Abortion to be outlawed by Bush in this term...

[MORON]

bah, I say we ban sex, cause sex cause death, and thus sex is murder.

[Whaleboy]

It's not about "murder". "Murder" is a nice word the nutcases use to make their point. But the abortion debate has nothing to do with knowing whether abortion is legal under our law, if it respects or disrespects the current laws.
The question is really if we consider the artificial termination of human offspring as acceptable, and in under which circumstances.

To the majority of people that is likely the case however the way I see things, the termination of a being is murder by definition (in other words it fits the criteria of the word as I have it, thus it is murder). I do not mean it in the emotional sense, where anti-abortionists will throw the word around to try to discredit the other side. Note of course that I am pro-abortion.

However, a law requires a universal point at which it stops being acceptable to terminate humans - because a law is universal, and requires this universality in order not to be enforced at the whim of the local policeman / judge / doctor.

An interesting and very true point. However, I don't think this is something we can specify consistently in law, that an embryo becomes a being at X number of days. That's why a more arbitrary approach is called for IMO. The law is a very simplistic tool but when it comes to people's arbitrary moralities, it breaks down, which is what we are seeing here.

The mothers do belong to the masses. Unless you want to allow abortion only for mothers who come from a highly educated milieu?

Nah, those are the very people we need MORE of! . Seriously though, I mean not a democracy by mothers (oh dear god) but instead it is the pregnant woman in each case that should decide.

The debate I saw IRL is at a similar level to 'Poly's: "Abortion is murder!" "No, it's just tissue" "Think of the mother" etc.

Poly debates are rarely much better than popular RL debates, though that belongs on that other thread who's URL I'm too lazy to find.

Since the moral question underlying abortion is simple enough to be apprehended by anybody, and complex enough that nobody can have an authoritative opinion, the collective decision should be taken by the 'masses' as you love to call the people.

Just be grateful I'm restraining myself from calling them "the slaves". The question is simple enough, the criteria are not, nor are the potential answers, or at least the frameworks for deciding them. If this is to be turned into a "law", then you do need to universally decide, which is something I think is impossible... but regardless, am I to take the consensus of a million lays, or the opinion of a philosopher/doctor/psychologist more seriously in an attempt to understand and solve the question?

That is so right that I think it was allowed here more on the ground that forbidding abortion had resulted in unacceptable suffering for the women concerned, more than for any other reason.

Agreed. Regardless of the "moral" questions (the correct term imo would be ethical since we are dealing with definitions more than prescriptions) it is preferable that abortions are performed in safe, clean, professional environments with patient services and support, rather than in dirty rooms with a coat hanger.

[Elok]

Well (this is in response to Whaleboy), I think that it is unjust to deliberately end human life without informed consent. A man/woman can choose to sacrifice himself for the sake of family, or country, or friends, or faith, and that's his/her choice. Similarly, if a terminally ill person wishes to be euthanized, provided that person is clearly sane enough to make such weighty decisions he or she might be allowed to do so, regardless of how foul or creepy anyone else should consider that action. Maybe. It's tricky ethical ground, but arguable.

The child, on the other hand, is not consulted, or intelligent enough to be consulted, and the person authorized to make decisions for it is biased. It's murky water when the child is "euthanized" for inevitably fatal defects, but there could definitely be room for discussion, as in the poor kid with no skull that somebody else mentioned. Allowing the life to be terminated because its existence is emotionally distressing or unpleasant to the mother is unacceptable. Even in rape and incest cases; if the woman were to decide she just couldn't take it and smothered the child at age three, it would be clear-cut homicide.

Okay, not "murder," if you insist on defining "malicious intent" in terms of personal hatred, but plenty of people get killed for purely impersonal reasons (offing granny to get one's inheritance, for example), and that's called murder. In the case of abortion, the victim is generally killed for being inconvenient or personally unpleasant. Again, there might be some argument for the absolutely fatally deformed, similar to pulling the plug on a brain-dead patient...

And while I am aware that I'll get into trouble for saying this, to hell with the coat hanger. It's not like if abortion isn't legal women will spontaneously develop uterine infections. The coat hanger is a freely chosen activity whose probable unpleasant repercussions could be predicted by a ten-year-old. The women who get mutilated in back-alley abortions presumptively chose to do so in full knowledge of the risks involved. If they are feeling such intense pressure to abort that they are willing to take those risks, that pressure right there is the problem that needs to be solved.

