Another Abortion Debate!

[scrapinpeg]

The issue is popping up in the news again, and there are enough new Water Cooler types that we can launch yet another abortion debate and get some fresh perspectives.

I'll start. I'm mildly pro-abortion, but that's not a very interesting position, so how about this instead:


How come if you kill your fetus it's okay, but if I kill it I go to prison for murder? Which is it? Is it a life to be protected or not? If it's not murder for a pregnant woman to do it, then it shouldn't be murder for anyone else to do it. Sure, if it the woman didn't want you to do it you could be prosecuted for assault and battery, but not murder.

Anyway, why the persistent focus on when BEFORE birth a baby should be lawfully abortable?

As the parent of a "terrible two" toddler, some days I think it should be lawful to have an abortion up until age 3 or so. What's the difference, after all, between an almost-born but still abortable baby, and a just-born and no-longer-abortable baby? Drawing the line at the moment of birth seems just too arbitrary to me. The ancient Greeks could leave their unwanted kids on hilltops, and inner-city girls get to leave their unwanted kids in dumpsters, so why not just extend the allowable abortion period to a certain point after birth?

[Captain Hook]

It is a offence under section 1 of the Infant Life Preservation Act 1929 where with intent to destroy the life of a child capable of being born alive (28 week pregnancy, sometimes 22) a person by any wilful act causes a child to die before it has independant existance from its mother.

so in the UK atleast (i'm not sure about the US and the rest of the world) killing an unborn child is an offence punishable by life imprisonment and there are offences for mothers causing their own miscarriage

in a legal abortion the pregnancy can't be over 24 weeks, done by a registered medical practitioner and it must be done to prevent physical of psychological harm to the mother or any existing children in her family.

naturally there is some overlap between child destruction and abortion

I guess the question of whether any child termination can be considered legal or moral is a little more complex.

[larkmaj]

I could be wrong, but I thought abortion was only legal in the first 2 trimesters (up to 24 weeks). Also, I believe it is also legal for a mother to drop a baby off at the hospital no questions asked (assuming it is the mother that drops the baby off). That might only be in some states, I actually have no idea.

[TrainingDummy]

Here's another one: Should teenage girls be able to obtain one without their parents' or guardians' consent? Is it her body and that's it? If so, should a 13-year-old be able to have "fencing.net" tattooed on her forehead?

For the record, I think yes, she should be.

[Inquartata]

As the parent of a "terrible two" toddler, some days I think it should be lawful to have an abortion up until age 3 or so. What's the difference, after all, between an almost-born but still abortable baby, and a just-born and no-longer-abortable baby? Drawing the line at the moment of birth seems just too arbitrary to me.

Mrs. Cartman?

[dcmdale]

As the parent of a "terrible two" toddler, some days I think it should be lawful to have an abortion up until age 3 or so.

I can think of a lot of parents that would advocate "up to age 18" on certain days.

[jessicasimpson]

What I want to know is why are Pro life people usually for the death penalty, and why are pro choice people against the death penalty?
Either you value life or you don't

[scrapinpeg]

What I want to know is why are Pro life people usually for the death penalty, and why are pro choice people against the death penalty?
Either you value life or you don't

It's more a question of WHOSE life is valued, and to what extent. Almost nobody values all lives equally.

An unborn child is not the same as a person who committed a horrific crime.

A pro-choice person values an unborn child's life less than the mother's desire to not have a child. A pro-life person values the unborn child's life more.

A pro-death-penalty person puts less value on the life of a person who committed a horrific crime than on protecting society by removing that person from the world. An anti-death-penalty person values that person's life more, and would rather have the criminal removed by imprisonment at public expense.

(Let's ignore those who are against the death penalty because they're not sure that only the guilty are punished. That's not opposition to the death penalty itself, but rather an opposition to making irreversible actions. A real anti-death-penalty person is opposed to it even for those truly guilty of unspeakable crimes.)

If everyone's life was equally valued, then yes, it would be absurd and inconsistent for pro-life people to favor capital punishment and pro-choice people to oppose it. But everyone's life isn't equally valued.

