Abortion Unfiltered

taibhse · 20-09-2008 3:45am

I dont believe right of choice entirely with the mother, but when it comes to something growing inside her body, I think she should have more of a say in the matter

taibhse · 20-09-2008 3:47am

just as in a lot of families, more of the child rearing responsibilites falls on the mothers head

tallaght01 · 20-09-2008 3:51am

taibhse wrote: »

But your glossing over all pregnancies in the same fashion.

There are accidents that happen. If a woman has sex it doesnt mean she wants to get pregnant. Yes it may have been consentual but I don't believe a woman should be made to carry a baby against her will.
Before a certain point in development yes I do think the woman's rights has precidence over the foetus

Less than the rights of a chicken? :P

I see your point. I absoloutely fundamentally disagree with it. I personally think it's selfish at the most base level to think your rights are more important than that of the child. Especially as you chose to take an action where you knew that accidents can happen. It was your actions that lead to this child coming into existence, accident or not. We all live with the consequences of accidents and mistakes.

Having said that, it's my opinion. It's not fact. of course people will disagree with me. I'm only here to put the anti-abortion side of the argument out there, as some people seem to think that it's an unreasonable stance.

I would hope that people can at least see where we are coming from. That would be about as much as I would ever hope to achieve here, in all honesty. I've never seen one of these arguments where anyone actually chages their minds.

That leads me to believe that there's something deeper in all of us at our gut level, which makes us think that abortion is either right or wrong, and I really believe that we, in many cases, form our arguments around our beliefs, rather than vice versa.

F.A. · 20-09-2008 9:28am

I have questions, mainly for tallaght01 and others who believe a woman has not got the right over her own body when there is an embryo involved. You say she does not have the right to abort because that would kill another human being. Basically, you deny her the right to do with her body as she sees fit, and you demand she carry on with the pregnancy because another life depends on that.

Now, if presented with a severly ill person who depends on your donating them half of your liver in order to live, do you think you are and ought to be obliged to donate half of your liver, seeing that the liver can regenerate and that another human being's life depends on this donation? In other words, does their right to life override your right to decide over your own body?

Personally, and I think the vast majority of people agree with me, I would be appalled at being obliged to donate. As it stands, we are not even obliged to give blood that may very well save lives. As it stands, we cannot even be forced to act as life support systems once we ourselves are dead.

So how come then that a woman ought, in your opinion, be forced to play life support system for another human, when in no other situation anyone of us is forced to do that for another human?

Is it because the embryo is 'innocent'? If so, what makes you decide that someone in need of a new liver is not innocent? They may well be. Who are you to decide?

Or is it because the pregnant woman had sex and has to live with the consequences? If so, why are there no such consequences for the man involved in that same sexual act? Yeah, she's pregnant alright. But what would stop us to demand he carry out an act to save some 'innocenct life' as well?

Why should a woman lose the right over her body because she had sex if that is not in some form meant as a punishment for the woman?

tallaght01 · 20-09-2008 9:49am

Well, because

A) She's responsible for the baby. I'm not responsible for some randomer who needs a liver.

The act of killing is not the same as the act of not sacrificing something to help someone live. There is no comparison in law or ethics. If nature tells you that you liver is packing in, then that's different to the responsible adult killing/terminating you. You just can't compare killing or termination or whatever you want to not donating blood, for example.

C) The donation of a heap of your liver is likely to be very very very dangerous. You would have a high chance of dying. I wouldn't ask a woman to carry on with her pregnancy if it risked her life.

D) In pregnancy there are 2 bodies to contend with. That of the baby and that of the mum. One happens to be inside of the other.

tallaght01 · 20-09-2008 9:52am

F.A. wrote: »

Why should a woman lose the right over her body because she had sex if that is not in some form meant as a punishment for the woman?

This is an argument that gets pulled out over and over again. I usually don't answer it. BUt i would point out that you could very easily turn things around and argue that in abortion the baby is being punished for the sexual act. Why is it fairer to punish the baby than the mum for the parents act?

F.A. · 20-09-2008 10:00am

tallaght01 wrote: »

Well, because

A) She's responsible for the baby. I'm not responsible for some randomer who needs a liver.

So why would she give up that child for adoption after birth? Not responsible anymore? But she is responsible for life or death before? Just like you presented with someone who would die if you don't donate any one of your organs after you're dead. Why are you not responsible for saving that life? What exactly makes a woman responsible for another human just because it happens to reside in her womb? Frankly, I don't see any difference other than blood relation. But if that is of no relevance after birth, why before?

The act of killing is not the same as the act of not sacrificing something to help someone live. There is no comparison in law or ethics. If nature tells you that you liver is packing in, then that's different to the responsible adult killing/terminating you. You just can't compare killing or termination or whatever you want to not donating blood, for example.

Why can't I? It is the very same in that both lives depend on you making a sacrifice and valuing someone else's life higher than your bodily integration. After all, the problem at hand is that the embryo will die if the woman is not prepared to host it for 9 months. Just as the patient in my scenario will die if you're not prepared to share some vival organs that you may not even need. I fail to see why one is different to the other.

C) The donation of a heap of your liver is likely to be very very very dangerous. You would have a high chance of dying. I wouldn't ask a woman to carry on with her pregnancy if it risked her life.

Well then. I did not restrict the scenario to the donation of half of your liver. What about blood? Organs once you're dead?

D) In pregnancy there are 2 bodies to contend with. That of the baby and that of the mum. One happens to be inside of the other.

Not quite. The woman is not a mum until the baby is born. Leaving that aside, what exactly does that matter? It still comes down to one life depending on sacrificies made by another.

F.A. · 20-09-2008 10:05am

tallaght01 wrote: »

This is an argument that gets pulled out over and over again. I usually don't answer it. BUt i would point out that you could very easily turn things around and argue that in abortion the baby is being punished for the sexual act. Why is it fairer to punish the baby than the mum for the parents act?

This was actually not aimed at you. I just got the very distinct impression from some posters' comments that women should not have sex unless for reproduction, so if they do, pregnancy may be used as punishment. I do not and would not consider it such, but the way some posters put their words leads to the conclusion that they very much view it as such.

As for fairness - parents make decisions over their children's head all the time, based on what the parents perceive as in the best interest of their child. I know you will disagree, but I believe that abortion may very much be in the best interest of the child.

tallaght01 · 20-09-2008 10:08am

FA, this will become the ultimate circular argument. In abortion debates, people always come up with mental scenarios to try and compare them to abortion. This is the 2nd time it's happened in about 2 pages here. So, I'll try to keep it simple.

