News:

When one conveys certain things, particularly of such gravity, should one not then appropriately cite sources, authorities...

Main Menu

Abortion Opinions

Started by Wrath, July 10, 2012, 08:36:50 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Wrath

As demonstrated in my introduction thread, a lot of people are interested in the abortion debate and my opinions on it, being a "pro-lifer".  :)

However, there are so many different directions in which a debate on abortion can go, that I'm also interested in hearing your opinions on the topic before any real debate. So, to be clear, this thread is not so much for debate as it is for people to express their opinions first.

Some of the important questions in the issue include:


  • At what point is the fetus considered 'life'?
  • If the fetus is not considered 'life', is the potentiality for it to become 'life' significant?
  • Does the fact that the fetus is a burden on the mother give the mother the right to terminate it?
  • Is abortion an issue that falls under the public domain or the mother's concern only?

I will follow this with a post of my opinions, and I look forward to all of yours.  ;)

Edit: At the least, because this thread is for the sake of gathering opinions, do not question somebody else's without first posting your own.

Stevil

Quote from: Wrath on July 10, 2012, 08:36:50 AM
  • At what point is the fetus considered 'life'?
  • If the fetus is not considered 'life', is the potentiality for it to become 'life' significant?
  • Does the fact that the fetus is a burden on the mother give the mother the right to terminate it?
  • Is abortion an issue that falls under the public domain or the mother's concern only?
This could be a very good discussion.
Excuse my bluntness, I know they will sound cold and heartless to you.
Q: At what point is the fetus considered 'life'?
A: This distiction is beside the point. I consider that it is a life from conception, but still, it has no bearing on my opinion.

Q: If the fetus is not considered 'life', is the potentiality for it to become 'life' significant?
A: It is life straight away, unfortunately until it is self sufficient, its life is insignificant if the mother chooses to terminate

Q: Does the fact that the fetus is a burden on the mother give the mother the right to terminate it?
A: Her choice to terminate is her choice, not government's. It is insignificant whether the fetus is a burden or not

Q: Is abortion an issue that falls under the public domain or the mother's concern only?
A: Mother's concern only, although this is tough on the father who may desperately want to keep the child

Wrath

Here are my opinions on abortion.

Quote

  • At what point is the fetus considered 'life'?

The conventional answer to this question is that a fetus is considered life at the point of viability, when it could survive outside of its mother. My opinion is, instead, that life begins at conception. To say that life begins at viability suggests that the determining factor in what is life is whether or not it can survive unassisted. However, there are many examples of those that cannot survive unassisted who are still granted "personhood", including the comatose, those on life-support, and certain elderly. We even attempt to resuscitate the dead. For these reasons, I believe that the point of viability is a very arbitrary line of where life begins. My reasoning for conception as the beginning of life may make more sense after the next question, so I will include it there.


Quote

  • If the fetus is not considered 'life', is the potentiality for it to become 'life' significant?

I believe that the potentiality for a fetus to become a fully developed person gives them the right to life, regardless of whether or not we consider the fetus 'life'. Murder is against the law because we consider it wrong to deprive a person of their future, just the way abortion deprives a fetus of their future. We do not know if the person murdered desires this future or not, yet even if they were suicidal it would be wrong to murder them. To consider something only in its current state is a very one-dimensional way of thinking. I believe that because at the point of conception, the 'fetus' will eventually fully develop unless specific action is taken to prevent this, that is the point at which it becomes life.


Quote

  • Does the fact that the fetus is a burden on the mother give the mother the right to terminate it?

This question is where my pro-life curiosity began. Up until recently, I had not considered whether or not the fetus was life. For the sake of thought experiment, I accepted that it was, and the question that naturally arose is "how does the burden on the mother outweigh the value of life?" To me, it doesn't. I cannot see how any burden that is non-life threatening justifies depriving somebody of life. If a mother thought that her young children were a burden, would that justify their murder? If I thought that killing a specific population of people would have an overwhelmingly positive effect on the world, would that justify it? Certain people will ALWAYS be a burden, including the mentally ill. If a person is born mentally ill, would it be acceptable to kill them? I do not agree in any of these cases.


Quote

  • Is abortion an issue that falls under the public domain or the mother's concern only?

I don't believe that anything that can be considered morally reprehensible should ever be out of the public domain. Vegans believe that slaughtering animals is wrong and most advocate strongly against it. Slavery was ended by people who were not slaves. There are many, many examples of this. This may be a different case because the fetus is a physical burden on the mother's body, but as of yet I have not seen how this outweighs the right to life.

hismikeness

Quote from: Wrath on July 10, 2012, 08:36:50 AM

  • At what point is the fetus considered 'life'?
  • If the fetus is not considered 'life', is the potentiality for it to become 'life' significant?
  • Does the fact that the fetus is a burden on the mother give the mother the right to terminate it?
  • Is abortion an issue that falls under the public domain or the mother's concern only?

