A Win for Those Opposing Abortion

Remove all ads!

Just today I found a rather good quote on the matter of abortion by Josh "Livestock" Boruff of Something Awful Dot Com. This was mostly concerning the whole Dakota issue, but applies to anti-abortionism as a whole:

 

I would apply the same line to this winner. I guess this guy really needs to learn some manners. These are human lives we're talking about. If he's worried about overpopulation, he could get a vasectomy--it's not like the gene pool would be losing much if he didn't re-produce...

 

Actually I think this raises a good point for debating. Now it is true that embryos and fetuses ARE human by definition of DNA. But what this quote argues is that these redamentary humans are not self aware, and thus akin to animals or plants in their status and their deserving of rights. Its pretty obvious that embryoes and fetuses are at this level of self-awareness, however they have the potential to become more. Does this make it right to give them the same rights as the self-aware humans they could become, or is it ok to treat them as the almost non-sentient, rudamentary humans they are are at the time they would be aborted?

 

Sorry... I got rolling on this one...

Oh, and of course, such a decision is an entirely utilitarian and rational one, hm? Please, Gnarff - you're wiser and better than that. It's a contentious issue, so please don't try to reduce it to such a simple stereotype.

But, to play off that (and this is a general comment): where do anti-abortionists stand on in-vitro fertilisation? After all, the "unwanted" or "unused" embryos end up being destroyed - is this not a concession of morality to utility?

Amen, Aldeth.

While that quote is fairly obnoxious and disturbingly utilitarian, I think it's worth reading a bit deeper, because I think its main point wasn't about justifying abortion - it was about the dangers of absolutism in policy (in this case, moral absolutism).

As I have said before, on a number of topics, the ultimate issue here is taking responsibility for actions. Whatever position you take, you need to be willing to accept that (a) your suggestions may require caveats and qualification, (b) there will always be consequences from it, and (c) that the effects of these consequences will be levelled at you by those who disagree with you. Moreover, if you're in a democracy, realise that you have absolutely NO right to dictate terms to an entire society based on unqualifiable or unquantifiable assertions.

If you want to adopt an absolutist spiritual or DNA-based "human rights" anti-abortion stance, good for you. Accept that this is not a panacea for all the world's ills, that considerable human misery will be an inevitable consequence, and that those who disagree with you are not necessarily greedy, selfish murderers or their willing accomplices - and are likely to be offended by such implications.

Likewise, if you take an uncompromising, on-demand reproductive freedom-based pro-choice stance, know that you are supporting a concept that will eliminate the potential for life to thousands, that you are sanctioning a lessened responsibility (mainly for women) for one's own conduct, and that ideas such as yours will probably be blamed for a rise in STD rates.

Homicide is not always murder. A person's freedom to act and choose is always constrained to a degree; we can't do whatever we want. It's a shame how issues that actually merit close attention and consideration get over-simplified to the point that the debate ends up as two groups shouting and pointing the finger while those most directly affected are silenced, marginalised or ignored. Work for the "greater good" all you want - just know that you're going to be held responsible for cleaning up any mess.

 

Basically, abortion in cases other than rape, incest or endangerment to the mother are akin to murder. I show the person aborting an unwanted child the same sympathy I show a murderer.

The wasitng of human potential is saddening and likely distressing, but I don't know the details, so will reserve further comment.

Judge not, lest ye be judged is one thing (basically, you don't know everything, so if you judge without all the relevent facts. If you do, you will be judged without all the relevent facts.)

I think that's exactly the point the Pro-Life crowd wants to make. If you choose to have sex, regardless of precautions, pregnancy can result. Once conceived, aborting a pregnancy is murder. It's that simple...

Rape, Incest and Endangerment of the mother. That's the only qualifications accepted. Some won't even make that step...

We don't believe these assertions to be unqualifiable or unquantifiable.

I admit that my views on this topic will not solve all the worlds ills. I do have answers for other such ills too, but again they come from my faith...

There is murder, manslaughter, negligent homocide--all are different. Acts of self defence or war, though by definition are Homocide (killing humans), are their own category as well.

