Abortion dialogue I've been having...
May 12, 2010 at 1:53 am
(This post was last modified: May 12, 2010 at 2:01 am by tavarish.)
So i've been going back and forth with Aristophrenium's Mathew on the subject of abortion.
I'll copy it here, but it's a long read. You were warned.
Here's the link to the entire text:
http://aristophrenium.com/adam/how-to-re...-rhetoric/
I wrote:
Ouch.
I have a few things to add.
1. Pro-choice is not the same as pro-abortion. I support the woman's right to choose what she wishes to do with the unborn child, but I don't condone abortions. Just because it's not something I wouldn't choose from my point of view doesn't mean it should be illegal for someone else to do so based on their circumstances.
As a loose example to clarify my point, I am pro-free speech, but I don't condone using that speech to promote hate.
2. At what point is this a human rights issue? Conception - If so, are morning after contraceptive pills forms of abortion?
Sometime in the term - If so, when?
3. "No Bill of Rights should protect people from natural events, like breathing, eating, or being pregnant. You’re getting ridiculous. "
Would that same Bill of Rights be able to prohibit you from protecting yourself in a potentially harmful situation (medically, socially, economically)?
4. If this is primarily a human rights issue and abortion patrons are actively violating rights, what should the penalties be?
This dialogue paints this as a black and white issue, and it is far from that. I contend that it is more gray area than either side is willing to admit.
He wrote:
I came back with:
And I offer up a few answers to your questions.
"I"m a little confused: you personally won't kill an innocent human being but you're ok with others killing innocent human beings, just as much as you won't invoke hate speech but are ok with others invoking hate speech?"
I asked you at what point does it become a human rights issue. At what point is it another person?
Personally, I've seen many circumstances in which people have considered aborting unborn children, and it's not a black and white issue, but I digress.
As I don't consider abortion equal to murder, your question is a bit irrelevant. As for the analogy, I don't agree with the speech one may say, but I recognize the person's right to say it.
"Do morning-after pills induce, intentionally, the expulsion of a conceived human being? If so, I believe you have answered the question already."
No, they don't.
"You have a right to self-defence, and to use fatal force if necessary. But tell me, do zygotes, blastocysts and foetuses set out to harm their mothers?"
What does intention have to do with anything? Would you waive your right to defend your state of well-being in any other situation other than self-defense?
" As to maternal health, the goal of such a termination is to save the life of the mother, not end the life of the unborn."
The goal of such a termination is to remove the fetus, the reasons for doing so vary greatly.
"Socially and economically - there's help in those areas that does not require the termination of the unborn."
Not necessarily. There are many avenues in which an unwanted pregnancy is simply social suicide. I understand the options available, as I've worked in an inner city medical clinic for a few years, and they are far from perfect or ultimately beneficial for the child.
It may be cold, but it isn't the best thing (to either party) to bring a child into the world when you can't fathomably support it.
"Do you believe people who kill innocent human beings ought to go unpunished? What penalties does society usually dish out in such circumstances?"
Again, equating abortion to murder, which isn't necessarily the case.
Emotion aside, the question 'Is the unborn an innocent human being?' leads to a pretty black and white answer from which everything else flows. What's your answer?
Not necessarily. Moving into the third trimester it can closely resemble a child, but in the beginning weeks of the pregnancy, it's barely distinguishable as anything resembling a baby. This is the main issue, and it's taken a little while to get here.
Personally, I don't consider an unborn baby to have human rights, because it cannot function on its own without its mother, in any facet of life. It necessarily depends on the mother for all of its vital life functions. Only when the child is born does it break the physical bond with the mother and become its own, independent entity capable of sustaining itself. Although babies can be dependent on the mother for years after birth, they don't necessarily need the mother to be present - any older person will suffice. During the pregnancy, the child is a developing part of the mother, thus she has the right to do what she wants with her body.
Here's a question:
1. At what point in the pregnancy does the fetus develop human rights?
2. If your understanding of the issue is based on societal interpretation, then why would it be unreasonable to see that abortion would be more socially acceptable in another society and not necessarily equal to murder?
3. Why call it "empty rhetoric" when you fail to address the main underlying issue - the fact that you disagree with others on necessarily calling abortion murder?
