Religions > Bible > Re: a secular reasoning to pro-life. please read and give me feedback... omg i've spent too long writing this post
| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Craig Chilton" |
| Date: |
07 Dec 2003 10:32:18 AM |
| Object: |
Re: a secular reasoning to pro-life. please read and give me feedback... omg i've spent too long writing this post |
On 7 Dec 2003 05:28:35 -0800,
"Skang" <skang17@yahoo.com> wrote:
My apologies if what I'm about to say has been rehashed in these
newsgroups. I've been reading it for the past few hours and couldn't
resist posting.
It seems the question of abortion just comes down to one question:
when does a fetus become a person?
Birth. There. See how easy that was? Think of all the writing
you could have saved yourself simply by recognizing that fact.
PRO-CHOICE:
Pro-Choice people seem to say that fetuses become human
only at childbirth (possibly third trimester).
What Pro-Choicer have you ever run across who says *that*?
Pro-Choicers, on the whole, are pretty astute people -- which goes
along with BEING Pro-Choice... they're aware of most of the relevant
facts. One of which being the fact that ALL FOUR stages of the
reproductive process involve HUMAN entities. Gametes, zygotes,
embroes and fetuses all have **human** DNA.
Therefore, aborting an unborn fetus...
(ALL fetuses are unborn.) At birth, a fetus's status changes to
"baby." The changes that all occur within moments at that point
are profound, a a doctor who used to post in here regularly pointed
out a fw years ago. To include that here would make this post 'WAY
too long. So I'll post it separately under the subject header:
Bruce Forest's List of Changes that Occur at BIRTH
...is not murder.
And of course, it is not. Not even remotely. If it were, we'd have
to jail practically every MAN on earth. Since -- JUST like fetuses...
*gametes* (sperm and ova) ALSO are human, unique, and living
*potential* people. BOTH the Bible and our laws are sensible enough
only to defend ACTUAL people.
I don't think anyone would say that abortion is okay if they
believed the fetus was actually a full-fledged human being.
But that's moot, since no fetus is.
PRO-LIFE*:
* Hereinafter *properly* verbalized in MY post as the far more
CORRECT term, "Anti-Choice" -- in brackets to denote that
a change was applied. Why? Because **everyone** is
pro-life. Pro-Choicers sensibly are pro-life for all life that
has *intrinsic* value... that which has been born. Anti-Choicers
CALL themselves "pro-life" in a lame and transparent attempt
to imply that Pro-Choicers are not. 100% dishonesty.
Those who actively oppose the right of any woman to have
unfettered access to safe and legal abortion upon her
request are people who seek to DENY one of the two
choices to women. Leaving them with NO choice but to
be FORCED to gestate to term. Thus, they are *against*
("anti") permitting women to CHOOSE between gestating-
to term and abortion. Anti-Choice is a 100% honest and
accurate description of the people who CALL themselves
"pro-life."
Where *other* incorrect, dishonest, propagandistic, or
disinformational terms appear, I will substitute **accurate**/
**honest**/**neutral** terms in their place, in brackets.
I'm not picking on you. I do that in ALL my posts. People
have a perfect right to write anything they want in *their*
posts, and I have the right to *not* REPEAT dishonest
of propagandistic terminology in mine.
[Anti-Choicers] say that fetuses become human beings before
childbirth, starting from either conception or implantation on the
uterine wall. Consequently, abortion is murder.
That fairly well DOES describe their misperceptions.
MY VIEW:
I am [Anti-Choice]. Here's why:
1. To me, ... fetuses are people as much as infants are people.
You're entitled to your opinion. But the FACTS make it
clear that that is not true.
Personally, I think it's murder for someone to kill an infant.
So does everyone.
If a mother has a baby that is a week or two old and decides
to kill it for whatever reason, that's murder. I think many people,
even pro-choicers, would agree with me here.
"EVEN" Pro-Choicers? CLUE: Not only are most Pro-Choicers
pretty intelligent people, on the whole, they *also* are sensible,
fair-minded, and compassionate people who hold children in JUST
as high a regard as Anti-Choicers do. (Even though Anti-Choicers
provably don't give a flying rat's ***** for half of the world's ADULT
population, there's no evidence that they have it in for KIDS.)
So then how come it's OK to [have an abortion] two or three
months before when [the fetus is] still in the womb?
Because PERSONHOOD begins at BIRTH.
Your subject header indicates "secular" reasoning, but one cannot
ignore the fact that MOST Amrican jurisprudence is based on Biblical
precepts. Our laws accord personhood at birth, and so does the Bible.
In MANY ways, which, taken as a whole, makes that VERY clear:
(1) The Bible NEVER defends reproductive-process entities
as though they were people. In fact, the ONLY time that
it defends one, it regards a fetus to be PROPERTY... in
a passage that *condones* SLAVERY! (Ex. 21:20-25)
(2) ALL of the human life that the Bible DOES defend has
been BORN.
(3) Further bolstering of the concept that personhood is
accorded at birth can be found in the passages that deal
with "BIRTHrights," BIRTH order, and "first-BORNS."
(Emphasis mine.)
From a practical perspective, not a whole lot has changed. In a
sense, the baby is still just a lump of cells just like it was in the
mother's body. What's so magical about childbirth that this lump of
cells has gone from being just that, a lump of cells, to a person who
can be "murdered?"
See above, and *especially* have a look at the re-post of Bruce
Forest's material on that. MASSIVE changes occur at birth!
Another way to think about it is that a one week old infant is not
very different than a kitten -- it basically just eats and craps.
However, you can have a kitten killed at a kennel all the time. Why
not be able to kill one-week or even one-month old babies? Why is it
that one-week, one-day, even one-minute old babies are protected as
humans -- being while kittens are not?
Because babies of *any* age are PEOPLE and animals are not.
For me, the key is that the baby WILL become a human being.
ALL babies **are** human beings. That's what personhood means.
"Human being" is a societal term -- not a scientific or medical one. It
is a term that just about everyone in society (except for some Anti-
Choicers) applies ONLY to already-*born* PEOPLE.
Even though a 1-week old baby can't talk or do much of anything,
I believe that in a few years the baby WILL be able to do all those
things, just like the rest of us. In about 10 years, I'll actually be able
to hold a conversation with this lump of cells that is just crapping
itself at the moment.
This does not change with childbirth. While in the mother's womb,
the [fetus] is just a lump of cells.
It's a whole lot more than that. Complexity increases as development
progresses. But it's not a PERSON unless and until it's BORN.
But I know that in a few years, it'll become a person.
LOL!!! if it takes THAT long, you'd better call the Guinness folks!
That would be the world's longest gestation!
As such, we should protect the lump of cells in a [woman's] womb
just as we should protect a 1-week-old infant.
Obviously, protection IS granted under the law that prevent wanton
damage being done to fetuses. That's as it should be, since by that time
it is almost always the case that the woman in intentionally gestating-
to-term. And, of course, there's the matter of harm done to the woman
in such an assault.
Funny thing is, there are laws that DO protect the [fetus]. People
have actually written/passed laws that treat people who "kill" fetuses
as "murders," but somehow still let abortion continue.
If a law specifies that that would be "murder," I'd like to see it.
However, penalties ARE often more severe for a person who kills or
injures a fetus in the course of an assault, for the reason above.
Why is it that when someone else kills the fetus it's "murder"...
It's NOT. If any such law claims that it is, that would be one very
ISOLATED law.
...but when the [wman]/doctor kills the fetus it's "abortion?"
Precisely. Under the law, NO woman may be FORCED to dedicate her
bodily resources to the continuation of a gestation she wants no part of.
In a contest between a woman and an unwanted reproductive entity that
she has no desire to host, the woman outranks that entity every single
time. If Roe vs. Wade hadn't been woman on other Constitutional
grounds, I think that it could have been won on the grounds that no
woman could be forced into a position of involuntary servitude to a
reproductive-process entity that she has no desire to deal with.
2. Still don't believe me that babies are people eh? How about this
argument: Babies are people as much as people in comas are people:
Everything you just said is correct. BOTH babies *and* people in
comas are *people*. (But *fetuses* are NOT.)
Personhood is properly accorded only at BIRTH, and all human rights
then accrue to the resulting baby. He/she RETAINS those rights for the
remainder of his/her life.
Let's say you don't buy my reasoning that babies are people because
they will become people. Well, then I argue that babies are people as
much as people in a coma are people.
See above. Babies are. Fetuses are not.
Pretend your best friend contracted some weird medical condition that
caused them to go into a coma for about three or four years. However,
the doctors know that if they provide care during that time, your best
friend has an extremely high chance of recovery. Would it be murder
if someone ran into the hospital ward and suddenly unplugged all the
life support equipment, effectively killing your friend?
Yes.
To me, pregnancy and the first few years of infancy are really like a
coma. During that period, the baby doesn't really exhibit any of the
qualities we would say defines a human-being: can't really talk, may
or may not be capable of thought, can't really interact with the rest
of the world in any meaningful way. However, we know that given a
few years, all that will strip away and a full-fledged person will emerge.