We have clean up strategies for those that are willing to listen to us and work with us. In the scriptures that guide our views on this topic there is a great many commandments and counsels that will help us get through. The challenge we make is for people to try to live these and see if you aren't happier as a result...

 

I don't even think any reduction is required. I would even go so far as to say it's a logical conclusion if you are pro-life. To expand upon what I said in a previous post, if you equate abortion to murder, and you further believe that murderers are deserving of little or no sympathy, then why would you care if something bad happens to this person who is receiving a back alley abortion? In fact, now she's not only a godless heathen murderer, but now she's breaking the law yet again by getting an abortion. Lock her up and throw away the key!

I'll briefly explain it. Basically it works like this - when a woman wants to undergo invitro fertilization they remove several of her eggs (usually at least 10, but sometimes more) from her ovaries. It's an invasive procedure as you may imagine, so the idea is to go in once and take enough of them that you can be reasonably sure you'll get a successful pregnancy. For sake of argument, lets say they take 15 eggs, and they attempt to fertilize all of them.

Of the 15, 10 are successfully fertilized. Now you have 10 embryos, or 10 tries to get this woman pregnant. At the right time of every month, they attempt to implant one of the embryos. The success rate is only around 10%-20%, so it is more likely than not that several tries will be required before you get one to successfully implant. Let's say that on the 6th attempt, it succeeds, she gets pregnant, and has the baby. After that she decides she doesn't want any more children, but there are still 4 unused embryos left. Embryos are considered "human body parts" and thus cannot be sold to someone else, so they are destroyed.

Could you explain this? I understand that you can certainly qualify your stance (in fact you already have done so) but how to you quantify this? I don't understand.

 

Ok, 1.) I'm no doctor, but I know that in late term and third trimester abortions, the foetus actively flees from the surgeon's tool, as much as it can in the mother's womb. I'm also pretty sure that the brain and neural network are among the first things to begin development. I absolutely know we have no way of knowing when a foetus reaches self-awareness, so I don't think there's any validity in the beginning of his arguement.
2.) You have to realize that the rights issue is squarely in the favor of the unborn child, so long as you give it any rights at all. We're talking about the child's right to live versus the mother's 'right' to be comfortable and happy regardless of her previous actions.
3.) The abortion movement makes great claims about the underdevelopment of the foetus, and how it shouldn't be counted as a human until X age. This distinction is totally arbitrary. The human body continues to develope, grow, and change well after birth, so where do we draw the line? The human brain, arguably the most improtant part of development, isn't fully developed until around 23 years old. Should we not count anyone under 23 as truely human?
4.) No one is making the parents raise the child. In fact, if the parents are deemed unsuitable, the courts won't let them raise the child. There is also adoption, and most states have laws in place that allow parents to leave their newborns at hospitals, police stations, and fire stations without legal repercussions or any warning to the staff. You can legally just leave you're baby there and, so long as it is one of these places where it will be taken care of, you cannot be punished.
5.) The idea that the young don't know any better is stupid, offensive, and inaccurate. Many people would have you believe that children don't know right from wrong because they are young. This is .
6.) The idea that a rape victim will be further traumatized by giving birth is also . Many rape counseling centers, when they come across this situation, which is incredibly rare, counsel the victim to raise the child with love. Doing so apparently helps the victim to overcome the trauma and move on.
7.) I find it utterly amazing how often people who are trying to attack christian values bring up the issue of the starving children in Africa. It rarely has anything to do with the issue at hand, such is the case here, and I am constantly wondering why, if they are so concerned about it, do they not do anything about it themselves? There are plenty of charities aimed at just that, but few of them are supported by these people. I don't know this man personally, so I don't know if it applies to him, but he certainly seems the type.

 

It's not a question of "Christian values" but how those values are defined and applied. Those who support that War in Iraq, IMO, are not applying any "Christian values" that I am aware of. In fact, abortion is way less a violation of Christian values than the slow killing off a population of a nation for very dubious reasons. But those who support the war have their own reasons and agendas, just as those who have abortions have theirs, and neither of which have anything at all to do with Christian values.

