What should the penalty be for illegal abortions?

Rabidlamb

You can debate the morality of the issue all you want but the facts are that thousands of Irish women go through with the procedure every year.

I personally know 4 women who had abortions in their early 20's for "lifestyle" reasons & I remain friends with them all. They are your teachers, nurses, guards & your sisters. Not one of them regret it but weirdly they would rather not see it legalised in Ireland.

The fact it doesn't happen in our jurisdiction seems enough to salve most peoples guilt.

Macha

metrovelvet wrote: »

Your solution is genocide?

I just don't think you're being practical about it. Who exactly is going to look after all of these children? Even in a wealthy, developed country like Ireland, our health service is struggling to cope with the people we already have.

I just don't take the view of life, whatever the quality or cost.

SamVimes - do you have stats on the contraception habits of women who get abortions? Because you'll need them to back up that assertion.

thebman

metrovelvet wrote: »

Why? If your argument is its her property she can do what she likes with it then she can fumigate it and drown it in alcohol if she likes.

Not if she is intending on actually having the kid. If you can find a respected doctor that recommends this as a good way to have an abortion, I'll agree with you.

metrovelvet

taconnol wrote: »

I just don't think you're being practical about it. Who exactly is going to look after all of these children? Even in a wealthy, developed country like Ireland, our health service is struggling to cope with the people we already have.

I just don't take the view of life, whatever the quality or cost.

Do you know how many frozen embryos there are in storage? Do you know how many people are trying for kids on IVF? There needs to be an overhaul, a complete cultural rethinking on on all of this.

If you want to get practical about eliminating "burdens" you are getting into very dodgy territory.

metrovelvet

thebman wrote: »

Not if she is intending on actually having the kid. If you can find a respected doctor that recommends this as a good way to have an abortion, I'll agree with you.

Nope. If you follow the her body, her decision, then no, she can do what she likes.

Sam Vimes

taconnol wrote: »

I was thinking about this subject and how last year, people were talking about making it illegal for a pregnant woman to drink/smoke etc. If we are willing to force a woman to carry a baby to term, surely under the same logic, we are also willing to do this?

yes i would absolutely be willing to do this and i think it's odd that you might not. i'd also support making it illegal to smoke in your home if you have children. i've seen non-smokers who have had their voice boxes removed because of living with smokers.


would you support making it illegal to smoke in the home with your child?

Sam Vimes

taconnol wrote: »

I just don't think you're being practical about it. Who exactly is going to look after all of these children? Even in a wealthy, developed country like Ireland, our health service is struggling to cope with the people we already have.

I just don't take the view of life, whatever the quality or cost.

take your argument and think of it in terms of children that have already been born. doesn't make sense to kill them anymore does it? it comes back to the fundamental difference between pro and ant abortionists. you think a foetus is less valuable than a child that's been born but i don't

taconnol wrote: »

SamVimes - do you have stats on the contraception habits of women who get abortions? Because you'll need them to back up that assertion.

no i don't. but you know as well as i do that contraception is not used properly in a lot of places. in many places in the world they try to use coca cola to clean themselves out ffs

thebman wrote: »

Not if she is intending on actually having the kid. If you can find a respected doctor that recommends this as a good way to have an abortion, I'll agree with you.

what if she's not intending to have an abortion? what if she's just using the pro choice "my body, my choice". is it only her body, her choice if she intends to kill the baby and not maim it?

metrovelvet

Sam Vimes wrote: »

no i don't. but you know as well as i do that contraception is not used properly in a lot of places. in many places in the world they try to use coca cola to clean themselves out ffs

It was said yesterday on some godawful boring talk show on rte1 yesterday that 70% of babies are surprises.

Macha

metrovelvet wrote: »

Do you know how many frozen embryos there are in storage? Do you know how many people are trying for kids on IVF? There needs to be an overhaul, a complete cultural rethinking on on all of this.

Most definitely. I think there is an Adoption Bill coming up soon actually, funnily enough.

metrovelvet wrote: »

If you want to get practical about eliminating "burdens" you are getting into very dodgy territory.