Killing someone is different to not helping them. You can go to jail for murder. You can't go to jail for not donating blood. I suggest you take that up with the judiaciary. I'm not going to debate it here. I see it as a concept that's very easy to grasp. If everyone had to do everything to keep everyone on earth alive, the world would be a mental place. It's so out there, that it just has no relevance to anything.

The mother is responsible for her child legally while it's inside her. If she starts purposely trying to damage the child in utero, the authorities will get involved. She is a mother as soon as the pregnancy begins.

I don't know what else to say.

tallaght01 · 20-09-2008 10:10am

F.A. wrote: »

As for fairness - parents make decisions over their children's head all the time, based on what the parents perceive as in the best interest of their child. I know you will disagree, but I believe that abortion may very much be in the best interest of the child.

If one of my parents makes a decision that will result in the unnecessary death of one of my patients, I will go to court to stop that. Sometimes abortion may be in the best interest of the child. They may have severe deformities. In those cases, I'm not against abortion. But the rights of the parent are not absoloute.

F.A. · 20-09-2008 10:18am

tallaght01 wrote: »

FA, this will become the ultimate circular argument. In abortion debates, people always come up with mental scenarios to try and compare them to abortion. This is the 2nd time it's happened in about 2 pages here. So, I'll try to keep it simple.

I disagree about this being a mental scenario, and I am disappointed to see you use such terminology. I expected a more rational discussion with you. Rational also means that things can be compared on the basis of their common denominator. Pro Choice people will normally favour rational discussion to emotional stances.

Killing someone is different to not helping them. You can go to jail for murder. You can't go to jail for not donating blood. I suggest you take that up with the judiaciary. I'm not going to debate it here. I see it as a concept that's very easy to grasp. If everyone had to do everything to keep everyone on earth alive, the world would be a mental place. It's so out there, that it just has no relevance to anything.

It is not different at all if you carefully think about it. The fact of the matter is that an embryo cannot survive without the very physical contribution of another human being. The very same can be said about lots of people who are ill or had accidents. Both may turn into fully functional and healthy people.

The mother is responsible for her child legally while it's inside her. If she starts purposely trying to damage the child in utero, the authorities will get involved. She is a mother as soon as the pregnancy begins.

No, she is not. Otherwise, she would be getting child support from the moment of conception.

F.A. · 20-09-2008 10:23am

tallaght01 wrote: »

If one of my parents makes a decision that will result in the unnecessary death of one of my patients, I will go to court to stop that. Sometimes abortion may be in the best interest of the child. They may have severe deformities. In those cases, I'm not against abortion. But the rights of the parent are not absoloute.

They may also be born into a world of utter misery in which adoption is not an option. People may find abortion much more humane than force long-term if not endless suffering onto another human being.

tallaght01 · 20-09-2008 10:28am

LOL the definition of being legally responsible doesn't revolve around getting child support!

If there's a risk to the fetus, the authorities will step in and mum will be responsible.

But the real issue is that this is the same old point again, wrapped up differently. Mum should be allowed do what she wants with her body...the kid has no rights coz he's not a kid until he's born. This is not new. I disagree. I think the fetus is a human. You don't. No surprise there. This is the crux of the issue.

I'm sorry, but talking about liver transplants IS mental. I have a pretty liberal attitude to abortion in reality. I enjoy arguing the principle of it, though. I'm in favour of support services in Ireland for women who've had abortions. I;m probably even reluctantly in favour of abortion being available in Ireland, if women can go to the UK and have one anyway. I'd rather they did it at home, where their support network is closer at hand.

I don't think I've ever been anything but reasonable with my views on abortion. But where I refuse to get sucked into debates is where they digress into areas that have just got no application in real life. Arresting people for not giving blood transfusions is so outside the realm of acceotable that it's simple not applicable here.

Some people think abortion is OK. I can see their point. I think it's wrong, and I think that's also reasonable.

I don't think anyone here advocates arresting people for not giving blood. There is no common denominator there.

tallaght01 · 20-09-2008 10:30am

F.A. wrote: »

They may also be born into a world of utter misery in which adoption is not an option. People may find abortion much more humane than force long-term if not endless suffering onto another human being.

If a child is born into total misery and the parents want to give him.her up for adoption, then the child won't be forced to live with his parents. They can give that child up. Adoption won't happen overnight, but they'll be fostered pretty quickly, by and large.

F.A. · 20-09-2008 10:46am

tallaght01 wrote: »

LOL the definition of being legally responsible doesn't revolve around getting child support!

We will have to agree to disagree. Calling the woman a 'mum' is making an emotional stance.

If there's a risk to the fetus, the authorities will step in and mum will be responsible.

Not necessarily.

I think the fetus is a human. You don't.

Oh, I do. I think it is a human at an extremely early stage of development. Early enough for nature to decide that it is not capable to turn into a kid. Many pregnancies are naturally terminated before the end of the 12th week. I have said it before: I simply trust nature in that the embryo or fetus is not developped enough for a termination to be considered 'cruel' on the life that is terminated.

I'm sorry, but talking about liver transplants IS mental. I have a pretty liberal attitude to abortion in reality. I enjoy arguing the principle of it, though. I'm in favour of support services in Ireland for women who've had abortions. I;m probably even reluctantly in favour of abortion being available in Ireland, if women can go to the UK and have one anyway. I'd rather they did it at home, where their support network is closer at hand.

I say it again, this is not restricted to liver transplants. And making a comparison is not mental just because it challenges the argument you find most convenient.

Fair enough about your take on abortion. I have a lot of respect for it.

I don't think I've ever been anything but reasonable with my views on abortion. But where I refuse to get sucked into debates is where they digress into areas that have just got no application in real life. Arresting people for not giving blood transfusions is so outside the realm of acceotable that it's simple not applicable here.

I did not advocate arresting people for not giving blood, nor would I ever. In the contrary, I am advocating against anybody being obliged to make bodily sacrificies for anybody else.

I don't think anyone here advocates arresting people for not giving blood. There is no common denominator there.

The common denominator is, as I have pointed out before, the fact that one human life depends on physical sacrificies made by another. I am aware that one is legal and the other is not. I am pointing out how illogical that is considering that it comes down to the same.

Thanks for the discussion, though. Very enjoyable. I respect you and your views as you have made it very clear that you respect mine.

F.A. · 20-09-2008 10:49am

tallaght01 wrote: »

If a child is born into total misery and the parents want to give him.her up for adoption, then the child won't be forced to live with his parents. They can give that child up. Adoption won't happen overnight, but they'll be fostered pretty quickly, by and large.