 

And for some people, that may be fine. I don't deny that there are religious teachings that are relevant and useful in this matter. All in all, I think that is an admirable position to take - and one which is a fair distance from absolutism, from what I remember of other threads on this topic.

I still don't think everyone will buy into it, though. Some people just need their torch to brandish, I guess (on both sides).

Sorry, Aldeth, but IMO it is a simplification or reduction purely on the basis that it implies that the decision is an objective and wholly rational one. I don't think most or even many pro-lifers are so radical as this - just the ones we tend to hear about the most.

@ NOG,

I don't think you'll find too many people who agree with late-term or partial-birth abortion except as a matter of direst medical emergency (ie: when it's a matter of the mother and the child dying, or the child being aborted). As I've said, I don't support abortion past the point where a foetus is able to survive independently - which is being made earlier all the time by improvements in medical technology.

Rights-based dialogues - by anybody - never solve problems unless everyone already agrees on the matter. People have an awful tendency to just "invent" rights to support their beliefs or position, which is one of the reasons why I am trying to move discussion into something other than...



Everyone who is not a clinical psychopath can distinguish right from wrong - it is more a matter of realising and understanding the consequences of one's actions.

What the -? Hospitals I can understand - but police and fire stations?

This I can agree with - mainly because by the time someone makes the decision to give birth, they will have faced and probably overcome many of the issues in the aftermath of the rape. However, forcing a rape victim to bear a child if she falls pregnant to her attacker is almost as cruel as the rape itself, IMO - which is what the South Dakota law would effectively be doing.

In summary... (and then I'll shut up)

- I don't see how this law is a "good" law.
- I don't see how it's an enforceable law, short of posting cops in every doctor's surgery and house, or conducting strict inventory audits of all surgeries on a regular basis, because the doctor and the patient have no interest in reporting the abortion.
- I don't see how legislating any morality will ever help anyone except a self-congratulatory few.
- Maintaining a discussion based purely on rights which have been formulated or extended principally for the purposes of arguing for one's position on abortion gets nobody anywhere towards a resolution.
- I don't see how this kind of absolutism reduces human suffering, or helps create better people, in the absence of any other measures. In fact, it will only make things worse for many.
- There is no perfect solution here, so be mindful of the perceived flaws of one's own position and accept that more needs to be done than simply taking a moral or principled stance.

And I'm spent.

 

This issue, for me, shouldn't be an issue of morality. Morality deals in absolutes and when you deal in absolutes you will absolutely be disagreed with by those that don't share your moral stance. A moral debate is always going to be circular and will be useless. Besides, that isn't how we make laws, in the end. The question of whether or not abortion is murder is pointless. It gets us nowhere. We all know that the fetus dies......and at least half of us do not think that it is murder. This will not change. The question, then, is one of when our civil rights begin. It's hard (maybe even impossible) to answer, but if we got an answer we could make a decision that everyone could understand. Laws do not enforce morality. Nor should they. Laws protect the rights of individuals. Any debate about a law that doesn't take into account what laws are for and how laws are made will fall flat on it's face. I guess what I'm trying to say is "Achali Drowning". Let's stop dealing in absolutes and see the issue for what it really is.......even if it is "harder" or "impossible" to find an answer it will be far more productive than repeating the same pattern that most of us have likely been through hundreds of times.

 

But could they be saved or donated? If so then the law could be ammended to allow this...

Simple, One God, one law.

Remember, there are optins to abortion. The problem is that people just don't give a damn.

It's like the Christians are the ones denying them food. We're the ones trying to help. Weren't there other threads here and in AoDA where we discussed that, and laid the blame on governing warlords that wanted to starve out certain segments of the population...

But the war in Iraq is not about Genocide (don't they have Nuclear weapons for that?), but about neutralizing a rogue state that is perceived as a threat to a nation's safety. How about this: We pull soldiers out of these countries, but next terrorist attack, we nuke all the Muslim countries in hopes that we get the ones responsible. What? That no good? I guess the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is the lesser evil. Remind me again what that pot shot at George W. has to do with the abortion law in South Dakota?

