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

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
You think popular opinion is the best way to determine this issue?

Yes.

[Whaleboy]

That it begins at conception. The fuzzyness you seem to be searching for is with the begining of sentience.

True. A medical ethicist would deconstruct that to lifeform, and when being status can be applied, hence the main question of this debate.

[Whaleboy]

Yes.

Why?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Why?

Because that's how collective rules work in modern societies: they are decided collectiviely. It's the only way for them to be legitimate, and thus to function with little interference. Look at Europe: our anti-abortionists are considered nutcases, and our abortion-performing doctors can do their job properly. Little to no hindrance made by nutcase groups, no death threats etc.

In the US, there is a huge stink about abortion simply because the people have been completely stripped off their power to decide an issue they consider very important.

[DinoDoc]

You do the French proud Spiffor.

[Whaleboy]

Because that's how collective rules work in modern societies

No, that would lead to a total democracy. In the US, there is the bill of rights which supposedly cannot be subjected to the whims of public opinion. This is a complex issue both scientifically, socially and philosophically, I very much doubt the ability of your average joe to comment on it such that a resolution to that complex debate can be found with said joe.

There'd be a huge stink about it one way or another, all it requires are a few thousand highly vocal agitators and regardless of whether or not it has been democratically decided, they will always be for or against it.

So no, I don't think that democracy has the ability to solve this debate both practically and conceptually.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
In the US, there is the bill of rights which supposedly cannot be subjected to the whims of public opinion.

Actually wrt this issue it's more accurately called judicial fiat.

[Whaleboy]

Actually wrt this issue it's more accurately called judicial fiat.

How so?

[Spiffor]

Abortion is a simple issue that anybody can understand (except young children and people with a mental disability).

The issue is this: do you consider the zygote / embryo / fetus as a full-fledged human being, and do you consider it acceptable or not to terminate it?

All the complex discussions about abortion I see here, such as whether life/sentience begins at conception, at birth, somewhere in between; according to what scientists, philosophers, sociologists....

All those discussions are utterly and definitively pointless. It is impossible to prove there is a right moment for abortion and a wrong moment. The "moment" at which it is possible to terminate human offspring is purely decided by morals - the very same moral problems appear when speaking about euthanasia.

Anybody can have moral opinions about abortion and euthanasia. And these opinions are open to change, as is society. Abortion is the archetype of an issue that definitely does not need a technocrat who believes he knows better

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Abortion is a simple issue that anybody can understand (except young children and people with a mental disability).

The issue is this: do you consider the zygote / embryo / fetus as a full-fledged human being, and do you consider it acceptable or not to terminate it?

All the complex discussions about abortion I see here, such as whether life/sentience begins at conception, at birth, somewhere in between; according to what scientists, philosophers, sociologists....

All those discussions are utterly and definitively pointless. It is impossible to prove there is a right moment for abortion and a wrong moment. The "moment" at which it is possible to terminate human offspring is purely decided by morals - the very same moral problems appear when speaking about euthanasia.

Anybody can have moral opinions about abortion and euthanasia. And these opinions are open to change, as is society. Abortion is the archetype of an issue that definitely does not need a technocrat who believes he knows better

[Whaleboy]

The issue is this: do you consider the zygote / embryo / fetus as a full-fledged human being, and do you consider it acceptable or not to terminate it?

I do not agree. The question is not whether it is a fully-fledged human being, but whether it is being to the extent required to consider artificial termination as murder. Where does that extent lie and how is it determined? The premises for those and the assumptions behind those premises. This is most certainly not an easy question.

All those discussions are utterly and definitively pointless. It is impossible to prove there is a right moment for abortion and a wrong moment. The "moment" at which it is possible to terminate human offspring is purely decided by morals - the very same moral problems appear when speaking about euthanasia.

So are you suggesting a blanket approach? No abortion or abortion up to birth? Your argument there rests upon the premise that there is a univeral point at which it occurs in gestation, I would contend that there is a subjective element, in other words a case-by-case basis. Determination of the baby's status should therefore be left to the one privy to such information, namely the mother. This is not something that can be understood by the masses.

Anybody can have moral opinions about abortion and euthanasia. And these opinions are open to change, as is society. Abortion is the archetype of an issue that definitely does not need a technocrat who believes he knows better

Pretty words but I do call bull****. Surely just looking at the level, quality, arguments and conclusions of the popular debate on the issue is sufficient to show otherwise. However even if people as a whole are capable of understanding this issue, you haven't shown me why popular opinion should determine the legality of this issue. The basic tyranny by majority argument applies.

[Whaleboy]

Before this turns into a democracy vs. dictatorship thread, I should probably clarify and say that on issues of such importance, concerning the rights, responsibilities and lives of people, in such a complex, and it is a complex question (demonstrated by the fact that there is no consensus on any level), that popular opinion is no basis for deciding what people can and cannot do with their lives and their bodies to this extent. You could argue that people have a right to decide their own destiny. In democracy, sure that can work for economic issues, but here, the only way you can apply that logic is to allow abortion and let people decide one way or the other for themselves.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I hope that Roe vs Wade will be overturned, and that abortion will become a right decided by each state, preferably through refendum.

At last the decision will be taken by the political area where it belongs, not by the justices.

There is just one problem you don;t get about Americas debate of this- you speak about this being a political issue that can be brought about by a political concensus. To a degree I completely agree that this is how it should be- and how it probably is in Europe. BUt you miss the fact that is not what the discussion is in the US. For the core supporters of a ban this is NOT somehting that could be decided politically either- it is a moralistic commandement from Heaven- abortion can NEVER be legal, even if 60% of the people wanted some form to be legal (which is the case)- since you can't "vote to make murder legal", essentially.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
I do not agree. The question is not whether it is a fully-fledged human being, but whether it is being to the extent required to consider artificial termination as murder. Where does that extent lie and how is it determined? The premises for those and the assumptions behind those premises. This is most certainly not an easy question.

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.

So are you suggesting a blanket approach? No abortion or abortion up to birth? Your argument there rests upon the premise that there is a univeral point at which it occurs in gestation

Absolutely not. 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.
For the matter, I support abortion up to 3-4 monthes of conception. The reasons why I support this are completely unimportant, and certainly not objective.

I would contend that there is a subjective element, in other words a case-by-case basis. Determination of the baby's status should therefore be left to the one privy to such information, namely the mother. This is not something that can be understood by the masses.

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

Pretty words but I do call bull****. Surely just looking at the level, quality, arguments and conclusions of the popular debate on the issue is sufficient to show otherwise.

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.

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.

The basic tyranny by majority argument applies.

It applies to every civil right issues decided in a democracy

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
In democracy, sure that can work for economic issues, but here, the only way you can apply that logic is to allow abortion and let people decide one way or the other for themselves.

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.