"If pawn shops are illegal people will not be able to hock their possessions for cash in a hurry. Therefore, some people will not be able to pay their protection fees to the mob enforcers who threaten them, and their property will be destroyed, or their family members kidnapped. Therefore we need to keep pawn shops open; the safety of American small businesses depends on it."

See the evasion of the real problem?

And I agree that birth control should be more widely promoted.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Elok
The child, on the other hand, is not consulted, or intelligent enough to be consulted, and the person authorized to make decisions for it is biased. It's murky water when the child is "euthanized" for inevitably fatal defects, but there could definitely be room for discussion, as in the poor kid with no skull that somebody else mentioned. Allowing the life to be terminated because its existence is emotionally distressing or unpleasant to the mother is unacceptable. Even in rape and incest cases; if the woman were to decide she just couldn't take it and smothered the child at age three, it would be clear-cut homicide.

Only because by three is there is absolutely no debate anymore whether the child is a human being with certain rights and considerations due.

Okay, not "murder," if you insist on defining "malicious intent" in terms of personal hatred, but plenty of people get killed for purely impersonal reasons (offing granny to get one's inheritance, for example), and that's called murder.

That is malicious intent- why such a crime would be first degree murder. In fact, doing it out of passion makes it second degree. Coldly planning to kill someone for financial gain is a clear case of maliciousness.

In the case of abortion, the victim is generally killed for being inconvenient or personally unpleasant. Again, there might be some argument for the absolutely fatally deformed, similar to pulling the plug on a brain-dead patient...

The "victim" is not recognized by the law as such- conservatives are trying to build case law for such a finding, but they are not there.

And I agree that birth control should be more widely promoted.

Good.

[Arrian]

The abortion debate is not a rational one. Two rational people can have one (see above), but politically it's like GePap said. The core of the anti-abortion crowd can NEVER give up their quest to ban it nationwide. It's murder to them.

If I believed it was murder... well, then I think I'd be just as stubborn as they. I just don't agree it's murder, that's all.

-Arrian

[Whaleboy]

I think that it is unjust to deliberately end human life without informed consent. A man/woman can choose to sacrifice himself for the sake of family, or country, or friends, or faith, and that's his/her choice. Similarly, if a terminally ill person wishes to be euthanized, provided that person is clearly sane enough to make such weighty decisions he or she might be allowed to do so, regardless of how foul or creepy anyone else should consider that action. Maybe. It's tricky ethical ground, but arguable.

I concur 100%

The child, on the other hand, is not consulted, or intelligent enough to be consulted, and the person authorized to make decisions for it is biased.

If we take child to mean conscious, as in more essentially than a bunch of cells then I agree there too. The debate is regarding that boundary. Some pro-abortionists believe that abortion is not murder up to birth. I do not agree fully with them.

It's not like if abortion isn't legal women will spontaneously develop uterine infections. The coat hanger is a freely chosen activity whose probable unpleasant repercussions could be predicted by a ten-year-old. The women who get mutilated in back-alley abortions presumptively chose to do so in full knowledge of the risks involved. If they are feeling such intense pressure to abort that they are willing to take those risks, that pressure right there is the problem that needs to be solved.

But it *is* the woman's perogative to decide. Part of the pressure is people assuming that she can cope fine with the emotional pressures involved. If you accept that it is her perogative and her responsibility then given the choice a clinical environment is preferable to me. On top of that, any unnecessary risk given the choice is not acceptable to me, hence coat hangers can go right back in the wardrobe.

See the evasion of the real problem?

An interesting example, but again this is an argument dependent upon premises and suppositions, so supposing my argument holds, coat hangers or clinics?

And I agree that birth control should be more widely promoted.

Agreed. Prevention is always preferable to cure, but I see no reason why, if you accept that a foetus is not a being, that aborting that foetus should be illegal.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Honestly, the primary reason I could see in banning abortions would be to drive Liberals over the edge into getting out of our country.

[Whaleboy]

The abortion debate is not a rational one. Two rational people can have one (see above), but politically it's like GePap said. The core of the anti-abortion crowd can NEVER give up their quest to ban it nationwide. It's murder to them.

Indeed. To me it is simply an intellectual exercise. It would concern me personally if one of my friends or family were obstructed from having an abortion if they wanted them, but since that has not occured (that I know of ) I can sleep at night regardless of what happens.

[:) Smiley]

It really should be a state-level issue, because I don't think we'll agree on it nationally for the foreseable future.

If we take that route, why not make it a personal level issue then?

[Whaleboy]

Originally posted by Smiley


If we take that route, why not make it a personal level issue then?

