[W:560] Abortion 101

That's the issue settled morally.
Morally, one may be both pro-life and pro-choice.

The legal settlement of the issue is another matter.
The legal settlement of the issue is political.
The political question is how, as a society, to rationalize the taking of human life in abortion as a legal right.

it is a big problem in society. but i do not abortion is immoral

Self defense.

Some would argue it is. Another being is coming along, and WILL cause harm, sometimes permanent, over the coming months, and the only "defence", or way to stop that, is abortion. Think of it as stand your ground.

Angel said:

The Argument

The taking of a human life for any reason other than self-defense is immoral.

Except where the pregnant woman's life is at risk, abortion is immoral.

But human beings have a right to be immoral.

Therefore women have a right to be immoral.

Therefore women have a right to abort pregnancies.

​

That's the issue settled morally.

Click to expand...

Not really.

The question that remains is "What constitutes a Human life?"

If you believe in a deity, then the argument seems to be that a human life begins at conception when it is somehow "infused" with some spiritual essence. Yet we know for a fact that natural "abortions" (miscarriages) happen in a significant number of conceptions, much as with many natural causes of death after someone is born. Basically, there is no guarantee that this "spirit" will ever see the light of day once conceived in the womb.

We also know that the whole cycle involves the development from structures containing the genetic coding of two parents combining to make a fertilized egg, and that practically every subsequently developing cell contains the code for a complete being. That a single pregnancy can result in twins, triplets, etc.. So, at what point can we determine "spiritually" that we are actually dealing with either a single or more than one "human life?"

The practical argument revolves around at what point during such development does the developing structure become a person and not just the possibility of a person. We now know that practically every human cell contains all the coding for another "clone" of the original which can be manipulated in a lab. There is even the possibly that such fission can occur well after birth via some naturally occurring phenomena; perhaps related to causes of cancer which could result in a new "human" twin. Hence one might argue that every time one injures one's own structure in the natural course of sports, games, fights, etc., one has in fact "killed a human being" and clearly not in self-defense.

Finally, morals are variable depending on very human differences in culture, thought, belief systems, experiences, etc.. We have yet to reach universal agreement, hence the need for government, laws, courts, etc..

As a result, what you posit is not settled, either factually or morally. It is only your suggestion for an argument.

The bottom line is we are in dispute as to what the final definition of "a human life" is, and so until we can do so factually and unequivocally your "moral argument" holds little water.

Angel said:

The political question is how, as a society, to rationalize the taking of human life in abortion as a legal right.

Click to expand...

Part of the issue stems from how human life is defined and applied. Technically speaking, a tumor in a person has life, and being made from human DNA is human life. So obviously life itself cannot be the issue.

The next issue that presents itself then is personhood. When does human life become a person, a being? Is it consciousness? Capacity for thought? Brain development? Capacity for learning?

And there is yet one more issue to contend with. Bodily autonomy. And this is the most important of all. However, to truely understand this, let's look at a parallel.

For the sake of argument, there is a condition or disease, that to correct it, requires a healthy human to be interveiniously (I couldn't get it close enough for my spell checker to fix. Deal with it!) connected to the victim for 9 months. Without this the victim will die, although there is a chance of survival the closer to that 9 months you get.

Let's start with you waking up to find yourself having been hooked up to a person with the condition without your knowledge or consent. However they got you there, you are not otherwise restrained. Do you not have the right to disconnect the other person from you, even if it means taking their life?

Even from a perspective of you initially volunteered to do this, do you not have the right to disconnect yourself from the other even if it means their death?

This bodily autonomy is the only real reason that a woman has a right to an abortion (and technically not an abortion but to end the pregnancy. We just don't have the ability to end the pregnancy any other way yet). A woman doesn't have the right to kill her offspring. Even before we look at the whole once born thing, we can show how her right is only when it pertains to her own body. If a woman gives an egg to be artificially inseminated and the zygote is then implanted into a surrogate mother, the genetic mother has no right to have that ZEF aborted at any time. That would violate the surrogate mother's bodily autonomy. This is also why the idea that the father should be able to opt out is a false equivalent. The mother can't opt out if the offspring is not in her body.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

Angel said:

The political question is how, as a society, to rationalize the taking of human life in abortion as a legal right.

