quote:

Originally posted by eROs.au My morality shouldn't affect others, imo

And that's exactly why I'm against abortion: The foetus must be treated as any other citizen, being granted the same rights. You can't "abort" your child after it's left the womb, so there's no reason why either the father or the mother should have a say concerning abortion just because it is in there.

This opinion might sound a bit extreme at first so, considering the fact that humans are bio-cultural creatures, I believe I will have to divide my argument into two different parts: the biological basis for my position against abortion, and its socio-cultural consequences. I'm going to brief here, by the way, so I hope I'm not leaving anything out.

1. Biological arguments against abortion

A common misconception about abortion is the exaggeration concerning the right for women to do whatever they want to their body. Sure, that is true, but a foetus is not part of a woman's body in the same sense her liver is. If anything, the foetus is inside her body as if it were a parasite. The difference in this analogy, however, is the fact that babies do not kill their mothers the way a parasite does; and, in less than a year, a foetus is supposed to leave anyway.

As Daniel Dennett says in "Kinds of Minds" [link to Amazon], when you deal about the existence (or not) of a consciouss mind, it's better to err by being on the safe side. At 12 weeks, for example, the foetus can close his fingers and thumb and he will open his mouth in response to pressure applied at the
base of the thumb (Valman, H. and Pearson, 1980). At that point, we already have a clear sign that the foetus may be a conscious (and living) being. So, once the brain, spinal cord, and heart begin to develop during the 3^rd week (NIH Medical Encyclopedia), it's really a point of no return, as it leaves almost no room for doubt that it is a living individual by then.

2. Social Consequences

That position leaves us with 3 different problems: rape, teenage pregnancy and cases in which the pregnancy may lead to the mother's death. Out of the 3, perhaps the third option is the only in which abortion can be justified, being a really atypical kind of involuntary manslaughter (although the child has no way of avoiding that).

Regarding the other two, the State should be responsible for the child, as it would be for any other citizen, unless the parents claimed the right to keep him/her. On the first case, the state failed to protect the woman; on the second, the teenager might not have the capacity of raising the child on her own, and she can't be held responsible for her acts legally, as far as I'm concerned.

___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]

eh...what the hell, I'll throw my two cents in...

When a choice is freely made, the consequences of that choice must be accepted. When a couple decides to have sex, protected or not, there is always the chance of conception. If conception occurs a genetically unique "individual" is formed, and regardless of whether or not you consider it a human, which genetically it is, an abortion does kill a living "thing."

Then being said, I believe that when a consenting mother (or couple) uses abortion as a means of birth control, which is what the overwhelming amount of abortions are used as, it is wrong. Just as I believe wiping out forests, killing animals or the needless destruction of life is wrong, so is an abortion. Further, I have no problem putting humans at the top of the biological hierarchy and even if you do not consider a zygote/embryo/fetus to be human, it unquestionable has the capacity to be and therefore its death is even more wrong.

Now, in the small amount of cases where a pregnancy is the result of rape, my previous conditions don't apply. I would try to find a way for the woman to proceed through pregnancy if possible, but ultimately her choice to terminate the pregnancy is there. This also holds true when the woman's life is in danger (also very rare) for utilitarian and practical reasons and also in the case of horrific and catastrophic birth defects detected in utero.

There are more qualifiers that could be brought in but I think the underlying rationale is; if you make a choice, you also agree to live with the consequences, especially if that consequence is the production of a new and unique living being.

wow, well you 2 certainly know how to disappoint your overseas fans.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Lira And that's exactly why I'm against abortion: The foetus must be treated as any other citizen, being granted the same rights.

Why, exactly? Children aren't given precisely the same rights as adults, so why should a fetus be given precisely the same rights a child or any other citizen? For that matter, how can we even consider a fetus a citizen when it is highly doubtful it can meet any meaningful criteria for personhood?

quote:

A common misconception about abortion is the exaggeration concerning the right for women to do whatever they want to their body. Sure, that is true, but a foetus is not part of a woman's body in the same sense her liver is. If anything, the foetus is inside her body as if it were a parasite. The difference in this analogy, however, is the fact that babies do not kill their mothers the way a parasite does; and, in less than a year, a foetus is supposed to leave anyway.

Most parasites do not kill their hosts, but merely have deleterious effects upon the host (as a fetus does). And it is also not uncommon for parasitism to be a temporary relationship for example in the case of leeches (which compared with fetuses demand very little and are quite punctual). I don't know where you're going with this, but it looks like the wrong direction if you are looking to justify keeping the thing around...

quote:

As Daniel Dennett says in "Kinds of Minds" [link to Amazon], when you deal about the existence (or not) of a consciouss mind, it's better to err by being on the safe side. At 12 weeks, for example, the foetus can close his fingers and thumb and he will open his mouth in response to pressure applied at the base of the thumb (Valman, H. and Pearson, 1980). At that point, we already have a clear sign that the foetus may be a conscious (and living) being. So, once the brain, spinal cord, and heart begin to develop during the 3rd week (NIH Medical Encyclopedia), it's really a point of no return, as it leaves almost no room for doubt that it is a living individual by then.