[Elok]

The "victim" might not be recognized as such by law yet, but that can be changed. If you define humanity, and subsequent human rights, in terms of the abilities of the person/entity in question, you're standing on dangerous ground. Defining someone's right to life based on his or her level of physical development is pretty close to the rationalizations sometimes used for eugenics, at least to my eyes. "Who are you to make women's intimate choices for them?" Well, turn the question around: "who are you to decide the worth of another's life?"

There is not yet an established precedent, but chromosomal identity is effectively the common thread between all the levels of life, with fertilization as the point at which the human being comes into existence out of two previously separate elements. They all have the same 46 chromosomes (yes, plus or minus a few if the person has Down's, Klinefelter's, or another defect, the important thing is that the person's hard-coded genetic identity is the same at all ages; let's not drift off-topic).

An embryo might not resemble an infant, but it resembles an early fetus, which resembles a six-month fetus, which resembles a late-stage fetus, which resembles a newborn. Sounds tenuous, but what's the difference between that eight-pound infant and a seventy-year-old man? Those two don't look or act much alike either. This is why I object to making ability the source of human rights.

If you treat it as a given that women "can't cope with the pressure," well, not to sound waspy, but I don't see how we pro-lifers are supposed to be the misogynists here. Granted, people make mistakes and fail under pressure, but unless that pressure and stress is far greater than natural the woman retains her ability to think for herself. If pregnancy were so stressful that women couldn't help killing their kids the human race would not have survived to this point, n'est-ce pas? If by pressure you mean a bunch of judgmental arsemunches calling her a whore, yeah, I can see how that would drive a woman nuts, but that's sort of my point about the coat hanger.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Elok
If you treat it as a given that women "can't cope with the pressure," well, not to sound waspy, but I don't see how we pro-lifers are supposed to be the misogynists here. Granted, people make mistakes and fail under pressure, but unless that pressure and stress is far greater than natural the woman retains her ability to think for herself. If pregnancy were so stressful that women couldn't help killing their kids the human race would not have survived to this point, n'est-ce pas? If by pressure you mean a bunch of judgmental arsemunches calling her a whore, yeah, I can see how that would drive a woman nuts, but that's sort of my point about the coat hanger.

The main reason why women supported the pressure of unwanted pregnancies in the past, and generally didn't commit infanticide (for lack of abprtion), is because they had a fixed role as homemakers, and weren't the ones who earned a living.

In today's world, we can be thankful that women can decide their own fate, and can decide to have a job, to be responsible for themselves. This means they also are more likely to get a kid without any man to make for the financial / opportunity loss.

Of course a pregnancy is something most women can bear -otherwise the human species would have not been a viable species- but now that individual women are allowed to make their own choice, unwanted pregnancies pose problems much more complex than in the middle ages.

[Pekka]

So if they ban abortion, why won't they ban DP? I don't get it. If we aren't supposed to kill people, then why DP?
And why aren't abortion banners taking the barricades over killers and murders? They're still humans.

[Patroklos]

So if we have decided that it is a subjuctive and opinion based value jusdgement by both sides why do you only apply your logic exaples in terms of the anti-abortionist crowds.

And it is fully possible to define human life at three years old using the same principles that they pro-abortion crowd (portions) tries to push it to birth. What is the difference between a baby one day from being born to one the day after? And that can be used by both sides to push the moment of muder in either direction.

Only in abortion, when the line is considered "fuzzy" by the majority of one side, pro-abortionists and especially the ones here apparently, and none existant at all by the majority if their counterparts is the default decision against the condemned.

But society is and has full of groups who have decided people are not human via populat opinion. If you simply admit that this is what your doing just say your alright with that you would get alot more respect than falsely claiming elightened reason like you do now.

[Patroklos]

In today's world, we can be thankful that women can decide their own fate, and can decide to have a job, to be responsible for themselves. This means they also are more likely to get a kid without any man to make for the financial / opportunity loss.

In other words your arguement for abortion has nothing to do with whether or not you are killing a human or not. It is soley a selfish choice to kill for personal gain. THIS is what I maintian is the core arguement of pro-abortionists, and to rationalize this they have made the insuportable assumption that life starts at birth. You just need to admit it. DP advocates don't hide their intent, and can morally justify their opinions wonderfully.

So if they ban abortion, why won't they ban DP? I don't get it. If we aren't supposed to kill people, then why DP?

There is a difference between pro-lifers and being anti-abortion. Pro-lifers are that by definition, you can't kill anyone. Normally religious. Anti-abortionists are like me who believe it is unjustified murder to kill people out of convienience. I and most of my ilke don't use religious arguements at all.