He rebutted with:
And finally my answer to his text:
Here's a concise rebuttal to your arguments:
"1. Resemblances are important. If the unborn doesn't look like a child, it ain't a child, therefore feel free to kill it."
Not at all. I made the point that late in the pregnancy, the unborn fetus can have distinct child-like traits, but in itself is not a separate entity until it is removed from its mother, which I clarified in the next paragraph. I contend that it isn't a child until it is born, but I really don't want to get into a futile exercise in semantics or empty rhetoric.
Looking like a baby adds to this already multifaceted issue, as humans have a need to necessarily impose emotions onto a being that may not have them. All it does is make the issue more complex - that's the point I was trying to illustrate in reponse to your question "Is the unborn an innocent human being".
Simple answer - no, but it sure can resemble one.
"2. The unborn has no rights because it is dependent on it's mother for survival, therefore kill it if you want to"
The unborn has no rights because is it wholly dependent on its mother for every single vital components of its physical development. The unborn is literally a part of the woman, affecting her chemical balances and general state of health, among many other things.
It's not a clear cut case of "kill it if you want to". The fetus has the potential to grow into a fully developed child, and that should not be ignored. Again, the point here is to weigh the options on a very thorough level and make a decision based on the pros and cons of the possible pregnancy. Not all abortion stories are the same, and there is a LOT of emotion involved, I've experienced this on a few occasions, but I digress.
"Ontologically the human beingness of each has not altered. "
And which one of those that you mentioned is nothing more than a sperm and an egg combined? According to your assertion further in the text, as soon as a man deposits sperm into an ovulating woman, there are three people in the room, which is a bit ridiculous in my opinion.
But on a less personal note, we come to another crossroads:
What constitutes a human being?
"A human blastocyst is still a human being and killing innocent human beings is wrong."
I disagree.
"there are instances throughout life where people become non-viable in the sense that you use it. Infants, newly born, are non-viable - they still require constant care by a 3rd party."
I won't argue with you on the somewhat improper usage of non-viability - as it is commonly referred in medicine as describing the condition of an unborn entity, but I will take issue with your assertion that constant care equals the relationship of a pregnant woman and her unborn fetus.
The fetus is wholly dependent on the mother for its development, stemming from physical to instinctive. After the child is born, it breaks the bond and starts a new life, independent of the mother as its own entity, not requiring nourishment and oxygen through the confines of the womb, but through its fully functioning respiratory system. The child's body is responsible for its own development. In this respect, it is very much viable (which, by definition, means "capable of living outside the uterus").
Of course it needs help to form complex constructs and a healthy personality, not to mention food, water and shelter, but none of that has any effect on the child's ability to live in favorable conditions. 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.
"Further, adults may become non-viable except without the intervention of certain medicines and / or medical equipment. Again, their value as human beings is no less because of their ongoing dependency on something / someone else."
Actually, that's not a good analogy, as people die all the time from family members discontinuing their life support for the sole purpose that they were too much of a burden on the family with no end in sight. If someone becomes braindead, with hope waning and reality setting in, the rights of that person are put into the hands of the family and close relatives, as that person cannot speak for his or herself. If the family chooses to end the life of a braindead relative for any reason, should they be charged with murder as a result?
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 - there are huge gray areas, just as I have illustrated thus far.
" It is a completely separate, uniquely genetic human being and has been since conception)."
You're getting a bit ahead of yourself. Yes, the fetus has unique characteristics, but what it represents is the potential to become human, something that is realized when it is born. The fetus is a human in the same way that an acorn is an oak tree, a seed is a flower, and an egg is a chicken. It doesn't follow that just because an entity has unique genetic traits, it doesn't somehow wholly depend on its mother for survival and no one else. This isn't a village raising a child, this is one woman necessarily developing this fetus as a very literal extension of her body - and it is solely her responsibility to bear this - she can't ask anyone for help, unlike the case with children after birth.
"1. At the point where a human being begins to exist: conception."
This actually reminds me of the Monty Python song "Every Sperm is Sacred". Good tune, that.
What makes an egg and sperm mating together necessarily a human being?