Well, Ireland isn't the world, and not everyone is Madonna or Angelina Jolie/Brad Pitt. Most abortions occur in developping countries, and I dare say life is pretty miserable in many of them without any hope of adoption.

tallaght01 · 20-09-2008 11:02am

F.A. wrote: »

Well, Ireland isn't the world, and not everyone is Madonna or Angelina Jolie/Brad Pitt. Most abortions occur in developping countries, and I dare say life is pretty miserable in many of them without any hope of adoption.

Actually, this is a topic that I do find interesting to talk about. I have much different opinions on abortion in developing countries, insofar as a child who is about to be born to die of starvation never really had much of a hope int he 1st place.

When you look at abortions in devloping countrioes, the facts are intestesting.

Almost all the abortions are unsafe. People do crazy stuff to induce an abortion. Obviously, if your child is going to starve to death, you're not going to be able to afford a doctor and a proper abortion.

The most interesting thing about it is that you're absoloutely right to say that most abortions happen in developing countries. BUT you're this reflects population disparity more than anything else. What I mean is that you're not really any more likely to have an abortion if you live in a developing country. The WHO published a paper a year or 2 ago. There were about 23 or 24 abortions per 1000 women in Africa that year, as opposed to about 25 or 26 per year in developing countries.

Does anyone have any thoughts on the significance of that?

Loxosceles · 20-09-2008 11:36am

Personally, I prefer the Freakonomics approach to abortion. Statistics which back up socioeconomic trends.

In an ecological sense, we are essentially all just resource-sucking parasites crawling around on this planet, destroying it, and through the coloured glasses of our own survival instinct, we impose our own egotistical sense of self-importance on everyone and everything else around us.

Every direction we walk has a possible outcome; if we start classes at college, we might graduate. But a couple of classes and dropping out is not a college education. A couple of days on the job and quitting is not a career to put on the CV. And quitting a job early on is not a betrayal of personal integrity, just as having an abortion is not a crime against humanity. There's 7 billion of humanity sucking the life out of this world. Human instinct will begin to embrace homicidal urges as population grows; it's a natural reaction to having no room, no potential and no wilderness in which to run and play. Abortion, crime, drug abuse, etc are just side effects of a bigger, uglier ecological cabin fever on behalf of humanity at large.

Just because -you- were lucky enough to be loved and wanted does not mean that everyone on this earth is going to get that. If you think abortion is evil, you can do 2 things about it: 1) fight for better government provision for child care, child benefits, college education for women, all of which is desperately needed in the US anyhow; and 2) fight for equality and education of women in countries where they are subjugated and abused by men, so that they can exercise choice over family size and have proper careers. Support everyone on earth eventually being a member of the middle class, and take steps to do so. What you will get is better birth control through educated women, smaller families, good resources for children, and kids who are wanted.

In the argument regarding when life begins, we must measure sentience in the present moment, not potential, even though it's by believing in our own potential that we get anywhere in life. But that is at the bottom line our own business and not anyone else's, and only when we're sentient enough to make that choice. To be perfectly honest, if a woman loves a ball of cells, let her have that ball of cells and call it a baby. If she doesn't, let her have an abortion. It is not cell life which argues potential, it's being loved by someone somewhere. An unloved child is a far greater tragedy than an abortion. If you don't like abortion, do your bit to prevent humanity and society at large ever needing it in the first place. Abortion is a symptom of a far greater sickness, making it illegal is a band-aid on a broken leg.

lox.

Ultravid · 20-09-2008 1:04pm

I'm not a Godless pro-lifer myself, but this letter is interesting and relevant, particularly for those who do not believe in God:

Dear Sirs,
Below is a letter I sent to several sites, which is a version of what I send to pro-abortionists. Please feel free to make copies or duplicate this letter to send to anyone you wish. Please be sure to give me credit for my work.
Dear Sirs,
Most anti-abortion sites offer to send you "free information and a church bulletin" or a Bible. As an atheist, I'm not impressed, and I don't want that stuff. More importantly, how are you going to convince an atheist of anything if you use a source that he does not accept or worse considers it a hoax? I am an atheist and opposed to abortions for the following reasons:
1. Even if someone believes that abortions are acceptable, then at least consider this:
A. Most of the abortion methods are cruel, extremely inhumane, and very painful for the fetus/baby.
B. If you intend to kill the fetus, then do so in a humane way. If the equivalent methods of abortion were used to kill animals at the dog pound, the ASPCA and other animal groups...well, you get the idea.
C. The dangers associated with abortions are not explained clearly. Though most people believe that abortions are completely safe, there are many dangers physically and psychologically (infection, infertility, bleeding, depression, and suicide, just to name a few).
2. Abortions go against my belief in liberty and justice.
A. Liberty to choose for one's self requires that, as free individuals, we are responsible for our actions and the consequences thereof.
B. Justice is when you get what you deserve.
3. A woman should have the right to do with her own body what she wishes, but when she does what she wants to do, and as a result becomes pregnant, she has done what she wanted to do with her own body. However when she goes for an abortion, she is doing something to someone else's body.
4. What has the unborn done to deserve death? NOTHING! It is not at fault for anything including its own existence, and yet it is expected to pay with its life with no trial, no jury, and no say in what happens to it.
5. Every one knows that sex will result in a pregnancy, so sexually active people (and everyone else) should be responsible for their own actions unless they are not free. Freedom carries with it a requirement that you must accept responsibility for your own actions.
6. Pro-abortionists say: "If you don't like abortions, then don't have one." My response to them is: "That is a great logical process; you just changed my mind; I think I'll apply that to the rest of my philosophy and change my opinions about everything else too..."
"If you don't like slavery, then don't enslave anyone."
"If you don't like rape, then don't rape anyone."
"If you don't like murder, then don't murder anyone."
"If you don't like theft, then don't steal from anyone."
"If you don't like lies, then don't lie to anyone."
"If you don't like sexually transmitted diseases, then don't transmit one."
"If you don't like terrorism, then don't bomb anyone."
"If you don't like animal cruelty, then don't be cruel to one."
"If you don't like oppression, then don't oppress anyone."
"If you don't like arson, then don't burn the property of anyone."
As you can see this type of thinking is anarchy, at it's worst. Basically it says: "Shut up and let me do what I want; I don't care how it affects anyone else; I just want to do what I want to do." It is very self-centered and childish.
7. Most atheists do not see anything wrong with abortions and will not give you the time of day once you mention god or one of the many "holy" books that religious people believe in.
8. Another claim by abortionists is that the fetus is part of the woman's body and has no more consequences than removing some unwanted flesh. My response to that is: "If you smash your hand in a car door who feels the pain? You do! No one else, not your friends, your father, nor your mother. That PROVES that YOU ARE A SEPARATE HUMAN BEING, because you feel your own pain. If the fetus feels it's own pain, then that would make it a separate human being too."
Please feel free to use my logical arguments to help stop abortions. Please be sure to give me credit for my work.
Thank you for your time,
Randall M. Jones

From an ideological perspective, there are many connections between abortion and slavery. Both fit the classic "pro-choice" model. Against Slavery? Don't Own a Slave! Against Abortion? Don't Have One! Lost in both equations is the victim, the human being who is made the property of another human being and thereby stripped of all rights of personhood and the inalienable right to life.