Click to expand...

I dont accept your list of moral judgements but to answer your question, I dont need to.

Human life is not the only thing protected by the govt under the Constitution (politically. That's what our govt is based on). We have rights to bodily sovereignty, liberty*, self-determination, regarding reproduction, and life. To force a woman to remain pregnant against her will by law (or other force) violates or destroys some or all those things for women.

And for a simple reason to support it (it doesnt need to be rationalized IMO), beyond the fact that to do otherwise requires unethical violations of women's rights, is that it benefits society...the greater good.

If you disagree, please list the negative effects abortion has on society.


*liberty: The positive enjoyment of social, political, or economic rights and privileges.

Captain Adverse said:

Not really.

The question that remains is "What constitutes a Human life?"

If you believe in a deity, then the argument seems to be that a human life begins at conception when it is somehow "infused" with some spiritual essence. Yet we know for a fact that natural "abortions" (miscarriages) happen in a significant number of conceptions, much as with many natural causes of death after someone is born. Basically, there is no guarantee that this "spirit" will ever see the light of day once conceived in the womb.
...

Click to expand...

Actually the vast majority of Jewish clergy and members believe in God but also believe that life begins with live birth as does a large segment of Protestant religions.

In fact the Supreme Court recognized our sincere beliefs when they decided Roe v Wade.

From part IX of Roe v Wade:

There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live' birth. This was the belief of the Stoics. [Footnote 56] It appears to be the predominant, though not the unanimous, attitude of the Jewish faith. [Footnote 57] It may be taken to represent also the position of a large segment of the Protestant community, insofar as that can be ascertained; organized groups that have taken a formal position on the abortion issue have generally regarded abortion as a matter for the conscience of the individual and her family. [Footnote 58]

Click to expand...

For me the argument doesn't follow because I disagree with your first premise:

The taking of a human life for any reason other than self-defense is immoral.

Click to expand...

"Human life" is too vague. As I have said before, I don't care about "human lives" I care about "human minds". Mere biological life isn't what makes me care if a person lives or dies, it is that they have a mind. So to me aborting an early term ZEF is no more problematic than removing a brain dead patient from life support. If there is no mind then there is no person, morally speaking, as far as I am concerned.

KevinKohler said:

Self defense.

Some would argue it is. Another being is coming along, and WILL cause harm, sometimes permanent, over the coming months, and the only "defence", or way to stop that, is abortion. Think of it as stand your ground.

Click to expand...

This other being was invited in, no?

Captain Adverse said:

Not really.

The question that remains is "What constitutes a Human life?"...

Click to expand...

No, life is a mystery, but within that mystery human life is clearly defined by DNA. Six jars of formaldehyde containing six specimens of different mammalian embryos and the identification of the human embryo is certain.

Skeptic Bob said:

For me the argument doesn't follow because I disagree with your first premise:



"Human life" is too vague. As I have said before, I don't care about "human lives" I care about "human minds". Mere biological life isn't what makes me care if a person lives or dies, it is that they have a mind. So to me aborting an early term ZEF is no more problematic than removing a brain dead patient from life support. If there is no mind then there is no person, morally speaking, as far as I am concerned.

Click to expand...

"Human life" is defined by DNA. It isn't vague at all.

maquiscat said:

Part of the issue stems from how human life is defined and applied. Technically speaking, a tumor in a person has life, and being made from human DNA is human life. So obviously life itself cannot be the issue.

The next issue that presents itself then is personhood. When does human life become a person, a being? Is it consciousness? Capacity for thought? Brain development? Capacity for learning?

And there is yet one more issue to contend with. Bodily autonomy. And this is the most important of all. However, to truely understand this, let's look at a parallel.

For the sake of argument, there is a condition or disease, that to correct it, requires a healthy human to be interveiniously (I couldn't get it close enough for my spell checker to fix. Deal with it!) connected to the victim for 9 months. Without this the victim will die, although there is a chance of survival the closer to that 9 months you get.

