Let us cut the crap.

[Theben]

Mo*ral"i*ty\, n.; pl. Moralities. [L. moralitas: cf. F. moralit['e].] 1. The relation of conformity or nonconformity to the moral standard or rule; quality of an intention, a character, an action, a principle, or a sentiment, when tried by the standard of right.

I realize that Elok wants to dispense with moral arguements in this thread and "cut the crap", but the problem is that it IS a moralistic issue. And the only answer is:

In this country and in this day, abortion is legal, and tolerated by the majority of citizens.
Killing a person, child or elderly, is illegal, and not tolerated.

That's it. Case closed.

So I'm not sure what medium Elok wants to use for his arguement. Constitutional? Probably not. I can't think of an article or amendment allowing for abortion. Legal? Well, yes, there's Roe vs. Wade. Convenience? Not having a baby is less strenuous on the resources of parents and society. Benefits to society? A mixed bag: Less strain, but less unwanted youth to employ in menial labor positions. Immigrant workers should cover that w/o too much trouble, though. Also abortion removes a large section of the criminal underclass.

[Ned]

Killing a viable human being is normally unjustified. However, if it is necessary to protect the life or health of a mother, I would agree that it should be permitted.

Until the fetus is viable, the mother should have "discretion" to entertain abortion for any reason.

[Az]

MrBaggins:

Originally posted by MrBaggins
Morality is relative.

The question should be should modern society do that. The answer is yes, right now, because there are very few blind handicapped people.

If the number got so large as to overwhelm society (as allowing all currently arborted babies to live would,) then I'd say... no.

a) the number of babies isn't as large as to overwhelm society.
b) Imagine you're stranded on an island. you and the crippled person. shouldn't you feed him?

Is a fetus self-reliant? Capable of changing its own circumstance?

irrelevant. same applies to babies.

GePap:

What factual arguements exist about abortion? So you can say: at 7 months a fetus can fell pain..so what? So can a 50 year old man, and that 50 year old man has no right to live either. While in the pre-amble it may speak of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the state has the right to take life, has the right to deputize people to take life..in essence, there is NO right to life for any human being.

I guess if the state would be governed by laws that say to ... kill all black people, for example, you'd be ok with it, too? and if not why not?

That is what it simply boil down to: all rights are conditional, creation of human society, not in any way distinct from social existence. So as I said, I agree wityh Freako: abortion should be a simple legislative matter, and any debates about the either-or nature of the debate are totally faith based, be it a religious or secualr faith one uses as their justification.

I am sorry, but that's bull. you have to solve a moral issue here. Or do you think that murder should be a legislative matter, either?

IN India and China there are huge numbers of abortions by couples trying to get boys and not girls, far more abortions than are preformed in the US, and the political debate that rages is not about the "right to life" of fetuses, but of the possible dire demographic consequences. Yet last time I looked people in India and China are sentient human beings...and yet somewhow they don't get consumed by this moralizing here in the US and a few other spots.

For the greater part of human existance, and in the greater part even today of humanity this is not an issue of "rights" but of what policies a society should adopt and promote to remain vital and continuing. So what makes the few people out in the fringes both of humanity and time that argue like this was some apocalyptic battle?

Once upon a time, slavery was legal, and noone questioned it Does that mean that it was right?

Theben:

In this country and in this day, abortion is legal, and tolerated by the majority of citizens.
Killing a person, child or elderly, is illegal, and not tolerated.

That's it. Case closed.

Ethics, on the other hand, aren't about conformity, but about reason. And if you think that morality is fluid, etc. why do you think slavery should've been abolished? why you think that segregation should've been abolished? most people supported it.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Azazel
Ethics, on the other hand, aren't about conformity, but about reason.

Nope, that's called logic.

Ethics is about what one ought and ought not do. Which means ethics itself has to ground on something.

[Az]

precisely.

