Abortion Debate

[Radar]

Abortion isn't a moral dilemma and it isn't murder. Nobody on earth has any claim to our bodies but ourselves, not even anything growing inside of us. I support abortion for any reason or no reason. I support abortion as a means of birth control. I support abortion if the pregnant woman wants to do it on a whim. I support it even if she has one every month. I support abortion in all circumstances because it's not my decision to make. I would hope my wife wouldn't make the choice to have an abortion, but it's her choice, not mine.

A FETUS IS NOT A BABY! It's not even a human lifeform. It does not have human life. Aborting a fetus (aka parasite) is no more murder than removing a wart, getting your tonsils out, or having a tumor removed.

This is not a simplistic view either. It's based in scientific fact.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by Radar

A FETUS IS NOT A BABY! It's not even a human lifeform. It does not have human life. Aborting a fetus (aka parasite) is no more murder than removing a wart, getting your tonsils out, or having a tumor removed.

This is not a simplistic view either. It's based in scientific fact.

The biological definition of the progeny as a parasite is true, even up until they are old enough to do dishes or cut the grass. Taken in the long term, the relationship can be defined as symbiosis, especially if they are raised right and pass through the whole relationship until the parent becomes the parasite.

Now, the scientific fact that you are asserting exists only in that someone believes that to be true. It is no more fact than saying that blue is blue.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Troubleshooter

It is no more fact than saying that blue is blue.

Actually, that's a tautology, one of the few facts that's objective. What's subjective is whether this guy is blue.
/end pedant mode

[dar512]

Originally Posted by Radar

This is not a simplistic view either. It's based in scientific fact.

Getting your science from the Enquirer again, eh Radar?

[Lady Sidhe]

Originally Posted by dar512

Getting your science from the Enquirer again, eh Radar?

Good one.

Originally Posted by garnet

So if a woman gets pregnant by accident (or by carelessness, however you want to look at it) should that mean that she is required to become a human incubator for 9 months for some childless couple?

There are lots of children already available for adoption. They just don't happen to be the right age, the right color, the right background, etc. for most prospective adoptive parents.

There are people out there who desperately want children but for whatever reason can't have their own. And that's really sad. But that has nothing to do with with whether or not a woman should be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.

You have to live under a rock to not know what causes kids. Yes, IMO (which everyone will probably disagree with, of course) she SHOULD have to be a human incubator. Inconvenience and/or irresponsibility is not an excuse for murder.

Originally Posted by smoothmoniker

You've got be kidding me. Have you every tried to adopt a child? There's something on the order of 40 couples waiting for every 1 newborn available for adoption.

-sm

Yup, but if more women had the children that they so carelessly kill, it might be easier to adopt. At least, that's my opinion.


*sigh* And to Radar....too bad HIS mother didn't believe in abortion, huh? Snide remark aside, a fetus is enough of a "person" to have protection from unwanted termination, under the law, so yes, a fetus IS a person, to an extent. Once it has brain waves, I consider it a person. Again, my opinion.


/my opinion


Sidhe

[Slothboy]

Originally Posted by Radar

A FETUS IS NOT A BABY! It's not even a human lifeform. It does not have human life. Aborting a fetus (aka parasite) is no more murder than removing a wart, getting your tonsils out, or having a tumor removed.

This is not a simplistic view either. It's based in scientific fact.

Actually this is the problem with the whole debate and the reason it will almost always exist. Science can't say for sure when "life" begins because you can't ask a collection of cells if it is "alive" yet. I think we can all agree that if it could be categorically proven that a "soul" or "consciousness" (or whatever you want the distinction between a living cell and a living human to be) does not enter a fetus until a specific time then nobody would have a problem aborting that pregnancy prior to that time. Alternately, if it could be proven that a fetus had the same "living" qualities as a 30 year-old man at the moment of first cell division, then nobody could reasonably argue that aborting that child intentionally would not be murder.

The debate will rage. I'm not even going to state MY position on this whole thing because it won't change anybody's mind, and quite frankly, I don't know the right answer. I just wish others might admit that they don't know all the answers before they start calling pro-choicers evil murderers, (If a 15 year old girl is raped by her uncle, it isn't evil for her to want to be released from that burden. It is arrogance to assume that in the same situation you wouldn't feel the same.) or even assuming that a child is only alive based on the choice of the mother. (If a person kills a pregnant woman he can be charged with two murders. If that mother had not been murdered and had decided the next day to have an abortion, no charges against her would have been filed. Therefore, in the eyes of the law a fetus is only alive if the mother says it is. It is arrogant to believe that the timing of life is up to the mother.) At some point, both arguments are wrong.

So, as with anything, we need a compromise. But in the case of this issue there probably is no compromise that will make everyone happy without a signed agreement from God and the Surgeon General. I'm meeting with both of them this week. I'll see what I can work out.

[smoothmoniker]

Originally Posted by Radar

Nobody on earth has any claim to our bodies but ourselves

Shouldn't that read noTHING, not noBODY?

So, let's do the math on this one

Premise: Nobody has any claim on another person’s body.
Premise: Carrying a fetus to term is an infringement on another person's body

Conclusion: The mother can end the infringement by removing the fetus in any way she deems appropriate.

I think that's a fairly accurate sketch of your argument. You hold premise 1 to be true, and premise 2 can go uncontested, we would all agree with that (certainly anyone whose carried a baby). If both are true, then the conclusion stands. But your first premise, if its an absolute, has some dangerous extensions.

Premise: Nobody has any claim on another person’s body
Premise: Taking care of a 6-month old is an infringement on the time, resources, and strength of the parent, and thus on the actions and fruits of that body

Conclusion: The mother can end the infringement by removing the 6-month old in any way she deems appropriate, including abandoning it on a freeway overpass, or placing it in the oven.

Any reason why the first one is right and the second is wrong? And don't say "because in the second one, it’s a human life” because that's a separate argument - your argument doesn't derive from the humanity of the fetus, but from the infringement on the parent. If your first premise is absolute, then the personhood or non-personhood of the infringement makes no difference.

A FETUS IS NOT A BABY! It's not even a human lifeform. It does not have human life. …

This is not a simplistic view either. It's based in scientific fact.

No, that's not a scientific conclusion, it’s a philosophical conclusion drawn from an interpretation of the "Scientific fact". Science says, "It has no alpha brain waves." Philosophy says, "Alpha brain waves define life." The biggest problem scientists run into is when they presume to take up the task of philosophy under the guise of science.

-sm