Your Abortion "Line"
- Thread starter theIowaHawk
- Start date
You're right, that is just one example. And an exceedingly rare example at that. Also, it's not even from the United States. Perhaps next time you could provide us with an example from our own country. Or at least the western hemisphere.
The vast majority of people who have been declared brain dead never recover to lead anything close to a normal life again. The vast majority of fetuses that demonstrate brain activity and a heartbeat go on to live full, productive lives. And most of them don't incur millions of dollars worth of medical expenses in doing so.
No, I would not ban it at conception. I believe human life begins at conception. That's it.
As I said, I am for keeping it legal and safe, but I find it personally abhorrent. I realize there are valid reasons at times also.
As I said, I am for keeping it legal and safe, but I find it personally abhorrent. I realize there are valid reasons at times also.
I've always appreciated this position for showing a great deal of maturity. That someone can recognize that a thing is personally repugnant, but still deserves legal protection is a view that needs support.
Why if a surgery is illegal the doctor or hospital would just advise you of that fact and that they can't perform it.
I'm pretty sure the government has to approve any surgery for general use before it can be performed and yes I think that is very legal.
I find a drug to be very similar as it's part of a medical treatment plan.
Ultimately the government is firmly in control of the medical treatment options your doctor can give you. You just get to choose between the legal ones.
Medical privacy and decision making isn't an all or nothing thing.
The fact that you see Pregnancy as a malady tells me all that I need to know.
Malady (N.) - a disease or ailment
Pregnancy is neither of these things. It may be a medical condition but that doesn't mean it needs to be treated.
False. . . it was deemed illegal to control what 2 consenting and non paying adults do.
The government still regulates your sex life to fit into what it considers to be moral and safe. And actually I don't have a problem with that. While many would oppose their laws against prostitution, no one opposes their laws against having sex with someone that is under age.
The government can very much regulate your sex life to fit with what the community finds to be moral.
I think blacks are people but slavery is an economic necessity.
Explain to me how that's different?
Or if you want a more current issue. . . I believe that man is causing the climate to warm with greenhouse gases. . . but releasing them is an economic necessity so we should in no way try to slow this down.
Last edited:
They could be different in multiple ways. First, as a demand sider, turning slaves into consumers, and tax paying workers is better for the economy. Neither slavery nor pollution are particularly personal decisions. I recognize you don't feel abortion is either, but we aren't going to agree there.
Yes they are personal decisions. . . You don't like slavery, don't buy a slave. But don't inteferre with my "right" to own a slave.
Also turning slaves into consumers and tax paying workers is just not as profitable as enslaving them.
Think about it this way. If you free the slaves they might at best be middle class. But if I enslave them I will be extremely wealthy and you can tax my insane wealth at a much higher rate then you can that of someone who's middle class.
My point is that if something is a moral imperative you can't start throwing in economic concerns because economic concerns don't matter. Slavery is illegal because it's a moral imperative that it be illegal. Not because it's not profitable because slavery always has been and always will be profitable.
Climate change same thing. . . if humans are causing climate change and climate change is going to damage other's ability to live then it's a moral imperative that we work to stop it, and citing economic concerns is entirely meaningless.
That's why I find that view so questionable.
Do you see a lot of pregnancies that go "untreated"? Good golly, the other reason it might not be an "ailment" is because it is seen as a good thing. A tape worm should be great for reducing weight, good thing, not a malady?
Actually, it was done under right of privacy, not "consenting adults". There is no "consenting adults" protection, otherwise we would have some serious litigation going on.
And, yes, Medical "privacy" is an ALL or NOTHING thing. If there isn't an absolute privacy, it completely chills the entire discussion. Ask a doctor whether it should be an all/nothing proposition.
It isn't that far off............if you follow your definitional opinions on fetus/child/tumor/whatever. IF you buy your side, you are right, people are simply arguing economic/social necessity, or whatever.
Morality is relative, EVERYONE should recognize that in 2015. That is why you can't simply claim the moral high ground and expect to "win."
