Abortion

[ajbera]

Molly, the Hebrews (I think) had a saying, that all pregnancies for the first 40 days are like water, because they are so often lost. So the parents shouldn't have any attachment to the fetus at that stage. After that 40 day period is when you can start thinking of it as a child because it's more likely to live.

And whatever your stance on abortion, the difference between a miscarriage and abortion is the difference between you dying by natural means (struck by lightning) and being deliberately stabbed to death by another person. You're still dead either way, but in the latter case someone made a deliberate choice to end your existence. That matters to some people.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by ajbera
Molly, the Hebrews (I think) had a saying, that all pregnancies for the first 40 days are like water, because they are so often lost. So the parents shouldn't have any attachment to the fetus at that stage. After that 40 day period is when you can start thinking of it as a child because it's more likely to live.

And whatever your stance on abortion, the difference between a miscarriage and abortion is the difference between you dying by natural means (struck by lightning) and being deliberately stabbed to death by another person. You're still dead either way, but in the latter case someone made a deliberate choice to end your existence. That matters to some people.

Odd.

Some Religionistas think that god punishes us and intervenes in the lives and destinies of humans on a regular basis- 'his eye is on the sparrow', supposedly.

This being the case, they stress the moral purposeful aspect of divine retribution as they see fit.

So here we have an all knowing all seeing creator who decides to uncreate 'people' as he/she/it sees fit.

Sounds like a heavenly abortionist to me.

[ajbera]

I think many folks believe God has a "hands off" approach to governing His/Her/Its creations.

And for those who think God has His/her/Its finger in every pie, I know I've "aborted" stories and sketches that weren't ready for prime-time. Maybe the Big Guy/Gal/Thing does the same from time to time.

[Ben Kenobi]

Some Religionistas think that god punishes us and intervenes in the lives and destinies of humans on a regular basis- 'his eye is on the sparrow', supposedly.

This being the case, they stress the moral purposeful aspect of divine retribution as they see fit.

So here we have an all knowing all seeing creator who decides to uncreate 'people' as he/she/it sees fit.

Sounds like a heavenly abortionist to me.

You make a very good point. Why should our relationship with God, be different from the way in which treat each other? Should we have the authority over each other, to kill someone as God does over us? No, because we are not to each other as God is to us. God made us, if he chose to, he could unmake us, and we could not protest. For he could just as easily not make us at all.

With regards to abortion, the distinction between something that occurs without human intervention is a very important one. If we were to follow your line of thinking, why shouldn't we be able to kill anyone we feel like, since God can do that to us. Why shouldn't we be like God?

[Ben Kenobi]

Molly, the Hebrews (I think) had a saying, that all pregnancies for the first 40 days are like water, because they are so often lost. So the parents shouldn't have any attachment to the fetus at that stage. After that 40 day period is when you can start thinking of it as a child because it's more likely to live.

A citation would be handy. There are statements in scripture, in the old testament, where God claims that when you were in your mother's womb, he knew you. Not a lump of tissue, but you.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yeah, imagine having the choice of staying unloved and unwanted in an orphanage or children's home, or having two people who love you adopt you and bring you up. I'm sure most children would really prefer the former.

There are plenty of folks willing to adopt. Look at how many persist and succeed with international adoptions. If we were to cut some of the red tape and stigma surrounding adoption, I can't see why there would be any difficultly finding homes with a mom and a dad for each child.

And secondly, do you believe that a man is unnecessary in a child's life, molly?

[Ben Kenobi]

Since we have no figures, that I know of, for abortions performed before the widespread use of contraception, I struggle to see how you can draw a hypothetical comparison, let alone present it as some kind of fact.

The argument goes like this. In the 30 years since the legalisation of abortion, the options with regard to contraception have increased. Surely if there were a negative correlation between increased contraceptive use and abortion, we ought to see a decrease in the number of abortions, as the options for contraceptions increase.

Instead, the numbers have remained relatively stable, at about a million a year in the US.

By saying that, you're automatically saying that quality of life without an abortion is better in all cases than quality of life with an abortion.

Actually no, I'm not. I'm not even insisting that this is the case for all women who have been raped. All I said is that many woman have said that the only good thing that ever came from the rape was the birth of their child. I made no statements regarding the quality of life of the mother.

Frankly you betray your own inexperience with dealing with actual living people with feelings in this situation; it's quite pathetic imo and you would do your own argument justice by withdrawing that statement.

So you rest your argument based on my presumed inexperience in talking to women who have been raped? I suggest you try another tack, how would you know of my experiences in this matter?

One needn't, as I said earlier. An arbitrary limit, whereby you know that at, or before this limit, you are guaranteed that the foetus is not a conscious person, and after that limit, it is unlikely, but you cannot guarantee that the lifeform is not a conscious person. It's a matter of risk assessment; the real question is "how do we define a fingernail from the human?", this method is the solution rather than trying to find silly little fantasies like "human intent" in a biochemical process.

You are deciding that whether a person should live or die ought to be based on an arbitrary constraint? A 'risk assessment'? Thank you whaleboy. You've made my argument for me.

