|
The Language of Abortion
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Arbiter |
By now the notion of a debate between a "pro-choice" position and an "anti-abortion" position has embedded itself as a perfectly reasonable one in the mind of most of society. This is, of course, absurd to anyone familiar with formal debates in which each side must hold a precisely contradictory view. In essence, the issue must either be pro-choice/anti-choice or pro-abortion/anti-abortion. The problem occurs due to the ambiguity inherent to a single word description of an ideology.
If you're familiar with the typical discourse on the issue, then you'll probably find the following summaries fairly reasonable:
Pro-Choice means: I would prefer abortions never occurred but support the right of a woman to choose to have an abortion.
Anti-Abortion means: I believe that abortions are immoral and therefore should be outlawed.
So, is the issue choice, or is the issue abortion? If you picked "choice," then you were correct. Neither position is in favor of abortions. However, one position is defined by a desire to enforce its opinions and beliefs upon everyone, while the other is defined by a willingness to allow each individual woman to make her own choice based upon her own personal beliefs and opinions. One of these positions is compatible with the notion of a free society, and the other one is not. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
By now the notion of a debate between a "pro-choice" position and an "anti-abortion" position has embedded itself as a perfectly reasonable one in the mind of most of society. This is, of course, absurd to anyone familiar with formal debates in which each side must hold a precisely contradictory view. In essence, the issue must either be pro-choice/anti-choice or pro-abortion/anti-abortion. The problem occurs due to the ambiguity inherent to a single word description of an ideology.
If you're familiar with the typical discourse on the issue, then you'll probably find the following summaries fairly reasonable:
Pro-Choice means: I would prefer abortions never occurred but support the right of a woman to choose to have an abortion.
Anti-Abortion means: I believe that abortions are immoral and therefore should be outlawed.
So, is the issue choice, or is the issue abortion? If you picked "choice," then you were correct. Neither position is in favor of abortions. However, one position is defined by a desire to enforce its opinions and beliefs upon everyone, while the other is defined by a willingness to allow each individual woman to make her own choice based upon her own personal beliefs and opinions. One of these positions is compatible with the notion of a free society, and the other one is not. |
look, i really don't mean to be coming at your posts, although lately it might seem like it. i'm on vacation and have been spending a lot of time here.
...but it does look like your just stating the obvious here and for arguments sake, you've left out one crucial point...when does the right to life begin?
i mean sure, you've illustrated the paradox of choice when confronted by the issue and your choices are "fairly reasonable" like you said but your assuming that the woman does not feel that LIFE means nothing more to her than a choice.
so the question remains. when does the right to life begin?
i will not argue that question with you BTW. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
so the question remains. when does the right to life begin?
i will not argue that question with you BTW. |
You're right that I had glossed over that issue. It isn't so much that I don't want to discuss it, but it fundamentally rests upon a deeper philosophical question about what, particularly, the right to life applies to. This question itself is based upon a yet deeper question regarding what specific set of conditions or attributes entitle someone or something to a "right to life." So, my answer will not be fully explained.
I view the right to life as more of an agreement among rational beings that they ought not to harm one another. In order for an entity to enter into this agreement, it must be able to exhibit comprehension of the agreement and communicate with the others involved. Thus, I do not see the right to life as beginning until the child is developed enough to understand and communicate regarding life and death.
Obviously, this poses several legal, practical, and philisophical problems of its own. However, to me, the problem of citing an objective and non-transcendental origin for the right to life is yet greater. |
|
|
| Spin Doctor |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
I view the right to life as more of an agreement among rational beings that they ought not to harm one another. In order for an entity to enter into this agreement, it must be able to exhibit comprehension of the agreement and communicate with the others involved. Thus, I do not see the right to life as beginning until the child is developed enough to understand and communicate regarding life and death.
|
Essentially, that boils down to about a toddlers age, and in some cases possibly older! Children don’t get a full grasp of life and death till quite old in the scheme of things I shouldn’t imagine, though in fairness I have no evidence either way to back this up, its just an opinion. How much of that is down to parents/society being unprepared to explain it to children I wouldn’t like to speculate.
Daddy’s gone...er...on holiday dear, he won’t be back for a VERY long time! :stongue: |
|
|
| occrider |
I used to argue abortion from the standpoint of it being a free choice, however since no evidence whatsoever solves the philosophical question of what constitutes sentient human life (a critical component of answering the free choice vs. right to life argument) I've more or less explored new approachs. I now adopt a more Mills Utilitarian approach whereby I seek to maximize societal utility and the utility of the individuals involved. Utilizing this approach I have arrived at the following conclusion: making abortion illegal is acceptable should it lead to the maximization of the welfare of society and all individuals, however, I have yet to see such a condition manifest itself.
