Respectful debate about abortion, anyone? (Michael Bloomberg, drug, controversial, revolution)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You have a point, but it doesn't change the fact that an embryo that cannot survive outside its mother's womb on its own is not the same thing as a living breathing human being that can. How do we know there wouldn't have been a miscarriage or such anyway? What percentage of embryos are miscarried? We are talking about a potential human life not an actual one until it is viable or born.
There is no guarantee that any one of us will live from one moment to the next.
How do you know you won't have a heart attack and die in the next 30 seconds?
How do you know you won't trip and fall, hit your head, and die this morning?
Would it be OK for someone to take a gun and shoot you because oh well, you might have died any moment anyway?
The developing embryo/fetus gets the benefit of the doubt that it will survive. If it dies, it's no one else's fault, just as it's no one's fault if you have a medical emergency and die right now.
That it might not survive anyway is an extremely strange justification for taking its life at will.
I understand and can sympathize with arguments for allowing abortion under specific situations. What I do not understand at all is the argument which has been repeated several times in this thread, that we should not be concerned at all about the life of a fetus. It does not matter and its right to life should not be considered a right whatsoever at any point until it is actually born. Or maybe until it's two years old. Or maybe never, if someone judges its level of consciousness and brain development to be inadequate.
You have a point, but it doesn't change the fact that an embryo that cannot survive outside its mother's womb on its own is not the same thing as a living breathing human being that can. How do we know there wouldn't have been a miscarriage or such anyway? What percentage of embryos are miscarried? We are talking about a potential human life not an actual one until it is viable or born.
You make some really good points. Unfortunately I think some people cannot actually "debate" on this subject because they don't "hear" you. They can not listen to any other options because they see their way of thinking as the right and only way. It's kinda like when someone says they don't pray to a god and someone else comes along and says, oh bless your soul, god is there for you.
For the purpose of this discussion, is there anyone who is pro-life who would be willing to respectfully and open-mindedly debate the possibility of accepting abortion up to 8 weeks?
I accept that. Most people like me who consider themselves generally anti-abortion, are OK with it up to a certain point. It's those late-term abortions that strike me as really heinous.
I believe the legality of abortion should be left up to the voters. We have been told for decades that anywhere from 65-75% of Americans support Roe v. Wade, so let's find out. There is already a patchwork of state laws where some require parental notification for minors, various waiting periods, various gestational terms, etc. Prior to Roe v. Wade abortion was legal in the United States, and will continue to be legal after it.
So, having covered the legal aspects I will say that if I found out the girlfriend of one of my sons got an abortion with his encouragement and consent I would probably cry. I have held my own newborn babies in my arms, I have listened to a baby's heartbeat through my wife's stomach, and I know what "feeling the baby kick" means. To destroy a baby for no reason other than temporary inconvenience is a tragedy.
There is no guarantee that any one of us will live from one moment to the next.
How do you know you won't have a heart attack and die in the next 30 seconds?
How do you know you won't trip and fall, hit your head, and die this morning?
Would it be OK for someone to take a gun and shoot you because oh well, you might have died any moment anyway?
The developing embryo/fetus gets the benefit of the doubt that it will survive. If it dies, it's no one else's fault, just as it's no one's fault if you have a medical emergency and die right now.
That it might not survive anyway is an extremely strange justification for taking its life at will.
I understand and can sympathize with arguments for allowing abortion under specific situations. What I do not understand at all is the argument which has been repeated several times in this thread, that we should not be concerned at all about the life of a fetus. It does not matter and its right to life should not be considered a right whatsoever at any point until it is actually born. Or maybe until it's two years old. Or maybe never, if someone judges its level of consciousness and brain development to be inadequate.
Yeah, some of those "2 year old" arguments you're pointing to, I believe were stated to try and make a point more like yours. They were intended to mean that if we are horrified by the murder of a born baby or toddler, that there's no real difference between that and a fetus of any stage.
It was pushback against "sentience" arguments (and I was one who placed a sentience argument on the table.) But it's hyperbole though, in at least one case (the 2 year old), because no one is suggesting that a person has no rights until they can quote Shakespeare or something. Or walk. I don't know of anyone who is suggesting that it should be OK to end an infant's life deliberately after birth. I've run into people saying that there's some sort of proposed law in California, but I cannot imagine such a thing being seriously and in good faith put forward by ANYONE. The only instance I can imagine in which anybody would try and float a law or even a story about one such...is to try and raise outrage with a fake "liberal babykillers!" propaganda. I don't fall for it, not for one instant.