Just as killing your best friend in that hypothetical coma would have
been murder, to me killing [fetuses is] murder as well.
You're entitled to your obviously incorrect opinion, but no Pro-Choicer
would take issue with you as long as you were like MOST people who
disagree with abortion. Probably very close to 99.99% of such people
are PASSIVELY opposed to abortion, and therefore are harmless.
Actual Anti-Choicers are *actively* opposed to abortion rights in SOME
manner (and posting in Usenet is one of those). Such activism is
countered effectively by PRO-Choice egalitarians, who, fortunately,
are safely in the majority.
3. Babies become people long before childbirth
No, they are not. Neither per our laws, or per the Bible.
So, when exactly does a baby become a human being?
All **babies** ARE human beings. Fetuses become "human beings"
(as society applies that term; to people) at the moment BIRTH occurs
and they become babies.
Conception? Implantation?
Neither. All babies have been born.
However -- the actual BEGINNING of any given person occurs
YEARS *before* fertilization (so "conception" is a misnomer. (Years
before, because girls are BORN with *all* the eggs that they will ever
have.) Fertilization is merely the mechanical transition between Stage
One (gametes) and Stage Two (zygote) of the reproductive process.
If you mentally reverse-engineer ANY person, you'll find that there was
a period of time during which both of his gametes... sperm and egg
that had not yet met... existed. The SUM of their DNA was the *same*
as it would be forever after that. If EITHER of those gametes were to
have died (as could have happened via male masturbation, for example)
during that time, then that particular, unique person would never have
been born. Gametes, as I pointed out earlier, are EXACTLY like the other
stages of the reproductive process (including fetuses) in all important
ways: human, unique, alive... *potential* people.
Thus, if Anti-Choicers were to AVOID being total hypocrites, they
would need to CEASE *excluding* gametes from the reproductive-
process entities that they seek to "defend."
Of course, THAT would be a problem for them because no fewer
than a QUADRILLION of those potential people are electively aborted
DAILY, worldwide, by *men*, via male masturbation. So pragmatically
speaking, they CANNOT be defended. Even though they are JUST
as valuable (or JUST as worthless, when unwanted), as are the other
three stages. SENSIBLE people (i.e., Pro-Choicers) therefore defend
ACTUAL people... the girls and women faced with ill-timed and
unwanted pregnancies, from having their rights trashed, their well-being
disrupted, and countless of their future opportunities destroyed, by a
collection of thoughtless and inconsiderate people who would not
hesitate to impose immense hardship and misery upon them by
FORCING them to gestate to term against their will.
The internal scientist says that it's the point at which you can
reasonably expect a lump of cells to become a human-being
(i.e. the probability of an embryo or fetus surviving to age three
or so; I pick this age since I can definitively say that a three year
old toddler is a person).
But if you were REALLY sensible, you'd accept all of the obvious
facts that apply to the abortion issue, both as presented so far, and as
you can see in the SIG of this post.
This really means that it's up to the individual to assume what is a
"reasonable" probability. Some people might say it's 1%, since any
chance of life should be fostered and not willfully halted.
Then you'd better come up with a way to save all those potential
people at the *gamete* stage. (Which number a MILLION TIMES
more, in quantity, than the current population of the Earth. DAILY.)
And while you're about it, find a habitable planet large enough to
accomodate them, and a way to transport them there. *Every day*,
in those quantites.
<rabbit-path snipped; nothing relevant lost>
Here are some of the consequences that arise from believing that
babies are people that further prompt me to support the pro-life
stance:
Of COURSE babies are people. Try to clarify your terms.
1. The right of the mother over her own body is NOT more important
than a person's right to life:
Bodily-autonomy of an ACTUAL person is infinitely more important
than anything having to do with an unwanted POTENTIAL person.
Many Pro-Choicers make the childbirth distinction because they
say before birth, the [fetus] is still inside the [wpman] and the [woman]
has a right over her own body. Is that so?
See above.
Think of a pair of conjoined twins (Siamese twins). Lets say that
one of the twins decided it didn't want to be attached to his brother
anymore, but the only procedure to separate them would cost his
brother his life. Would it be OK for that twin to undergo the
procedure, effectively killing his brother?
Perhaps. That would have to be considered on a case-by-case
basis as a complex issue with a myriad of possible variables that could
come into play.
But since you're talking about PEOPLE here, and not reproductive-
process entities, that has NOTHING to do with this discussion, and isn't
even worthwhile as an analogy.
To me the situation is fairly similar with a mother and baby if you
believe what I said about [fetuses and babies] still being people.
In both cases, we have two people who both have a right to life,...
No, we don't. We have only ONE person, and an entity that has NO
rights whatsoever... any more than it did while at the gamete stage.
...and one shouldn't be able to determine the fate of the other
just because they are biologically conjoined.
You Anti-Choicers -- in lieu of the FACTS that your side has NONE
of -- certainly can come up with intersting ways to clutch at straws!
Even though the [fetus] is smaller and resides inside the mother,
I feel the [fetus] is still a person.
Do you also believe in the Tooth Fairy?
In both situations, one person can't unilaterally decide to have
the other killed.
In the LATTER case, one can, since only ONE of the two entities
IS a *person*.
2. The "quality of life" of the [woman] is not more important than
the [fetus's] right to life:
Wrong. ANYTHING pertaining to the woman vastly outwirghs the
NONEXISTENT rights of an *unwanted* reproductive-process entity
that she has NO desire to bother with.
There are laws that say a mother can't kill even her 1-day old baby.
If such laws are in place, why can the [fetus] be killed 6 months before
when still in the womb? This law is inconsistent.
No. It is VERY consistent. It recognizes the obvious difference
between reproductive-process entities and PEOPLE that even the
Bible (upon which most of the law is based) clearly recognized.
If there are medical reasons, i.e. the chance of the mother
dying due to pregnancy is high, then I can see an argument
being made.
FORTUNATLY for all women, NO reason needs to be given for
seeking and obtaining an abortion. When unwanted, an ill-timed
pregnancy is an unwanted medical condition, and abortion is
nothing more than the REMEDY for that, for whomever chooses it.
This is called "abortion-upon-request," and American law properly
guarantees the right of any woman to access it.
But in other cases, such as economic hardship, why allow it?
LACK of callousness and selfishness on the part of the benevolent
U.S. Supreme Court, in 1973.
Accessing the remedy of abortion is nothing more or less than a
self-defense action. The woman is sensible and mature enough to
recognize that the timing is wrong for childbirth, for any of a myriad
of possible reasons, so she defers that to a later date when her
circumstances have improved, and the likelihood of raising the child
in a stable and more loving envirnment is enhanced. (And MOST
women who get abortions DO go on to *have* children, later on.
ALSO by choice.)
I hear the argument all the time that [Anti-Choicers] are
uncompassionate because we want to force a poor girl to have
a baby and cause the baby/mother to live out a terrible life
together.
They have NO way of knowing that such would not be
PRECISELY the outcome. Thus, that statement is 100% true.
Well then let's say a 16-year old girl decides to have a baby.
Then, 1-day after giving birth, she realizes her economic situation
is terrible and that having the baby was not a good idea. Does
it make it OK for her to kill it?
Nope, since a BORN human entity has rights. She should have
been smart enough to assess her situation BEFORE birth occurred
(and sensible enough to do so EARLY in the pregnancy), and then
elected to have an abortion. Once she CHOSE to give birth, she
accepted the consequences of that decision by default.
There was shock and outrage in Los Angeles when a poor
high school girl gave birth to a baby in the bathroom of a hotel at
her prom, then left the baby to die in a dumpster.
Of course! On the part of just about EVERYONE!
However, under the pro-choice, this should have been perfectly
fine. I mean, the mother's well-being is more important than the
baby's right?
Up until now, I've given you the benefit of the doubt that you might
possess SOME modicum of intelligence. However, if you actually believe
that to be true of Pro-Choicers, you must be a pretty mentally-challenged
person!
3. Unfortunately, this means abortions should be illegal even in
cases of rape.
Actually, there is NO good reason to deny accss to abortion to ANY
girl or woman who is faced with an unwanted pregnancy, and desires to
obtain one. Furthermore, NO impediments to that should exist.
This kind of sucks but naturally follows from the previous argument.
Even in cases of rape and incest, a baby is a person and has the right
to life.
That's true of ALL babies and NO fetuses.
Let's say your best friend's mother was raped around the time your
best friend was conceived. Genetic testing at the time showed that
your best friend was luckily the product of his/her mother and
"father," but new genetic testing recently has shown that your friend
is actually the result of his/her mother and the rapist. Does it make
it OK for your best friend's mother to kill your best friend now?
Obviously not. The important point is that your best friend is still
a person, regardless of who fathered him/her. The fact that your best
friend's mother may be extremely distraught about the rape and that
your best friend only serves as a reminder of the rape for the mother
is still no justification for murder.