There are good arguments for free choice made by both sides. On the one hand, one makes the choice to have unprotected or risky sex and therefore should accept responsibility for their actions. On the other hand, the state should not dictate what a woman does with her own body. But what bothers me about the religious right is that their concern for life dissipates once the baby leaves the mother's body. Is a drug abusing/child abusing mother not as adept at killing a child than a mother who aborts a fetus? Are children living in poverty not tenfold more succeptible to death, misery, crime, etc.? So if we save the life of every poverty stricken, unwanted, crack-baby do we not only infuse all individuals involved with additional hardships in addition to subjecting society with the liability of caring for these individuals through welfare or the penitentary? Sure we can say that there is child protective services, adoption services, etc., however, those institutions are so woefully underfunded that they are almost hollow and meaningless. Therefore in the end, making abortion illegal leads to the minimization of utility. Not only do the individuals involved suffer as a whole, but society suffers as a whole. However, this is not the main point to the argument.
The pro-life platform concerns itself with the fundamental right to life that the fetus/child has. However, does this fundamental right to life not manifest itself in all ages of the child? Of the adult? Why does society not protect this fundamental right to life by taking draconian measures in all instances? From a pro-life standpoint, the ideology of religious fundamentalists is untennable. If you are indeed concerned with "life", why does that concern only extend to the life of the unborn child? What about the born child? Why are there not mass protests for greater funding for social services? Child protection agencies? Does the protection of the fundamental right to life only extend to easy limitations of freedoms rather than pro-active efforts that requires sacrifice? If one's concern is for life, than open up your checkbooks to put your money where your mouth is. Bear in mind that I don't think society should be liable to do all that. But if I were to argue against abortion because of the unborn child's right to life, than I SHOULD argue for all those things.
Thus if you are arguing from an ideological standpoint of protecting a fundamental right to life, than follow through with the ideological committment to fruiton by all means possible. What's the point of saving the "unborn" life only for it to be sacrificed as a born life? For these reasons I reject the pro-life platform from a utilitarian standpoint. Very little to no lives are actually being "saved". And in the process of "saving" those lives you unwittingly create additional hard ships on society and the individuals involved. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
I used to argue abortion from the standpoint of it being a free choice, however since no evidence whatsoever solves the philosophical question of what constitutes sentient human life (a critical component of answering the free choice vs. right to life argument) I've more or less explored new approachs. I now adopt a more Mills Utilitarian approach whereby I seek to maximize societal utility and the utility of the individuals involved. Utilizing this approach I have arrived at the following conclusion: making abortion illegal is acceptable should it lead to the maximization of the welfare of society and all individuals, however, I have yet to see such a condition manifest itself.
There are good arguments for free choice made by both sides. On the one hand, one makes the choice to have unprotected or risky sex and therefore should accept responsibility for their actions. On the other hand, the state should not dictate what a woman does with her own body. But what bothers me about the religious right is that their concern for life dissipates once the baby leaves the mother's body. Is a drug abusing/child abusing mother not as adept at killing a child than a mother who aborts a fetus? Are children living in poverty not tenfold more succeptible to death, misery, crime, etc.? So if we save the life of every poverty stricken, unwanted, crack-baby do we not only infuse all individuals involved with additional hardships in addition to subjecting society with the liability of caring for these individuals through welfare or the penitentary? Sure we can say that there is child protective services, adoption services, etc., however, those institutions are so woefully underfunded that they are almost hollow and meaningless. Therefore in the end, making abortion illegal leads to the minimization of utility. Not only do the individuals involved suffer as a whole, but society suffers as a whole. However, this is not the main point to the argument.
The pro-life platform concerns itself with the fundamental right to life that the fetus/child has. However, does this fundamental right to life not manifest itself in all ages of the child? Of the adult? Why does society not protect this fundamental right to life by taking draconian measures in all instances? From a pro-life standpoint, the ideology of religious fundamentalists is untennable. If you are indeed concerned with "life", why does that concern only extend to the life of the unborn child? What about the born child? Why are there not mass protests for greater funding for social services? Child protection agencies? Does the protection of the fundamental right to life only extend to easy limitations of freedoms rather than pro-active efforts that requires sacrifice? If one's concern is for life, than open up your checkbooks to put your money where your mouth is. Bear in mind that I don't think society should be liable to do all that. But if I were to argue against abortion because of the unborn child's right to life, than I SHOULD argue for all those things.
Thus if you are arguing from an ideological standpoint of protecting a fundamental right to life, than follow through with the ideological committment to fruiton by all means possible. What's the point of saving the "unborn" life only for it to be sacrificed as a born life? For these reasons I reject the pro-life platform from a utilitarian standpoint. Very little to no lives are actually being "saved". And in the process of "saving" those lives you unwittingly create additional hard ships on society and the individuals involved. |
Not to pucker up too much on your backside, but that was an outstanding viewpoint. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
I view the right to life as more of an agreement among rational beings that they ought not to harm one another. In order for an entity to enter into this agreement, it must be able to exhibit comprehension of the agreement and communicate with the others involved. Thus, I do not see the right to life as beginning until the child is developed enough to understand and communicate regarding life and death. |
Heh, so it would be okay for me to walk into a hospital with a shotgun and start doing a bit of a target practice at the birth section?
| quote: | | Obviously, this poses several legal, practical, and philisophical problems of its own. However, to me, the problem of citing an objective and non-transcendental origin for the right to life is yet greater. |
The fact that (un)born children are not sentient right now, doesn't mean that they won't be sentient in the future. Even we are not sentient all the time, like when we go to sleep or fall unconscious. I guess what you could do then is to say that every being that not only is sentient, but which also has potential to become a sentient lifeform should be given a right to live. That would kinda solve the problem imo, as children would be given a right to live, while you could still beat up and demolish rocks and cars all you want.
