Value of life
Offline So, someone started a thread wondering why an atheist might be a "homophobe"
I shall start one about life and abortion.
How could a free thinking atheist, even consider abortion except under the most dire of situations?
I am an athesit and I realize when I am dead, I am dead. Gone, that's it.
To me life is sacred. I am very anti war, anti death everything basicly that may cause death unwarranted or unwanted.. Unless perhaps someone kills, tortures etc, then perhaps they should have the same done to them, because they have proven they have no care for the most important thing we have, life.
Sure, if you want to go skydiving and chance your own life in this fashion, it's up to you.
Using religion in anyway to propogate war and play like "oh if they die they go to a better place" is BS. They are simply dead and their shot at life, is over.
Abortion, as I define it, is mutilating an unborn fetus prematurely to insure it's death. In my eye's you have just taken away someones legitimate chance at life. Yes, for me this is at conception, you just started a chain of events that will result in another human life. If you stop that you have broken a link in that chain and taken away that potential.
Sure people screw up with sex and get pregnant but as a "pro lifer" I feel they should have to deal with those consequences. We are not animals haphazzardly running about having sex when we have any opportunity.. we are supposed to be more intelligent than that.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
- Login to post comments
Mod delete thread please, I have an opinion where it does not belong.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
Without bothering to read the rest of the thread, which is no doubt fascinating...
I don't believe there is any reason to classify a fetus as a living being until an arbitrary point that I am uncertain of. Certainly before the first trimester is over you are not aborting anything, it is just a clump of cells. My sperm has potential for life but I don't have any worries about wasting it. The same with eggs. Nothing magical happens when sperm and egg meet, so I don't see why that should be worth getting excited about.
As far as when I get squeamish, well, end of second trimester and third trimester. Although, if I am honest with myself I can't think of a rational reason to ban abortion during those times, besides the fact that it makes me feel bad.
So, summary: Working brain + experiences = human life. No working brain + no experiences = tissue sample.
The golden rule is usually a decent arbiter...would I mind if I had been aborted in the first trimester? No.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
You would not mind because you obviously would not be here lawl
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
Ah but mellestad, would you have minded had you been aborted in the third trimester?
Ironic, I know but it brings me to my point. I really don't like the idea of creating an arbitrary line and saying “this is where it ends”. Why should the line be at any particular point and not at some other point in the pregnancy.
If memory serves, the original idea of the third trimester was because that reflected on the state of the medical art at the time. After six months, the fetus stood a better than even chance of survival if it was removed from the mother's body. Not that very many doctors would be willing to do such a thing in the first place. The basic idea is kind of gross if you think about it.
However, that was what, like 30~40 years ago? And has medical science progressed in that time? Sure, it has in lots of ways and I would not be at all surprised if the point of viability is earler than it used to be.
Really, I have no problem with late term abortions. As a realistic matter, how many women are going to go through with eight and a half months of pregnancy and then decide to end it prematurely? Not many would be my guess and those that do are probably going to have a pretty strong reason for doing so.
And when law makers try to write narrow definitions such as rape/incest/life of the mother, they simply cannot know what would be a reason that they did not think of. What about an industrial accident that spills millions of gallons of chemicals? Not that any of us want to think about the idea but a woman could easily be well along in a pregnancy only to find out that the baby has been severely damaged as a consequence. Sure, the kid may be viable but then he may end up retarded or will have a life expectancy of only a few years. Should a woman in that case have to bring the baby to term because she does not have the time to get a new law written?
=
well i think an interesting way to look at this is legally
for instance: we know the fetus is a legal entity, it has inheritance rights, and a physician can be sued and held liable if he harms the fetus, i dont see how in one instance someone can be held liable but in another instance, with the fetus being the at the exact same stage of development, you can actually pay a doctor to kill it
everyone should be against roe v. wade as it legalizes abortion right up into the 3rd trimester
my position is that the states should deal with this issue, its a hard issue, especially when you get variables like rape and incest involved, so i want the federal govt out of it, the more difficult the issue, the more local the solutions should be
in a way the states already deal with a similar issue, the states decide if a fetus dies in a car accident where the mother dies (like from a drunk driver or something) or there is a murder of a pregnant mother if the perpetrator is held liable for killing 1 or 2 people
for me its difficult to hang the life question on the whims of the mother
hitchens also makes a great point in that the feeling that the fetus is alive should be protected in some way is an innate feeling, he gives the example that if you saw a woman being beaten on the street we would be outraged, yet dont you feel that its instantly worse if you know the woman is pregnant
Depends on how pregnant. If she is unable to fight back because of her pregnancy, then yeah, I would feel it was worse. But then, I would feel it was worse if it were a child or a small animal. Anytime someone is abused because they are smaller, weaker, less able to fight back makes me feel the beating is worse.