Amazing. You FINALLY wrote an error-free paragraph. (Probably
because it had NOTHING to do with abortion.)
4. Miscellaneous point: Laws don't define human beings, we as
individuals do.
The law very clearly defines personhood, and accords rights to
PEOPLE. And most people agree with the law in that regard.
I don't buy the argument that what the law defines as a human
being is what makes a human. I've read a bunch of posts that state,
"Law XXX says a human being is XXX." Laws are merely reflection
of what our society believes and they change as we change. Laws
themselves are not a justification for anything since we (the voters)
can change them at a whim.
America has consistently been Pro-Choice by a 2-1 majority.
There are only two possible ways to deny women their right to
abortion-upon-request: (1) Constiutional Amendment. (The
Pro-Choice majority would *never* permit that.) (2) Reversal
of Roe vs. Wade if the Supreme Court got a repressive majority
of justices. (In THAT event, the Pro-Choice majority would
RESTORE nationwide abortion-upon-request via Constitutional
Amendment. And in the meantime, most of the STATES would
simply *maintain* that right. (Several states had already legalized
abortion years BEFORE Roe vs. Wade.)
What's more important is what each and every one of us believes.
BELIEVE as you wish. Just don't be a buttinsky/busybody/control
freak. You'll be *called* on such hatefulness every single time by
FAIR-minded egalirtarians. What a people choose to do when it comes to
legal personal liberties and private decisions is NO one else's business.
NONE whatsoever.
Since we live in a democratic society, what each person believes
will eventually manifest itself as laws.
LOL!!!! Ever heard of Area 51? Many people call it "Dreamland."
Did you used to work there?
I believe babies should be protected.
So does everyone else. But MOST people recognize that fetuses
and gametes, being only *potential* people, deserve the same amount
of protection: NONE.
If enough people believe the same thing, eventually babies
will be.
Babies ALWAYS have been.
If people don't believe as I do, then babies won't and abortions
will continue.
Abortion has nothing to do with babies, and abortion WILL continue,
just as segregation will never return. America has outgrown such Dark
Ages stupidities.
What's important is that we all express our views and try to appeal
to one another to see as we do.
Supporters of bigotry reach laughingstock status very quickly that
way. Same thing happened to the segregationists. Just before *their*
agenda properly became extinct.
Eventually, that's what'll make the difference.
Yep. The extinction of the sociopathic Anti-Choice agenda.
Good riddance to it.
I know everything I've stated here is just an opinion.
Most assuredly so, since NO FACTS even exist that support the
Anti-Choice stance. ALL relevant facts support being PRO-Choice.
See SIG.
What I hope is that some of you pro-choicers will read this and
reconsider your stance, then go to the voting booths and vote
according.
You DO live in Dreamland! That's like asking a member of the
NAACP to vote for a member of the Ku Klux Klan! And with just as
much such likelihood.
Wow, did you read that whole thing?
Yeah. Countering such tripe is one of the things egalitarians
need to do. Freedom isn't free. Responsible people always need
to be vigilant, to prevent the people who spread disinformation
from eroding it.
I would really like to hear what some of you think.
Good. I hope you'll consider the many FACTS that you've now
encountered. (And if not, at least the fence-sitters have again had a
good chance to contrast the Pro-Choice and Anti-Choice stances.)
These are views I've come to hold after talking with several of
my friends.
Dang!!! I'm sure glad I don't have any such "friends." With
friends like those, I wouldn't need any enemies. Nor have any
use for intelligence.
Initially, I started out as a pro-choicer. I believed in the
"compassion" argument: that allowing women to have abortions is
showing compassion for those women who might otherwise have
diminished qualities of life.
So you USED to be pretty sensible, huh?
However, the more I thought about it, it leads to inconsistencies,
such as "why is it OK to abort a fetus but not to kill a one-day old baby."
Now you can see how silly THAT concept is!
Upon coming to the belief that [both fetuses and babies] are
people, I realized we should show compassion for the babies as
well.
"As WELL?" ALL people have compassion for *babies*.
Socially speaking, it'd be easier to just allow abortions.
Which we vary FAIRLY and sensibly DO. Not to worry -- that
will NEVER change.
Babies don't raise> a muck. Babies can't talk. They don't
look ANYTHING like humans that I'm used to interacting with.
Hell, I can't even see them!
NOR is anyone else's unwanted reproductive-process
entity ANY of *your* business!
Who cares if some people abort a few fetuses right?
No *sensible* person does.
I think about what would happen if I were put into a situation
where I might have to raise a child I wasn't ready to. Wouldn't it
be nice if abortion was an option? I dunno, it would definitely
be a convenient solution, but one that I couldn't support without
feeling like a hypocrite.
That's okay. Consider the FACTS, any you may ultimately come
back to your senses.
-- Craig Chilton
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
ANALYZING ABORTION-ON-REQUEST* in the USA
*(Abortion Rights as they have existed since 1-22-73)
Abortion terminates entities (z/e/fs: zygotes, embryoes &
fetuses, up until the 7th month of gestation*) which have ALL
of these characteristics in common with sperm and ova:
-- Human
-- Unique
-- As a stage of development, indispensable to future birth
-- Have NEVER experienced conscious awareness
-- Alive
...which makes it hypocritical when abortion opponents
try to defend z/e/fs but NOT sperm and ova.
*(AFTER the 7th month of gestation, rudimentary conscious
awareness is regarded possible, by medical science. But
that's a moot point since, per a report by JAMA, 99.99996%
of U.S. abortions already have been performed by that
point.)
And the Bible, which is the primary moral authority for the
majority of Americans:
-- In NO way condemns abortion
-- Doesn't even MENTION abortion
-- By Jesus' day, abortion had been around for 1,000 yrs.
-- Contains NO defenses of s/o/z/e/fs
-- Reserves ALL of its protection for already-BORN people
-- That the Bible regards personhood to begin at BIRTH is
made clear by its immense emphasis on the importance
of BIRTH order, and BIRTHrights.
-- In certain cases, condemned BABIES to horrible deaths
-- Never indicates that there is anything "special" about
fertilization
-- Thus making z/e/f and sperm & ova of EQUAL worth
Abortion-on-request enables women to:
-- Put their lives back on track immediately
-- Restore their well-being to pre-unplanned pregnancy levels
-- Vast majority of women are happy with this decision
-- Most women have no regrets
-- Restore their full range of future opportunities
-- Avoid physical difficulties of a 9-month pregnancy
-- Especially important for young girls, ~12-16
-- Statistically 6-10 times safer than carrying-to-term
-- Avoid the trauma of adopting-out, and wondering later
-- Avoid possibility of changing mind about adopting-out
-- Reduce likelihood of long-term economic deprivation
-- Avoid bringing child into less-loving home
-- Avoid bringing child into unstable environment
-- Wait until timing is better before having children
-- Who then are MORE likely to be loved
-- Who then are MORE likely to be in stable home
-- And thus are LESS like to have troubled childhoods
-- And therefore more likely NOT to become criminals
-- And thus are MORE likely to become successful
Legal abortion-on-request:
-- Is exponentially safer than illegal abortions
-- Thus saving the lives of hundreds or thousands of women/yr.
-- Has been available throughout the USA since early 1973
-- Between 1973 and 2000, 30 million women have had them
-- Between 1973 and 2000, 40 million abortions have been done
Other related facts include:
-- MOST women who have abortions go on to HAVE kids later,
when the timing is better
-- Those children would NOT have been born if the abortions
had not taken place earlier, because the same sperm and
ova would not have matched up.
-- Those "2nd-round" kids STARTED reaching age 13 in
significant numbers by 1988. By the early 1990s, millions
of those "2nd-round" kids were in their mid-teens by the
early 1990s.
-- Mid-teens is the highest risk age for crime, and this
continues into the early 20s.
-- As pointed out above, wanted and loved children are
LESS prone to criminal behavior.
-- By 1995, millions of "2nd-round kids" were entering the
workforce. Perhaps a million-plus MORE have entered it
every year SINCE. By 2000, the oldest ones had reached
the age where they could be getting quite successful.
-- Since the early 1990s, the rate of violent crime in the USA
has declined dramatically, and by 2000 was at 40-year
lows in many categories.
-- The decade of the 1990s, and the year 2002 to date, in
the USA, has been the most economically-dynamic of
any nation in the entire history of the world.
Although the exact figures may be impossible to derive, the
probability that abortion-on-request has SIGNIFICANTLY benefitted
all of America's society in terms of the crime rate and the economy
is QUITE strong, despite the temporary anomaly caused by the attack
on Sept. 11, 2001. And a strong U.S. economy benefits the entire
world.
-- Originally posted to alt.abortion & talk.abortion
on Aug. 13, 2000, and updated since.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
.
|
|
| User: "skang" |
|
| Title: Before I go on, lets clarify one thing. Why is murder bad? |
07 Dec 2003 12:14:09 PM |
|
|
Wow, this was a long response. Thanks for taking the time to write it.
