Abortion question for the religious

[always_searching]

ADF:

 

Also, I'd like to ask: how do you feel about infanticide? If one argues for the morality of abortion, I don't see how the morality of infanticide doesn't follow, unless one wants to claim that the change of location is the determining factor. Of course, that argument is absurd even to most honest pro-abortionists i.e. Peter Singer and Michael Tooley, but I should wait to respond until you've given your statement.

[ADF]

I think infanticide is appalling. It also has nothing to do with abortion. Let's keep in mind the overwhelming majority of abortions are carried out in the first trimester, long before the feotus would be viable outside the womb. As for the tiny portion of abortions carried out late-term, virtually all involve cases of severe feotal deformity or similar problems.

 

But I think I need to restate part of my original post because it's essence has gotten lost during the course of this discussion. My point was that even if I believed abortion were inherently wrong, I would still hold that criminalizing it is bad public policy. Making abortion illegal won't ever stop abortions from happening. The "pro-life" position is, in practice, a pro-criminalization position. Debates about when life begins are totally theoretical and philosophical; they have nothing to do with the reality of the situation at ground level.

[ADF]

Lone Sock, I am going to redirect you to my original point. That was that even if I believed abortion was morally wrong, I would still think banning it was bad public policy. This is not a moral arguement, but a practical one.

[sally4sara]

Medical records are suppose to be confidential.

 

Do any of you want your medical records to be accessible by the general public? Are any of you living somewhere where your medical records are public domain?

[TheLoneSock]

Lone Sock, I am going to redirect you to my original point. That was that even if I believed abortion was morally wrong, I would still think banning it was bad public policy. This is not a moral arguement, but a practical one.

 

Well that's one way to dodge my response.

 

I'm going to redirect you to the title of your own thread.

 

You started a thread named "Abortion question for the religious" and then say this is a practical argument and not a moral one? That makes absolutely no sense. I think your train ran out of steam.

[Tayla]

ADF Wrote"Since ending abortion is an impossibility, what is to be gained by criminalizing it?"

 

Simple answer: The courts would then have made the affirmative decision that life starts at conception and can sustain itself outside the womb.

 

Editors notes: The editor is pro choice.

[always_searching]

Do you think it is possible to believe abortion is morally wrong, yet still see that criminalizing it is bad public policy?

 

I ask becasue the unstated assumption behind the anti-choice (aka "pro-life) position seems to be that if legal access to abortion can be curtailed, the practice will end. This is nonsense. Women had abortions in the US before Row v. Wade. Millions of women have illegal abortions all over the world every day.

 

Since ending abortion is an impossibility, what is to be gained by criminalizing it?

 

But I think I need to restate part of my original post because it's essence has gotten lost during the course of this discussion. My point was that even if I believed abortion were inherently wrong, I would still hold that criminalizing it is bad public policy. Making abortion illegal won't ever stop abortions from happening. The "pro-life" position is, in practice, a pro-criminalization position. Debates about when life begins are totally theoretical and philosophical; they have nothing to do with the reality of the situation at ground level.

 

For one, I don't think you can seperate the importance of the theoretical in the actualization of the practical. So, yes: it is important to know whether or not a zygote is a person in order to indicate whether or not abortion is morally wrong in order to answer your original question as to whether it should be made illegal. The whole point of our legal system is to uphold morality. If it is not doing that, then the system needs to be altered. So, for example, if dating someone of the opposite race were illegal, the question of morality would have to be considered, then, once it was determined that dating someone of the opposite race is perfectly moral, the legal system would have to be altered.

 

So, in light of that, to answer your question--again: abortion should be made illegal because it is the immoral destruction of an innocent human-person's life. Period.

 

Making abortion illegal won't ever stop abortions from happening.

 

You're absolutely right. Just as making murder illegal doesn't stop it from happening. Just like making theft illegal doesn't stop it from happening. Just like making rape illegal doesn't stop it from happening.

 

Whether or not making abortion illegal stops it from happening is irrelevant--what's relevant is that the law reflects a certain moral code put into practice. That's all. That's why we have an established government instead of an anarchy. It's not a relativistic, do-what-every-you-want, the strong prevail, and the winner-takes-all kind of establishment. Here in America, we are interested in objective equality that is established in theoretical morality and put into practice by the law.

[always_searching]

Medical records are suppose to be confidential.