Yes, it's a huge wall of text, but I think it's worth the read. I'm sure he'll come back with a few more points, but I honestly think that his rhetoric will get old quick.
If you can get through this, I commend you.
I'll copy it here, but it's a long read. You were warned.
Here's the link to the entire text:
http://aristophrenium.com/adam/how-to-re...-rhetoric/
I wrote:
Ouch.
I have a few things to add.
1. Pro-choice is not the same as pro-abortion. I support the woman's right to choose what she wishes to do with the unborn child, but I don't condone abortions. Just because it's not something I wouldn't choose from my point of view doesn't mean it should be illegal for someone else to do so based on their circumstances.
As a loose example to clarify my point, I am pro-free speech, but I don't condone using that speech to promote hate.
2. At what point is this a human rights issue? Conception - If so, are morning after contraceptive pills forms of abortion?
Sometime in the term - If so, when?
3. "No Bill of Rights should protect people from natural events, like breathing, eating, or being pregnant. You’re getting ridiculous. "
Would that same Bill of Rights be able to prohibit you from protecting yourself in a potentially harmful situation (medically, socially, economically)?
4. If this is primarily a human rights issue and abortion patrons are actively violating rights, what should the penalties be?
This dialogue paints this as a black and white issue, and it is far from that. I contend that it is more gray area than either side is willing to admit.
He wrote:
Mathew Wrote:Thanks for some of your thoughts, Tavarish. Here's a few questions for you to ponder in light of your points:
"I support the woman's right to choose what she wishes to do with the unborn child, but I don't condone abortions … I am pro-free speech, but I don't condone using that speech to promote hate."
I"m a little confused: you personally won't kill an innocent human being but you're ok with others killing innocent human beings, just as much as you won't invoke hate speech but are ok with others invoking hate speech?
"Are morning after contraceptive pills forms of abortion?"
Do morning-after pills induce, intentionally, the expulsion of a conceived human being? If so, I believe you have answered the question already.
"Would that same Bill of Rights be able to prohibit you from protecting yourself in a potentially harmful situation (medically, socially, economically)?"
You have a right to self-defence, and to use fatal force if necessary. But tell me, do zygotes, blastocysts and foetuses set out to harm their mothers? As to maternal health, the goal of such a termination is to save the life of the mother, not end the life of the unborn. Socially and economically - there's help in those areas that does not require the termination of the unborn.
"If this is primarily a human rights issue and abortion patrons are actively violating rights, what should the penalties be?"
Do you believe people who kill innocent human beings ought to go unpunished? What penalties does society usually dish out in such circumstances?
"This dialogue paints this as a black and white issue, and it is far from that. I contend that it is more gray area than either side is willing to admit."
Emotion aside, the question 'Is the unborn an innocent human being?' leads to a pretty black and white answer from which everything else flows. What's your answer?
I came back with:
And I offer up a few answers to your questions.
"I"m a little confused: you personally won't kill an innocent human being but you're ok with others killing innocent human beings, just as much as you won't invoke hate speech but are ok with others invoking hate speech?"
I asked you at what point does it become a human rights issue. At what point is it another person?
Personally, I've seen many circumstances in which people have considered aborting unborn children, and it's not a black and white issue, but I digress.
As I don't consider abortion equal to murder, your question is a bit irrelevant. As for the analogy, I don't agree with the speech one may say, but I recognize the person's right to say it.
"Do morning-after pills induce, intentionally, the expulsion of a conceived human being? If so, I believe you have answered the question already."
No, they don't.
"You have a right to self-defence, and to use fatal force if necessary. But tell me, do zygotes, blastocysts and foetuses set out to harm their mothers?"
What does intention have to do with anything? Would you waive your right to defend your state of well-being in any other situation other than self-defense?
" As to maternal health, the goal of such a termination is to save the life of the mother, not end the life of the unborn."
The goal of such a termination is to remove the fetus, the reasons for doing so vary greatly.
"Socially and economically - there's help in those areas that does not require the termination of the unborn."
Not necessarily. There are many avenues in which an unwanted pregnancy is simply social suicide. I understand the options available, as I've worked in an inner city medical clinic for a few years, and they are far from perfect or ultimately beneficial for the child.