It seems the question of abortion just comes down to one question:
when does a fetus become a person?
Birth. There. See how easy that was? Think of all the writing
you could have saved yourself simply by recognizing that fact.
(ALL fetuses are unborn.) At birth, a fetus's status changes to
"baby." The changes that all occur within moments at that point
are profound, a a doctor who used to post in here regularly pointed
out a fw years ago. To include that here would make this post 'WAY
too long. So I'll post it separately under the subject header:
Bruce Forest's List of Changes that Occur at BIRTH
You have still not sufficiently backed this argument up. The best as I
understand, you feel that at birth the fetus undergoes dramatic biological
change that causes it to become "human -being." I reject this notion
because the definition of a "human-being" should not be based solely on
biology.
And of course, it is not. Not even remotely. If it were, we'd have
to jail practically every MAN on earth. Since -- JUST like fetuses...
*gametes* (sperm and ova) ALSO are human, unique, and living
*potential* people. BOTH the Bible and our laws are sensible enough
only to defend ACTUAL people.
Once again, I think a lot of confusion between you and I exist between what
defines a "human-being." As a thought experiment, assume that aliens came
from outer space. Their biological makeup is COMPLETELY different than
ours, yet they are vastly intelligent and managed to decrypt the English
language so we could converse with them. Would it be murder if one of us
killed on of them? I would say yes, because the right to life is not only
given to things with a biological makeup similar to ours. Consequently, a
fetus could have a vastly different biological makeup that resembles nothing
like ours, and I still say they should be given the right to life because
they WILL become human beings.
So then how come it's OK to [have an abortion] two or three
months before when [the fetus is] still in the womb?
Because PERSONHOOD begins at BIRTH.
Your subject header indicates "secular" reasoning, but one cannot
ignore the fact that MOST Amrican jurisprudence is based on Biblical
precepts. Our laws accord personhood at birth, and so does the Bible.
In MANY ways, which, taken as a whole, makes that VERY clear:
(1) The Bible NEVER defends reproductive-process entities
as though they were people. In fact, the ONLY time that
it defends one, it regards a fetus to be PROPERTY... in
a passage that *condones* SLAVERY! (Ex. 21:20-25)
(2) ALL of the human life that the Bible DOES defend has
been BORN.
(3) Further bolstering of the concept that personhood is
accorded at birth can be found in the passages that deal
with "BIRTHrights," BIRTH order, and "first-BORNS."
(Emphasis mine.)
This is no justification. Once again, I would like to state that laws are
malleable and in and of themselves do not offer a justfication for why we
should believe something. To derive our beliefs from laws would be circular
since laws are created based on our beliefs.
What I want to know is why YOU believe personhood begins at birth. If you
believe the Bible is the direct word of God and that is your reason, then I
can accept that. But otherwise, laws are not sacred as they were simply
written by other people.
Even though a 1-week old baby can't talk or do much of anything,
I believe that in a few years the baby WILL be able to do all those
things, just like the rest of us. In about 10 years, I'll actually be
able
to hold a conversation with this lump of cells that is just crapping
itself at the moment.
This does not change with childbirth. While in the mother's womb,
the [fetus] is just a lump of cells.
It's a whole lot more than that. Complexity increases as development
progresses. But it's not a PERSON unless and until it's BORN.
But I know that in a few years, it'll become a person.
LOL!!! if it takes THAT long, you'd better call the Guinness folks!
That would be the world's longest gestation!
Once again, it's how you define "person" or "personhood."
The rest of your post is predicated on your assertion that a fetus should
not be afforded personhood. This, however, was the whole point of my
initial post. Once again, the argument comes down to when does a person
become a person and WHY. All the consequences fall out of this. Of course
if one believes that a fetus should not be given personhood then abortion
should be COMPLETELY legal. I don't deny this one bit. What I do argue is
that a fetus SHOULD be given personhood for the reasons I listed. For
example:
Another way to think about it is that a one week old infant is not
very different than a kitten -- it basically just eats and craps.
However, you can have a kitten killed at a kennel all the time. Why
not be able to kill one-week or even one-month old babies? Why is it
that one-week, one-day, even one-minute old babies are protected as
humans -- being while kittens are not?
Because babies of *any* age are PEOPLE and animals are not.
Why? Why are 1-day old babies considered people when kittens, who behave
almost identically, are not? Because they were born? What's so special
about birth? The biological changes of the fetus? As I stated, biology
cannot be the sole determining factor since then killing sentient,
intelligent PEOPLE from other SPECIES (i.e. aliens) would not be murder.
I myself don't have a very good definition of what gives something
personhood, but I know it goes beyond biology. It is more about behavior
actually. For me, someTHING becomes a PERSON when they exhibit the behavior
of a person. These include, but are not limited to, sentience (i.e. the
knowledge that the person himself is alive), imagination (i.e. being able to
generate new thoughts and ideas), and some other stuff I can't quite express
into words right now (omg it's 10AM and I haven't slept yet).
Interestingly enough, we can differ on our definitions of what qualifies as
"human-beings" and still both be against abortion. How so you ask? It
depends why you think murder is bad. If you haven't pondered this, think
about what it means to murder.
In a simplistic sense, it means irrevocably shutting down the biological
processes that allow us to continue our day-to-day activities. But why is
that bad? Who cares if someone shuts down someone else's biological
processes? We shut down the biological processes of animals and plants all
the time.
When a person dies, that's it. There is no more existence for that person
(unless you believe in an afterlife). So in a practical sense, the person
who died can't feel any sort of injustice towards their killer because
they're dead! So what's so bad about that? It's not like you've made the
dead person sad or anything.
What's really happened to people when they die is they're losing their
ability to "live" further. And I don't just mean "live" in a biological
sense, I mean "live" in a human sense, like feel love, sadness, experience
joy. They've lost their potential to "live" the next second, the next
minute, the next day. I think humans really value this potential. We
become afraid when someone points a gun at us not because we think "oh man
this is going to hurt" but because we think "holy crap, after this I may
never be able to experience another moment of 'life' ever again."
In much the same way, when you abort a pregnancy, the fetus loses its
ability to "live." Maybe not live the next minute, but it's ability to
"live" in a few weeks, months, years. To me, both outcomes are identical.
In both cases you erase the potential for "life."
Consequently, I think fetuses should be afforded personhood so that their
potential for "life" can be realized, in much the same way that our
potential for "life" is allowed to be realized every second we live.
.
|
|
|
| User: "M is for Malapert" |
|
| Title: Re: Before I go on, lets clarify one thing. Why is murder bad? |
09 Dec 2003 05:20:03 PM |
|
|
"skang" <skang17@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bqvqlj$9go$1@news.Stanford.EDU...
Once again, I think a lot of confusion between you and I exist between
what
defines a "human-being." As a thought experiment, assume that aliens came
from outer space. Their biological makeup is COMPLETELY different than
ours, yet they are vastly intelligent and managed to decrypt the English
language so we could converse with them. Would it be murder if one of us
killed on of them? I would say yes, because the right to life is not only
given to things with a biological makeup similar to ours. Consequently, a
fetus could have a vastly different biological makeup that resembles
nothing
like ours, and I still say they should be given the right to life because
they WILL become human beings.
This doesn't compute. The intelligent space beings ARE intelligent, can
form relationships with us, can apprehend death and suffering. Embryos and
early-term fetuses cannot. We wouldn't protect the intelligent aliens on
the basis of what they *could* become, but on the basis of what they *are*,
right now. (Look up Dean Stretton's "superkittens" thought experiment if
you haven't seen it so far. It involves supposing that kittens could become
as smart as human beings if given an injection of special drugs. Would that
mean *all* kittens should be protected as human beings since they all have
the potential to become like human beings? Of course not. Same with
embryos.)
You have so far failed to give any convincing reason why "could become" is
any more valid when it comes to embryos than when it comes to mature eggs,
as well.
What I want to know is why YOU believe personhood begins at birth.
Because you simply cannot give equal adversarial rights to two beings who
occupy the same body. We have no choice when it comes to some kinds of
conjoined twins, so we give them certain rights - just not some of the
fundamental ones. But there's no reason to turn every fertile woman into a
potential adversary against her own self.
Because babies of *any* age are PEOPLE and animals are not.
Why? Why are 1-day old babies considered people when kittens, who behave
almost identically, are not?
Because they aren't. Nobody thinks they are. Every seminormal person, if
presented a kitten and a newborn, is going to be able to tell the
difference. For that matter, a cat is going to be able to tell the
difference.
Because they were born? What's so special
about birth? The biological changes of the fetus? As I stated, biology
cannot be the sole determining factor since then killing sentient,
intelligent PEOPLE from other SPECIES (i.e. aliens) would not be murder.
Of course biology can be a sole determining factor. You, yourself, use
biology to differentiate between mature prefertile eggs ("not people") and
embryos ("people"). They each have as good a chance to BECOME born,
sentient persons - philosophically speaking, they are identical. It's only
biology that makes the difference, in your mind.