 

Do any of you want your medical records to be accessible by the general public? Are any of you living somewhere where your medical records are public domain?

 

Sorry. I'm failing to see what medical records have to do with abortion being made illegal?

[always_searching]

By "opposite race," I meant to say "another race." I had originally planned on saying "opposite gender," thus the mistake.

 

[sally4sara]

You can't enforce a ban on a procedure no one is suppose to know another person had. Your neighbor might have gotten an abortion, but you are not suppose to be able to know they got one unless they told you. Your neighbor might be a doctor who performed an abortion last Thursday, but you're not suppose to know they did it unless you were the patient.

 

The equipment used to perform abortions is the same equipment used to treat

endometrial cancer so no ban will make the equipment unnecessary or the procedure obsolete. These procedures and treatments are also suppose to be confidential.

 

If you're going to make it illegal, how would you go about pressing charges without breaking the law to know someone wasn't following the ban?

 

It all boils down to just how willing are you to let your every medical visit, treatment, and procedure be the knowledge of the general public?

 

So.....who is willing to let the public eye peer over their shoulder for every little medical concern? It is the only way to have a legal ban on abortion.

[ADF]

Actually, the purpose of the law is NOT to create a moral society, at least not within Western theories of jurisprudence. Now if you turn to some non-Western sources of law--Sharia, for example--it's a different story.

 

Deciding whether a zygote is a person is arbitrary. There is no definitive test to determine when life begins, because no such moment exists. "Life" is an abstraction. People who claim life begins at conception are just repeating a religious dogma. Trying to craft social policy around such an idea is like to trying to determine how many angels can stand on the head of a pin. It can't be done.

 

A much better measure is what creates the most positive benefits for people in the society while causing the least harm. By that measure, the pro-choice position wins hands down.

[always_searching]

You can't enforce a ban on a procedure no one is suppose to know another person had. Your neighbor might have gotten an abortion, but you are not suppose to be able to know they got one unless they told you. Your neighbor might be a doctor who performed an abortion last Thursday, but you're not suppose to know they did it unless you were the patient.

 

The equipment used to perform abortions is the same equipment used to treat

endometrial cancer so no ban will make the equipment unnecessary or the procedure obsolete. These procedures and treatments are also suppose to be confidential.

 

If you're going to make it illegal, how would you go about pressing charges without breaking the law to know someone wasn't following the ban?

 

It all boils down to just how willing are you to let your every medical visit, treatment, and procedure be the knowledge of the general public?

 

So.....who is willing to let the public eye peer over their shoulder for every little medical concern? It is the only way to have a legal ban on abortion.

 

Whether or not the equipment is there seems irrelevant, else the government would also have to ban hormonal medication i.e. oral contraception and wire hangers, for example, as both can be used to induce a miscarriage.

 

It is the doctor who would be held responsible for properly using the equipment i.e. using it to treat cancer, not to provide intentional abortions.

Though on a different scale, putting the abortion ban into practice would be similar to the illegalization of marijuana. Sure, people still cultivate weed, or purchase it on the streets. Just as women could perform their own abortions at home with hangers and high levels of hormones i.e. oral contraception, or contract other people to do so. Also, doctors regularly prescribe marijuana to cancer patients. Now, if I don't have cancer and go to my doctor demanding marijuana: he could still give it to me, regardless of its being illegal. However, he's more likely to turn me away, because it is illegal.

 

The same would hold true, I would imagine, in abortion cases. If a woman goes to see a doctor wanting an abortion, it is the doctor whose legal responsibility it is to turn her away.

 

There is absolutely no need for any medical records to be made public, unless it somehow comes to the government's attention that a doctor is performing abortions. Again, very much like when it comes out that a doctor is prescribing marijuana (or any drugs) to a patient that is not in medical need of it.

 

Again, I'm not seeing the problem.

[always_searching]

Actually, the purpose of the law is NOT to create a moral society, at least not within Western theories of jurisprudence. Now if you turn to some non-Western sources of law--Sharia, for example--it's a different story.

 

Deciding whether a zygote is a person is arbitrary. There is no definitive test to determine when life begins, because no such moment exists. "Life" is an abstraction. People who claim life begins at conception are just repeating a religious dogma. Trying to craft social policy around such an idea is like to trying to determine how many angels can stand on the head of a pin. It can't be done.

 

A much better measure is what creates the most positive benefits for people in the society while causing the least harm. By that measure, the pro-choice position wins hands down.

