reproductive rights. Her decision of whether or not to start a family or have a child, and if she decides to have a child when she will have that child. This infringement on rights is what makes it a feminist issue.
That's absurd. As I have pointed out, the fact that it is women who bear children is incidental. If it was men who bore children, the pro-life case remains identical, but with different pronouns. It changes nothing. Abortion is not a feminist issue.
It is by taking away the individual's right to determine their own choices about reproduction that brings about the idea of feminism. The woman is equally entitled to make her own decisions and by taking that away from her it becomes a feminist issue.
Again, it would take away the ability of men to choose if it was men who bore the child. You're still not listening. It is incidental because the issue that the pro-life agenda raises is not targeted directly at women.
Our choices do not deminish the existence of a reality.
I don't think you understand what I am saying. I didn't say that your argument deminishes the existance of an external reality, I said it denies the existance. In other words, by saying "you can make your own decision, you choose" on the subject of abortion, what you are essentially saying is that in fact there is no external reality, and that people have to make their own minds up. Where as in fact there is an external reality, and people making those choices are impacting on it.
Allowing me to think for myself does not inevitably result in chaos. I do believe the notion of thinking and deciding for others falls into the category of a dictatorship.
I can't tell if you're being deliberately obtuse or you're just stupid. Let's say we apply your logic of the ability to choose and "think for yourself" to other areas of the law. Let's say I have the right to decide when I think someone is alive and when they're not. When they're human and they're not. That means I could kill anyone I liked without fear of legal reprisal. Do you really want that?
Your argument denies an external reality, because it claims that people can make a choice and it doesnt matter.
Who said that your notion of the colour green is the same as another person's. Someone who is colour blind is seeing something completely different then yourself and that is their reality. They have been taught that whatever they see when they see green is green.
Also you can choose to run a red light whenever you want. there is nothing stoping you. You just choose not to. The risk of someone deciding to see the red light as green is always there.
Ugh. Yes there is something stopping you from running a red light. It is called the law. The point I'm making here is all about the law. I don't think you understand that. We have to have an agreed upon definition of red and green because if we don't, people run red lights and it becomes dangerous.
again I feel as though I've explained myself concerning this issue. If not please let me know.
I would have thought the fact that I am continuing to raise it is evidence that you have not defeated the notion.
The notion of a person or being has not and probably will not ever be scientifically defined and that is what keeps the debate over abortion going. Fundamentally all viewpoints are subjective because they rely upon the individual who is expressing that viewpoints definition of what makes a human a person.
No, not all viewpoints are subjective. Science is objective. That's the whole point.
Here is the fundamental problem with your argument. You have no reason to believe it. The only rationale behind your belief is to do with your personal opinion. That's fine, you have a right to an opinion, but we're not talking about opinions, we're talking about the law, and whether abortion should be legal. Opinions of that sort should be based on objective facts, and it is objective that the foetus is a human being, it is an organisim, and it is alive. On that basis, I see no reason not to grant it human rights.