[keith]

A pro-choice person values an unborn child's life less than the mother's desire to not have a child. A pro-life person values the unborn child's life more.

...but frequently the objection to being prochoice is that it is the application of utilitarian ethics to an area (life) were a perceived absolute morality exists.

The criticism is that holding this objection to a utilitarian view of 'life' does not stop people from being utilitarian in their behaviour towards life in other contexts - ie the death penalty is acceptable even though there may be 1:1000 or so innocent people executed. Or, the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima was acceptable because the lives of our soldiers was more valuable than the (greater?) number of lives of japanese civilians. Or that supporting farm subsidies/agricultural protectionism is acceptable because the standard of living is more acceptable than poverty (and its often lethal consequences) in third world nations etc etc.

Not to say there isn't a legitimate utilitarian objection to abortion.

[RPI Epeeist]

What I want to know is why are Pro life people usually for the death penalty, and why are pro choice people against the death penalty?
Either you value life or you don't

Well some may say once you've denied another person their right to life, you forfeit yours (e.g. murderer). So while you may believe a fetus, who has done nothing to deserve the forfeit of their right to life, should have a right to life, you can easily believe that a murderer does not.

Its a matter of valuing the life of the innocent.

[jBirch]

What about the concept of Euthanasia then? If your child is likely to be born with severe handicaps, and/or live a life in constant pain should you be able to quietly put it to sleep?

James.

[Gav]

As the parent of a "terrible two" toddler, some days I think it should be lawful to have an abortion up until age 3 or so. What's the difference, after all, between an almost-born but still abortable baby, and a just-born and no-longer-abortable baby? Drawing the line at the moment of birth seems just too arbitrary to me. The ancient Greeks could leave their unwanted kids on hilltops, and inner-city girls get to leave their unwanted kids in dumpsters, so why not just extend the allowable abortion period to a certain point after birth?

I must be missing someting here but abortion is a medical/legal term that applies to foetus termination before birth. It is an absurd statement to suggest that you can somehow "abort" something* that has finished. This is extending a word well past it's definition.


* In fact anything that has already completed. Look up the word abort, or even abortion, in the dictionary.

[scrapinpeg]

I must be missing someting here but abortion is a medical/legal term that applies to foetus termination before birth. It is an absurd statement to suggest that you can somehow "abort" something* that has finished. This is extending a word well past it's definition.


* In fact anything that has already completed. Look up the word abort, or even abortion, in the dictionary.

A pro-life person would say you're aborting a life, not a gestation.

[Gav]

A pro-life person would say you're aborting a life, not a gestation.

So you are basically asking a loaded question by making a gross misuse of language. Whether a pro-life person likes it or not definitions of legal abortion exist. In that medical-legal definition a pro-life person would be wrong. In any case what you mean is a human life - or are you extending it to all life - in which case I sincerely hope you are the most absolute type of vegan (because you have to eat something). Or are we going to be aborting carrots as well?

You see if you wilfully change the terms then this isn't a discussion.

And really - why is it anyone's business apart from the parents? And yes I think that both should at least discuss this (if it's on the table) even if I think that ultimately the decision rests with the female.

Edited because I didn't make any sense.

[RPI Epeeist]

If you'll allow me to play the devil's advocate (me being more pro-choice but not completely...). You're statement on it being the parents choice could seem controversial to pro-lifers. If you see a mother and father both nodding in agreement as they, together, decide to shoot their 1 year old son in the head, would that be no one's business but the parents?

This is why its a debate and one that we can argue all we want and get nowhere (not that I'm not willing to try ) just as everything in philosophy is but its very clear that there are many levels to the abortion debate. I've seen pro-life win some levels and pro-choice win others. Here are some arguments that I have seen in my philosophy studies...

1. Is the fetus a person? (You can't be committing murder if its not a person)
2. Can we call a fetus a parasite? (Might sound insensitive, but is there much difference between a fetus and say a tapeworm?)
3. If you awoke in a hospital bed and awoke to find a masterful pianist sharing your kidneys and the only way he will survive is if you allow him to stay attached to your kidneys for a while (say 9 months...). You didn't agree to this however it has happened. Do you have the right to remove yourself from this situation knowing that if you do you will allow this person to die?