Dave! · 20-09-2008 1:18pm

Aaaaaaaaaaaaand I'm done with this thread.

tallaght01 · 20-09-2008 1:43pm

Lox, you make 3 points, essentially.....

1) Abortion isn't a crime against humanity, as there's lots of people on earth.

I would argue that's irrelevant. I've certainly never claimed that abortion is a crime against humanity. Having said that, genocide is a crime against humanity, regardless of the numbers involved.

2) We should forget about abortion and concentrate on the bigger issues.

You can say that about any of the individual issues. I'm constantly banging on about how gender inequality is probably the most important cause of ill health on the planet.
I've just accepted a job with an international public health role for this very reason. I'll take a massive paycut to do it, but it means a lot to me to addrss these issues. So, I'm happy enopugh with my attempts at tackling th ebigger picture.
BUT, there are many problems that are a drop in the ocean in isolation. Doesn't mean we should ignore them.
Plus I had assumed (perhaps wrongly) that we were debating in the Irish context. I'm much more tolerant of abortion in developing contries. However, it's important to realise that abortion rates haven't particularly followed a gender equality trend. SAFER abortions have, though.

3) If a woman wants to abort her fetus then it's none of our business.

We've tackled his point several times. The anti-abortion people don't feel that we can just look the other way when a defenceless baby is being harmed.

3)

ChocolateSauce · 20-09-2008 3:01pm

All the pro-life arguments would be very convincing, both from theists and atheists, if I believed a foetus was a person. The really is the crux of the matter, and so far all their arguments, however well thought and argued, have failed to convince me of this. I guess I have such a high regard for what a person is I can't lower its stature by giving something barely alive the same definition.

F.A. · 20-09-2008 3:04pm

tallaght01 wrote: »

The most interesting thing about it is that you're absoloutely right to say that most abortions happen in developing countries. BUT you're this reflects population disparity more than anything else. What I mean is that you're not really any more likely to have an abortion if you live in a developing country. The WHO published a paper a year or 2 ago. There were about 23 or 24 abortions per 1000 women in Africa that year, as opposed to about 25 or 26 per year in developing countries.

Does anyone have any thoughts on the significance of that?

Hi tallaght01, you are right, it is very interesting. I understand your point (I think). The link I gave earlier, however, says the following:

"Legal restrictions on abortion do not affect its incidence. For example, the abortion rate is 29 in Africa, where abortion is illegal in many circumstances in most countries, and it is 28 in Europe, where abortion is generally permitted on broad grounds. The lowest rates in the world are in Western and Northern Europe, where abortion is accessible with few restrictions."

"The lowest abortion rate in the world is in Western Europe (12 per 1,000 women aged 15–44). The rate is 17 in Northern Europe and 21 in Northern America (Canada and the United States of America).'

This to me reads as if the developed Western (particularly European) world has indeed quite a significantly lower abortion rate compared to developing countries.

I cannot claim to be an expert in the field, but I found the rate in Northern/Western Europe rather interesting. I would hazard a guess that the social systems established in these countries are to a large extent responsible for the lower rate of abortions: childcare, education system, health system, gender equality etc. Another aspect that I found addressed here is sexual education and contraception. Apparently, there was a rise in abortions in several Northern European countries in the mid 90s. An explanation discussed was interesting:

"Studies in two of the countries have suggested that the increase resulted from publicity about possible risks of third-generation oral contraceptives, which may have caused women to discontinue or avoid pill use."

This would support the point about sexual education and contraception.

Overall, I would say that a well-established social support system and sexual education is essential to cutting abortion numbers.* All things missing in developing countries and achieved to very differing degrees and in various forms in developed ones, some of which like the Netherlands and Germany even have rates far below 10.

*Stating the obvious I know...

tallaght01 · 20-09-2008 3:06pm

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

All the pro-life arguments would be very convincing, both from theists and atheists, if I believed a foetus was a person. The really is the crux of the matter, and so far all their arguments, however well thought and argued, have failed to convince me of this. I guess I have such a high regard for what a person is I can't lower its stature by giving something barely alive the same definition.

I don't think being anti-abortion means we have less regard for other humanity. It's just a disagreement as to when we become "worthwhile". Like, a baby has a crappy brain and is parasitic. Just like a fetus.

I guess it's also the case that when you see babies born at 23 weeks it's hard to justify late abortions in particular.

But you're right, the issue you've raised is the crux of the argument.

tallaght01 · 20-09-2008 3:31pm

F.A. wrote: »

Hi tallaght01, you are right, it is very interesting. I understand your point (I think). The link I gave earlier, however, says the following:

"Legal restrictions on abortion do not affect its incidence. For example, the abortion rate is 29 in Africa, where abortion is illegal in many circumstances in most countries, and it is 28 in Europe, where abortion is generally permitted on broad grounds. The lowest rates in the world are in Western and Northern Europe, where abortion is accessible with few restrictions."

"The lowest abortion rate in the world is in Western Europe (12 per 1,000 women aged 15–44). The rate is 17 in Northern Europe and 21 in Northern America (Canada and the United States of America).'

This to me reads as if the developed Western (particularly European) world has indeed quite a significantly lower abortion rate compared to developing countries.

I cannot claim to be an expert in the field, but I found the rate in Northern/Western Europe rather interesting. I would hazard a guess that the social systems established in these countries are to a large extent responsible for the lower rate of abortions: childcare, education system, health system, gender equality etc. Another aspect that I found addressed here is sexual education and contraception. Apparently, there was a rise in abortions in several Northern European countries in the mid 90s. An explanation discussed was interesting:

"Studies in two of the countries have suggested that the increase resulted from publicity about possible risks of third-generation oral contraceptives, which may have caused women to discontinue or avoid pill use."

This would support the point about sexual education and contraception.

Overall, I would say that a well-established social support system and sexual education is essential to cutting abortion numbers.* All things missing in developing countries and achieved to very differing degrees and in various forms in developed ones, some of which like the Netherlands and Germany even have rates far below 10.

*Stating the obvious I know...

I think they're very reasonable conclusions. BUT, the WHO figures (which actually primarily relies on research from the guttnacher institute that you quote in one of your links) have divided the stats into developed Vs developing contries. They've included all devloped and all developing countries in their research to avoid a bias against there being somehting about one country that would prejudice the data.