Anyway, to get back to the original issue. I mostly agree with what occrider said, especially about the part about religious nuts. I am well aware about the problems of forcing bums to have children, knowing that it might be more ed up for those children to actually have a life of their own than if they were just flushed out of the womb. So here's my ingenious solution to the problem:
1) Make aboriton illegal unless the pregnancy poses a danger to the mother or if the infant is defective.
2) Establish government funded foster homes, where mothers could leave unwanted children.
3) Provide those children with food, shelter, care, and education until they grow old enough to be independant.
Aside from costing a lot of money, I think it would be a relatively good thing. Viva la socialism, problem solved
Meh, I'm off to sleep now, I've been awake for like 20 hours. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
Heh, so it would be okay for me to walk into a hospital with a shotgun and start doing a bit of a target practice at the birth section? |
No, that would be an infringment upon the parents' property rights. :eek: |
|
|
| Seventil |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
By now the notion of a debate between a "pro-choice" position and an "anti-abortion" position has embedded itself as a perfectly reasonable one in the mind of most of society. This is, of course, absurd to anyone familiar with formal debates in which each side must hold a precisely contradictory view. In essence, the issue must either be pro-choice/anti-choice or pro-abortion/anti-abortion. The problem occurs due to the ambiguity inherent to a single word description of an ideology.
If you're familiar with the typical discourse on the issue, then you'll probably find the following summaries fairly reasonable:
Pro-Choice means: I would prefer abortions never occurred but support the right of a woman to choose to have an abortion.
Anti-Abortion means: I believe that abortions are immoral and therefore should be outlawed.
So, is the issue choice, or is the issue abortion? If you picked "choice," then you were correct. Neither position is in favor of abortions. However, one position is defined by a desire to enforce its opinions and beliefs upon everyone, while the other is defined by a willingness to allow each individual woman to make her own choice based upon her own personal beliefs and opinions. One of these positions is compatible with the notion of a free society, and the other one is not. |
This may suprise some of you - but being a "fundy" (as I've been labeled due to my defense of Christianity) - I support Pro-Choice abortion.
In my view, it comes down to what our forefathers founded the country on. Although they founded it on the basis of Christianity and the morals and ethics it puts forth, they also founded our nation to have freedom of religion. If we are going to truly allow people to freely choose their religion, which I support and every Bible reading Christian should also, then you also have to embrace the fact that the other people will have different views on life, and in this case, abortion.
Myself, as a Christian, can say that I would not support abortion, in my case. When it comes to forcing my belief and moral outlook onto other people however, I have to respect their right to choose whether or not to embrace God or not - and if they do not - they are free to choose to practice abortion or not. As long as it does not affect society as a whole, or detract from the well-being of sound minded individuals in our society, I believe this is how it should be.
Those that cannot accept other's right to choose freely in what to believe in have a distorted view of what religion, or Christianity, truly stands for.
In the words of Jay and Silent Bob - "A womans body is her own f*ckin business." |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
No, that would be an infringment upon the parents' property rights. :eek: |
Oh, right...well, at least you could slaughter your own kids all you want. |
|
|
| biznology |
the language of abortion debate is what has been so convoluted recently between the 'sides' whatever they may be, over 'partial-birth'.
that is, labelling a birth makes going against it seem more sinister than just saying abortion, which in turns blurs the lines even more under intense discussion. or perhaps creates *more* lines of division| |
|
|
| MezzicanTrancEr |
| quote: | Originally posted by Seventil
This may suprise some of you - but being a "fundy" (as I've been labeled due to my defense of Christianity) - I support Pro-Choice abortion.
In my view, it comes down to what our forefathers founded the country on. Although they founded it on the basis of Christianity and the morals and ethics it puts forth, they also founded our nation to have freedom of religion. If we are going to truly allow people to freely choose their religion, which I support and every Bible reading Christian should also, then you also have to embrace the fact that the other people will have different views on life, and in this case, abortion.
Myself, as a Christian, can say that I would not support abortion, in my case. When it comes to forcing my belief and moral outlook onto other people however, I have to respect their right to choose whether or not to embrace God or not - and if they do not - they are free to choose to practice abortion or not. As long as it does not affect society as a whole, or detract from the well-being of sound minded individuals in our society, I believe this is how it should be.
Those that cannot accept other's right to choose freely in what to believe in have a distorted view of what religion, or Christianity, truly stands for.
In the words of Jay and Silent Bob - "A womans body is her own f*ckin business." |
Just to clarify - Christians are not the only group opposed to abortion. Also, I don't believe you can compare religious freedom with the right to abort an unborn child. How exactly does that go together? Anyone can choose freely to do just about anything - but that doesn't mean it's right.
Side note: i hate the verbosity in some of these posts...:rolleyes: |
|
|
|
|