1. The question, when is the fetus considered "life" and is the fetus "alive" are two different questions requiring two different answers. The fetus, from the time it is conceived, is certainly "life", but is no more "alive" than, say, the mother's liver.

When is a pie a pie? When it goes in to or when it comes out of the oven? Or is it some arbitrary point in between?

2. I don't think so. Scientifically speaking, any cell can be considered life. Again, if it's "alive" is another story entirely.

3. There should be no set of "reasons" that allows the mother to terminate besides "do I want to have this baby or not?"

4. Abortion is a public issue because of the potential burden of unfit parents having children (if abortion was outlawed by the state) which are then burdens of the state.

My stance: I have no issue with someone wanting to have an abortion. If they feel that the timing is not right to have a child, so be it. Certainly, the parents should have considered that before being sexually active, especially without birth control. However, I believe sex is a normal part of human behavior, with pregnancy as a typical outcome of heterosexual sex. Those engaging in it should be ready for a pregnancy should it happen. But, and this is a big but, if the parent(s) are not ready to have a child, and that child may bring undue burden on their lives and the life of the child, than abortion should be an option for them without fear of repercussion from the state or the public. I still believe the best option is the morning after pill.
No churches have free wifi because they don't want to compete with an invisible force that works.

When the alien invasion does indeed happen, if everyone would just go out into the streets & inexpertly play the flute, they'll just go. -@UncleDynamite

Wrath

Quote from: hismikeness on July 10, 2012, 10:11:49 AM
1. The question, when is the fetus considered "life" and is the fetus "alive" are two different questions requiring two different answers. The fetus, from the time it is conceived, is certainly "life", but is no more "alive" than, say, the mother's liver.

When is a pie a pie? When it goes in to or when it comes out of the oven? Or is it some arbitrary point in between?

2. I don't think so. Scientifically speaking, any cell can be considered life. Again, if it's "alive" is another story entirely.
I do want to address this -- and feel free to continue discussion on it -- but I feel that your answers to these questions are very semantic and don't actually address the point. Life might not even be the correct word, but you can still understand the purpose of the two questions. A liver and a cell, by themselves, develop into nothing. Because a fetus develops over time, people have varying perspectives on when it becomes what I describe as 'life', and the fact that it is developing is often considered important in and of itself.

hismikeness

Quote from: Wrath on July 10, 2012, 10:19:46 AM
Quote from: hismikeness on July 10, 2012, 10:11:49 AM
1. The question, when is the fetus considered "life" and is the fetus "alive" are two different questions requiring two different answers. The fetus, from the time it is conceived, is certainly "life", but is no more "alive" than, say, the mother's liver.
I do want to address this -- and feel free to continue discussion on it -- but I feel that your answers to these questions are very semantic and don't actually address the point. Life might not even be the correct word, but you can still understand the purpose of the two questions. A liver and a cell, by themselves, develop into nothing. Because a fetus develops over time, people have varying perspectives on when it becomes what I describe as 'life', and the fact that it is developing is often considered important in and of itself.

Semantic? Sure. I should revise the bolded point above- I meant the fetus at the time of conception (and for a number of weeks after conception) is merely a bundle of cells, much like any other organ in the body. Until its own organs begin developing (whenever that is) could I reasonably say the fetus is "alive".

I understand the purpose of the two questions. The answers to those questions, in my opinion, are secondary to whether the parent(s) are ready to have a child or not. I believe they should be allowed to terminate the pregnancy regardless of the fetus's status of life.
No churches have free wifi because they don't want to compete with an invisible force that works.

When the alien invasion does indeed happen, if everyone would just go out into the streets & inexpertly play the flute, they'll just go. -@UncleDynamite

Wrath

Quote from: hismikeness on July 10, 2012, 10:27:00 AM
Quote from: Wrath on July 10, 2012, 10:19:46 AM
I do want to address this -- and feel free to continue discussion on it -- but I feel that your answers to these questions are very semantic and don't actually address the point. Life might not even be the correct word, but you can still understand the purpose of the two questions. A liver and a cell, by themselves, develop into nothing. Because a fetus develops over time, people have varying perspectives on when it becomes what I describe as 'life', and the fact that it is developing is often considered important in and of itself.

Semantic? Sure. I should revise the bolded point above- I meant the fetus at the time of conception (and for a number of weeks after conception) is merely a bundle of cells, much like any other organ in the body. Until its own organs begin developing (whenever that is) could I reasonably say the fetus is "alive".