[Rogan Josh]

I think the real problem is about how to define 'life' and how to define 'human' and how to define 'sentient' or 'conscious'.

Imagine someone who 'survives' a near fatal car crash, kept alive only by machines, but is brain dead. No thought going on at all. I think most people would be happy with shutting off life support - 'aborting' him.

Now I don't think a newly fertilised egg is any more 'life' than the guy on life support, so I don't have a problem with the destruction of fertilsed eggs. But clearly a newborn baby is, so somewhere between conception and bith the child passes a barrier which defines it as a live human being. The abortion arguments are all about where that barrier is.

Now we define the guy on life support as 'alive' if he has significant brain activity. I don't see anything wrong with this definition - if the fetus has no significant brain activity then it is not aware and not conscious.

So my opinion is that abortion is OK (but should not be encouraged) until the fetus has significant brain activity. Does anyone know when this is? (Pretty early I would think.)

[Jack the Bodiless]

Elok:

With that said, I'd like to branch out my earlier argument, that the constitutional right to abortion simply does not exist. Abortion is never mentioned in the constitution or any of the amendments, nor are there any references to any subject even vaguely related to it or which can be construed by a reasonable person to include abortion. The Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision is ostensibly valid because of the principle of judicial review, which allows them to declare laws unconstitutional, i.e. that said laws VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF. With no actual constitutional backing, RvW is no more worthy of recognition than a statement by the CIA approving a new drug for human use. RvW excersized powers that the SCOTUS never had, and is therefore in my opinion invalid.

I don't understand this line of argument.

"With that said, I'd like to branch out my earlier argument, that the constitutional right to pizza simply does not exist. Pizza is never mentioned in the constitution or any of the amendments, nor are there any references to any subject even vaguely related to it or which can be construed by a reasonable person to include pizza. The Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision is ostensibly valid because of the principle of judicial review, which allows them to declare laws unconstitutional, i.e. that said laws VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF. With no actual constitutional backing, RvW is no more worthy of recognition than a statement by the CIA approving a new food for human use. RvW excersized powers that the SCOTUS never had, and is therefore in my opinion invalid."

If pizza is legal, then constitutionally why shouldn't abortion be?

Secondly, "it's the woman's body." Except it isn't, technically. The fetus is genetically distinct from the woman and biologically predisposed to become an independent human being over time. Barring miscarriage, which is the exception not the rule, the fetus will become an infant, which will in turn keep growing until it dies one way or another as a child, adolescent, etc. The fetus is a foreign body within the woman; however, it is distinct and given time will become a man or woman. Note that the fetal form of a human being and the adult form are inarguably the exact same lifeform at different stages of development. It's simple birds and bees. It is the immature form of a lifeform, "just a clump of cells" that will become an infant.

Actually, when people use the phrase "it's the woman's body", they're usually referring to the uterus and similar paraphernalia. These ARE, unquestionably, part of the woman's body. She owns them, absolutely, and it can be argued that SHE has the right to decide what to do with them.

I would argue that an unwanted child is analogous to an unwanted houseguest from a legal perspective. It may cause immense inconvenience, but until it endangers your own life you are not within your rights to kill it. Or shouldn't be, anyway.

Without resolving the "personhood of the fetus" issue, you can just as easily argue that the fetus is like unsolicited junk mail. People who throw junk mail into the fireplace shouldn't be convicted of murder.

Just as a final reminder, I don't want to hear about back-alley abortions. This discussion is of the principle of the act itself.

Unfortunately, this is the primary reason why abortion was legalized in the first place.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
i still think a foetus qualifies as a parasite. whether wanted or not, because it is a parasite, would not the host choose to deal with it in the ways necessary?

The same could be said for you, or for me or for any human alive. Many consume resources but do not give anything back. Should we start elminating people based on this assumption or is there a point that you feel its wrong to take care of those people who, for a lack of a better term, are worthless.

