Abortion dialogue I've been having...

[tavarish]

There is a dissonance here. You say "i don't condone abortions"... and the very next sentence you disagree with yourself. If you do in fact consider an abortion to be 'morally wrong' (or the like), and you allow it to continue: that is condoning it.

I actually clarified that later on.

If I think hate speech is morally wrong, but condone and support free speech, am I condoning hate speech?

It doesn't logically follow that you necessarily condone a product (abortion) when you support its cause (the right of a woman to do what she wants with her body).

And at your statement: a bill of rights should not be designed with the the purpose of declaring what is not right, but what is. However... should that assume the behavior not specified in the bill is not right?

A Bill of rights specifies what a person is free to do, not what is necessarily right. You make the choices guided by society and personal perception. There are many relatively immoral and frowned upon acts that you can do that aren't illegal and protected under the Bill of Rights. My point here was criminalization (prohibition) of such a thing is more of an issue than the morality of it.

And I disagree that it is an issue at all. It is an action one does to their own body... are we to disallow people to get haircuts and pierce their body now? And yes, i think of abortion similarly to a haircut to fix a bad hairdo... and care about it as much

I'd say a haircut is cutting it a little thin, but the pro-lifers don't see it that way in the least. They believe it is a human being being murdered in cold blood.

Further... why indeed should one getting an abortion care that it be a person/child/human/alive or that it has the potential to be one of those? That sounds almost as if they are willing to allow a parasitic growth in their body to ruin their life simply because it is another person, or might eventually become a person... and that just sounds stupid. I could outline every bit of stupid that not aborting when one wants not to strain their body by having the child... but I think that statement speaks for itself.

Women will proceed to get abortions - that won't change. Criminalizing it doesn't help. Pro-lifers don't seem to understand that.

Do I get a commendation from you for having gotten through your fucking huge post?

Yup. Here's a fucking cookie.

---

I am largely on the same page as you are, however I feel that abortion should be a measure of last resort. If a women gets pregnant and finds out too late I am not in favour of an abortion "just because it doesn't fit her schedule right now". If there is some medical ground, or a social/economic condition that would prevent a would be child from having a decent upbringing, then yes, I agree an abortion is a valid alternative. But not as a extreme delayed contraceptive.

So in short, am I Pro-choice? Yes, but not wholesale.

I agree. The fact that it can potentially be another person should weigh heavily on the decision, and people must take responsibility for his/her actions. I think it's a valid alternative, but something I don't think I would do in my own experience. The same way that I don't smoke weed, but I have no problem allowing others to after weighing the pros and cons of the situation.

I'm pro-choice, but I'd advise against abortion unless absolutely necessary.

---

Here's some more:

I said that a human being is created at the point of conception.

You said: This actually reminds me of the Monty Python song "Every Sperm is Sacred". Good tune, that.

Except, of course, that a sperm is not a human being, nor even a potential human being (if there can be such a thing). So I hardly see the relevance of this response, even if it was solely to be tongue-in-cheek.

Some interesting things you say are:
1. a foetus "represents … the potential to become human, something that is realized when it is born."
2. all humans are "nothing more than a sperm and an egg combined"
3. "The fetus is wholly dependent on the mother for its development, stemming from physical to instinctive"
4. "The [born] child's body is responsible for its own development."
5. "A human is responsible for his/her own development physiologically, and is not symbiotic/parasitic. An unborn "child" is, and is therefore, not human in my honest opinion."
6. "I understand your point was to point out that these individuals are human, and I agree with you there, but you also made the point quite clearly in my favor that ending innocent life isn't always murder"

Let me address each of these in turn.

#1. If the foetus only represents a potential human, tell me, what is it? If it has been alive from point of conception, it must be a being of some sort, as only beings grow. Tell me what sort of being it is.

#2. Genetically, the sperm and the egg cease to exist when one joins the other - they form a new genetic being, with its own genetic code that is distinct from both its father and mother. Duane touched on this also with his comment above.

#3 & #4 I'll take together. While in the womb, the unborn derives its nourishment from its mother, not the manner in which it develops. As I allude to in my previous point, the unborn has its own genetic code which is what is responsible for the manner in which it develops.

#5. Did you just call the unborn a parasite? Again, if the unborn is not a human being, please explain to me what type of being it is.