For example, if they just used scandinavia as their "developed countries" and anomaly in the swedish figures would skew the results. This is why it's probably ot goos science to quote figures for the states or northern europe when looking for the effect of a country's development on abortion rates.

So, with this in mind, the developing world rate is virtually the same as the developing world rate. The main difference being the rate of unsafe abortions.

Then you look at rates for individual countries and try to work out why that's the case. You say there's low rates in countries with ease of access to abortion. We can probably agree that ease of access to abortion is unlikely to DECREASE abortion rates.

So why are the rates so low in northern europe? Well, it's difficult to know. Usually you can look at trends and see a pattern. But I've been looking through the data for individual countries and I can't really work it out.

There doesn't seem to be a very obvious link between abortion and poverty. Having said that, if you remove Eastern European countries from your "developed contries" list, the figure for developed world abortions drops to about 19 per 1,000 women of childbearing age.

I'm a little stumped to be honest. I always thought there was data linking socio-economic staus to abortion. But I could have been wrong. Maybe it's to do with emergency contraception access. I know that made a big difference in China.

But I'll keep trawling the data to see if I can come up with something

Ultravid · 20-09-2008 4:25pm

I will try to prove the simple, common-sensical reasonableness of the pro-life case by a sort of Socratic logic. My conclusion is that Roe v. Wade must be overturned, and my fundamental reason for this is not only because of what abortion is but because we all know what abortion is.

This is obviously a controversial conclusion, and initially unacceptable to all pro-choicers. So, my starting point must be noncontroversial. It is this: We know what an apple is. I will try to persuade you that if we know what an apple is, Roe v. Wade must be overthrown, and that if you want to defend Roe, you will probably want to deny that we know what an apple is.

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/personhood_apple.htm

tallaght01 · 20-09-2008 4:33pm

Ultravid wrote: »

I will try to prove the simple, common-sensical reasonableness of the pro-life case by a sort of Socratic logic. My conclusion is that Roe v. Wade must be overturned, and my fundamental reason for this is not only because of what abortion is but because we all know what abortion is.

This is obviously a controversial conclusion, and initially unacceptable to all pro-choicers. So, my starting point must be noncontroversial. It is this: We know what an apple is. I will try to persuade you that if we know what an apple is, Roe v. Wade must be overthrown, and that if you want to defend Roe, you will probably want to deny that we know what an apple is.

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/personhood_apple.htm

Mate, people will be more likely to listen of you explain it in your own words, rather than just constantly providing links to other peoples opinions

F.A. · 20-09-2008 4:40pm

Yes, I understand what you mean, tallaght01. I believe the issue you point out has a lot to do with how women perceive themselves, their rights, and their ethics. I know you dislike what I said about physical integrity, but I stand by what I said as this is what 'my body, my choice' is all about.

While it does not explain everything as you explained, I really believe that social security plays a big role. In Norway, for example, childcare costs, while dependant on the parents' income, do not exceed 275 Euro a month for anyone. (Compare that to what you pay here per week! :eek:) Schoolbooks are free, as is the bus ride to and from school. Costs for health care are also drastically low. Equality laws are among the most advanced in the world. And the average abortion rate since 1998 is 13.3, so quite a lot lower than that in developing countries. The same site will also show you that since abortion has been legalised in Norway, the numbers have risen for a while, then dropped. This dropping coincided with the economical growth of the country.

bquinn · 20-09-2008 5:26pm

bluewolf wrote: »

I have, twice pro-life -> choice. Very, very rare though ^^

I have seen pro-aborts --> pro-life

I've seen many women who have had abortions, and seen 'what they aborted, change their minds and regret their abortion. They become strongly pro-life

Ultravid · 20-09-2008 5:36pm

Some interesting statements from Planned Parenthood, one of the biggest abortion providers in America:::

"One sperm plus one egg = one baby."

- Planned Parenthood/World Population pamphlet entitled
"ABCs of Birth Control," 1973, page 4.

"An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun. It is dangerous to your life and health."

- Planned Parenthood 'Plan Your Children' pamphlet, 1963

"Abortion is the taking of a life."

- Former Planned Parenthood Medical Director
Mary Calderone, who is pro-choice [American Journal of Public Health]

bquinn · 20-09-2008 5:43pm

F.A. wrote: »

I have questions, mainly for tallaght01 and others who believe a woman has not got the right over her own body when there is an embryo involved. You say she does not have the right to abort because that would kill another human being. Basically, you deny her the right to do with her body as she sees fit, and you demand she carry on with the pregnancy because another life depends on that.

Now, if presented with a severly ill person who depends on your donating them half of your liver in order to live, do you think you are and ought to be obliged to donate half of your liver, seeing that the liver can regenerate and that another human being's life depends on this donation? In other words, does their right to life override your right to decide over your own body?

AS Tallaght01 has said, this is a rediculous anaolgy. But in case you were really serious, it's based on Natural Law. Natural Law is law based on the natural course of things. If you are next to someone who needs a liver transplant, your body doesn't automatically infuse part of your liver into it. Right? The pre-born child and the mother's body if allowed to follow their natural course, would allow the baby to be born. You have to interfere with nature to kill the pre-born child. If my neighbor was being rude, interfering with my ability to sleep because he was lud in the middle of the night, do I have a right to kill him. His presence is an inconvenience to me. His right to life is just a philisophical matter of opinion. What makes his life more precious than my own convenience?? Answer that. Oh, I'll kill him while he's sleeping, that way he's not concious. So what that he would be concious in a little bit of time, given the natural order of things... From your argument there would be nothing wrong with that. ALL law is based on something greater than ourselves. There is a real truth, a real order to things, regardless of opinion.

If someone put poison in your drink. You can choose to say it's not really poison. But guess what, if you drink it, you will die. You can deny the truth that all human beings regardless of their age or level of development, is life worthy to be protected. And fighting for the ability to kill a pre-born child does not help the women. It helps the abortionist get rich; it helps the men in our society to degrade women and think of them as sexual objects, instead of people of value; it helps the psychologist who treat the women for depression, anxiety, suicidal tendencies and eating die-orders. It does not help the women.

bquinn · 20-09-2008 5:51pm

F.A. wrote: »

Oh, I do. I think it is a human at an extremely early stage of development. Early enough for nature to decide that it is not capable to turn into a kid. Many pregnancies are naturally terminated before the end of the 12th week. I have said it before: I simply trust nature in that the embryo or fetus is not developped enough for a termination to be considered 'cruel' on the life that is terminated.