We have an amazing ability to justify things when it goes against our convience. The definition of what is human and what is not has been used repeatedly through out history to make things more convient for the majority. Native Americans, Jews, Blacks have all been explained away for the convience of others.

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh So my opinion is that abortion is OK (but should not be encouraged) until the fetus has significant brain activity. Does anyone know when this is? (Pretty early I would think.)

Of course, even once the fetus has some brain activity, there is a question of whether it should be treated differently than a comperable animal at that stage of sophistication.

Reform Judaism teaches the following. During confirmation class the Rabbi at our temple advised us that according to his interpretation of passages in the Kabballa, abortions are not objectionable from a religious perspective. The reason for this is when several Rabbis are providing commentary on whether a baby being born can be killed in order to save a mothers life, one Rabbi argues that it is permissible because the baby has no soul until it draws its first breath. A logical conclusion that can be reached once this is established, is since the key distinction between animals and humans is the posession of a soul, there is therefore no difference between fetuses and animals.

Here's some additional material co-authored by my Rabbi on the abortion issue using traditional Jewish perspectives to draw the following conclusion:

For Judaism, the evidence in matters of abortion, then, is reasonably clear. The legal and rabbinic teachings tend to depict the fetus as simply part of a woman's body...The fetus is not a person, it has no rights.

http://www.rcrc.org/pdf/jewish%20perspectives.pdf

[Q Classic]

The same could be said for you, or for me or for any human alive. Many consume resources but do not give anything back. Should we start elminating people based on this assumption or is there a point that you feel its wrong to take care of those people who, for a lack of a better term, are worthless.

well, since i'm not actively sucking bodily fluids, nutrients, and antibodies directly from someone else, i'm not a biological parasite.

that said...

look, i'm against abortion. i think it's a heinous thing... but the problem lies in the fact that we still have conflicting definitions of what consists of a sentient human and what does not, and until that's resolved, we're going to have a ***** of a time trying to decide whether abortion is "moral" or not.

We have an amazing ability to justify things when it goes against our convience. The definition of what is human and what is not has been used repeatedly through out history to make things more convient for the majority. Native Americans, Jews, Blacks have all been explained away for the convience of others.

i have to agree. non-fetuses are the majority. of course, blacks, native americans, and other minorities did not directly siphon of precious bodily fluids from their hosts...

do you ever wonder why i only drink grain alcohol and rainwater, mandrake?

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Elok
Which begs the question:
Who wants you, anyway?

Plenty of people actually.

But the point is that if I hadn't actually been wanted in the first place, I wouldn't have known anything about it...

[Ned]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
I think the real problem is about how to define 'life' and how to define 'human' and how to define 'sentient' or 'conscious'.

Imagine someone who 'survives' a near fatal car crash, kept alive only by machines, but is brain dead. No thought going on at all. I think most people would be happy with shutting off life support - 'aborting' him.

Now I don't think a newly fertilised egg is any more 'life' than the guy on life support, so I don't have a problem with the destruction of fertilsed eggs. But clearly a newborn baby is, so somewhere between conception and bith the child passes a barrier which defines it as a live human being. The abortion arguments are all about where that barrier is.

Now we define the guy on life support as 'alive' if he has significant brain activity. I don't see anything wrong with this definition - if the fetus has no significant brain activity then it is not aware and not conscious.

So my opinion is that abortion is OK (but should not be encouraged) until the fetus has significant brain activity. Does anyone know when this is? (Pretty early I would think.)

I endorse this thinking. It is very close to my own, see above.

Rogan, I think the dividing line is at 13-14 weeks.

After that period of time, the viable human has rights that cannot be removed, but must be "balanced" against the rights of the mother to life and health. If the pregnancy has no hope but would only kill the mother, it should be terminated. If the mother could potentially die or suffer some serious health risks, she has the superior right.

Then there is the issue of deformity, genetic disease and the like. Terminating a pregnancy under these circumstances should also be permitted if not required. Such a birth can catastrophically affect families or society in addition to the pain and suffering to the infant itself. The new statute contains no exception for this category and is for that reason "unadvisable."

