The Abortion Thread

[zabu of nΩd]

So Pat... what exactly are you hoping to get out of pissing contests like this? You're not that understimulated in your free time, are you?

 

[King Richard]

oh you crazy kids

 

[Einherjar86]

So Pat... what exactly are you hoping to get out of pissing contests like this?

Practice? Granted, this conversation hasn't been that challenging.

 

[skeptik]

only if it's fatal yeah i agree. if it's late term they should try to save it though.

This is not about what somebody "should" do. Ideally, abortions would never happen. This is about what is moral/ethical/justifiable.

 

[Dak]

So what about before 18 weeks?

/stirs

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

An embryo has no rights. Rights do not apply to a potential but only to an actual being. A child cannot gain any rights until it is born. Basically the living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).

Abortion is a moral right and should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved, morally, absolutely nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered.

Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?

 

[Dak]

So even though a child could exist outside the womb a month or more early with no special care, until it finally gets around to popping out, it has no rights?

Seems quite arbitrary.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

I am 100% pro choice, but a lot of you pro-choicers need to review an embryology textbook. A fetus is alive and a homo sapien fetus is a human. When people misconstrue the basic terms of the debate, it only hurts their cause.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Which is why i avoid the definition of "human" altogether and stick to a nuts-and-bolts discussion of value.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

If any of you are confused or taken in by the argument that the cells of an embryo are living human cells remember that so are all the cells of your body, including the cells of your skin, your tonsils, or your ruptured appendix and that cutting them is "murder", according to the notions of that idea.

also a potentiality is not the equivalent of an actuality. a human being’s life begins at birth.

 

[skeptik]

I didn't even know that embryology textbooks existed.

Also, why does the father have no right whatsoever, Jimmy?

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

I thought my last question/statement(Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?) answers yours. Rights are not in question here, for the Father, or anyone else for that matter. As long as you follow the principal "you own your body", you own the choice to which you are subject.

 

[MasterOLightning]

The last few pages have been strangely void of discussions about personhood. The fetus is clearly human in a biological sense. But a fetus is not a person. Fully physiologically developed humans are also sometimes not persons. There's a reason that a lot of people choose to end the life of someone in a vegetative state. While some may argue that the fetus has potential to be a person, so too does someone in a vegetative state. Ending the life of a human in a non-person state does no extensive harm to that human, and potentially alleviates much pain to the people coping with that situation. Society is not worse for wear when this happens.

 

[Einherjar86]

The last few pages have been strangely void of discussions about personhood. The fetus is clearly human in a biological sense. But a fetus is not a person.

Thank you. Jesus Christ, we can use the term "human" as long as we define it culturally, which is what I intended. When we speak of things like "humanism," or the "humane," we aren't speaking biologically. We're talking about values construed as being human values (i.e. what makes us persons capable of interaction in society).

Fully physiologically developed humans are also sometimes not persons. There's a reason that a lot of people choose to end the life of someone in a vegetative state. While some may argue that the fetus has potential to be a person, so too does someone in a vegetative state. Ending the life of a human in a non-person state does no extensive harm to that human, and potentially alleviates much pain to the people coping with that situation. Society is not worse for wear when this happens.

I don't think it even needs to be stated that I agree with this.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

The last few pages have been strangely void of discussions about personhood. The fetus is clearly human in a biological sense. But a fetus is not a person. Fully physiologically developed humans are also sometimes not persons. There's a reason that a lot of people choose to end the life of someone in a vegetative state. While some may argue that the fetus has potential to be a person, so too does someone in a vegetative state. Ending the life of a human in a non-person state does no extensive harm to that human, and potentially alleviates much pain to the people coping with that situation. Society is not worse for wear when this happens.

I think the person/human distinction might be helpful to this discussion. However, it begs for a definition and qualification of "person". Is "person" primarily a legal status, an individual who fulfills a certain number of criterion or is it actually an ontologically distinct category? In other words, is "person" a culturally constructed identity/ status (be it social or legal) or is it a unqiue way of being?

These are really important questions because the definition of "personhood" is being used in a wide array of ways. A few years ago tr US supreme court voting in favor of defining corporations as persons. This year either Virgina or West Virgina (can't remember what state) passed the "personhood act," which defines any human, from the moment of conception to the moment of death as a person. These examples show how diversly the term is applied.

That's why I think it's important that we are clear and specific when distinguishing person from human and what the former term means.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Thank you. Jesus Christ, we can use the term "human" as long as we define it culturally, which is what I intended. When we speak of things like "humanism," or the "humane," we aren't speaking biologically. We're talking about values construed as being human values (i.e. what makes us persons capable of interaction in society).

I understand that there are multiple meanings to the term "human". However, in this context what we are ultimately debating is a medical procedure. Medical discourse is primarily biological. Therefore, the biological definition of "human" has priority in the abortion debate. When in Rome do as the Romans do. Otherwise you are at risk for committing equivocation. That's why the human/person distinction can be helpful.

 

[Mort Divine]

Pro-choicers don't need "shit on them" because the rights of women currently a part of this world will in all cases trump those of the unborn.

 

[PhlegethonVeins]

An outside viewpoint :

With arguments put forth in this thread, Pro-choice is dominating thoroughly.

 

[MasterOLightning]

I don't think anyone here is going to bat for 3rd trimester abortions in situations that aren't medical emergencies for the pregnant woman. Don't dwell on that. I want women to do what is best for them, and there's not really a reasonable case where it takes them 6-9 months to figure that out.

In regards to personhood, that's really not a bridge that a human crosses until some time after being out of the womb. It probably takes well after a year for infants to take on substantial characteristics of a person, i.e. a personality, specific relationships with others, ability to have two-way communications, advanced brain functions.

I definitely understand arguments against abortions when the fetus would be viable. I really don't see much difference between an 8 month fetus and a 1 month infant. I would draw the personhood line somewhere between birth and a year old, but I'm pragmatic enough to accept that the argument will always end with birth.

In my mind, these debates always take a particularly self-centered view. Let's look at what's best for society. When we talk about abortion, we aren't talking about husbands and wives wiping out a fetus at 30 weeks. We are largely talking about people who were not ready to have a child, and they want to make a decision very early on.

 

[MasterOLightning]

I don't think anyone here is going to bat for 3rd trimester abortions in situations that aren't medical emergencies for the pregnant woman. Don't dwell on that. I want women to do what is best for them, and there's not really a reasonable case where it takes them 6-9 months to figure that out.

In regards to personhood, that's really not a bridge that a human crosses until some time after being out of the womb. It probably takes well after a year for infants to take on substantial characteristics of a person, i.e. a personality, specific relationships with others, ability to have two-way communications, advanced brain functions.

I definitely understand arguments against abortions when the fetus would be viable. I really don't see much difference between an 8 month fetus and a 1 month infant. I would draw the personhood line somewhere between birth and a year old, but I'm pragmatic enough to accept that the argument will always end with birth.

In my mind, these debates always take a particularly self-centered view. Let's look at what's best for society. When we talk about abortion, we aren't talking about husbands and wives wiping out a fetus at 30 weeks. We are largely talking about people who were not ready to have a child, and they want to make a decision very early on.

The George Carlin viewpoint is worth considering. Protecting a fetus is a bullshit stance if you aren't willing to fund it's upbringing for the next 18 years. If that thing is so valuable, you'd better pay for it to go to school, because you can't blame that kid if it had bad parents. And you'd better insure that kid too, because it's not the kid's fault if he/she had no insurance.