There we go... Now I haven't read the other threads on abortion so I can only hope that I have repeated anything, forgive me if I have.

You may do whatever you want with these arguments/scenarios, you may even decide that they are so foolish that they should be ignored.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

I'm pro-choice and anti-death penalty.

Here's why I'm anti-death penalty.

1. We shouldn't kill innocent people, and we can't prevent doing that all the time.

2. I don't want criminals to be allowed to die. I want them to be miserable for a very long time. And if for some reason prison is actually better than life was.... well, maybe it's not the worst thing for them to live in prison. If I were convicted of a crime, and you told me that either I could die quickly or I would have to live in captivity for the rest of my life, I would choose death. Over and over again.



I'm politically pro-choice, and personally pro-life. I go way out of my way to not put myself in a situation where I would ever have to make that decision----- But roughly one in four women will be raped in their lifetime in the US. Count up the number of females on the board who live in the US, and a fourth of them (statistically) will or have been raped. This figure is WAY too real to me to consider any situation where people might be forced to keep a baby to term after being raped as a valid situation.

I've lived though some pretty rough times within my family.... That's not one I could handle. And that's my main motivation.


This is one of those issues where I really really can't emotionally remove myself. Other issues I can pretend that I can. This one? Not so much.

[Inquartata]

You know, you say that now, MP, looking at it in the abstract. But I suspect that you might change your mind should the prospect be immediately and tangibly before you. After all, circumstances could always arise which would see you released from captivity, but once dead you are just dead...

Even Hamlet turned back at last from the death he professed to find wholly logical and desireable.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

You know, you say that now, MP, looking at it in the abstract. But I suspect that you might change your mind should the prospect be immediately and tangibly before you. After all, circumstances could always arise which would see you released from captivity, but once dead you are just dead...

Even Hamlet turned back at last from the death he professed to find wholly logical and desireable.

Yeah, the first time I read this I assumed you were talking about how I might actually keep a child that was the result of rape rather than I might prefer life in prison over the death penalty. I was confused a little bit.

That said, I could always kill you, and turn the abstract into the concrete..........

[Squall_Leonhart]

*sigh* here we go again.

I think the woman who is bearing the child should decide if push comes to shove.

No woman should be forced to have a child if she does not want to....say because if the child were to be born, what will the child's life be like? Loved? Protected? Educated? Cared for?

I believe there's a stat on the percentage of abortions...something like that most abortions don't come from rape or incest. They are a small minority, but because women often are put under such horrible circumstances, I believe abortions should be legal. As for age, if a 13 year old girl were being raped by her father, I don't think parental consent is necessary. She would need to get the heck out of dodge. Otherwise, WEAR A CONDOM! or something.

As for child's life, the idea of a woman knowing she is bearing another life for most common sensed people usually makes enough of an impact for the woman to carefully consider the following actions. That being said, if said woman got drunk one night freshman year in college and had sex with anonymous frat boy, that does not mean she must jeopardize her career/college degree for the sake of her child. That would bode ill for both futures if she were to....I am a firm believer in working women.
You could have a woman have the child, and then you'll have 15 million kids or whatever put up for adoption. And each one would grow up in a happyhappysunshine land. Each child deserves a fair chance in life with opportunities. An unwanted child, I think, would not deserve a hard life. We already have enough of that in the world.

Most statements above were sweeping, perhaps stinging, and made out of the resignation of seeing said topic for the 105th time this year.

No, I didn't read any of the other posts.

[Squall_Leonhart]

actually, I read some posts...

We could be like those other countries that uses the people who are on death roll and sell their organs to the black market....
Or, we could continue supporting lots of people on death roll instead of using our taxes elsewhere.

yes, playing devil's advocate.

I would support death roll, but I've seen innocent people being jailed over 12 years only to have a benevolent detective find startling new evidence which changes their guilty case to a letter of apology and a free bill from the government. Assuming people were flawless with their logic (jurors), flawless with evidence presentation ( no hiding incriminating evidence), a flawless government system ( HA!), I would support the death penalty.