Real questions about pro choice

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]


Or sometimes Mr. C's Law of Loose Wiring kicks in and, because the mother doesn't realize the consequences she's going to endure, she aborts because she (wrongly) perceives abortion as the easy (or easier) solution.


[/ QUOTE ]

Quite true. As far as birth control techniques go, abortion is terrible in every way except success rate.

[Fels krone]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But if the aborted fetus is the equivalent of an insignifigant [sic] animal, than the suffering it endures during an abortion is negligible against protecting the woman holding it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Considering how callously you're framing the mother, that's a rather perverse choice of words, no? Every abortion involves emotional trauma for the mother. That emotional trauma exists because a fetus ISN'T just "an insignificant animal." It's a potential child.

But sometimes the potential good of that life seems too fragile to justify risking so much potential suffering. I'm not going to judge a mother for making that decision. (Although I feel very strongly that abortions should be done without causing any suffering to the fetus, preferably before neurulation.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again, it depends on how you define the life inside of the mother. Although it is a potential child, I dont think that there is a right to life until very late in the pregnancy. The law and pro choice tend toward the earlier on in the pregnancy. Whatever time frame you go with, you are giving the woman the right to make a choice whether that life lives or not. Anti abortion thought is that she has no right there, that society should protect that life. If you are going to agree to her right to an abortion, then the suffering of the baby has no impact. The suffering the mother occurs is also negligible, as it is brought upon herself. If she chooses to abort and suffer through the emotional trauma, that should not contribute to the arguement that she shouldnt be allowed to abort.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
A trimester is 13 weeks. How old does that make the (whatever) during the 11th and 12th trimester?

To elaborate, my point is that "viability" in terms of months in the womb would be just as arbitrary a cutoff as 13 weeks is. I would think that true viability - that is, the ability to survive "on one's own" - cannot exist before age three or so as a bare minimum. In other words, viability requires about 2 trimesters in the womb, and, at the bare minimum in the most exceptional case in the most non-threatening environment, another 11 or 12 more trimesters outside.

In still other other different words, by extension, an argument for viability as the cut-off ought to extend to about age 3. In my post, I mentioned that some people find "viability" palatable, and therefore plausible. I think its palatability (for some) is the only thing lends it any credibility (to those who find it credible) whatsoever.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats not even close to what viability means. This is particularly important to my own pro-choice stance. There are always parents awaiting children.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
SOME pro-choicers would argue that they are not persons until some point, and they use less or more arbitrary guidelines for establishing personhood.

[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutely. Personhood is a vague concept that we confer rather than discover when it comes into being and when it ceases.

The mistake repeatedly made by pro-lifers is thinking that there's some matter of fact out there. The other mistake is thinking that even if there is a matter of fact which cannot be determined it follows that we can't find stages before personhood is attained.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I am being very specific as to the "matter-of-fact" I am targeting. Personhood debate is a non-starter, at least for this thread.

If you are indeed Pro Choice, please tell the court when you take the Choice away from mom and award said rights to the fetus? You have to choose a time from Last Menstrual Period to Birth, by convention using # of weeks. The US courts have chosen 13 weeks. If given the option, when would you choose, and why?

Can it be agreed that any rational human would say that 39 weeks is all fetus, all the time? 30 weeks, too? If this can be agreed, as we then get to fewer and fewer weeks, my understanding is that the prochoicers get off the bandwagon at about 13 weeks...just wondering why.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've answered already although you either noted my answer and moved on or ignored it. Birth. But then, I also explained that there IS no debate about when something becomes 'life' since it is life the entire time. You can't call the personhood debate a non-starter...thats exactly the debate you are pursuing. At what arbitrary date do we decide the fetus is a PERSON. It is alive the entire time, and anyone who would argue otherwise needs only a dictionary.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It may make your points more dramatic to idiots who can't comprehend and just react on emotion, but it is a meaningless phrase for people who can rationally think about issues. Most of us on this forum are the latter. Nearly everything has the potential to end a human life form. Certainly, scratching and washing your hair.


[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Every single cell in my body has the potential to be a human life. Every time I cut my hair, wash my hair, scratch, or do anything that causes me to lose or kill cells (ok, most of the skin cells I lose are already dead, but scratching them causes living ones to die and replace them) has the potential to end a human life.

[/ QUOTE ]
Equating scratching to abortion doesn't sound like rational thinking to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet another reason why none of us consider you much of a rational thinker. The ability to follow analogies is something you can develop over time, however.