I am not personally even arguing that a woman who is near to term in a pregnancy should be permitted to have a surgical abortion for any reason other than "life threatening medical emergency." Though some have said that they do feel that the "personhood" point is birth. And in fact, a lot of religions have traditions and beliefs that put it there, at birth or the first breath. Not that I especially care what any religion says about anything, or believe that any one religion should be the basis for laws in this country.
It was more putting the equivalency of an EARLY term fetus, like first trimester, closer to a coma patient who can be taken off life support, than a fully functioning human.
Like I'm not even saying that fetuses with serious special needs or developmental problems, Down's Syndrome and the like, should be aborted. I am NOT a proponent of eugenics.
I have only been positing that if we are talking about fetal development in terms of "where is the line drawn" then brain activity makes more sense than heartbeat. If only because of where we already draw lines about people being taken off life support who are unable to consent for themselves. And, too, in terms of the capacity for suffering of that tiny proto-being, as compared to the capacity for suffering of the mother... Which, since the reduction of suffering is meaningful to my ethical framework, does matter and is relevant.
I accept that. Most people like me who consider themselves generally anti-abortion, are OK with it up to a certain point. It's those late-term abortions that strike me as really heinous.
I believe the legality of abortion should be left up to the voters. We have been told for decades that anywhere from 65-75% of Americans support Roe v. Wade, so let's find out. There is already a patchwork of state laws where some require parental notification for minors, various waiting periods, various gestational terms, etc. Prior to Roe v. Wade abortion was legal in the United States, and will continue to be legal after it.
So, having covered the legal aspects I will say that if I found out the girlfriend of one of my sons got an abortion with his encouragement and consent I would probably cry. I have held my own newborn babies in my arms, I have listened to a baby's heartbeat through my wife's stomach, and I know what "feeling the baby kick" means. To destroy a baby for no reason other than temporary inconvenience is a tragedy.
You know, I might agree with "put it to the will of the voters" if that meant actually putting referendums on ballots for the voters to weigh in on.
But I'm not sure I trust it in situations where...
A State level legislator can be elected running unopposed because they had their crew harass the opponent and threaten them until they dropped out of the race.
There are serious questions about disenfranchisement of a lot of eligible voters--and no, I do not just mean poor urban minorities...I also mean the poor and old in rural areas where it may be hard to get to polls, and they may be having a difficult time casting conservative ballots. I am all about everyone who is eligible and wants to vote, having an easy time doing so and having their voice be heard and counted.
Big money has the outsize ability to "buy" and influence state level legislators. With "campaign donations" being labeled as a form of free speech, we pretty much made it so that the richest people can bribe our lawmakers to their hearts' content, and if that is not corruption, I don't know what is.
...AND "letting the states/voters decide" means letting the state legislative bodies just enact the laws without a vote to even check with the people on what they actually want.
So.
Put the matter on the ballot, if it's going to be "up to the states." See how that goes.
But I still stand by my position that if women in any state are going to potentially be forced by the state to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, then the state has a responsibility and obligation to expend its tax revenues to fully support that woman through the process. To facilitate an adoption or provide any needed assistance to make it so that carrying that child is not in effect a punishment or a harm against her. If taxpayers IN THAT STATE insist on taking the choice from her, they have an obligation to follow through even after the baby is born, not just demand it be birthed and then turn their back on mother and child.
I do, too. But the truth is there are very few points along the way from conception to birth that are not fuzzy.
It is logical to believe a human life begins at conception and should be protected from that point (that we may not be able to identify that moment exactly is irrelevant to the argument).
It is also logical to believe that all points during a pregnancy a woman has the right to do whatever she wants to the unborn "whatever-it-is" because it is in her body. Only when it is out of her body, at birth, does it become an individual with rights.
Every other point between those is hazy: whether it looks like a human being or not (in whose opinion?), whether the heart is beating (is it really a heart yet?), whether it could survive outside the womb (at such-and-such a point, some babies will survive if born, but others won't, and anyway it's not outside the womb), and so forth.
Is a fetus at 13 weeks really deserving of protection but not one at 12 weeks? Or it's deserving at 9 weeks, but not 8 weeks? Did something magic happen to it during that week, besides getting a little bigger? I just don't see how anyone can logically argue that abortion should be OK before their specific, preferred point of time but not OK after that point. It's literally the same being that it has always been, just bigger and more developed.
I do not think abortion is immoral if the mother's life is threatened (we all have the right to self-defense) and I would reluctantly make an exception for rape, although I do see that as taking an innocent life. I would be happier with a ban on abortion-on-demand after 8 weeks than no ban at all, don't get me wrong. But I see that deadline, or any other deadline, as an arbitrary compromise.
I agree with a lot of this. Well said.