I understand the purpose of the two questions. The answers to those questions, in my opinion, are secondary to whether the parent(s) are ready to have a child or not. I believe they should be allowed to terminate the pregnancy regardless of the fetus's status of life.
At the least, it is still a bad analogy because the fetus will eventually develop into a full human, whereas an organ will not develop into anything else. Is the fetus's current existence the only relevant thing to the question? The abortion does not only end its current existence but also prevents its future existence -- the same reason why we outlaw murder.

Siz

At what point is the fetus considered 'life'?
From conception.

Does the fact that the fetus is a burden on the mother give the mother the right to terminate it?
Absolutely. What right do we have to deny the mother HER chosen life?

Is abortion an issue that falls under the public domain or the mother's concern only?
It becomes public domain only when the public are called upon to support the phoetus/baby/child. In contemporary society it is never in the public interest to bring a financially burdensome child into being.

Pro-abortion? You betcha. How about we consider the lives of the existing inhabitants of Earth before burdening us with more.

Does life have inherent value? Nope. Not even mine. But having the ability to conceive of my own mortality trumps the needs of those that have not.



When one sleeps on the floor one need not worry about falling out of bed - Anton LaVey

The universe is a cold, uncaring void. The key to happiness isn't a search for meaning, it's to just keep yourself busy with unimportant nonsense, and eventually you'll be dead!

hismikeness

Quote from: Wrath on July 10, 2012, 10:31:16 AM
Is the fetus's current existence the only relevant thing to the question?

I think there can be no other consideration. Nothing about the child's future is known, including if it will survive birth. More important, to me, is the current state of the parent('s) life and if a child would improve it or not. That is where the abortion issue lies- the choice of the parent(s).
No churches have free wifi because they don't want to compete with an invisible force that works.

When the alien invasion does indeed happen, if everyone would just go out into the streets & inexpertly play the flute, they'll just go. -@UncleDynamite

Wrath

Quote from: hismikeness on July 10, 2012, 10:38:53 AM
Quote from: Wrath on July 10, 2012, 10:31:16 AM
Is the fetus's current existence the only relevant thing to the question?
I think there can be no other consideration. Nothing about the child's future is known, including if it will survive birth. More important, to me, is the current state of the parent('s) life and if a child would improve it or not. That is where the abortion issue lies- the choice of the parent(s).
The fact that we do not know what is in the child's future can go both ways -- it may not survive birth, or it may go on to cure cancer. You say that the issue lies with the choice of the parents, but I have yet to see a justification for that, in a society where we deny many peoples' choices to do various things.

Quote from: Scissorlegs on July 10, 2012, 10:35:49 AM
Does the fact that the fetus is a burden on the mother give the mother the right to terminate it?
Absolutely. What right do we have to deny the mother HER chosen life?
I'm never going to be able to address everybody's posts, as I'm positive that there will be many opposing me, and I don't plan on starting now -- but I definitely want to address this.

We deny plenty of people their various choices. We deny sociopaths the right to murder, pedophiles the right to molest, rapists the right to rape, etc. This is the very definition of a society, and I think that it is a total cop-out to always return to "it's the mother's choice".

Quote from: Scissorlegs on July 10, 2012, 10:35:49 AMDoes life have inherent value? Nope. Not even mine. But having the ability to conceive of my own mortality trumps the needs of those that have not.
As a society, we do many things for the sole reason that we see inherent value in life. We keep people on life-support. We attempt to revive the dead. We support the mentally ill and the elderly with dementia. In a society where the ability to conceive of your own mortality is the standard for the right to life, none of these things would make sense.

Siz

Quote from: Wrath on July 10, 2012, 10:53:41 AM

Quote from: Scissorlegs on July 10, 2012, 10:35:49 AMDoes life have inherent value? Nope. Not even mine. But having the ability to conceive of my own mortality trumps the needs of those that have not.
As a society, we do many things for the sole reason that we see inherent value in life. We keep people on life-support. We attempt to revive the dead. We support the mentally ill and the elderly with dementia. In a society where the ability to conceive of your own mortality is the standard for the right to life, none of these things would make sense.

YOU may. And I may not. If I care for someone/thing I will fight to prolong their existence (or not if that is their wish). If not, I am indifferent to the same. You are at liberty to protect the things that you love and I will respect your choice. But I will contest you if by any of your actions MY journey is impeded.

Are you making other peoples lives better or worse by inflicting your prejudices on them?

If it does not affect you then leave it be.

When one sleeps on the floor one need not worry about falling out of bed - Anton LaVey

The universe is a cold, uncaring void. The key to happiness isn't a search for meaning, it's to just keep yourself busy with unimportant nonsense, and eventually you'll be dead!