 

Wow. A utilitarian, are you?

 

Still, claiming to know "positive benefits for people in the society while causing the least harm" is a consideration of morality. As soon as terms like "positive" and "negative" get thrown around, we are talking about morality. "Killing is negative" equates "Killing is immoral."

 

If you are so set on holding the morality of abortion, I would ask you to explain why abortion is acceptable but infanticide is not. If one is going to legalize abortion, why not infanticide? How one can be disturbing to you, but not the other is disturbing to me!

 

The human-organism's life clearly begins at conception (after potential twinning, day 14, at the latest), just as the kitten's life begins at conception (after potential twinning, at the latest). VERY few educated people--none that I know of--would ever argue against that point. Now, whether or not that life is a person who is deserving of a right to life: that is where there is debate.

Edited October 26, 2009 by always_searching

[sally4sara]

Whether or not the equipment is there seems irrelevant, else the government would also have to ban hormonal medication i.e. oral contraception and wire hangers, for example, as both can be used to induce a miscarriage.

 

It is the doctor who would be held responsible for properly using the equipment i.e. using it to treat cancer, not to provide intentional abortions.

Though on a different scale, putting the abortion ban into practice would be similar to the illegalization of marijuana. Sure, people still cultivate weed, or purchase it on the streets. Just as women could perform their own abortions at home with hangers and high levels of hormones i.e. oral contraception, or contract other people to do so. Also, doctors regularly prescribe marijuana to cancer patients. Now, if I don't have cancer and go to my doctor demanding marijuana: he could still give it to me, regardless of its being illegal. However, he's more likely to turn me away, because it is illegal.

 

The same would hold true, I would imagine, in abortion cases. If a woman goes to see a doctor wanting an abortion, it is the doctor whose legal responsibility it is to turn her away.

 

There is absolutely no need for any medical records to be made public, unless it somehow comes to the government's attention that a doctor is performing abortions. Again, very much like when it comes out that a doctor is prescribing marijuana (or any drugs) to a patient that is not in medical need of it.

 

Again, I'm not seeing the problem.

 

How would you know what they did with the equipment if you were not in the room?

It is suppose to be confidential.

Banning abortion, no matter what your political or religious views are, is unconstitutional.

Fortunately enough for the Anti-choice side, The U.S. is perfectly willing to be unconstitutional for a large enough contribution......

 

Ahhhhh Morals - its all relative!

[ADF]

The human-organism's life clearly begins at conception (after potential twinning, day 14, at the latest), just as the kitten's life begins at conception (after potential twinning, at the latest). VERY few educated people--none that I know of--would ever argue against that point.

 

Sorry, but that's just false. That's just not accurate. But, as I said before, it is irrevelant to the discussion.

 

The difference between a feotus and a baby is that the former is a potential human being, while the latter is a human being. It's not complicated. An egg that never gets fertilized is also a potential human being. A sperm cell that never finds an egg is also a potential human being. Maybe we should ban masturbation as well as abortion.

 

Infantacide occurs in a completely different social context than abortion. For example, societies in which infanticide commonly occurs (or used to commonly occur) are often societies where women were devalued. Male children were seen as a family asset; female children as a family liability. Female infanticide both reflected and reinforced those values.

 

By contrast, societies that allow women access to safe and legal abortion are also societies that value gender equality and thr rights of children. In pro-choice Denmark, children recieve free day care, health care, education, and many other benefits. In pro-life El Salvador, children commonly die of malnutrition and preventable diseases. It is better to have starving children than aborted feotuses?

 

Maybe what we're looking at is the difference between religious morality and humanistic morality. Humanistic morality says we must do what is right regardless of what God says; religious morality says we must do what God says regardless of what is right.

[always_searching]

Sorry, but that's just false. That's just not accurate. But, as I said before, it is irrevelant to the discussion.

 

The difference between a feotus and a baby is that the former is a potential human being, while the latter is a human being. It's not complicated. An egg that never gets fertilized is also a potential human being. A sperm cell that never finds an egg is also a potential human being. Maybe we should ban masturbation as well as abortion.

 

Infantacide occurs in a completely different social context than abortion. For example, societies in which infanticide commonly occurs (or used to commonly occur) are often societies where women were devalued. Male children were seen as a family asset; female children as a family liability. Female infanticide both reflected and reinforced those values.