As for the rest of your post, you ain't a woman, so you don't have a clue.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
well isnt that stupid remark
i dont need to be a woman, its a legal argument
and i dont see how my position, on this being a state matter, isnt the best position since it clears up alot of problems
I agree, which is why I mention that in my post. I really can't think of a reason not to allow late term abortions besides my own squeamishness.
The thing is though, I think you *have* to create an arbitrary line somewhere, even if that is the first breath. Technically, is a two day old child much more advanced than it was three days before, still inside the mother? I doubt it.
So there is my personal arbitrary line: 1st and 2nd trimester at will, 3rd trimester with extenuating circumstance. Totally arbitrary? Yea. Would I feel bad if someone aborts a late term kid? Not really. I would rather allow later term abortions than ban it. I think abortion is a social good.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
I've read that "pro-choice" website and what a load of morons.
I mean they basically said opposing abortion is a "hidden mysogonist/religious" agenda. Yeah, and then they piss and moan that "anti-choicers" generalize them too much.
I think I'll write them a nice letter, and see how they react. While on here, I'll tell the guy who wrote that article to fuck off and pull his head out of his ass.
Oh no, it's Pineapple. And the topic is abortion.
/grabs popcorn
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
Yeah, I tried to avoid, but I just couldn't.
The letter I just sent:
And I will post the reply when[if] it comes.
Until you can BECOME PREGNANT YOURSELF, you do not have enough facts to come to an informed opinion. How difficult is that to understand?
I think I have to disagree here. That line of reasoning is fraught with peril. Only military men can talk about the military, etc.
Is pregnancy really that mysterious?
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Some aspects of military life, yes. You'd be unqualified to have a strong opinion on, for instance, the effects of PTSD in people who've participated in combat unless you'd experienced it yourself.
I tend to think we can use logic and rational thought to determine a correct course of action even without personal experience. I imagine there are many medical professionals who treat PTSD who do not, in fact, have PTSD. The entire field of psychiatry would collapse if your line of reasoning held true, wouldn't it?
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
I addressed the legal definitions in an earlier post. To paraphrase:
Under the definition of murder, abortion is NOT murder. Murder is defined as being unlawful killing to distinguish it from self-defense, state executions, police actions, and national defense. Like all of those, abortions are legal, therefore they aren't murder. QED
I don't see how it being a state matter will cure anything, except people will continue to yell about it. My abortion was done in California while I lived in Arizona. Because at the time, abortion was a state matter and it was only legal in California and New York. I couldn't afford to go to New York at the time. All it means is women will travel across state lines for abortion services if that is the only way to get them. My mother expressed her willingness to take my sister and I to Mexico if we ever needed an abortion. Abortion being legal in all 50 states is supposed to mean young women don't have to travel to get the reproductive services they need.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
There is a great deal of difference. If you have a degree in psychiatry, have worked with patients with PTSD (including but not only military), then I would agree you most likely had enough information to have an opinion on the subject. Otherwise, if you just walk in from the street and spout your mouth off about logic and rational thought, I'd toss your ass out the door.
Are you an obstetrician? A gynecologist? Female? Present at the birth of your own children? No? Then you don't have a clue.
In the US, maternal death rates vary between 10-13 per 100,000 pregnancies. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_03/sr03_033.pdf Yeah, some of those women were in poor health to start with, but some started healthy. Additionally, there is a chance of permanent physical damage every time you are pregnant. And not all of the money Joan Rivers has spent of cosmetic surgery could fix all of them. And I mean, not physical beauty, but damage. Torn muscles, ligaments, back problems, incontinence, never ending infections. I wasn't kidding when I posted if I had it to do over I would have fewer children. Maybe I wouldn't have back problems as bad. The point of this rant is that pregnancy, while not a disease, is not trivial.