I myself don't have a very good definition of what gives something
personhood, but I know it goes beyond biology. It is more about behavior
actually.
Behavior comes from biology. No matter how much talking you do to a baby
baboon, it will never learn to speak. No matter how many Leapfrog Learning
tapes you show a chimpanzee, it will never learn to read. This may be due
to biological factors in the brain or biological factors in the throat, but
either way it's biology.
For me, someTHING becomes a PERSON when they exhibit the behavior
of a person. These include, but are not limited to, sentience (i.e. the
knowledge that the person himself is alive), imagination (i.e. being able
to
generate new thoughts and ideas), and some other stuff I can't quite
express
into words right now (omg it's 10AM and I haven't slept yet).
In that case, how can you possibly argue that an embryo is a person? We
can't include "that which might become a person, given the right
environment" because prefertile eggs would definitely qualify on that basis.
After all, in natural circumstances women only ovulate a handful of times
per lifetime and each egg *is* fertilized. It's only due to recent
artificial food production and storage methods, artificial diets and infant
feeding methods, and artificial gender and social roles that most women have
become unnaturally hyperfertile.
Interestingly enough, we can differ on our definitions of what qualifies
as
"human-beings" and still both be against abortion. How so you ask? It
depends why you think murder is bad. If you haven't pondered this, think
about what it means to murder.
Murder involves fear. It creates fear among those who are in the process of
being murdered, those whose loved ones are murdered, and those who believe
they might be murdered themselves. Murder has always been socially accepted
under certain circumstances, provided that some kind of social mechanism is
in place to ensure that people don't kill within their own family, small
group or tribe and provided that destructive blood feuds and revenge cycles
don't occur. But none of this applies in the case of abortion.
When a person dies, that's it. There is no more existence for that person
(unless you believe in an afterlife). So in a practical sense, the person
who died can't feel any sort of injustice towards their killer because
they're dead! So what's so bad about that? It's not like you've made the
dead person sad or anything.
You most likely have caused the dead person to suffer in the process of
killing him or her. You've also most likely caused his or her loved ones to
suffer, and created general alarm for people who believe there's a killer on
the loose. It's almost impossible to kill someone else without creating
some kind of suffering, even if it's only one's own. For that reason,
killing should be eschewed. And not just people, either.
What's really happened to people when they die is they're losing their
ability to "live" further. And I don't just mean "live" in a biological
sense, I mean "live" in a human sense, like feel love, sadness, experience
joy. They've lost their potential to "live" the next second, the next
minute, the next day. I think humans really value this potential. We
become afraid when someone points a gun at us not because we think "oh man
this is going to hurt" but because we think "holy crap, after this I may
never be able to experience another moment of 'life' ever again."
Right. But you know what? Even if nobody ever points a gun at you, you are
going to die. You are going to lose, forever, all that potential. You
won't feel love or sadness or experience joy. You won't even get to find
out what happens next. And believe me, people who die "naturally", after a
long life, are just as terrified and horrified and angry as you would be if
someone murdered you in an alleyway tonight. Just aging and knowing it's
coming closer is hellish. So...
In much the same way, when you abort a pregnancy, the fetus loses its
ability to "live." Maybe not live the next minute, but it's ability to
"live" in a few weeks, months, years. To me, both outcomes are identical.
....so that makes what you just wrote here an argument *for* abortion. If
we'd all been aborted in the process of egg maturation or fertilization or
implantation or even well into gestation, we'd have been spared the terrible
foreknowledge of death and the actual horror of dying.
So this is not a good argument against abortion for anyone who isn't seduced
by religious beliefs in an afterlife, and, worse than that, it's also an
equally good argument against contraception or abstinence as far as it
succeeds at all.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Purple" |
|
| Title: Re: Before I go on, lets clarify one thing. Why is murder bad? |
07 Dec 2003 07:19:37 PM |
|
|
"skang" <skang17@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<bqvqlj$9go$1@news.Stanford.EDU>...
[snip]
Because babies of *any* age are PEOPLE and animals are not.
Why? Why are 1-day old babies considered people when kittens, who behave
almost identically, are not? Because they were born? What's so special
about birth? The biological changes of the fetus? As I stated, biology
cannot be the sole determining factor since then killing sentient,
intelligent PEOPLE from other SPECIES (i.e. aliens) would not be murder.
I myself don't have a very good definition of what gives something
personhood, but I know it goes beyond biology. It is more about behavior
actually. For me, someTHING becomes a PERSON when they exhibit the behavior
of a person. These include, but are not limited to, sentience (i.e. the
knowledge that the person himself is alive), imagination (i.e. being able to
generate new thoughts and ideas), and some other stuff I can't quite express
into words right now (omg it's 10AM and I haven't slept yet).
Interestingly enough, we can differ on our definitions of what qualifies as
"human-beings" and still both be against abortion. How so you ask? It
depends why you think murder is bad. If you haven't pondered this, think
about what it means to murder.
In a simplistic sense, it means irrevocably shutting down the biological
processes that allow us to continue our day-to-day activities. But why is
that bad? Who cares if someone shuts down someone else's biological
processes? We shut down the biological processes of animals and plants all
the time.
When a person dies, that's it. There is no more existence for that person
(unless you believe in an afterlife). So in a practical sense, the person
who died can't feel any sort of injustice towards their killer because
they're dead! So what's so bad about that? It's not like you've made the
dead person sad or anything.
What's really happened to people when they die is they're losing their
ability to "live" further. And I don't just mean "live" in a biological
sense, I mean "live" in a human sense, like feel love, sadness, experience
joy. They've lost their potential to "live" the next second, the next
minute, the next day. I think humans really value this potential. We
become afraid when someone points a gun at us not because we think "oh man
this is going to hurt" but because we think "holy crap, after this I may
never be able to experience another moment of 'life' ever again."
In much the same way, when you abort a pregnancy, the fetus loses its
ability to "live." Maybe not live the next minute, but it's ability to
"live" in a few weeks, months, years. To me, both outcomes are identical.
In both cases you erase the potential for "life."
Consequently, I think fetuses should be afforded personhood so that their
potential for "life" can be realized, in much the same way that our
potential for "life" is allowed to be realized every second we live.
Skang, welcome to this newsgroup and thanks for taking the time
to explain your position. It makes a pleasant change seeing well
reasoned debate from the anti-abortion side. I think my reply will
be more coherent if I present it as an essay rather than answering
you point by point. If you feel I have ignored any important issues
you raised or misrepresented any of your arguments, let me know.
First off I should like to establish the common ground between us.
We both seem to agree that, in the relevant aspects a fetus is
a *potential* human. To you this means that by terminating a
pregnancy you are depriving that fetus of the opportunity to
experience human life, which is little different from removing
life support from a comatose hermit. You provide a sensible basis
for making a distinction between an embryo and earlier stages of
the human life cycle, based on the probability of the organism
developing into a fully fledged human.
If you accept this distinction and acknowledge that in terms of
their relevant characteristics an embryo, fetus or baby is
only a *potential* human then it follows that denying a woman
the right to an abortion is effectively the same as forcing her
to create new human life. It is not a huge step from here to
infer that she is also morally obliged to allow herself to be
impregnated.
Now my experience tells me that life is generally a positive
thing but in order to determine the moral status of eg forced
pregnancy it is not enough to consider the quantity of life.
Quality is also important and there is no doubt that forced
pregnancy is *very* detrimental in this regard. If we are to assign
values to each life, (negative numbers for those who wish
themselves dead, positive numbers for those who wish themselves
alive) we should then IMO seek to maximise the sum total of
these numbers. From this simplistic PoV it is *possible* that
forced pregnancy is justifiable. However one vitally important
fact has been ignored, namely that the resources of the planet
place limits on the amount of life that can be accomodated.
This last sentence is not intended to be a justification for
murder. We all have a strong interest in asserting our
right to life and it is impossible to do this while also
proposing the right to kill other already existing humans.
I also believe that a failure on the part of society in
general, to accept the assertion that human life may only be
taken in exceptional circumstances, would lead to a significant
reduction in our overall quality of life. On the other hand
I can not see any practical purpose that is served by asserting
the compulsion to create new human life. To my mind the
relationship between abortion and murder is analogous to the
relationship between not giving and stealing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "skang" |
|
| Title: Re: Before I go on, lets clarify one thing. Why is murder bad? |
07 Dec 2003 07:58:20 PM |
|
|
Hi Purple, thanks for your response.
First off I should like to establish the common ground between us.
We both seem to agree that, in the relevant aspects a fetus is
a *potential* human. To you this means that by terminating a
pregnancy you are depriving that fetus of the opportunity to
experience human life, which is little different from removing
life support from a comatose hermit. You provide a sensible basis
for making a distinction between an embryo and earlier stages of
the human life cycle, based on the probability of the organism
developing into a fully fledged human.