Actually, the pro-life crowd draws their motivation from the line "Thou shalt not Kill" which is one of the 10 commandments. It is a core tennet in Christianity that they are pushing here.

Absolutism? I'm still not sure of that topic. I have my beliefs, and places I draw a hard line. If ytou look really close and think it through, I think that my faith makes much more sense than people say it does...

I'm a bit of an attention w***e myself...

I think the health of the mother (mental included) would be involved in the decision.

Rights of the unborn. If you believe that they have rights, then this law is good.

Aye, there's the rub.

Ask a child that would have been aborted had the law not been in place...

Maybe if we could get past that, then some other measures could be looked at. As long as morality of the issue is debated, alternate solutions get lost in the shuffle.

Then perhaps if my side is not discounted simply based on religious grounds, then we can discuss what more is needed.

It's not about right and wrong to some people, but what they want to do and what they don't want to do...

The debate is where those rights begin. I argue that they begin at conception, other wait until birth...

 

No need, my friend. The law already allows you to sign a waiver that allows the doctor to keep the unused eggs and use them as needed.

Ask a child anything, and he'll think about himself first and foremost. Instead, ask an adult. The point is still valid, since just about every adult who was specifically not aborted (I don't think I have the verbal ability to explain that, but hopefully most will get what it means) will be against abortion. The more intelligent ones may wonder if it had been better for their mothers if they'd not been born, but it would likely only be idle speculation (unless they were depressed or suicidal) and would not affect their stance.

And by "once we get past that", you mean "once you all see the light"? I'm sure you'd like everyone to agree with your specific morality so that we could finally begin discussing compromise on your terms, but that's just plain not going to happen and you know it.

*Insert your immediately previous comment reworded to be about discounting a side for a few bad eggs* I daresay it's not only absolutism that's clouding the issue, but also deliberate blindness on both sides to, oh, normal people.

 

@ Gnarfflinger: Religions believe things for a reason. If, however, you wish for people to listen to your religious viewpoints, then you are going to have to start talking about why your religion believes it. If you can't think of a good reason for a religious belief, then maybe your religion is wrong......

Please note that I have already admitted to being pro-life. This is not an attack on your religion or personal beliefs, but others are entitled to their opinions. Most of them won't be swayed by a religious viewpoint (myself included). There are plenty of reasonable, logical arguments for why abortion should not be legal. Make them.

[ April 06, 2006, 00:34: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

In fact, partial birth abortion is currently illegal in most states. Even in the inital Roe v. Wade decision, the Supreme court only ruled that abortion should be legal in the first trimester. For the second and third trimester they allowed states to place certain restrictions on the ability to get an abortion, or even ban them altogether if the life of the mother is not at risk.

Now I need to take two quotes together:

I don't think this is true. In fact, this was exactly the problem that many people had with Bush's stance against starting new lines of stem cells for research. One of the sources was the ability to donate the embryos to science. And his stance effectively prevented that.

There are certainly waiver forms you can sign that authorize the use of YOUR body after you die (either donating your body to science or being an organ donor spring immediately to mind), but I was under the impression that this law does not apply to embryos. In fact, I recently read an article that stated that fertility clinics have to routinely destroy embryos because they have limited storage ability, and after a certain point in time, when the woman agrees she has no intent on having any more children, they destroy the unused embryos. If these embryos could simply be donated to someone else or used in scientific research, I see no reason why they wouldn't be. Of course, one issue is that the fertility clinic may try to SELL the embryos to another couple, and that, as I said, is definitely illegal.

 

Those are two entirely different things, and I think Gnarf will agree with me on that. Dissecting an egg for scientific purposes is far from using that egg in another mother-to-be to create life. The waiver I spoke of only allows the latter, since the former is...not quite legal, IIRC.

 

Whatever words float your boat...