Having a child is forever. The man can trip off, send a check once a month and never have to deal with the little darling directly. Now, if you are a divorced dad and try to be involved with your children, great! But not all dads are like that and as a society we don't make the dad do much more than send money. I am not happy about this. I think every dad should be more than a wallet. But I can't fix other people. Mom is usually stuck with the job - forever. It doesn't end when your child graduates from high school or college. It is literally life changing. You don't give up nine months, you give up your life and your freedom forever.
Now, should mom have thought of this before telling her boyfriend yes? Sure. And if she got so stoned she didn't know she was raped until the next morning, she really should go get the morning after pill in my opinion. But not everyone does. And not everyone uses birth control - and there are lots of reasons not to. For some women, they can not tolerate the pill. Some don't want to risk getting infections from IUDs. Some stupidly think their religion should dictate their use of contraceptives. Some had no intention of getting high and pregnant all in one swell foop. Regardless of how or why or who, every woman should have the option of taking care of her reproductive health in the way that is best for her.
As for my abortion, what I regret is getting pregnant. I do not regret the abortion. I don't have breast cancer. I went on to raise 3 sons who think I am a good mom, regardless of my own opinion of my parenting skills. My life was not ruined, and I am not depressed because of something that happened 40 years ago. Given the EXACT circumstances, I would do it again. (Though at this point, if I got pregnant, we could safely call it a triumph of science over good sense.)
Until we convince everyone to use birth control responsibly, until every child is wanted and loved and supported financially prior to birth, and until every pregnancy results in a healthy baby and mother, safe legal abortions will be necessary.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
i agree pro chioce ftw
but in all seriousness a fetus is not a human people it forms a human
Brilliantly put.
I'm getting mixed signals...I honestly can't tell if you agree with me or not, since you seem to do both in your post. I am also unsure about how the bulk of your post actually relates to what I wrote, or where you directing that at a general audience?
Am I wrong? You say, "Otherwise, if you just walk in from the street and spout your mouth off about logic and rational thought, I'd toss your ass out the door." which seems to be an (angry?) swipe at what I wrote, but then every example you give aligns with my overall point....
I'm going to take a stab at this and say you agree with me though. We both seem to be saying personal experience is not a prerequisite for an informed opinion on any particular subject. You can study something or learn about something or reason out the facts as you know them and hold an opinion without actually having experience said thing.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
I think you can disagree with what atomic said, or not (I don't even remember what his point was), but it annoys me when people blow off an opinion without cause because someone does not meet some arbitrary metric they have established.
An idea is valid or invalid outside of the person pushing that idea, so if you think his idea is dumb, explain why it is dumb instead of saying, "You're not a woman/didn't go to college/aren't Muslim/don't eat meat/hate sports/etc/etc/etc, STFU." I think we can do better than that here...rational responses, and all that.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
I'll be more blunt. I believe that personal experience in some cases is very necessary. The experience may come through education and vicarious experience. That is okay. Absolutely no education and no experience? Not okay. If you can't show me that you have some sort of experience in the pregnancy and birth processes, I'm not likely to value your opinion, rational or not.
Nothing ticks me off more than some single guy without children to pretend he knows what it is like to be pregnant, and to have to make a decision about the outcome of that pregnancy.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
To me it is rational. I do hate sports and I have not and will not express an opinion about people who spend time on following sports. I am not a man, and I would not express an opinion about being homosexual or hetero or any other male-centric issue. I am not Islamic, haven't studied Islam and don't express opinions about Islam. I am not a vegetarian, and would not express opinions about that, either. It is rational to keep your mouth shut about subjects you know nothing about.
A single guy without children talking about pregnancy and abortion is like a creationist spouting off about the 2LOT without actually knowing doodly squat about said law. I have seen people on these boards get all pissy about those creationists. What's the diff?