I don't really see why depriving a fetus of an opportunity to experience
human life is really different than removing life support from a comatose
hermit. Behaviorally, they are about the same in that neither can express
their sentience, express imagination, feel sadness or hope, basically cannot
do any of the things we've come to expect of a human-being, yet in time
their state will change.
If you accept this distinction and acknowledge that in terms of
their relevant characteristics an embryo, fetus or baby is
only a *potential* human then it follows that denying a woman
the right to an abortion is effectively the same as forcing her
to create new human life. It is not a huge step from here to
infer that she is also morally obliged to allow herself to be
impregnated.
True, and I've heard this argument before. However, this is not a huge step
that I'm willing to take. I've stated that the delineation for when a fetus
should be given the right to life is when we can "reasonably expect" a fetus
to become a human-being. Given this definition, gametes should not be
afforded the right to life since gametes alone will never yield a reasonable
chance at life. Two gametes of opposite sexes must join under conditions
(i.e. in a woman's fallopian tubes) such that implantation is possible.
Only then would I say there was a reasonable expectation of life. Of course
your definition of reasonable expectation can be different, but I wouldn't
ascribe to the belief that woman are morally obligated to impregnate
themselves for this reason.
I guess in a way there is a sense of accountability associated with it. You
don't necessarily have to make new life, but you shouldn't stop the
potential for life once there's a reasonable chance it exists. This is
consistent with our behavior in the rest of the world. For instance, we
would not remove life support from a person who has been unconscious for 1
hour because we don't yet know the chance that the person my regain
consciousness. You could say that a reasonable chance may still exist, so
people are hesitant to exterminate that potential for life. On the other
hand, when a person has been a vegetable for several years and doctors are
not optimistic about the recovery of the comatose patient, then family or
executors have the authority to order life support removed from the patient
which will almost always result in death. We, as a society, generally
accept this since the expectation of life is so low we don't view the death
as murder.
Now my experience tells me that life is generally a positive
thing but in order to determine the moral status of eg forced
pregnancy it is not enough to consider the quantity of life.
Quality is also important and there is no doubt that forced
pregnancy is *very* detrimental in this regard. If we are to assign
values to each life, (negative numbers for those who wish
themselves dead, positive numbers for those who wish themselves
alive) we should then IMO seek to maximise the sum total of
these numbers. From this simplistic PoV it is *possible* that
forced pregnancy is justifiable.
It doesn't even have to be an issue about maximizing net happiness, or
quality of life. All you have to believe is that the potential for life
should be protected at all possible costs.
We all have a strong interest in asserting our
right to life and it is impossible to do this while also
proposing the right to kill other already existing humans.
I also believe that a failure on the part of society in
general, to accept the assertion that human life may only be
taken in exceptional circumstances, would lead to a significant
reduction in our overall quality of life. On the other hand
I can not see any practical purpose that is served by asserting
the compulsion to create new human life. To my mind the
relationship between abortion and murder is analogous to the
relationship between not giving and stealing.
For me, there is no "practical purpose" of protecting fetuses. The
practical approach would probably be to allow for abortions since that would
result in the least conflict. However, the problem is the nature of murder.
Murder is final. Once a person has been killed, the potential for that
person to experience new life has been erased forever. With any other
crime, this is not the case. When you steal bread from someone, that person
can get new bread. If not bread, something else that can fill the role that
bread did. Humans are fairly resilient buggers, and we can take a lot of
punishment. Any other crime committed against us and we at least have the
chance to recover from it and continue to live life. We may be saddened at
the moment, but we will be able to laugh again and love again. However,
with death, there is no such ability to recover.
In this way, I think murder trumps all other crimes since without life, or
the potential for life, everything becomes completely meaningless (unless
you believe in an afterlife). If you disagree with this, and feel murder is
no different than stealing, I guess we just have a fundamentally different
value system by which we assess the importance of "life." In that case, I
guess I cannot offer further comments other than to say I see your point of
view, and agree to disagree. However, if you view human-life and thus the
potential for human-life as a sacred commodity that should be defended at
nearly all costs, then I cannot see how abortion can be reconciled.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Purple" |
|
| Title: Re: Before I go on, lets clarify one thing. Why is murder bad? |
08 Dec 2003 08:08:15 PM |
|
|
"skang" <skang17@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<br0lrt$emo$1@news.Stanford.EDU>...
Hi Purple, thanks for your response.
First off I should like to establish the common ground between us.
We both seem to agree that, in the relevant aspects a fetus is
a *potential* human. To you this means that by terminating a
pregnancy you are depriving that fetus of the opportunity to
experience human life, which is little different from removing
life support from a comatose hermit. You provide a sensible basis
for making a distinction between an embryo and earlier stages of
the human life cycle, based on the probability of the organism
developing into a fully fledged human.
I don't really see why depriving a fetus of an opportunity to experience
human life is really different than removing life support from a comatose
hermit. Behaviorally, they are about the same in that neither can express
their sentience, express imagination, feel sadness or hope, basically cannot
do any of the things we've come to expect of a human-being, yet in time
their state will change.
If you look solely at the organism, which you are depriving of the right
to experience life then I can not suggest a relevant difference between
the fetus and the comatose hermit. However there is also the issue of
what is being used to keep the organism alive. In the case of the fetus
this is the body of a woman who is significantly affected by the organisms
presence. In the case of the hermit it is a machine, which as far as we
know couldn't care less what it is used for.
If you accept this distinction and acknowledge that in terms of
their relevant characteristics an embryo, fetus or baby is
only a *potential* human then it follows that denying a woman
the right to an abortion is effectively the same as forcing her
to create new human life. It is not a huge step from here to
infer that she is also morally obliged to allow herself to be
impregnated.
True, and I've heard this argument before. However, this is not a huge step
that I'm willing to take. I've stated that the delineation for when a fetus
should be given the right to life is when we can "reasonably expect" a fetus
to become a human-being. Given this definition, gametes should not be
afforded the right to life since gametes alone will never yield a reasonable
chance at life. Two gametes of opposite sexes must join under conditions
(i.e. in a woman's fallopian tubes) such that implantation is possible.
Only then would I say there was a reasonable expectation of life. Of course
your definition of reasonable expectation can be different, but I wouldn't
ascribe to the belief that woman are morally obligated to impregnate
themselves for this reason.
If a woman was to be constantly impregnated then there is a very reasonable
expectation that one of her eggs will gain the chance to experience human
life. You have already accepted that 'potential human' is a better way to
describe a fetus than 'human' and yet you still wish to differentiate between
forcing a woman to create the first step towards the creation of human life
and forcing her to take the second.
I don't see why the fact that the formation of a fetus makes it theoretically
possible to determine which of the eggs has the potential to become
a human makes any difference at all. The bottom line is that in either
case you are forcing the woman to create life.
I guess in a way there is a sense of accountability associated with it. You
don't necessarily have to make new life, but you shouldn't stop the
potential for life once there's a reasonable chance it exists.
But in the meaningful sense of possessing the characteristics you
associate with humanity, the fetus is not yet a life. If constant
attempts to fertilize a woman are made the chances are that a human
life will result. Therefore there is great potential for life within
a chaste woman.
This is
consistent with our behavior in the rest of the world. For instance, we
would not remove life support from a person who has been unconscious for 1
hour because we don't yet know the chance that the person my regain
consciousness. You could say that a reasonable chance may still exist, so
people are hesitant to exterminate that potential for life. On the other
hand, when a person has been a vegetable for several years and doctors are
not optimistic about the recovery of the comatose patient, then family or
executors have the authority to order life support removed from the patient
which will almost always result in death. We, as a society, generally
accept this since the expectation of life is so low we don't view the death
as murder.
See above. There is a very important difference between a woman and a machine.
Now my experience tells me that life is generally a positive
thing but in order to determine the moral status of eg forced
pregnancy it is not enough to consider the quantity of life.
Quality is also important and there is no doubt that forced
pregnancy is *very* detrimental in this regard. If we are to assign
values to each life, (negative numbers for those who wish
themselves dead, positive numbers for those who wish themselves
alive) we should then IMO seek to maximise the sum total of
these numbers. From this simplistic PoV it is *possible* that
forced pregnancy is justifiable.
It doesn't even have to be an issue about maximizing net happiness, or
quality of life. All you have to believe is that the potential for life
should be protected at all possible costs.
That is something I certainly do not believe. Life is only as good as
the experiences it affords us. In most cases this can be assumed to be net
positive because we would sacrifice a lot of happiness in order to hold
on to our own lives. However as I have pointed out previously, you must
also consider that the resources of the planet can only support a finite
amount of life. I consider that saying already existing humans
have a right to stay alive but no obligation to create more life
to be a pragmatic position to take.
We all have a strong interest in asserting our
right to life and it is impossible to do this while also
proposing the right to kill other already existing humans.