Let's start with you waking up to find yourself having been hooked up to a person with the condition without your knowledge or consent. However they got you there, you are not otherwise restrained. Do you not have the right to disconnect the other person from you, even if it means taking their life?

Even from a perspective of you initially volunteered to do this, do you not have the right to disconnect yourself from the other even if it means their death?

This bodily autonomy is the only real reason that a woman has a right to an abortion (and technically not an abortion but to end the pregnancy. We just don't have the ability to end the pregnancy any other way yet). A woman doesn't have the right to kill her offspring. Even before we look at the whole once born thing, we can show how her right is only when it pertains to her own body. If a woman gives an egg to be artificially inseminated and the zygote is then implanted into a surrogate mother, the genetic mother has no right to have that ZEF aborted at any time. That would violate the surrogate mother's bodily autonomy. This is also why the idea that the father should be able to opt out is a false equivalent. The mother can't opt out if the offspring is not in her body.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

"Personhood" is a political red herring. "Human life" is clearly defined by DNA.
In your analogy, if you volunteered, you have no right to disconnect unless your own life is put at risk.

minnie616 said:

Actually the vast majority of Jewish clergy and members believe in God but also believe that life begins with live birth as does a large segment of Protestant religions.

In fact the Supreme Court recognized our sincere beliefs when they decided Roe v Wade.

From part IX of Roe v Wade:

Click to expand...

"Human life" is not a matter of a poll; it's a matter of DNA.

Angel said:

The Argument

The taking of a human life for any reason other than self-defense is immoral.

Except where the pregnant woman's life is at risk, abortion is immoral.

But human beings have a right to be immoral.

Therefore women have a right to be immoral.

Therefore women have a right to abort pregnancies.

​

That's the issue settled morally.
Morally, one may be both pro-life and pro-choice.

The legal settlement of the issue is another matter.
The legal settlement of the issue is political.
The political question is how, as a society, to rationalize the taking of human life in abortion as a legal right.

Click to expand...

The right to self determination.... the woman has a right to control her body. End of story...

Lursa said:

I dont accept your list of moral judgements but to answer your question, I dont need to.

Human life is not the only thing protected by the govt under the Constitution (politically. That's what our govt is based on). We have rights to bodily sovereignty, liberty*, self-determination, regarding reproduction, and life. To force a woman to remain pregnant against her will by law (or other force) violates or destroys some or all those things for women.

And for a simple reason to support it (it doesnt need to be rationalized IMO), beyond the fact that to do otherwise requires unethical violations of women's rights, is that it benefits society...the greater good.

If you disagree, please list the negative effects abortion has on society.


*liberty: The positive enjoyment of social, political, or economic rights and privileges.

Click to expand...

Nothing in the OP suggests "forcing a woman to remain pregnant." This is an idee fixe of yours, and apparently your sole moral intuition. The rest of your post is the rationalization referred to in the OP. And if my "moral judgements" are unacceptable to you, does this mean you don't find killing human beings -- except in self defense -- immoral?

Bodhisattva said:

The right to self determination.... the woman has a right to control her body. End of story...

Click to expand...

That's a short story. But reread the OP, please. You and it are in agreement.

I made some bread dough, proofed it and put it in the oven to bake, ten minutes later I took it out and presto, no bread. A fetus is like that dough, it's dough and not the finished product, bread.

If you don't want an abortion, don't get one. Is it my right to tell another what they should do or how long to bake their bread?

bongsaway said:

I made some bread dough, proofed it and put it in the oven to bake, ten minutes later I took it out and presto, no bread. A fetus is like that dough, it's dough and not the finished product, bread.

If you don't want an abortion, don't get one. Is it my right to tell another what they should do or how long to bake their bread?

Click to expand...

What is it about "Therefore women have a right to abort pregnancies" that was ambiguous?

Angel said:

What is it about "Therefore women have a right to abort pregnancies" that was ambiguous?

Click to expand...

Nothing. Abortion is the law and yet so many folks seem to get upset when women use that particular law.