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Of course you do. That's called Male Privilege, the self-awarded permission to tell everyone else what to do and expect them to obey.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Ok, let's try a game then. Pretend atomic is a woman who has had children, and said the same thing. What would your response be? Factually, has anything changed?
@smart: Since when does having an opinion equate with ordering people what to do? It feels like we are having two seperate conversations, because I don't see what got you riled up.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
I'll respond to myself, the last post was sent from my phone so I was squinting at a teeny screen.
CJ: You hold "Opinion A"
1. Woman with children and holds opinion A.
2. Woman with no children holds opinion A.
3. Teenaged girl holds opinion A.
4. Man with children and holds opinion A.
5. Single man holds opinion A.
6. Teenage Male holds opinion A.
7. Homosexual woman with adopted child holds opinion A.
8. Homosexual man with adopted child holds opinion A.
9. Single homosexual holds opinion A.
Which ones to you disagree with? From this thread, you might agree with 1, 2, 4 and possibly 7, but you would fight with everyone else on the list even though you agree with them.
To me, it seems like either they are wrong or they are not wrong, regardless of how they came to opinion A.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
In your case it's more this utter incredulity that your very important opinion might actually be entirely worthless to the discussion. I see it a lot in here. As men in this culture, we're taught that everything we say is like gospel and to expect that everyone should pay very close attention to our every word. When I started encountering opposition to that attitude myself (with Feminists), being completely and irrevocably silenced was indeed a very bitter pill to swallow. But I grew to appreciate the value of that lesson learned the hard way.
I'll let CJ answer this herself, but in my view, it doesn't matter whether (arguably #4) 5, 6, 8, or 9 agree or disagree with her, because their opinions are uninformed, uninformABLE, and don't count either way.
Yes, it would change because I have had conversations like these with other women. When I point out that I am perfectly normal and I have had an abortion, the conversation often stops if the other woman is anti-abortion. Guys will continue to argue -
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Mario is pro-choice and if you disagree he is going to jump on your head
This is what it all comes down to every single time this topic comes up. Im right and you are wrong so there.
That said i think having an abortion is immoral but shouldn't be illegal. I think denying the woman a choice would be worse.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
Call me "Princess," I wanna play THAT video game!
So the root cause is that some men are pig-headed, therefore none can have a valid opinion?
I guess I'll just agree to disagree with you then. If I wanted to get a sex change operation, I would accept the opinion of a woman who has never had a penis if her opinion seemed to have a valid reasoning behind it. *shrug*
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Since I hold option A, I agree with all of them. Options 5, 6, and 9 would not carry any weight in the discussion, as they do not have experience and likely no education as well. That doesn't mean I disagree with them.
I know it sounds like an argument from authority, but I don't see it that way. I see argument from authority as "I don't know anything, and I don't have experience, but I think I agree with these sources, so I'll use them as support for my arguments even though I don't really understand them." Probably not an exact definition, but I'm not interested enough to look it up.
Instead, what I am saying is "I know, I've had the experience and I have had some education. I do know more than someone without education and experience. And if you don't have the education and experience, don't be surprised if I tell you to shove off." Same as 2LOT. I'm not a physicist, but I have had college physics and I do know enough to tell that the argument creationists use is incorrect and incomplete. I have a tendency to tell them to shove off, too.
I get to tell them to get some education and experience. I get to tell those without education and experience in this subject the same. They have no weight in the discussion until they do.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
The root cause is opening your mouth when you know diddly and then proceeding to continue flapping when someone has kindly pointed out that you are FOS. Gender has nothing to do with it.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Ok, then we are back to agreeing, lol. The only argument is what qualifications we require for informed opinion on any particular issue.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
What CJ is arguing is anecdotes.
What mellestad should have done is asked this:
If a women advocates against abortion and she:
1] Was never pregnant
2] Was pregnant, had an abortion but then deeply regretted it
3] Was pregnant, wanted to get an abortion but didn't and is glad she didn't
I know how she would respond to 1], but what about 2] and 3]? She can't just toss out anecdotes about what she did. If she did what makes her anecdotes more valid than the 2] and 3] women?
She can't toss out their opinion so freely.
The Princess is in another castle
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
You didn't call me Princess.