I also believe that a failure on the part of society in
general, to accept the assertion that human life may only be
taken in exceptional circumstances, would lead to a significant
reduction in our overall quality of life. On the other hand
I can not see any practical purpose that is served by asserting
the compulsion to create new human life. To my mind the
relationship between abortion and murder is analogous to the
relationship between not giving and stealing.
For me, there is no "practical purpose" of protecting fetuses. The
practical approach would probably be to allow for abortions since that would
result in the least conflict.
There are many ways of looking at the abortion issue and from an intellectual
standpoint yours are by no means easy to refute. However the same can be said
for the arguments advanced on the pro-choice side and with so much room
for disagreement, pragmatic concerns and the concept that you need to be sure
something is wrong in order to prohibit it must be taken very seriously.
However, the problem is the nature of murder.
Murder is final. Once a person has been killed, the potential for that
person to experience new life has been erased forever. With any other
crime, this is not the case. When you steal bread from someone, that person
can get new bread. If not bread, something else that can fill the role that
bread did. Humans are fairly resilient buggers, and we can take a lot of
punishment. Any other crime committed against us and we at least have the
chance to recover from it and continue to live life. We may be saddened at
the moment, but we will be able to laugh again and love again. However,
with death, there is no such ability to recover.
In this way, I think murder trumps all other crimes since without life, or
the potential for life, everything becomes completely meaningless (unless
you believe in an afterlife). If you disagree with this, and feel murder is
no different than stealing, I guess we just have a fundamentally different
value system by which we assess the importance of "life." In that case, I
guess I cannot offer further comments other than to say I see your point of
view, and agree to disagree.
i must have expressed myself poorly if I gave the impression that I consider
stealing to be even in the same ball-park as murder.
However, if you view human-life and thus the
potential for human-life as a sacred commodity that should be defended at
nearly all costs, then I cannot see how abortion can be reconciled.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Before I go on, lets clarify one thing. Why is murder bad? |
07 Dec 2003 09:09:20 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 17:58:20 -0800, "skang" <skang17@nospam.yahoo.com>
wrote:
.....
True, and I've heard this argument before. However, this is not a huge step
that I'm willing to take. I've stated that the delineation for when a fetus
should be given the right to life is when we can "reasonably expect" a fetus
to become a human-being. ....
We do not grant a 'right to life' to someething at the expense of a
human being's bodily rights. When will you acknowledge the woman and
her human rights?
.
|
|
|
| User: "skang" |
|
| Title: A secular reasoning to anti-choice, part deux |
07 Dec 2003 10:48:52 PM |
|
|
The following is a continuation of my thread entitled, "A secular reasoning
to pro-life." I've been getting a lot of replies and it's hard to keep
track of all the separate side arguments so I thought I would recap what I
thought were the most important ideas. For an elaboration on the points I'm
about to make, please refer to the original post as well as the replies that
were sent between myself and other subscribers of this newsgroup. Thanks!
I've stated that the delineation for when a fetus
should be given the right to life is when we can "reasonably expect" a
fetus
to become a human-being. ....
We do not grant a 'right to life' to someething at the expense of a
human being's bodily rights. When will you acknowledge the woman and
her human rights?
You're correct. Under our current legal system, we do not "grant a right to
life" at the expense of a woman and her bodily rights. But that's exactly
what I'm trying to argue against: To be consistent with our other laws and
beliefs surrounding life and murder, we SHOULD grant a fetus's right to life
above that of a woman's right to her body for all the reasons I have stated.
To recap:
1. Under my moral framework, and probably the moral framework of most
people, murder is the greatest crime that can be committed against another
individual.
2. Murdering a human-being is distinguished from "killing" (i.e. killing an
animal) in that it deprives a human-being of the potential to live "life"
further. This is to say, murdering a person removes their ability to live
the next second, minute, hour of their life and to experience new things
such as joy, love, and even sadness. It is not simply the act of killing
that is we find immoral (i.e. the act of shooting someone), it is the act of
depriving someone of the life ahead of them that we find immoral as well.
For example, when someone points a gun at us, we aren't scared because it
will hurt when the bullet enters our body, we are afraid that our life will
cease to exist and that we won't be able to experience anything else
afterward.
3. What is a human-being? To me, a human-being is anything that exhibits
the characteristics that I've come to expect of a human being. This
includes, but is not limited to, sentience, imagination, emotion, and
cognitive thought. I do not define human-beings biologically, and thus
create the possibility for extra-terrestrials, artificial-intelligence, and
other animals that exhibit these traits to be included as "human-beings."
4. But does a "person" actually have to display all those properties to
have their right to life protected? Infants and newborn babies do not
exhibit all of these qualities of human-beings. However, we protect their
right to life because we know that in a few months or years they will
possess these qualities. In addtion, think about a person in a temporary
coma. Obviously, a person in a coma does not exhibit all those qualities of
a "human-being" either. However, if we reasonably expected a person to come
out of their coma, we would protect that person's right to life. In other
words, because we know the person will come out of the coma and display all
those properties of a human-being, we simply treat their status in a coma as
an aberration in the life of a human-being and still protect them as though
they were a human being.
5. Even though a fetus is in it's prenatal state does not exhibit the
qualities of a "human-being," I argue the situation is analogous to that of
an infant or the comatose patient. This is to say, we can reasonably expect
that the fetus will develop into a person that will go on to live life.
What is important is that abortion deprives the fetus of it's potential to
live life in exactly the same way that it deprives the the comotose patient
or an infant of their potential to live life. Consequently, I see abortion
as tanamount to murder.
6. A woman does have a right over her body but that cannot justify murder
with regard to the fetus. Namely, we value the right to life as more
important than many other rights. This is why we jail murders and take away
their right to move about freely--to protect our right to life.
7. What about our right over our own bodies? A compelling argument has
been made, however, that we protect people's right over their own body above
that of a person's right to live. Examples are blood and organ donations.
When a person has a disease and needs an organ transplant, the government
cannot force you to give up your organ. This is true. However, it is not
generally true that a person contracts a disease as a direct result of your
actions (i.e. when someone needs blood, it usually isn't because of
something you did to them). In most cases, it is neither because of your
actions nor the other person's actions that the person needs a donation;
diseases are not really the result of any persons actions, except perhaps
their own (i.e. poor diet).
However, the dependence of a fetus upon it's mother is a direct result of
the woman's actions. The fetus didn't impregnate the mother of it's own
will, and nothing spontaneous produced the fetus either. It wasn't simply
"bad luck" that caused the mother to become pregnant in the same way you can
say it was "bad luck" a person contracted a disease. The actions of the
woman directly brought about the existence of the fetus as well as it's
dependence on the woman (her male partner is also responsible and has as
much obligation to seeing that the fetus survives as she does. However, his
role in that process is virtually nil so he will be omitted from further
discussion). Since the biological dependence of the fetus is a result of
the actions of the mother, I don't think she has the option of simply
denying her resources. Suppose I was driving my car at high speeds and hit
you, causing significant bodily damage to you. It turns out that without an
immediate blood and kidney transplant, you will die (just play along). It
turns out I am a perfect match. Now, I have the right to refuse my blood
and organs. However, you will die. When you die, I will be prosecuted for
vehicular manslaughter. On the other hand, if I give you what you need and
you survive, I will probably be charged with a much lesser crime.
For all these reasons, I think the fetus' has a right to life and that this
right supercedes a woman's right to her body. The woman can deny resources
to the fetus, but then she (and her male partner) should be held accountable
for the death of the fetus (perhaps not murder, but along the lines of
manslaughter).
Wow, that was so much more coherent than my first post. Thanks for everyone
who replied since it helped me work through my thoughts that were somewhat
unorganized before.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: A secular reasoning to anti-choice, part deux |
08 Dec 2003 10:57:36 PM |
|
|
skang <skang17@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
We do not grant a 'right to life' to someething at the expense of a
human being's bodily rights. When will you acknowledge the woman and
her human rights?
You're correct. Under our current legal system, we do not "grant a right to
life" at the expense of a woman and her bodily rights. But that's exactly
what I'm trying to argue against: To be consistent with our other laws and
beliefs surrounding life and murder, we SHOULD grant a fetus's right to life
above that of a woman's right to her body for all the reasons I have stated.
Then you too must give up your freedom, your money, and parts of your
body.
To recap:
1. Under my moral framework, and probably the moral framework of most
people, murder is the greatest crime that can be committed against another
individual.
Abortion has nothing at all to do with murder.
2. Murdering a human-being is distinguished from "killing" (i.e. killing an
animal) in that it deprives a human-being of the potential to live "life"
further. This is to say, murdering a person removes their ability to live
the next second, minute, hour of their life and to experience new things
such as joy, love, and even sadness. It is not simply the act of killing
that is we find immoral (i.e. the act of shooting someone), it is the act of
depriving someone of the life ahead of them that we find immoral as well.
Then you are immoral.
3. What is a human-being? To me, a human-being is anything that exhibits
the characteristics that I've come to expect of a human being.
Circular definitions are crap.