 

By contrast, societies that allow women access to safe and legal abortion are also societies that value gender equality and thr rights of children. In pro-choice Denmark, children recieve free day care, health care, education, and many other benefits. In pro-life El Salvador, children commonly die of malnutrition and preventable diseases. It is better to have starving children than aborted feotuses?

 

Maybe what we're looking at is the difference between religious morality and humanistic morality. Humanistic morality says we must do what is right regardless of what God says; religious morality says we must do what God says regardless of what is right.

 

Wow, pretty much all of your assumptions are fallible.

 

Human-beings begin at conception, there's really no question. I'll back up my claims with some other authors and their arguments some other time, as I have a ton of homework to finish tonight.

 

The kind of morality I am claiming has nothing to do with divine revelation. It would be entirely ridiculous and certainly not advantageous to argue for American legalization issues based upon divine revelation. At least, that would rightly not fly in America, and is not what I was claiming when I said that American government created laws based upon morality.

 

I am arguing for morality based upon plain ol' human reason--nothing more. Nowhere in any of my discussions did "because God says so" enter into the equation. There are philosophical arguments based upon biological evidence that state human life begins at conception (or after potential twinning, at the latest) that most all (even atheist) philosophers I can think of agree with.

 

I am using "morality" in the humanistic sense of the term, not the religious sense. Not all humanistic morality is utilitarian. I think you need to take an intro level philosophy course--and a biology course for that matter.

 

Anyway, I've enjoyed the discussion! I have to go for now, but have a good night!

[ADF]

LoneSock, you're not even listening anymore. You are turning this into some kind of personal thing. Go back to high school--I graduated a long time ago.

[FleshNBones]

Do you think it is possible to believe abortion is morally wrong, yet still see that criminalizing it is bad public policy?

 

I ask becasue the unstated assumption behind the anti-choice (aka "pro-life) position seems to be that if legal access to abortion can be curtailed, the practice will end. This is nonsense. Women had abortions in the US before Row v. Wade. Millions of women have illegal abortions all over the world every day.

 

Since ending abortion is an impossibility, what is to be gained by criminalizing it?

Under what circumstances would you consider destroying a human life acceptable?

 

You seem to be saying that because of the logistical problems with protecting a fetus from an abortion, that the only reasonable solution would be to sanction it.

 

Why don't we supply our enemies with weapons so that we know how many guns they have.

[Toki]

Under what circumstances would you consider destroying a human life acceptable?

 

You seem to be saying that because of the logistical problems with protecting a fetus from an abortion, that the only reasonable solution would be to sanction it.

 

Why don't we supply our enemies with weapons so that we know how many guns they have.

 

The same could be said, if you own a gun yourself... utter hypocrisy.

[FleshNBones]

By contrast, societies that allow women access to safe and legal abortion are also societies that value gender equality and thr rights of children. In pro-choice Denmark, children recieve free day care, health care, education, and many other benefits. In pro-life El Salvador, children commonly die of malnutrition and preventable diseases. It is better to have starving children than aborted feotuses?

Denmark is a developed country, and El Savador is an underdeveloped third-world country.

A lot more seperates the two than just abortion.

 

Spreading the abortion is not my idea of being merciful to the kids. Why have them succumb to the environment when we can have them succumb to some modern technology. Some cyanide laced candy should do the trick.

[threebyfate]

I think the government needs to get out peoples' private lives and bedrooms. We're not paying them to invade our privacy, which includes abortion.

 

While abortion was never a consideration for me, I stand behind a woman's right to do whatever she wants, with her own body.

 

This is coming from a pregnant woman. Pregnancy hasn't changed my mind on human rights and unwanted governmental interference.

[kdark]

For one, I don't think you can seperate the importance of the theoretical in the actualization of the practical. So, yes: it is important to know whether or not a zygote is a person in order to indicate whether or not abortion is morally wrong in order to answer your original question as to whether it should be made illegal. The whole point of our legal system is to uphold morality. If it is not doing that, then the system needs to be altered. So, for example, if dating someone of the opposite race were illegal, the question of morality would have to be considered, then, once it was determined that dating someone of the opposite race is perfectly moral, the legal system would have to be altered.

