Abortion; Why?

Guess it depends on what your initial assumption is. I don't see an undeveloped fetus as a child. However, I do think as it develops brain function and human characteristics, there is a moral argument to be made. I don't claim to be an expert on the matter, but my instinct says the opposite of what you wrote earlier, which is that early-stage fetuses are not people in any meaningful sense of the word.

__________________
#31 on SC's Top 100 Mofos list!!

Well, we'll never know. But as I said, most of the best arguments on the pro-life side posit nothing more than the sanctity of human life.

This is circular. It doesn't explain why the arguments against abortion should cease to be relevant or compelling in this year, as opposed to another year.

I know, of course, why people say it. They say it because it carries with it an assumption of inevitable progress on all fronts of humanity (which I doubt you believe in, by the way), and it also carries with it an implicit shaming that someone could be so "backward." But it makes no argument.

So...I answered your question, then. You asked who it helps, my answer is: the child who doesn't die is helped. That wasn't obvious?

It's a tough issue, I'll admit. I wouldn't fault someone for holding both views, but I wouldn't entirely fault someone who suggested there was some tension between them. I guess it depends on the specific reasons for believing each.

Sometimes the human fetus is closer to a fish or amphibian, but there are always those ultrasounds where you see the fetus, even a very early one, and it unsurprisingly looks like a little human.

The law does seem a bit schizo on this subject, doesn't it? If you murder a pregnant woman, aren't you charged with committing two murders? Or does it matter how far along the fetus is?

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

Exactly: it depends on what your initial assumption is. That's why it doesn't resolve anything. The core question is: when does life begin? And, to the degree we can't know that, how should the law respond to that uncertainty?

I can sympathize with someone who sees a clump of cells and cannot conceive of treating it as a full-fledged human being. That's tough. But let me suggest two things in response.

1) When millions (literally) of human lives are at stake, ought we not to err on the side of caution?

2) The opposite problem exists when people suggest that birth is an adequate standard, because it's quite clear that an 8-month-old fetus is a person in every reasonable way.

I forget the exact law (I think it might vary), but what's telling is that pro-choice groups fight that sort of ruling, because they feel it opens the door up to declaring the fetus a person. Nevermind that, if they're really for "choice," they should be outraged that the woman's choice has been removed via the violent act.

I think there have been a number of high-profile court cases on this, though I don't know if some are still in appeals or not. It's contentious, though.

Any more responses will just end up on your questions that are impossible to answer so I'll just say two more things: isn't pro-choice, being a choice, part of freedoms we should have (I know I know what about the spawn's choice), and what if you don't see human life as that important to save little spawns (part misanthropy part population control)?

[quote=Yoda;734306]
I think it does if you accept that religion is influencing that viewpoint. You don't, however, so I can see your pov.

I'm pretty certain that the progression of time isn't the same as 'progress'. But today's a very bad day for me to be thinking too hard about what I 'really' think.


I didn't think I asked that question. I was responding to, what I read as, sarcasm. But, if I did, then yes, you answered the question.


Agreed. Depending on why you hold one view, there could be little or no influence on the other.

Is the question one of when life begins? Or when personhood should be legally recognized?

I don't see being "alive" must be the sole criterion for establishing personhood. An argument can be made for a man's sperm being alive. Shall we criminalize masturbation and save countless unborn children?

The problem is that there probably can't be a clearly definable line of demarcation, due to the nature of life itself. I have reservations about people trying to impose a standard by claiming it is objectively existent apart from human judgment.

yeah!

Y'know, if we could all accept that human beings are 'merely' exceptional rather than 'special', we could clear this up PDQ.

For this to be true I think religion would have to do more than influence it: it would have to be overriding some modern scientific truth that has rebutted it. Again, the arguments I'm making do not presuppose God, just that life is important and the government should protect people from being killed.

No worries. Sorry to hear it.

Actually, you're right, you didn't ask a question. You made the statement that making abortion illegal "doesn't help anyone," and I was contradicting that.

Yeah, you already answered for me. Making choices for ourselves is definitely a huge, integral part of any person's freedom. It's just a matter of what constitutes a person.

It depends on how far you take this. If you honestly think that the government should have the power to decide who lives or dies based on things like convenience, or through some calculation as to how likely they are to be happy or wanted or something else, then sure, you can absolutely justify abortion. But beyond that, you really only need to believe that the government has a duty to protect innocent lives. Once you posit that, the abortion debate becomes only about when a person's humanity needs to be recognized.

Regarding population control: I think all the same issues about life and death and playing God apply there. Population control seems pretty horrific in the places that practice it, and it certainly seems at odds with the notion of choice. If one supports abortion on the grounds of choice, I don't see how it could simultaneously limit the number of children someone has without contradicting that.

Anyway, fears of overpopulation used to be rampant, but they look downright silly today. Almost without fail, a society's birth rate declines as its affluence grows. At this point places like the UK are actually below replacement level, even.

I don't think an argument can be made for sperm being alive. Not in a biological sense. Sperm, by itself, will always stay sperm. A fertilized egg, however, immediately starts becoming human and will continue to do so unless specifically stopped.

The problem is that we're imposing a standard either way. The pro-choice position doesn't avoid this, it just ensures that the people potentially hurt by the standard are voiceless and (usually) faceless. Which makes it all too easy, I think, to marginalize them.

I think this is appropriate. It's a bit long, but it's the entirety of the "abortion scene" in Alfie (1966). This is an "illegal" abortion which is supposed to have been committed in England during the Swingin Sixties. It's very powerful and should move you however you feel about the subject.

From about 5:42 to the end.


The entire thing - the church scene in the middle has relevance to Alfie and his situation, but you can skip it to get back to the aftermath of the abortion.
&feature=related

The beginning to about 3:50.
&NR=1

Sperm moves more than a fetus, non-living things don't move. It's silly to say sperm isn't living, that's like saying plants aren't living. Cells are alive, bacteria is alive, sperm is alive.

Perhaps I've been a little sloppy about my terminology, then. If you rather, you can just replace "alive" in my post with "human life," or something of the sort. Sperm will never become a human by itself. A fertilized egg will, unless we specifically stop it.

That's not true, there are other reasons why a pregnancy may abort.

Also, you should never be sloppy with your sperm.

There's also this:

This documentary:

__________________
"Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."