I don't toss out their opinions. What I do say is, you had the choice and you made it. If you are satisfied with your choice then fine. If you are not, then you have to do what we all do - live with it. I am not happy with all of my choices, but I get on with my life. With freedom, comes responsibility.
There is plenty of knowledge to go along with my opinions, you just need to review some of my previous posts. Pregnancy is not without risk. This is fact. Abortions are not without risk. Also fact. Fetal development is a fact. And one's experiences are also fact. Some "facts" being blown around are not facts, but anecdotal coincidence. Sorting through what is a true fact and what is false positive coincidences will help everyone make better choices, one hopes.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
when did i equate abortion with murder? im confused
my reasoning was that we know for a fact the fetus is a legal entity, it has rights, as i pointed out
hardly QED since you didnt even address the points i actually made instead of the ones you think i made, nice try though
and heres a question, does the fetus have any rights at all before birth? or do you think a woman can have an abortion right up until birth? how is it that in one instance a doctor can be held liable for harming a fetus but in another almost identical case a doctor could be paid to harm a fetus, with the only difference being the wants of the mother? surely you can see the problems with this, unless your willing to say the life issue hangs solely on the will of the mother
as for your concerns, i doubt any state would absolutely ban abortion in all cases but it would clear up alot of issues, and having it as a state by state matter is far better than having it as a federal issue, especially considering the federal govt doesnt have the authority on the matter really
thanks and i agree
though most people around here dont like my political views all that much, i thought this one was pretty reasonable and that most would agree atleast in some part
Well, thanks in theory, like I said I don't even know what your opinion, was, haha.
But you could be a single lawyer/psychiatrist who has done a five year post doc study on some sort of legalized abortion thing, or you could be a grandmother. Who knows. Either way I think your opinion deserves a fair shot.
The idea that my opinion would matter (I meet cj's arbitrary requirments to open discussion) but yours does not (because you do not, I assume) doesn't compute.
But hey, whatever. As long as you can vote and share your opinion with other humans you have, in reality, just as much chance of changing things as anyone else, regardless of whether or not specific people are willing to listen to you.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
First off:
"Pro-life" IS a POLITICAL TERM.
Why do some people not get this?
You CAN NOT be pro-life without being in favor of banning and illegalizing abortion (to at least some significant extent)- that's what it means.
The pro-life lobby deliberately chose that name to make it 'super positive' for people, in part so that people would accept the title of "pro-life" without thinking about it, or understanding what it really means/all of the implications. It's rather deceptive.
Obviously they couldn't have just been honest and transparent in naming the movement.
"Pro-choice" could have been better named too as "legal-abortion" or something. Ultimately, everybody wants a positive name- everybody wants to be "pro-choice" and "pro-life" because they both sound like great things.
Both poorly named.
The bottom line is that the names aren't very descriptive of what they mean.
You can hate abortion with every fiber of your being, swear to never have one, and even hate any person who has an abortion if you want to. But if you support political freedom from governmental tryanny, and as such do NOT support the banning of abortions, then you are not "pro-life", but are "pro-choice".
For example, see these people:
http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/actioncenter/CatholicsforaFreeChoice-SpeakOut.asp
They're definitely not keen on abortion (hell, they're even Catholic). They are less keen on a totalitarian government that forces abortions into back-alleys and endangers mothers lives.
The "pro-life" position is not pro-life; it is the "abortion-criminalization" position. This is a political position, and NOT a moral position.
If you are just morally against abortion- that's fine. Say *that*, don't say "pro-life".
If you claim the title "pro-life", though, that by definition means that you subscribe to the political movement of banning abortions (maybe not all kinds- some pro-lifers hold exceptions- but significantly), and making them criminal.
A "middle-ground" of banning things like partial birth abortion isn't necessarily in either camp (although pro-lifers will take anything they can get, and pro-choicers will usually oppose any significant encroachment as a slippery slope)- it needs to be specified.
If you want to claim that abortion is immoral- go right ahead. We can argue that point based on your premises.
If you want to assert that we should have moral police, forcing everybody to do what a small subset of the population says they think is moral- that's an entirely different issue.
I am not necessarily condemning the morality of totalitarianism (though I lean libertarian for practical reasons), but remember that these are different issues. Please don't obfuscate them.