 

From what I've learned and seen, the point of our legal system is not to uphold morality, but to uphold the popular ideas of the time. For the vast majority of laws on the books in America, I can think of many situations where I believe breaking the law would be morally correct. I am vehemently against the death penalty in virtually all cases, but I can safely say knowing what I know now about the holocaust, I would not hesitate to execute Hitler, and I don't think I'm alone with that belief. The process of jury nullification is an embodiment of this concept. There are many documented cases in the US of court cases where a child was sexually abused or raped, and a parent of the child ended up killing, maiming, or brutally assaulting the accused, and the parent was brought before the courts. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence of the law being broken, the juries would refuse to convict the defendant.

 

The concept of morality is fluid, and is constantly changing as societal norms are changed. Alcohol was seen as a major problem in the US in the early 1900s, and that moral value was popular enough to be ratified into an amendment to the Constitution. It was of course, quickly repealed. Society had the same morals about interracial marriage, and that is now legal. The morality in regards to abortion and it's integration into law isn't decided by well thought out theories and what would work best in practice. It is decided by what the people want to happen, no matter how crazy it is. Roe v. Wade hasn't been overturned for over thirty years because enough of the population doesn't deem it necessary to overturn.

 

 

Human-beings begin at conception, there's really no question. I'll back up my claims with some other authors and their arguments some other time, as I have a ton of homework to finish tonight.

 

To you their is obviously no question. But to many people, their most definitely still is a question to it. And those people are the ones who make the laws, not the philosophers and authors who you would cite as your proof of human life starting at conception. You see a zygote as a human being, I see a zygote as a cluster of cells under a microscope in a petri dish.

 

To take the argument further, what about when science develops so far as to be able to develop a zygote outside of a woman's body? Are pro lifer's of that day and age going to fight for the rights of those zygotes to develop into fully functional human beings? It's a slippery slope I know, but these are the thoughts running through my mind when I hear your arguments. The rights of a cluster of cells should not supersede the rights of adult human beings.

[FleshNBones]

From what I've learned and seen, the point of our legal system is not to uphold morality, but to uphold the popular ideas of the time. For the vast majority of laws on the books in America, I can think of many situations where I believe breaking the law would be morally correct. I am vehemently against the death penalty in virtually all cases, but I can safely say knowing what I know now about the holocaust, I would not hesitate to execute Hitler, and I don't think I'm alone with that belief. The process of jury nullification is an embodiment of this concept. There are many documented cases in the US of court cases where a child was sexually abused or raped, and a parent of the child ended up killing, maiming, or brutally assaulting the accused, and the parent was brought before the courts. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence of the law being broken, the juries would refuse to convict the defendant.

 

The concept of morality is fluid, and is constantly changing as societal norms are changed. Alcohol was seen as a major problem in the US in the early 1900s, and that moral value was popular enough to be ratified into an amendment to the Constitution. It was of course, quickly repealed. Society had the same morals about interracial marriage, and that is now legal. The morality in regards to abortion and it's integration into law isn't decided by well thought out theories and what would work best in practice. It is decided by what the people want to happen, no matter how crazy it is. Roe v. Wade hasn't been overturned for over thirty years because enough of the population doesn't deem it necessary to overturn.

Your argument does not hold. Roe vs Wade was a court decision. It was not democratic, and I don't think the majority of the people would support it today.

 

BTW, 1% of abortions are rape related. I am not sure, but I think it was legal in rape and life or death situations before Roe vs Wade.

It is a farce just like medical marijuana. It is a sick comedy.

[rose333]

That really is tough. I'm pretty sure that if it became illegal, fewer women would get abortions, although many still would. If it were illegal, abortions would be a dangerous operation that would could possibly injure the mother as well. Personally, I think it should be a requirement that anyone going in for an abortion be put through at least 3 weeks of some sort of counseling class that educates the woman on abortion and what exactly she is killing. If that were to happen, I think the number of women to actually go through with it would decline.

 

Also, the whole "woman's choice thing" is deffinitely missing one vote: the man's. It takes two to make a baby, and two to give the baby up for adoption. I think the man should have the right to stop the woman from killing her unborn child.

 

Personally, I am very against abortions of all kinds, but I understand that not everyone in the country is going to feel this way. Sometimes the best you can do is take baby steps.

[Trojan John]

I will preface my opinion by saying that I am against late term abortion only.

 

Aside from that, I think that people need to stop using terms like "baby" and "child" to describe blastocysts, embryos and zygotes. A clump of cells no bigger than the period at the end of this sentence is NOT a baby. It is no more morally wrong for a woman to rid her body of these cells using a pill than it is for her to do it via menstruation.