It is not a valid inference that reflexive response to external stimuli suggests a conscious being. In fact, it seems so intuitively obvious that such a reaction does not imply consciousness that I can't help but find a bit of disingenuousness in its being proffered as evidence. The overwhelming evidence in developmental neurology suggests that what we usually refer to as "consciousness" is not possible until there is actual cortical function, which does not occur until approximately the 29th week of gestation (ref).

More conservative estimates on when the fetus might be capable of performing at least some functions that could be regarded as "conscious" place it between 20 and 25 weeks gestation. It is much more reasonable to believe based on the available evidence that it is not until after 29 weeks, but even if there was some semblance of consciousness at that point in time, the vast majority of abortions take place before then (and I suspect that those performed afterwards tend to be those which are done in the case of a serious threat to the mother's survival, though I can't prove it):



In fact, nearly 90% of abortions take place at or before the 12th week gestation, before which synapses have not even begun to form in the cerebral cortex. What is being terminated is alive, but it is not capable of consciousness, nor has it ever been. It has no sense of self or person; indeed, it lacks the capacity for what we would call "thought" or "feeling." It is so fundamentally different from a living human being that to ascribe the same rights to it defies all reason while cheapening the meaning of genuine human life.

quote:

Originally posted by JOEBIALEK For a country that murders it's children cannot be far from self destruction.

I've got one very good reason lately why such a conscience comparison is irrelevant in the modern USA
Over a million dead Iraqi's.
They have kids too, a great many of that number of deceased are kids and its become quite clear to the rest of the world that the US is really not someone you should go looking too for any kind of moral compass as it is hopelessly skewed influenced by the selfish opinions of its loud mouth, minority inhabitants.

For the better part of written history the boys have had the final say over the lives of women in terms of finance, laws, medical practice and cultural influence and its only still since the 1960's and 70's started to get to the point where they don't have the complete say, in some countries.
And now, you don't.
As tough as that is for you to accept, its time to stop being the testosterone bully and go do something you're undoubtedly much better equipped and qualified for: clubbing other boys over the head, picking up heavy things and taking out the garbage.
Heck if you really need to justify your intellectual and creative existence on the planet, go write an essay on why the world sucks from a masculine perspective.
Because I'm not qualified to do that.
Just like you're not really qualified from any point other than an archaic, skewed and cultural concept of selfishness to write on women's health and I highly doubt you're a gynaecologist.

What I can write about is the perspective of why unwanted pregnancy sucks for the majority of women around the world.

With the exception of only a few developed countries, its still a hazardous and unhealthy part of life that kills either the mother or child and sometimes both. Even in a country with decent medical care, there's still a risk, the figures are quite well published.

Occupationally, most employers in our developed countries treat childbearing as an 'option' of employment during and after pregnancy, rather than a fact of life. They will use any means necessary to get you off their payroll and not come back.
So, having worked your way up though the morass of male dominated careers out there, finally have enough in the bank, house and maybe a partner. You're having a kid.
Well lucky you, chances are, your career for the next 5 years is effectively over unless you want to palm the kid off to childcare, you will not have an independent income and financially with medical bills, insurance and another mouth to feed as small as it may be, its going to be a lot tougher.

This is not exactly a simple situation of social inconvenience to have a child people so casually make it out to paint pregnant women getting abortions as being selfish. It is a major disruptive event in your life you don't want to be blundering into without a fair amount of support from the partner, your family and friends.
Because you can unequivocally say in the majority of cases for people out there working part time and casual, your boss isn't going to want to see you back and they're certainly not going to give a damn if you don't like the fact.

People aren't using this procedure because they think its an easy option of having the medical equivalent of a drain cleaner shoved up them for amusement, inconvenience socially or because they simply hate all life.
It gets done when someone simply cannot have a child in their life.
Mentally, emotionally, financially, medically or morally in some cases, they simply cannot have a child.
It is not a means of birth control.
Often for the reasons above and the failure of birth control because no birth control is 100% assured, it gets used. Give people a 100% sure way of stopping pregnancy during intercourse and if they end up pregnant with this option not being used then they can be considered idiots, selfish and what not for getting an abortion.
But there isn't
So there needs to be a fall back measure.