Not compromise, but solutions. But then again, if someone doesn't want to do something, they won't care, so you are right that it won't happen...

It makes a lot more sense once you look at it, but the biggest hurdle is the leap of faith that many refuse to make.

 

The assumption that you seem to make, Drew, is that there are no moral absolutes. This is a huge assumption. As long as there are moral absolutes, the laws must be written to uphold them, or else they are unjust laws. If you don't believe in moral absolutes, then you have a pretty hard time explaining morality to begin with.
Now, in terms of the legal issue, there is no uniquely significant developmental event that we can recognize in the entire life of a human being, from conception to death, from which we can say, "This is a person and that is not." Abortionists would point out any of a meriad of developmental changes that go on durring a pregnancy as the point and say that anything before this is not a person and has to rights. These events are all totally arbitrary, as can be evidenced by the fact that the next abortionist over will cite a totally different event. The fact is that human beings go through rapid and radical stages of development from conception all the way up to about 3 years old, at which point the process slows some, but not a whole lot. It isn't complete until you're around 23 years old, and even then the body and mind are still growing and changing on a daily basis.

The arguement that abortion is not murder is based on the idea that the foetus isn't a person until a certain stage, but no one can seem to agree on what stage that is and, since none of these stages seem to be particularly special compared to the others, I submit that none of them can denote the begining of personhood. This means that if any of us are people, we must have been people from the moment we were human: conception.

 

But to make that leap of faith, one needs a reason, other than simply: "Trust me, you will be happier". Anyone can say that about any religion or philosophy, but without a valid argument of WHY one will be happier, you can't expect anyone to convert to your religion, even if it has all the answers.

 

Sure, they are totally different, but either option is a better alternative to throwing them away. I mean, if the alternative is their destruction, doesn't it make sense that they be put to some potential use?

Plus, I'd argue that people accepting embryos from others doesn't happen all that often. The procedure is extremely expensive, and most people who do this want the implanted embryo to have at least some of their DNA. The two most common people who use this method to get pregnant are either single women, or married women where either they or their husbands are infertile. In either case, most people perfer to use either the birth mother's eggs, her husband's sperm, or preferably both. A donated embryo doesn't meet any of those qualifications. The only people who would actually want these eggs would be single women who want this procedure AND are infertile, or married women who are both infertile AND have husbands who are also infertile. I imagine both groups are relatively small.

 

@NOG: That there are no "moral absolutes" is not an assumption. If a moral principle were "absolute" we would all agree on it's veracity. Because it's, uh, absolute.

Now.....watch me contradict myself! There is at least one moral absolute. Don't murder people. We all agree that murder is bad. Anyone who doesn't think so is a sociopath and will likely be institutionalised or put to death (or quietly live their lives out leaving a trail of unsolved murders). The problem, NOG, is that we aren't going to agree on an absolute set of morality (with the exception of painfully obvious issues like murder). We don't agree on exactly what murder is and what it isn't. Some may argue that lying to the world to prosecute a senseless war in which an entire region of the world is destabilised and hundreds of thousands die constitutes murder. Some may argue that giving the death sentence to someone who committed a crime due to a clear and obvious mental disorder that went untreated constitutes murder. Others may argue that abortion does. If these issues were absolute, there would be no disagreement in our society. Advocates of abortion aren't morally bankrupt. They just don't see the world the same way you do.

There are a million logical reasons we can present to argue against abortion. Making religious or moralistic arguments hasn't, and will not, work. Trying to convince someone that since a 2,000 year old religion (that he doesn't follow) says something is bad, he shouldn't do that "bad" thing is never going to work. It might tick him off, though. Or get you laughed at. It's a waste of everyone's time, too, since instead of referencing the moral principle you could be adressing the reason behind the moral principle. (If you can't explain the reason for your convictions in non-biblical terms you really need to reevaluate your faith. Blind faith is never a good thing.) Then you might make some progress. If we would sit down and talk about real issues instead of resorting to petty moralising we (society) might actually acomplish something once in a while.

[ April 06, 2006, 01:02: Message edited by: Drew ]