Why should we permit parents and boyfriends to push their daughter and girlfriend into not having an abortion?

None of us live in a vacuum; the merits and demerits of the influence upon us of families and friends is outside of the remits of this debate, outside of the legistlative power of the state, and irrelevant to the philosophy behind both.

Thank you whaleboy. The question of who chooses is irrelevant, compared to the choice being made. Abortion is wrong because it kills a child, not because of who chose to have one.

You ever see the effect of scratching my hand upon my epidermis?

Yes, but I would hope you go to the emergency room Whaleboy, if you scratch your hand so much that you tear it into little pieces.

You need to establish first that the foetus is a person subject to a definition of murder. Then you would then also need to apply to this foetus. In all my debates with you on this topic, I have never seen you attempt to do this. You must establish this before you can claim that one person is deciding to kill another in this case, and even then you're opening a whole new can of worms about impedence and the right to life against intent etc

Then you haven't been reading my posts in our previous debates. I agree, the only question that needs to be answered in this debate is whether the unborn child is a person or not, and all of this rest is just irrelevant.

My argument for the personhood of the unborn starts from a threefold statement.

1. Killing innocent people is wrong
2. Abortion kills an unborn child
3. The unborn child is person.

Therefore, abortion is wrong because it kills a person, the unborn child.

From this, we get to the third premise, that the unborn child is a person. To establish this, we need to also meet two other standards, that the unborn child is both alive, and is both human.

The unborn child is alive, because living things can only come from other living things. Sperm is alive, and so are infants, so you go from living to living to living. You cannot say that sperm is alive, and that the fetus in the womb is not.

The unborn child is human, because her parents are human. To know the species of any offspring you ask what species are the parents. So it makes no sense to say that a fetus is not human, so long as the fetus has human parents. The same applies to pigs, etc.

The unborn child is a person, because we believe that all living humans ought to be persons. Now some folks may dispute that society should treat all living humans as persons, since they may favour slavery, where black people were not considered fully human, or like woman were the property of their husbands. However, we have seen the results of both policies. If we believe that the unborn, even though they are both living and human, ought not to be persons, then upon what ground can we argue that any of us are also persons?

[Alexander's Horse]

Does God waste souls Ben?

[Odin]

I can't beleive I missed this:

Originally posted by Deity Dude

Person: Any living human.

We went over the concept of person in the philosphy class I am taking, and you are wrong. A person is an intelligent being that is given the right to have control over it's own decisions. A baby is not a person, someone in a persistant vegetative state is not a person. A retarted individual that has a legal guardian is not a person. Mr. Spock and Comander Data are not human but are persons. People use the word person to mean individual, but that is not correct in legal or ethical terminology.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

1. Killing innocent people is wrong
2. Abortion kills an unborn child
3. The unborn child is person.

Therefore, abortion is wrong because it kills a person, the unborn child.

My philosophy Prof distoyed this assertion in class last Monday. You need to take a Moral Issues class, Ben.

[Ben Kenobi]

AH:

I wouldn't say so. We have a purpose outside of our life here on earth, so the time we spend here is actually not as important as how we spend our time.

[Ben Kenobi]

My philosophy Prof distoyed this assertion in class last Monday. You need to take a Moral Issues class, Ben.

Oh, how did he do that? It's one thing to assert that he destroyed something, quite another to show what he did.

If your prof is any good, you should also be able to tell me where I got this particular framework from.

And I have taken two ethics courses, one specifically on biomedical ethics and another on moral philosophy.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


If your prof is any good, you should also be able to tell me where I got this particular framework from.

Sounds like John T. Noonan if my textbook is correct. My Proff used the position of Mary Anne Warren to distroy Noonan's assertion by pointing out the difference between Human in the biological sense and Human in the moral sense, and the difference between Human and Person. According to Warren, a Fetus has the same rights as a pet, that is, to be treated humanely; to her, abortion is the same morally as euthinizing a pet.

[Ben Kenobi]

Sounds like John T. Noonan if my textbook is correct.

Nope, but that tells me quite a bit about your prof and course.

My Proff used the position of Mary Anne Warren to distroy Noonan's assertion by pointing out the difference between Human in the biological sense and Human in the moral sense, and the difference between Human and Person.

Alright, but you have to realise that my assertion makes exactly the same point. I am making a distinction between being a human and being a person. Legally, one is a person, biologically one is a human.

According to Warren, a Fetus has the same rights as a pet, that is, to be treated humanely; to her, abortion is the same morally as euthinizing a pet.

Fair enough, however how does she justify classifying the unborn child who is biologically human as not a person? One can say there is nothing different between the fetus and a pet, yet biologically, they are very different.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Fair enough, however how does she justify the unborn child who is biologically human to not be a person? One can say there is nothing different between the fetus and a pet, yet biologically, they are very different.

To Warren, to be a person you must pass the following criteria:

1. the capacity to have conscious experiences

2. emotion

3. reason

4. the capacity to communicate

5. self awareness

6. moral agency

Both a pet dog and a fetus only pass the first two.