Even on a social level having kids is fraught with problems.
It takes 2
Sometimes even under amicable situations at the time of the child's birth, marriages and relationships don't last and then, as is the case normally- the girls end up looking after the kid(s)
And you really are up that creek without a paddle.
Chances of new partner (outside of romantic dreams and notions as seen in hollywood productions) when you have kids- pretty awful
Chances of raising children on a full income and still being able to spend time with them- pretty awful
Chances of getting back your former career after the kids have been raised- very, very awful
Chances of former partner actually helping- 50:50
Chances of kids emotionally disturbed by this and economic hardship- assured

Oh it's quite easy to simply say, we'll have more tax-charity for this, but I mean for a lot of you, you're still at school, lower to middle income and while I make no judgement on that, its your life! You really aren't in the position to be forking out wads of cash.
Last year, my taxes would have paid for in my country, for 38 single parents allowances and I will be quite blunt and succinct about this.
I DO NOT WANT TO PAY FOR OTHER PEOPLES MISTAKES FOR EXTENDED PERIODS OF TIME
We are talking bucks here?
Yes we are, how many would the taxes of of your income paid for last year on average with the single parents bonus-dole allowance is around $17,000?
1? maybe 2?
Personally I would much rather have paid for 38 x $800 surgeries with the full blown surgeon, clean conditions and the remaining change from my taxes can go into things which benefit everyone.
New wing on your university or school
Fixing holes in the road
Additional wards on a hospital
And many other sundry things which taxes get used for that aren't going just into child support on such a massive level.

I am not being selfish here dodging out of my socially and legally enforced moral obligation to pay taxes, I'd just like to see them spent on something else, rather than something which is entirely preventable in most modern countries. Selfishness from the fathers perspective however, even with socially and legally enforced moral obligation to pay money for their kid, is still one of those 'grey' areas that a lot of men choose to dodge around.
For the majority of mothers, its just not an option to abandon a child for maternal reasons. Most men however, don't seem to have this little bit of moral compass and the walk-out rate is fairly horrific as they run off to unsullied, financially free pastures full of eligible partners which aren't going to cost them a mint.

It is in conclusion why I think we don't really want the men's moral compass turning into the legal enforcement of women's procedure of child rearing or choice of abortion.
You simply aren't qualified to make it most of the time.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira That position leaves us with 3 different problems: rape, teenage pregnancy and cases in which the pregnancy may lead to the mother's death. [b]Out of the 3, perhaps the third option is the only in which abortion can be justified[/{, being a really atypical kind of involuntary manslaughter (although the child has no way of avoiding that). Regarding the other two, the State should be responsible for the child, as it would be for any other citizen, unless the parents claimed the right to keep him/her. On the first case, the state failed to protect the woman; on the second, the teenager might not have the capacity of raising the child on her own, and she can't be held responsible for her acts legally, as far as I'm concerned.

I may be understanding you wrong, my mind is not as sharp as i would like it to be at the moment due to the fact that i haven't slept for around 38 hours, but it looks to me that you are off the opinion that even if a woman gets raped, and gets pregnant because of thet, that abortion isn't justified?

I will ghave to return to thias later, i neeed to get some sleep. I am so tired i can barely form a sentence in my head, much less an valid argument.




Against abortion, for killing babies!

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Why, exactly? Children aren't given precisely the same rights as adults, so why should a fetus be given precisely the same rights a child or any other citizen? For that matter, how can we even consider a fetus a citizen when it is highly doubtful it can meet any meaningful criteria for personhood?

Even if children aren't given precisely the same rights, there are quite a few rights common to both groups (citizens and their children), such as the inalienable right to life (I'm quite sure there's something about this in American Law, you probably know about it a lot more than I ever will).

Also, how can a foetus not meet any meaningful criteria for personhood if it shares, structurally, cells (and later on, organs) that resemble those of a person — would this criteria be invalid if a foetus were a fully-fledged tiny person?

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Most parasites do not kill their hosts, but merely have deleterious effects upon the host (as a fetus does). And it is also not uncommon for parasitism to be a temporary relationship for example in the case of leeches (which compared with fetuses demand very little and are quite punctual). I don't know where you're going with this, but it looks like the wrong direction if you are looking to justify keeping the thing around...

I'm defending the fact that it is not part of a woman's body, pretty much the same way a parasit isn't part of me.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter It is not a valid inference that reflexive response to external stimuli suggests a conscious being.

It suggests life of some sort, and that's why I mentioned it. As a matter of fact, I still find these points valid:

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter The overwhelming evidence in developmental neurology suggests that what we usually refer to as "consciousness" is not possible until there is actual cortical function, which does not occur until approximately the 29th week of gestation (ref). More conservative estimates on when the fetus might be capable of performing at least some functions that could be regarded as "conscious" place it between 20 and 25 weeks gestation. It is much more reasonable to believe based on the available evidence that it is not until after 29 weeks, but even if there was some semblance of consciousness at that point in time, the vast majority of abortions take place before then (and I suspect that those performed afterwards tend to be those which are done in the case of a serious threat to the mother's survival, though I can't prove it): In fact, nearly 90% of abortions take place at or before the 12th week gestation, before which synapses have not even begun to form in the cerebral cortex. What is being terminated is alive, but it is not capable of consciousness, nor has it ever been. It has no sense of self or person; indeed, it lacks the capacity for what we would call "thought" or "feeling." It is so fundamentally different from a living human being that to ascribe the same rights to it defies all reason while cheapening the meaning of genuine human life.