There's no problem discussing them together, because they need to be discussed together sometimes, but make sure that you make your posts and arguments clear regarding which stance you actually hold on the issue.
Otherwise, we'll just end up arguing in circles about something that's not at all the point.
If you *don't* support that kind of totalitarian government, we don't have to argue about that, and can just argue about the morality (which is much less politically charged).
If you support a totalitarian government 'solution' to abortion, then we should just discuss that. We should assume, for the sake of argument, that abortion is "immoral" and not bring up moral counter-points for abortion against a political argument. Rather, we should focus on the ramifications of the legislative 'solution', and the degree to which you believe it should be enforced.
Lets address them in kind, lest we get absolutely nowhere in this argument.
Moral. Political. Different arguments- *very* little actual overlap.
So how does a fetus having rights not equate abortion with murder?
My personal beliefs are that fetuses do not have rights. Ever. I don't agree with persecuting people who killed the mother and incidentally her unborn child for two murders and not one. And yes, I think the issue does hang solely on the will of the mother. I know there are fathers who are not happy about this. I know there are lots of people who are not directly involved with any particular situation and it is none of their business and are not happy about this attitude of mine. It doesn't matter one way or the other. In legal matters, my opinion is moot, since I am not in a position to enforce or change the law. I can write my congressman, and I am well aware just how effective that is (not). If I am lucky, I get to vote on a referendum or initiative. Still not a lot of influence.
As for doctors, there is malpractice and there are abortions. If the doctor messes up, s/he should be sued. I don't believe in limiting lawsuits, since that is the only redress many people have for genuine grievances. On the other hand, people are very quick to claim malpractice when shit happens. And it is very easy to get the jury all teary eyed over losing a baby, so these kind of claims tend to get overly large rewards to my way of thinking. The difference is the desire of the mother. Which does fit neatly with the rest of my opinions.
There are plenty that would. And one has tried very hard - South Dakota. Fortunately, I live where even partial birth abortion bans have failed by referendum. That doesn't mean I would be happy about bans in other states. It truly is no one's concern but the mother's. Not even an underage mother's parents. Sorry, if your daughter doesn't trust you enough to talk to you, she shouldn't be forced to ask for your consent. And getting a judge? I once lived in the county seat - 1600 people. The old court house had ALL of the county agencies in it except the jail. Which meant, most people who lived in town worked for the county or had relatives who worked there. A young woman who needed a judge's order to get an abortion would more than likely encounter various relatives, friends, friends of relatives or her parents in the court house. And what she was there for would have taken about 10 seconds to make it back to her parents. No, no restrictions.
But again, my personal opinion on legal matters is not worth the bandwidth to press "post comment". But you are welcome to read it.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
That said... I'm going to go ahead and make a relatively comprehensive argument below. This includes both sides of the argument, to expedite things. If I have left anything out, please tell me.
This is only the moral half- I may get to the legal half later. Remember, these are only MORAL arguments.
I. MORAL:
A. Social contract:
Social contract is the most objective moral metric available. It is, essentially, a more formal statement of "do unto others, as you would have them do unto you"- it is an expression of game theory.
Social contract is also kind of a Jerk, though, as it doesn't care about entities that don't have the power to exact harm on the society.
Social contract states, basically, that each person is bringing something to the table in exchange for something from the other person. For example:
Caveman 1: "I can kill you with this stick while you sleep"
Caveman 2: "I can kill you with this rock while you sleep"
Caveman 1 & 2: "If we don't agree not to kill each other while we sleep, neither of us will be able to sleep, and the saber-toothed-cat will eat us both because we'll be too tired to run away. As such, lets agree to not kill each other while we sleep, by stick or rock."
Now, along comes Caveman 3: "Hi guys, I'm scrawny, and I couldn't kill you in your sleep if I tried."
Caveman 1 & 2: "We will kill you in your sleep and eat you together. You have nothing to bring to the table in exchange for protection by mutual social contract."
But! Caveman 3 comes back: "Hi guys, I have a sharp, pointy stick now. As such, I can now kill you in your sleep."