It may be cold, but it isn't the best thing (to either party) to bring a child into the world when you can't fathomably support it.
"Do you believe people who kill innocent human beings ought to go unpunished? What penalties does society usually dish out in such circumstances?"
Again, equating abortion to murder, which isn't necessarily the case.
Emotion aside, the question 'Is the unborn an innocent human being?' leads to a pretty black and white answer from which everything else flows. What's your answer?
Not necessarily. Moving into the third trimester it can closely resemble a child, but in the beginning weeks of the pregnancy, it's barely distinguishable as anything resembling a baby. This is the main issue, and it's taken a little while to get here.
Personally, I don't consider an unborn baby to have human rights, because it cannot function on its own without its mother, in any facet of life. It necessarily depends on the mother for all of its vital life functions. Only when the child is born does it break the physical bond with the mother and become its own, independent entity capable of sustaining itself. Although babies can be dependent on the mother for years after birth, they don't necessarily need the mother to be present - any older person will suffice. During the pregnancy, the child is a developing part of the mother, thus she has the right to do what she wants with her body.
Here's a question:
1. At what point in the pregnancy does the fetus develop human rights?
2. If your understanding of the issue is based on societal interpretation, then why would it be unreasonable to see that abortion would be more socially acceptable in another society and not necessarily equal to murder?
3. Why call it "empty rhetoric" when you fail to address the main underlying issue - the fact that you disagree with others on necessarily calling abortion murder?
He rebutted with:
Mathew Wrote:Based on your closing comments, I surmise you hold these two views (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong or re-state in clearer terms):
1. Resemblances are important. If the unborn doesn't look like a child, it ain't a child, therefore feel free to kill it
2. The unborn has no rights because it is dependent on it's mother for survival, therefore kill it if you want to
And both of these amount to a singular viewpoint of: undeveloped and / or non-viable human beings can be killed with impunity.
#1 - You say "it's taken a little while to get here." By that I think you mean that the size / development of the unborn is the real issue. I do wonder how. If we ask, at any stage of its development (be it a blastocyst, zygote or foetus, for instance), what type of being the unborn is, is it not a human being? This is "the main issue", surely? We have infants, toddlers, children, pre-pubescents, adolescents, adults and the elderly - all of which are human beings at a particular stage of development. Ontologically the human beingness of each has not altered. So if we hold that it is generally wrong to kill innocent human beings (I'm making the assumption that you agree with this - let me know if not), what does it matter at what stage of development they are at? A human blastocyst is still a human being and killing innocent human beings is wrong.
#2 - You say "I don't consider an unborn baby to have human rights, because it cannot function on its own without its mother". You also think there's something special about the physical bond between the mother and the unborn as well. Neither the argument from viability nor the physical bond carry much weight, in my opinion. Here's why:
a) there are instances throughout life where people become non-viable in the sense that you use it. Infants, newly born, are non-viable - they still require constant care by a 3rd party. True, the care does not necessarily need to be of the mother's (as you point out), but we do not assign value to a human being by virtue of who does or does not care for it. We assign value to a human being because they are human beings, not because they are self-sufficient adults. Further, adults may become non-viable except without the intervention of certain medicines and / or medical equipment. Again, their value as human beings is no less because of their ongoing dependency on something / someone else.
b) "During the pregnancy, the child is a developing part of the mother, thus she has the right to do what she wants with her body." Yet, biologically, the unborn is separate from its mother's body. If it's own blood system were to come into contact with it's mother's, it's mother's immune system would attempt to attack it as a foreign body - which it is (in other words, while it is in it's mother's body it is not a part of it's mother's body. It is a completely separate, uniquely genetic human being and has been since conception).
Let me also just briefly (promise!) respond to the three questions you posed at the end of your comment, too.
1. At the point where a human being begins to exist: conception.
2. That's not my position.
3. This actually isn't my post (hence, not my title) and the context is the discussion of Ms Nina's Funnell's comments to a commenter on her own article. This post's title therefore fits neatly in with the dialog made between Adrian and Nina.
And finally my answer to his text:
Here's a concise rebuttal to your arguments:
"1. Resemblances are important. If the unborn doesn't look like a child, it ain't a child, therefore feel free to kill it."