[brashbrother]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But if the aborted fetus is the equivalent of an insignifigant [sic] animal, than the suffering it endures during an abortion is negligible against protecting the woman holding it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Considering how callously you're framing the mother, that's a rather perverse choice of words, no? Every abortion involves emotional trauma for the mother. That emotional trauma exists because a fetus ISN'T just "an insignificant animal." It's a potential child.

But sometimes the potential good of that life seems too fragile to justify risking so much potential suffering. I'm not going to judge a mother for making that decision. (Although I feel very strongly that abortions should be done without causing any suffering to the fetus, preferably before neurulation.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again, it depends on how you define the life inside of the mother. Although it is a potential child, I dont think that there is a right to life until very late in the pregnancy. The law and pro choice tend toward the earlier on in the pregnancy. Whatever time frame you go with, you are giving the woman the right to make a choice whether that life lives or not. Anti abortion thought is that she has no right there, that society should protect that life. If you are going to agree to her right to an abortion, then the suffering of the baby has no impact. The suffering the mother occurs is also negligible, as it is brought upon herself. If she chooses to abort and suffer through the emotional trauma, that should not contribute to the arguement that she shouldnt be allowed to abort.

[/ QUOTE ]

At what point is this lateness for you? why?

Do you see why this is central to the argument? If you can define a demarcation point, as Prodigy put it, then we have something to talk about. If you cannot define one between conception and birth, you must then apply the same rules at 39 weeks that you would apply at 6 weeks.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My argument is this: It is not possible to determine when *exactly* life begins, scientifically, anyway. [If you disagree with this point, please explain].

There are some who have an opinion as to certain biological standards (heart beat, brain activity, etc.), but these have no bearing on the current law that allows abortion in the first trimester. In other words, nothing *biological* happens in week 13 to differentiate a fetus and create a life, but that seems to be the accepted cut-off when the law says it is no longer OK to kill a baby.

1. If you are pro-choice, what is your "cut-off point" after which the mother has no right to take the fetus' life?
2. What is your reasoning?

My suspicion is that many who are Pro Choice have not actually thought this through to the end. They assume that the government must have a reason for the distinction at 13 weeks growth, but have not truly explored what this means.

If you still are not sure what I mean, try working it backwards: At 39 weeks (1 week prior to the due date) mom wants to abort, is this OK? Nope. How about 37 weeks? 35? 30 weeks? OK, how about 24 weeks? 20 weeks? As far as current science knows, no fetus born at 20 weeks can survive outside the womb. But according to our laws, a fetus aborted at 14 weeks gets the mother charged with murder. If she'd done the same thing 2 weeks prior, she's exerting her independence and taking charge of her own body, thank you very much. What gives?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure where you live where someone gets charged with murder for an abortion at any stage. Certainly not the mother ANYWHERE (and ask yourself why that is)in the US. Are you living under Sharia?

Abortion laws are state laws, not federal. And I doubt you can find a single pro-life person who thinks 'the government has a good reason for choosing 13 weeks', even in those states where abortions are illegal after the first trimester (I'm surprised there are any, actually).

I don't see any reason whatsoever for the government to regulate what parents do with unborn children at any stage. Yes, 39 weeks should be legal. I would say that until society has made an investment, society has no say. Something like 5 years old might be an appropriate cut-off, though even that isn't exact.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, safe to say you are not a parent? You think it should be allowed for a parent to terminate the child if he wants? Really? Up to age 5 or so? Come on, be serious.

By investment, are you referring to public education? That is the determining factor that would allow the state to get involved? Really?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, really.
The state shouldn't be responsible for enforcing morality.

Edit: It's not just public education. Perhaps the actual age should be lower. I mean, the father obviously has an interest in the matter, and that interest needs to be enforced. My point, though, is that laws should exist to protect the public, not to influence private behaviour.

I think we can generally rely on individual choice as a guide. As subfallen pointed out, sane people don't kill their 2-year-olds, and it's not because it's illegal. Some people will feel that at 'X months' they don't want to 'kill' their child. Some people won't. Despite the publicity, very few abortions occur at a late stage.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I started a similar thread a while back

making decisions as to a solid cutoff when there are no demarcation points is one of the hardest thing for my mind to grapple..but these decisions must be made and they are made.

the age for the emancipation of children is equally or probably even more arbitrary than the abortion one.

the fact that there is no demarcation point in a person's life does not make it logical that we emancipate children as soon as they are born...(or concieved)

that is not to say that there aren't good reasons why conception should be a good point to consider a being to have full rights and priveleges...but the simple fact that there are no demarcation points thereafter is not enough to exclude other possibilities.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can think of two very obvious demarcation points: conception and birth. Seems like you are from the camp that says, we *have* to have abortion, so let's comeup with a timeline to make it palatable.