Caveman 1 & 2: "Agreed, we will accept this proposition, and allow you entrance into the social contract for your agreement not to kill us in our sleep."
Hopefully you can see where this is going: Social contract/game theory (of which the "golden rule" is a crude approximation) only offers protection to those who are capable of posing a threat to the others.
Yes, it's kind of brutal, but that's the only rational argument to be made from this standpoint.
This is why, for a very long time, women were not included in the social contract and have been traded like chattel. It's why people with inferior weaponry who were "out" were often excluded- fair game for slaves. It's why other species of animals are excluded.
Most of that has changed now with the invention and propagation of knives, guns, nuclear weapons, and even sharper sticks.
Other species of animals? Still out. No opposable thumbs, and poor impulse control (even if they wanted to, they can't always *stop* themselves from killing you in your sleep- for example, Elephants during musth).
Coma victims? This is logistically equivalent to the caveman's sleep above.
If fully capable human beings have to spend exorbitant amounts of resources preparing for the possible eventuality of a coma, or other lapse of consciousness, this leads to mutual loss. People in comas may not be conscious, but they were, and that makes them part of the social contract.
Fetuses and young children? Insofar as the child is too young to harm anybody- a kid can use a handgun at what? Two years old?
That child doesn't get to be part of the social contract. There is no "preparing for the eventuality of possibly becoming a fetus or young child". Having not ever been capable of causing harm, the child is *not* part of the social contract. And as long as we keep them away from guns, they don't enter it for a good long time.
There are other reasons children may not be killed. See property:
If I have to sit around watching my shit all of the time, and you have to sit around watching your shit all of the time, we won't get much done. That shit, including children if you like, is protected by social contract for that reason and that reason alone.
If a child is unwanted by the parents, and is too weak to enter into the social contract, then social contract doesn't protect the child at all. Whether fetus or two-year-old.
There is NO objective argument for the immorality of killing very young children or fetuses who are not claimed as property by/tied to others.
NOTE: All arguments below are based on subjective, and often arbitrary, premises. Only insofar as you agree with the premises should the argument that follows apply.
B. Premise/assumption based: Human life has value and should not be ended- doing so is immoral
-What is human life?
1. Living cells with human DNA
-This includes a vast array of human cells within and without the body. Based on this premise, blood donations, liposuction, and removal of faulty redundant organs (which threaten the person's life), are all immoral.
2. Living cells with unique human DNA
-This means it's alright to kill a genetically identical twin. Also, it's immoral to cure cancer, since the mutation makes it unique, and it remains human. As a human becomes older, it's also immoral to give blood, have liposuction, or remove organs, as the cells in the body change as we age.
3. A compilation of living cells that can survive on its own.
-No such compilation exists, all humans die without an atmosphere, heat, food, water. All life depends on a particular environment.
or
-All possible compilations of cells can survive on their own for a short period of time.
4. A compilation of living cells with human DNA that can survive on its own in Earth's atmosphere at room temperature for at least an hour.
-Most fetuses can not do this. Many cancers can do this.
5. A compilation of living cells with human DNA that can survive on its own in Earth's atmosphere at room temperature for at least a year, or in a womb for at least a month/hour/day etc.
-A fetus can not do this. A placenta can (depending on time). Many cancers can. It is moral to kill fetuses. It is immoral to kill placentas. Also, it is moral to kill cancer victims if they have less than a year to live. It's also moral to kill old people if they will die within a year anyway.
6. A compilation of living cells with human DNA that can survive on its own in Earth's atmosphere at room temperature for at least a second, but which has teeth (hah! Cancer doesn't have teeth!), or in a womb for at least a month/hour/day etc. but that is not a placenta, and that will be able to grow into something that can survive outside of the womb in the air as described above.
-It's O.K. to kill people who don't have teeth. Also, some cancer could have teeth.
7. A compilation of living cells with human DNA that can survive on its own in Earth's atmosphere at room temperature for at least a second and has intelligence (the ability to learn), or something that will become this kind of thing.
-A fetus won't become this kind of thing if we take it out. It is moral to kill a fetus. An unconscious person may also be killed- it is moral to kill people as long as they aren't able to learn at the time they are killed.