So because 'nature' terminates the life of some at 12 weeks gestation, you think it's ok to kill others at 12 wks?? People die at all ages. 2 yr olds die. 5 yr olds die. 12 yr olds die... So because people die from natural causes at any age, we should be able to kill them too???????? What kind of argument is this????

bquinn · 20-09-2008 6:11pm

F.A. wrote: »

Hi tallaght01, you are right, it is very interesting. I understand your point (I think). The link I gave earlier, however, says the following:

"Legal restrictions on abortion do not affect its incidence. For example, the abortion rate is 29 in Africa, where abortion is illegal in many circumstances in most countries, and it is 28 in Europe, where abortion is generally permitted on broad grounds. ...

What about Eastern Europe, where the abortion rate was higher than the birth rate? 105 abortions to 100 live births?

F.A. · 20-09-2008 6:12pm

bquinn wrote: »

The pre-born child and the mother's body if allowed to follow their natural course, would allow the baby to be born. You have to interfere with nature to kill the pre-born child.

I think you will find that if nature is allowed to go ahead, 25 - 75% of pregnancies (depending on the age of the mother) end in the death of the embryo. So no, you do not have to interfere with nature at all. Nature happens to be the biggest abortionist of all times.

If my neighbor was being rude, interfering with my ability to sleep because he was lud in the middle of the night, do I have a right to kill him. His presence is an inconvenience to me. His right to life is just a philisophical matter of opinion. What makes his life more precious than my own convenience?? Answer that. Oh, I'll kill him while he's sleeping, that way he's not concious. So what that he would be concious in a little bit of time, given the natural order of things... From your argument there would be nothing wrong with that.

You are missing the point entirely. My neighbour's survival will not depend on me giving/sharing with him a part of my body. A physical contribution from my body in order to survive. In your scenario, the neighbour is alive and well and can live without the support of anybody else's body coming into it. This is a major difference to what I described, and a difference that I have pointed out, actually.

ALL law is based on something greater than ourselves. There is a real truth, a real order to things, regardless of opinion.

And what makes you think that you are privy to that 'real truth'?

If someone put poison in your drink. You can choose to say it's not really poison. But guess what, if you drink it, you will die. You can deny the truth that all human beings regardless of their age or level of development, is life worthy to be protected.

I cannot quite follow you. What has poison, me denying that it is poison, drinking it and dying got to do with me denying that human beings are worthy of protection regardless of their age or level of development? Are you trying to tell me that I will die because I deny that?

And fighting for the ability to kill a pre-born child does not help the women. It helps the abortionist get rich; it helps the men in our society to degrade women and think of them as sexual objects, instead of people of value; it helps the psychologist who treat the women for depression, anxiety, suicidal tendencies and eating die-orders. It does not help the women.

Please refrain from speaking for all women who have ever had an abortion. I think you will find that many of them will disagree with you.

F.A. · 20-09-2008 6:14pm

bquinn wrote: »

So because 'nature' terminates the life of some at 12 weeks gestation, you think it's ok to kill others at 12 wks?? People die at all ages. 2 yr olds die. 5 yr olds die. 12 yr olds die... So because people die from natural causes at any age, we should be able to kill them too???????? What kind of argument is this????

Right then, funerals for all embryos nature decided were unfit for life! In fact, make that funerals for tampons, just in case!

I will stick to my notes now, so 'argue' away as you please. Your posts are far from rational.

tallaght01 · 20-09-2008 6:18pm

I said it before, but I'm convinced these comparison arguments get us nowhere, as you never really get a comaprison that's the same, with all other things being equal.

But I'm also intrigued by the Eastern European figures. Why are they so high?

Poverty?

Access to contraception?

Geneder inequality?

bquinn · 20-09-2008 6:38pm

F.A. wrote: »

I think you will find that if nature is allowed to go ahead, 25 - 75% of pregnancies (depending on the age of the mother) end in the death of the embryo. So no, you do not have to interfere with nature at all. Nature happens to be the biggest abortionist of all times..

We're not talking about a miscarriage, which is a natural act. Just because people die, it does not give us the right to kill.

You are missing the point entirely. My neighbour's survival will not depend on me giving/sharing with him a part of my body. A physical contribution from my body in order to survive. In your scenario, the neighbour is alive and well and can live without the support of anybody else's body coming into it. This is a major difference to what I described, and a difference that I have pointed out, actually. .

But the woman's body is carrying out it's natural function. If a mother decides she no longer wishes to care for her 5 month old, and it's too much trouble to find someone else to take care of that child, should she be allowed to kill it? I mean she does have to change it's diaper, feed it, bathe it, clothe it...so it is very much dependent on her to live? She has to make a physical contribution, which may actually be exhausting to her.

And what makes you think that you are privy to that 'real truth'?
I cannot quite follow you. What has poison, me denying that it is poison, drinking it and dying got to do with me denying that human beings are worthy of protection regardless of their age or level of development? Are you trying to tell me that I will die because I deny that?.

The point is, there is an absolute truth, and denying it doesn't make it untrue. At conception, a new living organism begins. That organism is human. It is genetically unigue, making it a being. Therefore a living, human being, which because of it is an individual human being, must be protected as we would any other human being. It is our nature not to kill others of our species, unless in danger of our own lives. When a society says it is ok to kill some, it begins the slippery slope of some deciding who is more important than others. Who has the right to decide that one should die and another can live?? Under what authority?

Please refrain from speaking for all women who have ever had an abortion. I think you will find that many of them will disagree with you.

Where did I say I was speaking for all women? Go to www.silentnomore.org and you will see the testimonies of many women who have had abortions and now regret them. In all my years of working with post abortive women, and speaking to women's groups, I've only met two woman who did not regret their abortions. One said she believed it was wrong, but that she enjoyed the life she has now, so wouldn't want things changed... The other said she made the right decision, but her story is too complicated to get into here.

tallaght01 · 20-09-2008 6:44pm

bquinn wrote: »

In all my years of working with post abortive women, and speaking to women's groups, I've only met two woman who did not regret their abortions. One said she believed it was wrong, but that she enjoyed the life she has now, so wouldn't want things changed... The other said she made the right decision, but her story is too complicated to get into here.

See, I doubt your "only 2 women" statistic is really representative.

If you work with post abortion womens groups, then you're likely to meet mostly women who attend these groups.

The women who attend these groups will be the women who need support, as they regret their actions.

I guess the women who are at peace with their decision don't need to go to conselling groups or whatever they are.

Ultravid · 20-09-2008 6:48pm

tallaght01 wrote: »

S
I guess the women who are at peace with their decision don't need to go to conselling groups or whatever they are.