FYI, another interesting point determined by law is that a miscarriage/fetal death at 20 weeks or later requires a name, birth certificate, and official cremation or burial, etc.

Emancipation of children is much foggier, I agree. We do *have* to emancipate our kids, so yes, we do have to find some way to make that distinction. IMO, it is altogether different from abortion in that emancipating is identifying a cultural distinction, but does not have the potential to end a human life form.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think if you want to be taken seriously in abortion debates you should refrain from low-meaning, high-emotion phrases like 'potential to end a human life form.' It may make your points more dramatic to idiots who can't comprehend and just react on emotion, but it is a meaningless phrase for people who can rationally think about issues. Most of us on this forum are the latter. Nearly everything has the potential to end a human life form. Certainly, scratching and washing your hair.

[/ QUOTE ]

Forgive my ignorance, but what do you mean by that? Scratching and washing your hair?

I was not trying to bring emotions in, I was just trying to say that emancipating children and aborting a fetus are very different arguments. Most importantly in that we have to do the former, but we do not have to do the latter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Every single cell in my body has the potential to be a human life. Every time I cut my hair, wash my hair, scratch, or do anything that causes me to lose or kill cells (ok, most of the skin cells I lose are already dead, but scratching them causes living ones to die and replace them) has the potential to end a human life.

[/ QUOTE ]

You apparently consider anything with human DNA to have the "potential to be a human life" so you focus on that to debunk my statements. Brilliantly posed, marvelously written, you, sir, are my superior. Can we get back to the topic, please?

[/ QUOTE ]

I 'apparently consider?' No, I don't apparently consider. It DOES. And that does debunk your arguments. Arguing that destroying a fetus is wrong because it has the potential to become human life is true and completely meaningless, unless you are willing to outlaw abortion and haircuts at the same time. I wasn't saying abortion and haircuts are the same thing, I was saying your particular argument, that it is somehow wrong to destroy something that has human potentiality, is a meaningless argument.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My pro-choice stance has nothing to do with personhood and everything to do with Thomson's violinist argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

From Judith Jarvis Thompson in 1971:

[ QUOTE ]
I propose, then, that we grant that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. . . . But now let me ask you to imagine this. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you -- we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist now is plugged into you.

To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you." Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says, "Tough luck, I agree, but you've now got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this: all persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons.

Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him." I imagine you would regard this as outrageous. . . .


[/ QUOTE ]
First of all, this isn't the perfect analogy. Not all pregnancies are caused by rape. Choosing to give birth and raise a child isn't the same thing as lying in a bed for nine months or even the rest of your life. Nevertheless, let's assume the analogy is valid.

[ QUOTE ]
Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, it is. To kill a human being over a matter of inconvenience is wrong. Why do you see it differently?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, my usual tack in arguing this topic is using a slippery slope. I insist that we first discuss abortion only in cases of rape. I use Thomson's argument like a hammer and beat people into making statements just as you have here. We kill people as a matter of inconvenience all the time. They are called Africans. Or Haitians. Or starving Americans.

From here, its a few short steps to understanding that having a condom break or having the pill not work are nearly equivalent to rape, from the point of view of culpability (and I base culpability on reasonably expected outcomes, i.e. you cannot reasonably expect to be raped when you leave your house and you cannot reasonably expect to get pregnant when you use two forms of birth control in a perfect way). Of course, abortion in the case where both parties couldn't be bothered to use any birth control, the true 'abortions of convenience,' are still wrong, IMO, but that becomes a legally impractical difference.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd say right up until birth.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't understand this - This causes far too much suffering for all parties involved to be considered moral IMO - the suffering of those witnessing the abortion / the mother / the child.

Pulling a living child out of you and watching it be killed systematically can't possibly be justified. Oh - and this has nothing to do with religion.

My own opinion is that the cutoff should be very soon after conception. Perhaps give a week for the parents to decide what they truly want. There is no reason for carrying child for weeks or months and letting it grow inside you if you don't want it.

Pro-choice is a very cheery name in opposition to 'pro-life' - pro-death ?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you pull a living child out of a woman, she can certainly no longer abort it. She can refuse to nurse it, feed it, or care for it, but she cannot kill it.