Not at all. I made the point that late in the pregnancy, the unborn fetus can have distinct child-like traits, but in itself is not a separate entity until it is removed from its mother, which I clarified in the next paragraph. I contend that it isn't a child until it is born, but I really don't want to get into a futile exercise in semantics or empty rhetoric.
Looking like a baby adds to this already multifaceted issue, as humans have a need to necessarily impose emotions onto a being that may not have them. All it does is make the issue more complex - that's the point I was trying to illustrate in reponse to your question "Is the unborn an innocent human being".
Simple answer - no, but it sure can resemble one.
"2. The unborn has no rights because it is dependent on it's mother for survival, therefore kill it if you want to"
The unborn has no rights because is it wholly dependent on its mother for every single vital components of its physical development. The unborn is literally a part of the woman, affecting her chemical balances and general state of health, among many other things.
It's not a clear cut case of "kill it if you want to". The fetus has the potential to grow into a fully developed child, and that should not be ignored. Again, the point here is to weigh the options on a very thorough level and make a decision based on the pros and cons of the possible pregnancy. Not all abortion stories are the same, and there is a LOT of emotion involved, I've experienced this on a few occasions, but I digress.
"Ontologically the human beingness of each has not altered. "
And which one of those that you mentioned is nothing more than a sperm and an egg combined? According to your assertion further in the text, as soon as a man deposits sperm into an ovulating woman, there are three people in the room, which is a bit ridiculous in my opinion.
But on a less personal note, we come to another crossroads:
What constitutes a human being?
"A human blastocyst is still a human being and killing innocent human beings is wrong."
I disagree.
"there are instances throughout life where people become non-viable in the sense that you use it. Infants, newly born, are non-viable - they still require constant care by a 3rd party."
I won't argue with you on the somewhat improper usage of non-viability - as it is commonly referred in medicine as describing the condition of an unborn entity, but I will take issue with your assertion that constant care equals the relationship of a pregnant woman and her unborn fetus.
The fetus is wholly dependent on the mother for its development, stemming from physical to instinctive. After the child is born, it breaks the bond and starts a new life, independent of the mother as its own entity, not requiring nourishment and oxygen through the confines of the womb, but through its fully functioning respiratory system. The child's body is responsible for its own development. In this respect, it is very much viable (which, by definition, means "capable of living outside the uterus").
Of course it needs help to form complex constructs and a healthy personality, not to mention food, water and shelter, but none of that has any effect on the child's ability to live in favorable conditions. 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.
"Further, adults may become non-viable except without the intervention of certain medicines and / or medical equipment. Again, their value as human beings is no less because of their ongoing dependency on something / someone else."
Actually, that's not a good analogy, as people die all the time from family members discontinuing their life support for the sole purpose that they were too much of a burden on the family with no end in sight. If someone becomes braindead, with hope waning and reality setting in, the rights of that person are put into the hands of the family and close relatives, as that person cannot speak for his or herself. If the family chooses to end the life of a braindead relative for any reason, should they be charged with murder as a result?
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 - there are huge gray areas, just as I have illustrated thus far.
" It is a completely separate, uniquely genetic human being and has been since conception)."
You're getting a bit ahead of yourself. Yes, the fetus has unique characteristics, but what it represents is the potential to become human, something that is realized when it is born. The fetus is a human in the same way that an acorn is an oak tree, a seed is a flower, and an egg is a chicken. It doesn't follow that just because an entity has unique genetic traits, it doesn't somehow wholly depend on its mother for survival and no one else. This isn't a village raising a child, this is one woman necessarily developing this fetus as a very literal extension of her body - and it is solely her responsibility to bear this - she can't ask anyone for help, unlike the case with children after birth.
"1. At the point where a human being begins to exist: conception."
This actually reminds me of the Monty Python song "Every Sperm is Sacred". Good tune, that.
What makes an egg and sperm mating together necessarily a human being?
Yes, it's a huge wall of text, but I think it's worth the read. I'm sure he'll come back with a few more points, but I honestly think that his rhetoric will get old quick.
If you can get through this, I commend you.