Now you're just being silly in trying to make your analogy fit. A personal decision is one that affects the individual person making the decision primarily. I think that fits abortion, SSM, drug use and many other topics. Neither of us actually thinks slavery is a personal decision unless you are talking about the S&M fetish sort.
You're not entirely correct about slavery. While its true there was a great moral objection to the practice, the reason the racist North went to war over the issue was because it hurt them economically. And any climate change solution that doesn't take economics into consideration will never be adopted.
I also question your economic argument. The very rich are bad for the economy because they squirrel away resources inefficiently. The very poor are bad for the economy because you must spend resource either pacifying or restraining them. What you want in any efficient economic system is a pastoral landscape of gently rolling hills and shallow lush valleys. Call it the Grant Wood theory of economic prosperity.
Last edited:
No, that is NOT why you find that view so questionable. Your basis for finding it questionable was decided much earlier and much more simply: You believe a fetus = child = same as child outside of womb.
yea, me too. Regardless of how accurate the OP's timeline may or may not be, I'd never seen a timeline like that laid out before and it was interesting to think about.
I will add also, that I give more credit to some posters' actual persona than their online persona, and choose to believe they're voting for extremely late stage abortions (40 weeks) to cause discussion and angst on the message board, and not because they're actual murderers.
Why implantation? Could be a test tube baby and never be implanted (if we had the tech).
This changes everything. I guess it's a good thing his family didn't yank the plug out of the wall before his relative in the afterlife told him to go back.
This is an interesting angle, too. A lot of couples have frozen embryos and I would assume that for a lot of various reasons, a large number of those never become actual babies.
This is only "about right" if this is not a moral question for you. It's fairly pragmatic - in the sense of requiring the least adjustment from current practice. And pretty easy to get around, since the exact duration is hard to pin down. Easy enough for a sympathetic doctor to say it "looks" 20 weeks when it's really probably 21 or 22.
But if it isn't a moral question for you, why do you care? Is it just to keep the rabble from getting too worked up?
I don't understand all this debate and angst about pre-birth cutoffs.
There has never been a fetus capable of passing a Turing test. If it can't pass a Turing test, we can't tell if it's actually sentient or just a clever program.
Being able to pass a Turing test in a reasonable number of attempts seems like a pretty good place to start. We can massage that to improve it, but why not start there?
There has never been a fetus capable of passing a Turing test. If it can't pass a Turing test, we can't tell if it's actually sentient or just a clever program.
Being able to pass a Turing test in a reasonable number of attempts seems like a pretty good place to start. We can massage that to improve it, but why not start there?
I'm making a point. And no I think abortion affects the unborn child and is therefore not a personal decision. If you think the unborn child is human I don't see how you could think it only affects the person asking for the abortion.
I'm aware of that being a reason for it's downfall, however there was a abolitionist movement that opposed slavery for moral reasons.
Passing a turning test requires conversation something not all people can do. Especially toddlers and infants. . .
But I realize you don't think they are entirely human either.
If you actually believe "live starts at conception" or a similar meme, all those frozen embryos are "people."
Does it hurt to be frozen as an embryo? How does the soul (if you believe in such a thing and think it exists in an embryo) like being stuck in a frozen embryo? Imagine if the soul is in constant torment and pain the entire time it is frozen.
Christian teaching is traditionally against In vitro fertilization for similar reasons. Not necessarily because we are concerned that the embryo's are experiencing pain but because the procedure usually involves disposing of embryo's that are no longer useful.
My wife and I would not get IVF.
Perfectly reasonable choice for someone with your views. I would expect nothing else.
I already acknowledged both your points and already explained that we aren't going to agree about the personal nature of abortion. Its because I see it as a personal decision primarily involving only the pregnant woman that I can appreciate JRHawk's position. I do understand your position too and I fully understand why seeing this as a conjoint decision leads you to a different conclusion.