At peace? What testimonies have you got on those women? Can they sleep soundly in their beds at night (without sleeping tablets)?

Can they function in their daily lives without drugs/alcohol etc...?

Are they at peace? Or are they very angry, hurt, and bitter?

Bquinn has first hand experience with women who've had abortions. I'm guessing you haven't.

tallaght01 · 20-09-2008 6:51pm

Ultravid wrote: »

At peace? What testimonies have you got on those women? Can they sleep soundly in their beds at night (without sleeping tablets)?

Can they function in their daily lives without drugs/alcohol etc...?

Are they at peace? Or are they very angry, hurt, and bitter?

It depends on the person

Ultravid wrote: »

Bquinn has first hand experience with women who've had abortions. I'm guessing you haven't.

You can guess what you like, to be honest.

bquinn · 20-09-2008 6:56pm

tallaght01 wrote: »

See, I doubt your "only 2 women" statistic is really representative.

If you work with post abortion womens groups, then you're likely to meet mostly women who attend these groups.

The women who attend these groups will be the women who need support, as they regret their actions.

I guess the women who are at peace with their decision don't need to go to conselling groups or whatever they are.

Actually, it is groups of women who regret their abortions, but it's also women groups in general. Although you may be right, in that if they think it was ok, they have no need to come over to me to speak, although I would think someone who has had an abortion and is completely at peace about it, would at some point want to make the point that they are at peace... I don't know for certain, but I do know for certain, that a lot of women are suffering a great deal because of abortion.

tallaght01 · 20-09-2008 7:03pm

Of course a lot of women suffer in silence. I'm merely saying that statistically you're describing a self selecting population.

Anecdote merely describes the tip of what's called "The iceberg of illness", where visible disease only represents a tiny portion of the actual burden within a community.

bquinn · 20-09-2008 7:13pm

tallaght01 wrote: »

Of course a lot of women suffer in silence. I'm merely saying that statistically you're describing a self selecting population.

Anecdote merely describes the tip of what's called "The iceberg of illness", where visible disease only represents a tiny portion of the actual burden within a community.

And I'm saying why propagate something which causes so much 'silent suffering' in the name of freedom. These women were lied to. They were told it's a blob of cells, then they see the arms and legs. They were told it will be quick, and take away their problems. But then they have an emptiness inside them that won't go away. They cry every time they see a new born baby, and wonder why. Many turn to alcohol and self abuse through cutting to alleviate the internal pain. Meanwhile the men move onto other women. (I'm not talking about all men, many are wonderful people, but those who go around pretending to care for a woman just to have sex, and when she gets pregnant, tells her an abortion will solve everything, then when she is an emotional wreck, says goodbye, I'm off to find another easy romp in the bed..let's just say, I don't think they are the ones who should be allowed to make the law of the land.

tallaght01 · 20-09-2008 7:18pm

IN principle, I'm very much anti abortion.

But I think the key to this debate os to move away from radicalism. We need to stop painting these pictures of men walking away from women while the jizz is still dripping from them, abandoning them to the boat to England. The poor woman suffers. The man is already nailing her sister before she puts her cacks back on.Then the bastard-man heads off to run the country, before impregnating his secretary.

What's wrong with reasonable debate? Why not accept that there is an argument on both sides?

If you make an attempt to see other people's point of view, they'll be more receptive to yours.

The only thing the 2 sides will agree on, I'm pretty sure, is that we all want to see less women who feel they have to opt for abortion.

Hence why I get interested in looking at abortion stats, and trying to find out why they happen, and what can prevent them.

Zombrex · 20-09-2008 7:38pm

tallaght01 wrote: »

1) Saying consciousness is the central issue isn't the easy way out. Saying that I can't prove on boards what people have been trying to prove for donkeys years in universities around the world is the easy way out.

tallaght01 wrote: »

2) You can communicate with animals

As can you, you probably do it all the time. Do you own a dog?

What I assume you mean is communicate with animals to a level that we can judge if they share similar brain activity that we identify with being conscious or self-aware. As I mentioned this is possible, through things like the mirror-test, up to a point that is still being debated by scientists. It does lead to a more fundamental question of what is consciousness.

tallaght01 wrote: »

3) I can't assign legitimacy to the value of human life unless I can tell you why that's the case.

You can do anything you want Tallaght, but assigning value to a human life without having any rational or logical reason that you can explain to others means that your opinion is rather uncommunicative and as such is rather pointless from the point of view of a debate on the subject. If I don't know why you believe something I can't discuss with you whether or not your reasons are good or convincing to me.

tallaght01 wrote: »

4) Hitler wasn't an exceptional case

He certainly wasn't. It is also important to remember that Hitler did not work in isolation, he had a large number of Germans working with him. It is quite scary how easily and quickly people can over ride the instincts of empathy when it is framed in such a way (i.e the Jews are hurting Germany)

tallaght01 wrote: »

5) We both agree that we value human life life because of the human-ness, not because of consciousness or potential.

No, I value human life because of the consciousness that the human brain can product. Something non-human that produces a similar system (such as a self-aware ape or a super computer) I would value equally. I don't value potential that much at all, every time I have sex there is a potential baby I don't (or try not to) have, but I don't consider that as yet non-existent thing to be of any value at all.

tallaght01 wrote: »

6) You're arguing about how evolution encourages us to kill people outside our family in a debate about killing our own fetuses.

Yes, though possibly you didn't get the point I was making. Your assertion is that we, as a species, have a natural emotional instinct to value human life. I raised the point that we have a natural emotional instinct to value some human life, and not others. We have evolved an emotional system to value the life of those close to us, in family and tribe, but not so much others (strangers) that we feel little connection to. In fact we have developed instincts to feel threatened by humans distant to us, which is where concepts like racism and xenophobia probably originate from.

So you can't really take the first instinct and go that is how we are supposed to be, without taking the second either. My point was that we need to, when discussing ethics, rise above these evolutionary instinctive emotional feelings because they are so flawed in guiding us ethically. They serve an evolutionary purpose but not a moral one.

tallaght01 wrote: »

7) You have presented your rational framework. Though I still don't understand what that is, with respect. Other than an opinion on evolution.

Well it is kinda long, if you like I will go over it again but in another post.

tallaght01 wrote: »

8) It's OK to terminate an adult if they are brain dead, on the basis of a lack of consciousness.

Yes. If it has been determined that the consciousness, the memories, the higher functions, the self-awareness, of the person is destroyed beyond repair (in terms of computers I think of it as smashing the hard drive with a drill) then the person is gone/dead. The rest of the life form, the heart the lungs the skin the eyes etc can still be alive and even functioning, but it is literally just a collection of cells and organs.

tallaght01 wrote: »

9) It's not OK to terminate an unconscious adult on the basis of their consciousness, because they will return to consciousness in the future.