Angel said:

The Argument

The taking of a human life for any reason other than self-defense is immoral.

Except where the pregnant woman's life is at risk, abortion is immoral.

But human beings have a right to be immoral.

Therefore women have a right to be immoral.

Therefore women have a right to abort pregnancies.

​

That's the issue settled morally.
Morally, one may be both pro-life and pro-choice.

The legal settlement of the issue is another matter.
The legal settlement of the issue is political.
The political question is how, as a society, to rationalize the taking of human life in abortion as a legal right.

Click to expand...

Well, it isn't really settled since it opens the door to accepting natural rights as extending to life in the womb while also denying them equal protection.

Angel said:

"Human life" is defined by DNA. It isn't vague at all.

Click to expand...

And I'm saying it isn't your DNA that makes me care about you, Angel. I care about what happens to you and believe that you should have rights. Why? It isn't because your DNA is similar to mine, or that you have a beating heart, or that you have hands and feet, or that you breath oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. The only thing that makes you matter to me as a person, morally speaking, is that you have a mind. And a mind is an emergent property of a functioning, sufficiently developed brain.

So it doesn't matter how you define "human life". The phrase "human life" doesn't address what makes a human a person, morally speaking, not legally speaking (which is settled law).

The following bit of sci-fi is just to make a point, I'm not making any predictions about it: Some day it could be possible to replicate the operations of the human brain via software on a computer or an articial hardware brain. Maybe we could "download" or "copy" our consciousnesses over or created unique artificial beings that posses consciousnesses in their own right. If that ever happens, my position doesn't change. It is the mind, not the bits and pieces, that make someone, or something, a "person" morally speaking.

Now, I find that many religious people don't buy my above reasoning, and I think I know why. It is because they focus on words like "DNA" and "human life" to keep things secular. But I don't think those are the things they really care about, just as they aren't the things I really care about. No, just as I believe it is the mind that makes a person a person, I think a large percentage of pro-life religious people believe it is the soul that makes a person a person. And if you believe that and you believe that a human life is infused with a "soul" at conception, then of course you are going to think it is immoral to abort a fetus at any stage. But pro-lifers know that in order to have a chance in the courts they have to make their case as secular as possible. They also know that the argument holds no sway on those of us who don't believe in souls or spirits or ghosts and such.

That is how I see things, anyway. There are a minority of atheists who also oppose early term abortions but their reasoning isn't internally consistent to me, while at least the position of pro-lifers who believe in souls is internally consistent.

Angel said:

Nothing in the OP suggests "forcing a woman to remain pregnant." This is an idee fixe of yours, and apparently your sole moral intuition. The rest of your post is the rationalization referred to in the OP.

Click to expand...

There's no rationalization, only fact or opinion based on fact/law.

For people arguing from the view that abortion should be illegal, that's what that means. You cant have one without the other.

What is your reason for objecting to it?

Angel said:

This other being was invited in, no?

Click to expand...

If a couple is using birth control, how do you believe that?

Angel said:

"Personhood" is a political red herring. "Human life" is clearly defined by DNA.
In your analogy, if you volunteered, you have no right to disconnect unless your own life is put at risk.

Click to expand...

Personhood is not a red herring, it's a legitimate legal/political term. It has clear criteria.

So does 'human life,' as you say, with human DNA.

Both of these are based on *objective* criteria.

In neither example is value applied, value is subjective.

While you can hold any opinion on abortion that you desire, you cannot do anything about abortion without using the law. And then the law must take into consideration women, for whom the violation of rights, bodily sovereignty, and self-determination have huge ethical impacts. The law does not operate in a vacuum, it has consequences.

Angel said:

And if my "moral judgements" are unacceptable to you, does this mean you don't find killing human beings -- except in self defense -- immoral?

Click to expand...

I do not find killing immoral in war, self-defense, abortion, or assisted suicide. I dont find it immoral for the death penalty either but since I believe it is not effective in preventing crime, I dont believe in using that penalty.

By no means does this mean that I 'like' or 'encourage' killing.