You asked for another example and something from this country. I provided it. Like I said, you really wouldn't care because you're not really interested in changing your mind. It's cool. Hoosier laid out his standards of what defines a human and I simply pointed out that his standards change from one "human" to the next. Not uncommon for most Pro-Life people
Last edited:
Obviously there are some who we count as persons who could not pass a Turing test. People in a coma. People who are asleep. Passed out drunks.
Why do we accept them as "persons" and think it would be wrong to turn them into fertilizer? Are there principles that would apply to fetuses? Or that would distinguish them from fetuses?
I would argue that all these folks have already demonstrated that they qualify. They already exist as self-aware, thinking individuals. The question for them isn't whether they have crossed some critical threshold. They have. They have qualified as persons. So the question for them is different. For them, the question is whether they still qualify.
A dead person previously qualified, too, but doesn't any more. We have no qualms in shoving them into a furnace (as in cremation).
The sleeper previously qualified and we have reason to expect them to wake up.
The person in a coma previously qualified, but do we have reason to think they will wake up? If we reach a decision that we no longer have reason to think they will wake up, we may decide they aren't a person any more - in the sense that their remaining physical presence is no longer home to a sentient being, and can be disposed of.
Do any of those considerations translate to the fetus? I would say that you can argue that the fetus, like the sleeper or person in a coma could be rated as having a reasonable chance to wake up. Is that sufficient to call them a person when they lack the other characteristic that makes a sleeper or someone in a coma a "person" - namely that they have qualified as a person previously? I'd say no.
So then the question becomes, can you dispense with that element? Is the previous condition of personhood a necessary condition? Some would argue it is not a necessary condition - that only the potential to "wake up" is necessary. Bu that opens the door to all sorts of difficult questions and most aren't willing to go where that decision leads.
Why do we accept them as "persons" and think it would be wrong to turn them into fertilizer? Are there principles that would apply to fetuses? Or that would distinguish them from fetuses?
I would argue that all these folks have already demonstrated that they qualify. They already exist as self-aware, thinking individuals. The question for them isn't whether they have crossed some critical threshold. They have. They have qualified as persons. So the question for them is different. For them, the question is whether they still qualify.
A dead person previously qualified, too, but doesn't any more. We have no qualms in shoving them into a furnace (as in cremation).
The sleeper previously qualified and we have reason to expect them to wake up.
The person in a coma previously qualified, but do we have reason to think they will wake up? If we reach a decision that we no longer have reason to think they will wake up, we may decide they aren't a person any more - in the sense that their remaining physical presence is no longer home to a sentient being, and can be disposed of.
Do any of those considerations translate to the fetus? I would say that you can argue that the fetus, like the sleeper or person in a coma could be rated as having a reasonable chance to wake up. Is that sufficient to call them a person when they lack the other characteristic that makes a sleeper or someone in a coma a "person" - namely that they have qualified as a person previously? I'd say no.
So then the question becomes, can you dispense with that element? Is the previous condition of personhood a necessary condition? Some would argue it is not a necessary condition - that only the potential to "wake up" is necessary. Bu that opens the door to all sorts of difficult questions and most aren't willing to go where that decision leads.
So if this is your line why should abuse of small children even be illegal in your mind?
But doesn't EVERYBODY agree with Hoosier on this point?
It's perfectly reasonable to think of a fetus as an unborn child. It's unborn. It will probably become a child. Calling it an unborn child isn't necessarily torturing the language - any more than me saying the soupy mess I just put in the oven is an uncooked cake. Sure, if you call it a "baby," you are torturing the language, but you don't have to be pushing it that hard.
The question isn't whether the fetus is an unborn child or even whether the action (the abortion) affects it. It obviously does. It affects whether it will ever be born and, since birth is a prerequisite for becoming a child it prevents that possibility.
But it's ONLY if you think the fetus is a person that actions affecting the fetus's development are personal to anyone other than the pregnant woman.
So we can agree that an abortion affects the unborn child without agreeing that the unborn child is yet a person.
I oppose pain and abuse.
I also like to err safely on the side of caution about when personhood begins.