8. A compilation of living cells with human DNA that has intelligence or had intelligence at any time (the ability to learn), or something that could become this kind of thing.
-It is immoral to kill cancer, stray human skin cells, organs- any living human cell. It's also immoral to delete data recorded from DNA. All of these things could become this kind of thing.
9. A compilation of living cells with human DNA that has intelligence or had intelligence at any time (the ability to learn), or a living human cell that could become this kind of thing without the use of modern technology.
-It is perfectly moral to kill fetuses and young children with any number of minor birth defects or diseases which would be easily treatable with modern technology.
And lets not forget:
10. A fetus. or etc. [explicit list]
-It is immoral to kill fetuses because it is immoral to kill fetuses. Your logic is irrefutable- and circular.
C. Premise/assumption based: Murder is immoral.
-Murder is a legal definition referring to unlawful killing. Abortions are legal, therefore they are not and can not be murder.
"But it's illegal some places!"
-The definition of murder is a local one, not a global one, because laws are local.
-Even if it were local (which it is not), and it erred on the side of illegality, killing cows is illegal in some places in India- there it is illegal killing: murder. If we accept that metric, killing cows anywhere on earth is murder, and doing so is immoral.
D. Premise/assumption based: It is immoral to end sentient (able to experience sensation) life.
-Quantitatively, other species of animals are almost ubiquitously more sentient than fetuses. If you are not a vegetarian, you are immoral.
-Qualitatively, plants are also sentient (though not very, perhaps still more than most fetuses), and respond to sense stimuli. Killing plants is also immoral.
E. Premise/assumption based: It is immoral to end intelligent (able to learn) life.
-Qualitatively, there is no evidence fetuses are intelligent at all; the brains are still developing.
-Quantitatively, most other species of animals after birth are more intelligent than a fetus (possible exceptions for sponges and microbes, which may be on roughly equal footing). Anything save vegetarianism is immoral.
F. Premise/assumption based: It is immoral to end sentient (able to experience sensation) life without need.
-If need is subjective, abortions are considered by those who have them needed.
-If need is 'objective', and only pertains to keeping oneself alive, no diet beyond fruitarianism is moral (only fruits that fall from the tree- not even killing plants).
G. Premise/assumption based: Risky medical procedures are immoral unless the danger they are treating is more risky than the procedure.
-Pregnancy carries more risk than abortions in general, and much more risk than early abortions. Only unsafe abortions as practiced outside of medicine are more risky than pregnancy.
-This also means that plastic surgery to correct horrible deformities is unethical. Please tell that to burn victims, and victims of maulings and other tragic facial deformities- they are evidently unaware.
H. Premise/assumption based: Abortion increases the risk of cancer, things that increase the risk of cancer are immoral.
-This is bullshit: there is no evidence to support this proposition. Viruses increase the risk of cancer- particularly STDs; the vague correlation only suggests that the same people who are getting more abortions (such as those who are engaged in more promiscuous activity- though not all abortions are the result of promiscuous activity) are getting slightly more cancer.
This is not a causation- abortions do not increase the risk of cancer.
-Sunbathing is immoral. As are *many* foods. Smoking is profoundly immoral.
I. Premise/assumption based: Sexual promiscuity is immoral. Telling people abortions are moral encourages sexual promiscuity.
-The evidence has suggested otherwise- that people are going to screw regardless of the morality of abortions.
-If this were true, which is not evidenced, condoms and all forms of birth control would also be immoral.
J. Premise/assumption based: People should have to suffer the consequences of their risky actions. Avoiding those consequences is immoral.
-It is immoral to treat or cure STDs.
-It is also immoral to give medical care to climbers, hikers, scuba divers, athletes of any kind, motorcyclists, bicyclers, people in car crashes,or anybody who ever leaves the safety of his or her home more than absolutely necessary.
-------------------
I've heard more arguments, I'm sure, but those, and slight changes to those, cover the most common.
Incorrect. A lot of women who take the pro-choice stance are, in fact, anti-abortion. More important to them than their feelings on abortion, however, is that women should have the right to choose for themselves if they feel they might need to have one.
You just repeated what he said.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
Wow, thanks. I'm really glad there are people around to correct me on these kinds of things.