I believe that abortion is a very complicated and complex issue without easy answers. I personally believe abortion is morally and ethically wrong as it does end the life of a human being. However, I also see reasons to keep it legal.
I draw my arbitrary line at the first trimester. I draw the line here because Mom has had time to realize she is pregnant and make a decision and act on it. It’s also the point when the abortion procedure becomes much more intrusive. It’s the point in time where the fetus’ body is ripped apart in the womb and pulled out in pieces.
I can also see a case being made for 8 weeks because that is when the embryo becomes a fetus and it also gives a women six week to learn that she is pregnant and make her decision.
I do support the right to later abortion only if mom’s life is in danger and for severe life threatening fetal abnormalities.
...If your mother had decided to abort, you wouldn’t have been born at some other time, you wouldn’t have been born at all. And you would not be here at this moment reading this. Does that not give you pause for thought?
It reminds me of the truism that everyone who supports abortion has already been born.
The first time my parents met, my dad ran out to get my mom's phone number, barely caught her just as she was pulling away. So, I mean, my entire existence, every single thing I've ever done and experienced, essentially depended on the exact timings of a few cars in a random Arby's parking lot circa 1979.
But it's not like I would be mad or sad if I had not existed in the first place. I mean is someone else bitter right now, because had he not caught her, he would have met someone else and had different kids? No, because they never existed in the first place, in order to be thankful to be alive or not.
Same thing goes for the scenario if my parents had become accidentally pregnant and had an abortion. It's a pointless hypothetical, and certainly no argument against abortion. I'm here because I'm here. I generally enjoy life and am grateful to have it while I have it, but if I didn't exist, I wouldn't exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonic_Spork
60-70% of conceptions miscarry by week 6.
This is a great point, too. God (nature) aborts babies more than we do. It's a natural part of the existence of fragile and imperfect and constantly vulnerable animal biology.
There is no guarantee that any one of us will live from one moment to the next.
How do you know you won't have a heart attack and die in the next 30 seconds?
How do you know you won't trip and fall, hit your head, and die this morning?
Would it be OK for someone to take a gun and shoot you because oh well, you might have died any moment anyway?
The developing embryo/fetus gets the benefit of the doubt that it will survive. If it dies, it's no one else's fault, just as it's no one's fault if you have a medical emergency and die right now.
That it might not survive anyway is an extremely strange justification for taking its life at will.
I understand and can sympathize with arguments for allowing abortion under specific situations. What I do not understand at all is the argument which has been repeated several times in this thread, that we should not be concerned at all about the life of a fetus. It does not matter and its right to life should not be considered a right whatsoever at any point until it is actually born. Or maybe until it's two years old. Or maybe never, if someone judges its level of consciousness and brain development to be inadequate.
I am largely in agreement with you (in your disagreement with the comment about "oh well there might be a miscarriage anyway.") I don't see how that is relevant.
And I agree with you that there does need to be some concern for the fetus, at some point in time, which to me is long before birth. It will never be possible to say at THIS "such-and-such" moment the fetus is legally human (except to people who believe that moment is either at conception or at birth, neither of which I believe). I believe the fetus becomes "fully-enough" human at some unknown point during its development, and I would prefer to err on the side of caution. That is, I would prefer abortion be restricted a little bit before "fully-enough human" happens rather than after. And definitely before the fetus has the capacity to feel pain.
In no way do I support late abortions, except in absolutely extreme circumstances. A 7 or 8 month fetus can generally survive outside the womb, so if the pregnancy must end for some maternal health reason, the fetus deserves to be removed via C-section, not killed.
I accept that. Most people like me who consider themselves generally anti-abortion, are OK with it up to a certain point. It's those late-term abortions that strike me as really heinous.
Late term abortions are very rare and there is little to suggest they are chosen for "I just don't want to have a baby" reasons. It's more likely that a medical situation occurred.
Oh, and my grandfather at age 18 was in Italy in WW2, and a bomb landed right next to him, and didn't go off. So, my mom wouldn't have existed and so I wouldn't have existed, but for a freak occurrence.
Nature and the universe and the randomness of chance and every other factor, in its various ways, prevents potential future human lives, every day. Many of them who might would/could have been doctors and inventors and etc.
So I don't see why us as conscious beings, can't choose to prevent a potential future life, if we have a reason for doing so. Surely the point of having the ability to choose to do things, is so that we can choose to do (or not do) whatever things.
As I said in my other post, the pro-choice position is the one that values children and families. To want to have children, and then to raise them in planning and love, is a beautiful, beautiful thing. That, to me, is what's sacred. Whether a microscopic zygote looks precious or not, is not sacred at all.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