Wrath

Quote from: Scissorlegs on July 10, 2012, 12:13:12 PM
Quote from: Wrath on July 10, 2012, 10:53:41 AM
As a society, we do many things for the sole reason that we see inherent value in life. We keep people on life-support. We attempt to revive the dead. We support the mentally ill and the elderly with dementia. In a society where the ability to conceive of your own mortality is the standard for the right to life, none of these things would make sense.

YOU may. And I may not. If I care for someone/thing I will fight to prolong their existence (or not if that is their wish). If not, I am indifferent to the same. You are at liberty to protect the things that you love and I will respect your choice. But I will contest you if by any of your actions MY journey is impeded.

Are you making other peoples lives better or worse by inflicting your prejudices on them?

If it does not affect you then leave it be.

I honestly can't say that I understand what you're trying to say in that first block.

However, my beliefs here have nothing to do with prejudice, I don't see how the word applies at all. Are we making a murderer's life worse when we send him to jail? If so, I would be proud to do so. I've already pointed out that we do not let people do just whatever they want, and I won't discuss this further.

Also, there is nothing wrong with advocating for against something even though it doesn't affect you, as long as you have valid reasoning. Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie refused to get married until gay marriage is legal, even though neither is gay -- something that I've always admired.

Crow

Quote from: Scissorlegs on July 10, 2012, 12:13:12 PM
Are you making other peoples lives better or worse by inflicting your prejudices on them?

If it does not affect you then leave it be.

This is my feeling about most issues in general and works perfectly.

Have you considered that the mother is having an abortion because she cant support the child either financially or emotionally, she might not want to adopt as the system is over burdened as it is. She might even want a children at some point but was rapped or some other circumstance where she knows the child is going to be arriving into an unloving environment. There are many many reasons why people may want an abortion and always justified as its not a pleasant experience, and if they thought it would be like going to a trip to the GP they are going to be in for a shock.

My closest friends had an abortion even though it was against everything they believed in as situation required them to change there ideology. They still want a child and are now capable of doing so but having a child during that period of there life would have been a burden parents and society but most of all the child would of had a massive injustice done to it. With children comes responsibility and that responsibility comes prior to a child being born, some time tough decisions have to be made and there is no right answer. By making abortion illegal you are pushing it underground into the place you do not want it to be, there is nothing new about abortion and has been performed throughout history and will always be a demand for it.
Retired member.

Asmodean

Quote from: Wrath on July 10, 2012, 08:36:50 AM
At what point is the fetus considered 'life'?
In gestation, it is a symbiotic (parasitic, really) life form. Past the point of viability, that is when it has a reasonably good chance of survival after delivery, it's an independent life form.

QuoteIf the fetus is not considered 'life', is the potentiality for it to become 'life' significant?
That depends entirely on the mother's plans. If she means to terminate, no. If she means to give birth, I'd say the standard social expectations should apply.

QuoteDoes the fact that the fetus is a burden on the mother give the mother the right to terminate it?
Yes. Just the fact that the mother doesn't feel like popping out a kid is reason enough. That, however, depends on location and how far the pregnancy has progressed.

If what you are asking is whether or not that fact should give any woman that right, then yes.

QuoteIs abortion an issue that falls under the public domain or the mother's concern only?
Location-specific. It comes down to who pays for it - the mother herself or we, the tax payers.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 25, 2013, 08:18:52 PM
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.

DeterminedJuliet

#14
Quote from: wrath
  • At what point is the fetus considered 'life'?
I think it's impossible to set a definition that is not arbitrary or that doesn't reflect a real definition of "life". I do not think that life, in of itself, is something "magical" or inherently "sacred" worth protecting at all other costs. There is a social/emotional/physical context to what we'd consider "living". While you could argue that a tiny cluster of cells which makes up a fertilized egg constitutes "life", I would not argue that that life is worth imposing the physical, emotional, and financial costs of childbirth on a woman who doesn't want anything to do with it.
 
Quote from: wrath
  • If the fetus is not considered 'life', is the potentiality for it to become 'life' significant?
No. Every flake of skin or strand of hair that falls from your body has the "potential" to become life.  

Quote from: wrath
  • Does the fact that the fetus is a burden on the mother give the mother the right to terminate it?
I think that forcing a woman to give birth to a child she doesn't want is tantamount to torture, pretty much.  

Quote from: wrath
  • Is abortion an issue that falls under the public domain or the mother's concern only?
This is something of a loaded question that falls under the "life" definition. If we define a being as being alive in a meaningful sense, of course, it's public domain. We don't allow murder. If it's not defined as life in any meaningful way, then it falls into personal choice.
"We've thought of life by analogy with a journey, with pilgrimage which had a serious purpose at the end, and the THING was to get to that end; success, or whatever it is, or maybe heaven after you're dead. But, we missed the point the whole way along; It was a musical thing and you were supposed to sing, or dance, while the music was being played.