So, in case I worded my words poorly, I shall rephrase here what I attempted to say: I do not dismiss what these doctors are saying, but the definitions behind "a sense of self" and "what we usually refer to as 'consciousness'" worry me a bit. The point here, and behind all my arguments, is that, although I don't doubt what you're saying, I can't avoid being too cautious because life is involved. Can you ever be completely certain that there isn't anything mind-like in a creature that is supposed to become conscious at some point?

___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]

I think abortion should be legal up to the point where the child can potentially survive on it's own...(the 7 month mark or so). At that point, the baby is almost completely developed and there is a CHANCE it could live without it's mother...meaning it should be considered an independent human being. I was personally born at 7 1/2 months (6 weeks early), and there have been instances of babies surviving at a 9 week premature birth. I think banning partial birth abortion is a sensible idea...but during the first two trimesters when the baby has absolutely no chance of survival without the mother, it should be her decision.

quote:

Originally posted by Moongoose I may be understanding you wrong, my mind is not as sharp as i would like it to be at the moment due to the fact that i haven't slept for around 38 hours, but it looks to me that you are off the opinion that even if a woman gets raped, and gets pregnant because of thet, that abortion isn't justified?

I know it's controversial but, yeah, that's exactly what I said.

edit: Before I come accross as a heartless bastard, I'm focusing my opinion on the baby, rather than on the mother.

___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]

Last edited by Lira on Feb-03-2008 at 16:31

I actually agree with Cap here - late term abortions should only be in case of dire emergency... but in the first trimester, as Arbiter pointed out, there is no sentient being that has the capacity to make the "choice" the original poster said it has the right to make.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt I think abortion should be legal up to the point where the child can potentially survive on it's own...(the 7 month mark or so). At that point, the baby is almost completely developed and there is a CHANCE it could live without it's mother...meaning it should be considered an independent human being. I was personally born at 7 1/2 months (6 weeks early), and there have been instances of babies surviving at a 9 week premature birth. I think banning partial birth abortion is a sensible idea...but during the first two trimesters when the baby has absolutely no chance of survival without the mother, it should be her decision.

Well, you could look at that two ways;

1) What happens when science and technology reaches the point where we could virtually raise a child from fertilization to "birth" completely external to the female? Then do all unborn, regardless of their stage of development, now gain the right to not be aborted? We're basically setting up a sliding definition of when abortion should or should not be legal based on current technology.

2) It could also be said that children, even after birth, are still dependent on their mother for survival for an extended period of time. Since they are still dependent on their mother (or some form of external care) do we still have the right to kill those children? Do we have the right to kill those who are not able to take care of themselves?

I hear quite a bit of the location and dependence arguments when it comes to abortion. I think both are flawed and are not good determinates of whether abortion should or should not be illegal. The "location argument," basically stating that abortion should be illegal because a) the developing zygote/embryo/fetus is inside of the woman and should be her right to have it removed and b) outside of the mother the zygote/embryo/fetus would die is flawed because; a) technology is the only limiting factor in this instance and no one thinks killing a premature infant on life support is ethical and b) newborns, without direct care would be just as dead as a zygote/embryo/fetus. (The "dependence" argument is basically part "b" of the location argument I talked about before.)

I tend to look for the most universal and non-technology or current state of affairs rationale for my stances. That is why I keep coming back to the free choice vs. consequence argument. Science will reach a point where the female is no longer perfunctory when it comes to gestation. Therefore, I cannot base my belief on when an abortion should or should not be illegal on when the child becomes viable outside of the body. Therefore, I go to the point where a genetically unique being comes into existence. Once that happens, I begin to have issues with abortion when it is used simply as a means of avoiding the consequences of a willful action.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt I think abortion should be legal up to the point where the child can potentially survive on it's own...(the 7 month mark or so). At that point, the baby is almost completely developed and there is a CHANCE it could live without it's mother...meaning it should be considered an independent human being. I was personally born at 7 1/2 months (6 weeks early), and there have been instances of babies surviving at a 9 week premature birth. I think banning partial birth abortion is a sensible idea...but during the first two trimesters when the baby has absolutely no chance of survival without the mother, it should be her decision.

I was born at 6 months (17 Sep 1985 as opposed to 13 Dec) and certainly survived, even though I needed major surgery on my left eye to make sure I wasn't totally blind (I am blind out of my right eye due to the pre-mature birth). Shouldn't the line be drawn even further prior to this?

Last edited by ali92 on Feb-03-2008 at 21:10