4. But does a "person" actually have to display all those properties to
have their right to life protected? Infants and newborn babies do not
exhibit all of these qualities of human-beings. However, we protect their
right to life because we know that in a few months or years they will
possess these qualities.
Wrong. We protect them because they are persons.
5. Even though a fetus is in it's prenatal state does not exhibit the
qualities of a "human-being," I argue the situation is analogous to that of
an infant or the comatose patient.
Skipping over all of the self-serving *****, your argument boils
down to: It's a human being if you says so, and she's the slave of
the fetus because you says so.
7. What about our right over our own bodies? A compelling argument has
been made, however, that we protect people's right over their own body above
that of a person's right to live. Examples are blood and organ donations.
When a person has a disease and needs an organ transplant, the government
cannot force you to give up your organ.
That's right.
However,
There is no "however".
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "golddodgearies" |
|
| Title: Re: A secular reasoning to anti-choice, part deux |
09 Dec 2003 07:48:14 AM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in message news:<br3ko0$7ba$1@bolt.sonic.net>...
Abortion has nothing at all to do with murder.
You can't prove that. The victims are children, murderer.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: A secular reasoning to anti-choice, part deux |
09 Dec 2003 08:08:50 AM |
|
|
(golddodgearies) wrote in
news:44e87bc2.0312090548.2c37ad75@posting.google.com:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in message
news:<br3ko0$7ba$1@bolt.sonic.net>...
Abortion has nothing at all to do with murder.
You can't prove that.
the words are mutually exclusive, assuming one
knows the meaning fo the words.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Krisblake" |
|
| Title: Re: A secular reasoning to anti-choice, part deux |
09 Dec 2003 08:19:37 AM |
|
|
On 9 Dec 2003 05:48:14 -0800,
(golddodgearies) wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in message news:<br3ko0$7ba$1@bolt.sonic.net>...
Abortion has nothing at all to do with murder.
You can't prove that.
You are unable (legal) abortion is murder, aside from the obvious.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: A secular reasoning to anti-choice, part deux |
09 Dec 2003 10:22:03 PM |
|
|
golddodgearies <golddodgearies@yahoo.com> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in message news:<br3ko0$7ba$1@bolt.sonic.net>...
Abortion has nothing at all to do with murder.
You can't prove that.
Can and have, terrorist.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Purple" |
|
| Title: Re: A secular reasoning to anti-choice, part deux |
09 Dec 2003 07:09:56 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in message news:<br3ko0$7ba$1@bolt.sonic.net>...
3. What is a human-being? To me, a human-being is anything that exhibits
the characteristics that I've come to expect of a human being.
Circular definitions are crap.
That particular circular definition may be lacking in rigour but it is
nonetheless useful. We all have a good idea of what a human being is,
based on experience. We also know how valuable human life is based
on experience. The useful thing about Skang's definition is that it
can be used to correctly deduce that the fetus is not yet human and
forcing a woman to allow it use of her bodily resources is to force her
to create new human life.
4. But does a "person" actually have to display all those properties to
have their right to life protected? Infants and newborn babies do not
exhibit all of these qualities of human-beings. However, we protect their
right to life because we know that in a few months or years they will
possess these qualities.
Wrong. We protect them because they are persons.
But this reason for protecting them has no validity. See John Savard's
post to this thread for a coherent explaination of this point.
5. Even though a fetus is in it's prenatal state does not exhibit the
qualities of a "human-being," I argue the situation is analogous to that of
an infant or the comatose patient.
Skipping over all of the self-serving *****, your argument boils
down to: It's a human being if you says so, and she's the slave of
the fetus because you says so.
He actually presents a case which deserves a proper critique. So far
as I have seen no one has been able to invalidate the analogy between
a fetus and a comatose patient. The relevant difference is that unlike
a woman, an artificial life support machine couldn't care less what it
is used for.
7. What about our right over our own bodies? A compelling argument has
been made, however, that we protect people's right over their own body above
that of a person's right to live. Examples are blood and organ donations.
When a person has a disease and needs an organ transplant, the government
cannot force you to give up your organ.
That's right.
However,
There is no "however".
Yes there is. Skang has made clear that he is not fitting his moral framework
around existing law. The question is therefore not whether the government can
force you to give up an organ or blood but whether it should be able to.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: A secular reasoning to anti-choice, part deux |
09 Dec 2003 10:27:04 PM |
|
|
Purple <purple2510@hotmail.com> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in message news:<br3ko0$7ba$1@bolt.sonic.net>...
3. What is a human-being? To me, a human-being is anything that exhibits
the characteristics that I've come to expect of a human being.
Circular definitions are crap.
That particular circular definition may be lacking in rigour but it is
nonetheless useful. We all have a good idea of what a human being is,
based on experience.
Do we?
We also know how valuable human life is based
Whoops, you made a controversial claim without any support.
No pass.
4. But does a "person" actually have to display all those properties to
have their right to life protected? Infants and newborn babies do not
exhibit all of these qualities of human-beings. However, we protect their
right to life because we know that in a few months or years they will
possess these qualities.
Wrong. We protect them because they are persons.
But this reason for protecting them has no validity.
Sure does.
See John Savard's
No. Savard's arguments consists of 1) defining human beings to be
whatever he wants them to be, and 2) making getting pregnant a serious
crime.
5. Even though a fetus is in it's prenatal state does not exhibit the
qualities of a "human-being," I argue the situation is analogous to that of
an infant or the comatose patient.
Skipping over all of the self-serving *****, your argument boils
down to: It's a human being if you says so, and she's the slave of
the fetus because you say so.
He actually presents a case which deserves a proper critique.
No, he doesn't. Sex isn't a crime.
So far
as I have seen no one has been able to invalidate the analogy between
a fetus and a comatose patient.
Trivially. Nobody is forced to provide the use of their body, suffer
pain and injury and expense, or risk their life in order to keep a
patient alive.
The relevant difference is that unlike
a woman, an artificial life support machine couldn't care less what it
is used for.
See? It wasn't so hard to invalidate that analogy.
7. What about our right over our own bodies? A compelling argument has
been made, however, that we protect people's right over their own body above
that of a person's right to live. Examples are blood and organ donations.
When a person has a disease and needs an organ transplant, the government
cannot force you to give up your organ.
That's right.
However,
There is no "however".
Yes there is.
No, there is not. It has been so ruled more than once that the
government may not force you to give up parts of your body.
Skang has made clear that he is not fitting his moral framework
around existing law.
Why should I give a ***** about _his_ "moral framework"? Anybody who
would treat sex like a crime and pregnant women like slaves doesn't
strike me as being a particularly moral person.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Purple" |
|
| Title: Re: A secular reasoning to anti-choice, part deux |
10 Dec 2003 07:32:44 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in message news:<br67ao$5oa$1@bolt.sonic.net>...
Purple <purple2510@hotmail.com> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote in message news:<br3ko0$7ba$1@bolt.sonic.net>...
3. What is a human-being? To me, a human-being is anything that exhibits
the characteristics that I've come to expect of a human being.
Circular definitions are crap.
That particular circular definition may be lacking in rigour but it is
nonetheless useful. We all have a good idea of what a human being is,
based on experience.
Do we?
In your experience of life you have encountered enough human beings to
know what makes a human being a human being.
We also know how valuable human life is based
Whoops, you made a controversial claim without any support.
Your experience of living life tells you how valuable your
life is to you. As a crude approximation extrapolate to other
human beings, then adjust based on your observations of them.
No pass.
4. But does a "person" actually have to display all those properties to
have their right to life protected? Infants and newborn babies do not
exhibit all of these qualities of human-beings. However, we protect their
right to life because we know that in a few months or years they will
possess these qualities.
Wrong. We protect them because they are persons.
But this reason for protecting them has no validity.
Sure does.
See John Savard's
No. Savard's arguments consists of 1) defining human beings to be
whatever he wants them to be, and 2) making getting pregnant a serious
crime.
In the post I was referring to he says: " A decision about who has
rights
and who doesn't has to be based on *first principles*, not an
arbitrary choice without reasons."
Saying "we protect them because they are persons" is as arbitrary as
"we protect them because they are white male adults".
5. Even though a fetus is in it's prenatal state does not exhibit the
qualities of a "human-being," I argue the situation is analogous to that of
an infant or the comatose patient.
Skipping over all of the self-serving *****, your argument boils
down to: It's a human being if you says so, and she's the slave of
the fetus because you say so.
He actually presents a case which deserves a proper critique.
No, he doesn't. Sex isn't a crime.
So far
as I have seen no one has been able to invalidate the analogy between
a fetus and a comatose patient.
Trivially. Nobody is forced to provide the use of their body, suffer
pain and injury and expense, or risk their life in order to keep a
patient alive.
All very true but it invalidates the comparison between a mother's
womb
and a life support machine, not the comparison between a fetus and a
comatose.
The relevant difference is that unlike
a woman, an artificial life support machine couldn't care less what it
is used for.
See? It wasn't so hard to | | | | | | | | | |