#6. I believe my turn of phrase is "innocent human being", which I take to be something much more specific than your paraphrase of "innocent life". And for the record, it has been you who has been equating what I'm saying that abortion is murder. Generally speaking, yes, I believe the killing of innocent human beings is morally wrong - there are exceptions, but none that extend themselves to elective abortions which is the topic at hand.

In parting, I was hoping you could clarify your response here, as you don't make yourself overly clear to what you disagreed to:
me: A human blastocyst is still a human being and killing innocent human beings is wrong
you: I disagree.

Also, you seem to think that pulling the plug on a brain dead family member is analogous to abortion. I don't believe it is: in the former, you allow a life come to it's natural end; in the latter, you crush and dismember a life that, all things being equal, was far from the end of its natural life span. Both are human beings. One scenario permits life to succumb. The other scenario orchestrates a violent death. And there's a world of difference between them.

And my rebuttal:


One more time 'round the carousel.

"#1. If the foetus only represents a potential human, tell me, what is it? If it has been alive from point of conception, it must be a being of some sort, as only beings grow. Tell me what sort of being it is."

It is a developing fetus. That's what kind of being it is, in the same way an egg is not a chicken.

They don't grow on their own, they require the nourishment their mother's body provides them. They are non-viable and unable to sustain life outside of the womb.

"#2. Genetically, the sperm and the egg cease to exist when one joins the other - they form a new genetic being, with its own genetic code that is distinct from both its father and mother. Duane touched on this also with his comment above."

I don't understand. I was making the point that the point of conception (sperm and egg combining) doesn't a human make, you said it was a genetically different entity, and I agreed with you, but it was irrelevant to the point. Just because it's genetically different doesn't mean the mother's role is downplayed as a host.

"#3 & #4 I'll take together. While in the womb, the unborn derives its nourishment from its mother, not the manner in which it develops. As I allude to in my previous point, the unborn has its own genetic code which is what is responsible for the manner in which it develops."

So you're arguing that the mother isn't responsible for the child's development? Are you being serious?

"#5. Did you just call the unborn a parasite? Again, if the unborn is not a human being, please explain to me what type of being it is."

The relationship of fetus and woman resembles a parasitic organism - "Drawing upon another organism for sustenance", or it "obtains nourishment from the host without benefiting or killing the host"

I already explained to you what type of being it is - a fetus. A fetus with the potential to become a human, but is a fetus nonetheless until it is born.

"#6. I believe my turn of phrase is "innocent human being", which I take to be something much more specific than your paraphrase of "innocent life". And for the record, it has been you who has been equating what I'm saying that abortion is murder. Generally speaking, yes, I believe the killing of innocent human beings is morally wrong - there are exceptions, but none that extend themselves to elective abortions which is the topic at hand."

So your position is abortion is morally wrong because you believe the unborn to be an innocent human being. What exactly do you call the killing of an innocent human being?

I don't agree that it's murder - and the law agrees with me, as it, by definition is the "unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being", and abortion doesn't fulfill these requirements.

You still didn't answer my question - "What constitutes a human being?"

"In parting, I was hoping you could clarify your response here, as you don't make yourself overly clear to what you disagreed to:
me: A human blastocyst is still a human being and killing innocent human beings is wrong
you: I disagree."

I disagree that blastocysts are human beings.

"Also, you seem to think that pulling the plug on a brain dead family member is analogous to abortion."

No, I used it as an example that the taking of innocent life isn't a black and white issue.

Your assertion that "adults may become non-viable except without the intervention of certain medicines and / or medical equipment" tries to make a parallel between unborn fetuses and dying people - which isn't the case, as someone who has lost the ability to take care of him/herself isn't the same as something that doesn't yet have it.

"I don't believe it is: in the former, you allow a life come to it's natural end"

And who's saying it's natural? Many patients have made recoveries from persistent vegetative states in the past, who is to say that pulling the plug would be the natural way of going about it? I digress - yet again.


"in the latter, you crush and dismember a life that, all things being equal, was far from the end of its natural life span."

I like the imagery of "crush and dismember". Sounds tough. I'll ask you this. When you take a shower and kill bacteria, do you have a memorial service? Should you be charged with murder for eliminating verifiably innocent lifeforms?

You're not understanding the point.

" Both are human beings. One scenario permits life to succumb. The other scenario orchestrates a violent death. And there's a world of difference between them."

One is a human being that has lost its ability to take care of itself. The other is a developing fetus that has the potential to become and human and is absolutely dependent on the mother alone for that development.

There is a world of difference between them.