When I say consciousness I am not talking about being physically awake. I don't think it is perfectly fine to kill a sleeping person because they are not conscious. Even an unconscious person still has a brain with all the systems required for consciousness ticking away, even if they are not being used at that moment.

As I mentioned above, it is the difference between turning your computer off (all your data and OS and stuff is all still there) and throwing your computer out the window and driving over it with a truck.

tallaght01 wrote: »

10) It's OK to terminate babies who are conscious to a varying degree, as it doesn't matter that they will become conscious in the future.

It is not ok to terminate any babies that are conscious to any degree, including mentally handicapped babies. As soon as a foetus has developed the systems that can form consciousness (a brain with systems for higher brain functions), that is game over for abortion. You cannot morally abort that foetus (in my opinion of course). It now possess the "valuable" quality of human life, human existence. It might still be very primitive in terms of what is has compared to say the collective memories and experiences of a 60 year old, but it is still too valuable to destroy. It doesn't matter that it hasn't been born yet.

tallaght01 wrote: »

I just wanted to make sure that I'd actually read your argument correctly!!!! Coz I couldn't quite believe what i was reading.

I hope my post puts forward my position a bit clearer. I am for early term abortions only. I think the time of birth is largely irrelevant to the issue (as is conception). The only issue that I consider important is the development of the brain in the foetus.

Ultravid · 21-09-2008 11:57am

To the pro-abortion people:

If I had stated the information in my own words, someone would have asked for a source. Provide the source and someone tells me to state it myself. Some sort of cycle seems to be prevalent in this discussion.

Please stop avoiding the information I supply and find the logical flaws in those arguments if you can. When it comes to logic, it is not the source that matters, but the content.

Unless you attempt to refute the logic I presented, I'll take your silence as an acceptance of the argument.

Here are links to the arguments:

An Open Letter from a Pro-Life Atheist
http://www.godlessprolifers.org/library/jones1.html

and

The Apple Argument Against Abortion
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/personhood_apple.htm

Virgil° · 21-09-2008 12:20pm

Ultravid wrote: »

To the pro-abortion people:

If I had stated the information in my own words, someone would have asked for a source. Provide the source and someone tells me to state it myself. Some sort of cycle seems to be prevalent in this discussion.

If i remember correctly it was one of your own pro lifers that told you to quit passing off links as opinion and instead at least try to give and explain your own.
And also please, do try call us pro-choice.Its incredibly rude that you dont.
What if we started using anti-choice for your side?

Ultravid wrote: »

Unless you attempt to refute the logic I presented, I'll take your silence as an acceptance of the argument.

You can do whatever you like mate, we'll just go ahead and discuss this with some of the more reasonable pro-life people like zulu and tallaght mmmkay?

Ultravid · 21-09-2008 1:56pm

Virgil° wrote: »

If i remember correctly it was one of your own pro lifers that told you to quit passing off links as opinion and instead at least try to give and explain your own.
And also please, do try call us pro-choice.Its incredibly rude that you dont.
What if we started using anti-choice for your side?

You can do whatever you like mate, we'll just go ahead and discuss this with some of the more reasonable pro-life people like zulu and tallaght mmmkay?

I can't in good conscience call you 'pro-choice' because there is never a legitimate choice to kill an innocent human life, and there is never a 'right' to do the same. That leaves 'pro-abortion' or 'pro-death' if you prefer.

As regards what you call me, I am not concerned. I stand only for the Truth.

Zombrex · 21-09-2008 5:37pm

Ultravid wrote: »

Unless you attempt to refute the logic I presented, I'll take your silence as an acceptance of the argument.

They aren't particularly good arguments, but sure I'll give it ago

Ultravid wrote: »

An Open Letter from a Pro-Life Atheist
http://www.godlessprolifers.org/library/jones1.html

There are very little arguments in that piece actually related to the issue of the rights of the foetus. He (she?) gets a bit distracted by things like the methods that abortionists use and the arguments that abortion is a choice that you don't have to take.

As far as I can see his main (only) argument in terms of the foetus as a being with rights is that if it can feel pain it is a separate person with rights.

There are a few obvious flaws with that. Firstly, for some period after conception the fetus cannot "feel" pain in any meaningful sense since it hasn't yet developed a nervous system.

Secondly even after the nervous system has developed there is a period where the fetus is in a state that we would consider "knocked out". If a doctor puts you under and then performs heart surgery on you your body senses this and reacts in a manner to protect itself but it is doubtful one would consider this "feeling pain"

So is the author saying that a foetus is not to be considered a person with rights until the point when they have developed the ability to consciously process sensations of physical pain?

Ultravid wrote: »

The Apple Argument Against Abortion
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/personhood_apple.htm

This piece largely misrepresents most pro-choice arguments, so it is hard to take it that seriously. For example it doesn't understand the argument about the difference between a living human and a human person. It is not the difference between a white person and a Jew (but I can see why they would want to paint it as that), a clearer example is between a brain dead human who is still living, and a normal person. Or a single cell human life form (a zygote) and a 53 year old woman.

It also stumbles at the first hurdle, because "we" (I assume the human race) don't all know what an apple is. And we certainly don't all know what a human is, or at least we don't all share a common well defined definition.

How someone interprets how we classify a human will determine the next bit, the statement that we all know humans have rights because they are human.

The problem with this is clearly seen by taking the opposite of what the author is trying to do (give all "humans" rights). Say that based on the definition of what a human is we leave out a new born child that has mutated its DNA some how to a point where they are outside of a definition of "human" (one based on DNA). Is that new born therefore not deserving of rights because it doesn't match the definition set out of what a human is?

The point I'm making is that the idea that we get rights simply for being human is fundamentally flawed. One has to look more closely at the properties humans have, because we may not be the only things in the universe that have those properties.

Virgil° · 21-09-2008 7:33pm

Ultravid wrote: »

I can't in good conscience call you 'pro-choice' because there is never a legitimate choice to kill an innocent human life, and there is never a 'right' to do the same. That leaves 'pro-abortion' or 'pro-death' if you prefer.

As regards what you call me, I am not concerned. I stand only for the Truth.

Thats it , just assume you're completely right in everything you say and do.And you wonder why people ignore your points? :rolleyes:.In fact you know you're right regardless of what i or anyone else says, why are you here at all? This is a discussion(humanities in particular) board,its not to advertise your opinion as fact in blatant disregard of everyone elses.
You my friend, i feel , are the heart of why there is often a breakdown in proper,logical, debate between pro choice and pro life.

Abortion Unfiltered

Comments