[Elok]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Elok:
I don't understand this line of argument.
If pizza is legal, then constitutionally why shouldn't abortion be?

The Supreme Court argues that abortion is a constitutional right. I am only arguing that this is not so, that the constitution says nothing about abortion and therefore the SC has no authority to say anything about it, good or bad. If you want to use your analogy, the SC cannot claim a "constitutional right to pizza."

Actually, when people use the phrase "it's the woman's body", they're usually referring to the uterus and similar paraphernalia. These ARE, unquestionably, part of the woman's body. She owns them, absolutely, and it can be argued that SHE has the right to decide what to do with them.

Except insofar as doing something with them will infringe upon the rights or well-being of others, yes. However, the fetus is plainly a distinct if dependent entity from the woman carrying it. To argue that it isn't old enough to have rights now, but in a few months it will, is a weird sort of temporal discrimination IMO.

Without resolving the "personhood of the fetus" issue, you can just as easily argue that the fetus is like unsolicited junk mail. People who throw junk mail into the fireplace shouldn't be convicted of murder.
Unfortunately, this is the primary reason why abortion was legalized in the first place.

However, said issue isn't resolved, only brushed off without a good reason nine times out of ten. To be fair, the pro-life side tends to use some crappy arguments about how it can wiggle its toes at so many weeks, which tacitly approves of our current system of sliding-scale mercy.

Theben: are you saying that we should determine policy by the current national mood? What we think right now is by nature correct? It sounds highly democratic but it presents the very real danger that, if our society is going in the wrong direction, we are going to become more and more assured of our own magnificence rather than try to solve the problem. I don't see what you're getting at. Like I said, Roe v. Wade is based in BS and shouldn't matter. The argument isn't simply moral or religious any more than a question of whether black people can be enslaved is just religious opinion. It's a question of whether a certain group of people (or things-that-will-become-people, whatever) is entitled to protection under the law.

GePap: it is Nietzsche-babble because it ignores an actual issue by making broad psychoanalytical generalizations about the human race, and in the process implies that the question asked is beneath you. I didn't ask you about the development of society and why we stupid Americans are narrow-minded. If we are wrong and it is better to think of things in terms of demographic consequences like the wise people in India, please explain why. If, on the other hand, you're doing one of those "there is no absolute truth" things, why are you even arguing?

[Ben Kenobi]

IN India and China there are huge numbers of abortions by couples trying to get boys and not girls, far more abortions than are preformed in the US, and the political debate that rages is not about the "right to life" of fetuses, but of the possible dire demographic consequences. Yet last time I looked people in India and China are sentient human beings...and yet somewhow they don't get consumed by this moralizing here in the US and a few other spots.

It's hard to argue for a right to life in a society that does not even protect born people let alone the unborn. You need human rights to argue for the right to life, so if you believe we ought to take the direction of India or China, then go ahead.

[Theben]

Originally posted by Elok
Theben: are you saying that we should determine policy by the current national mood? What we think right now is by nature correct? It sounds highly democratic but it presents the very real danger that, if our society is going in the wrong direction, we are going to become more and more assured of our own magnificence rather than try to solve the problem. I don't see what you're getting at. Like I said, Roe v. Wade is based in BS and shouldn't matter. The argument isn't simply moral or religious any more than a question of whether black people can be enslaved is just religious opinion. It's a question of whether a certain group of people (or things-that-will-become-people, whatever) is entitled to protection under the law.

I'm not saying that's what we should do. I'm saying that IS what we do. Slaverly used to be moral, and now it is not. It could very well be again, given the right conditions. And I'd rather have these things decided by a democratic process than by a ruling minority (or singularity), since the few can make sweeping and irresponsible alterations to society.
What do you think the Bill of Rights is, other than the result of the national mood of the day?