What do you mean? We can be as philosphical about this as we like but reality counts.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

yes i would absolutely be willing to do this and i think it's odd that you might not. i'd also support making it illegal to smoke in your home if you have children. i've seen non-smokers who have had their voice boxes removed because of living with smokers.

First of all, how do you police something like this? Often, women don't know that they are pregnant for at least 4 weeks. How do you prove that they are aware?
Whatever about smoking, the science on drinking is not conclusive. Many drinks, yes of course but what about 1 drink? Are we going to be dragging women from pubs into jail?

It's just a bit too reminiscent of The Handmaid's Tale.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

would you support making it illegal to smoke in the home with your child?

I'd have to think about that one. Smoke outside/in another room - how do you police something like that?

Sam Vimes

taconnol wrote: »

First of all, how do you police something like this? Often, women don't know that they are pregnant for at least 4 weeks. How do you prove that they are aware?
Whatever about smoking, the science on drinking is not conclusive. Many drinks, yes of course but what about 1 drink? Are we going to be dragging women from pubs into jail?

how we police it isn't really the point. it's difficult to police lots of laws but that doesn't mean they should be made legal. for example to police speeding we'd have to put a camera on every street in the country at a cost of billions. what we're talking about here is whether doing it is wrong and should be punishable. how we police it is just technicalities and should be done with common sense

taconnol wrote: »

I'd have to think about that one. Smoke outside/in another room

you've hit the nail right on the head there. how does a foetus move to another room?

thebman

metrovelvet wrote: »

Nope. If you follow the her body, her decision, then no, she can do what she likes.

Sorry but that is not the case. Yes she can do it. There is nothing to stop her.

But I believe it is wrong to do so because there is no guarantee that she will drink until the baby is terminated. It is much more likely that the baby will be born with some sort of mental or physical problem because of the mothers actions.

I can't stop the mother drinking/smoking when being pregnant and the law can't either. I can say I don't think its right though based on the above.

Sam Vimes

thebman wrote: »

Sorry but that is not the case. Yes she can do it. There is nothing to stop her.

But I believe it is wrong to do so because there is no guarantee that she will drink until the baby is terminated. It is much more likely that the baby will be born with some sort of mental or physical problem because of the mothers actions.

I can't stop the mother drinking/smoking when being pregnant and the law can't either. I can say I don't think its right though based on the above.

so it's perfectly ok to kill the baby but not to maim it.

should we then increase the penalty for assault but legalise murder since the victim doesn't have to suffer afterwards?


or is it just that you don't care what happens to the child as long as you don't have to deal with the results? out of sight, out of mind and all that?

Macha

Sam Vimes wrote: »

how we police it isn't really the point.

Why not? Why keep avoiding a discussion of the practical implications of your proposed laws?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

it's difficult to police lots of laws but that doesn't mean they should be made legal. for example to police speeding we'd have to put a camera on every street in the country at a cost of billions. what we're talking about here is whether doing it is wrong and should be punishable. how we police it is just technicalities and should be done with common sense

"Just technicalities"? So answer me a few things here:
-how do we know that a woman knows that she is pregnant
-what happens if the woman in question is addicted to cigarettes or alcohol
-what is the current scientific consensus on alcohol and pregnancy?

You can't just say you want a particular law and not think about the "technicalities" of it! It's part and parcel of the law.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

you've hit the nail right on the head there. how does a foetus move to another room?

You asked me about another idea, not about a foetus. You carry the analogy over but I don't.

philologos

metrovelvet wrote: »

Nope. If you follow the her body, her decision, then no, she can do what she likes.

You do realise this is the equivalent of me saying the following:

Nope. If you follow the child separate entity, has human rights (UNDCH Article 8), then no, they should live.

Sam Vimes

taconnol wrote: »

"Just technicalities"? So answer me a few things here:
-how do we know that a woman knows that she is pregnant

that's to be decided by a judge using the laws of the state. i'm neither a lawyer nor a judge so i don't presume to make that decision for them. that's why they make the big bucks. but in short, the answer to your question is: on a case by case basis in a sensible way. eg a woman 3 weeks pregnant might not know but one who's at 6 months, hasn't had a period in all that time and has a massive bulge obviously knows

edit:by technicalities, i meant details that can be ironed out. it's not so massively complex an issue that it's impossible to adjudicate it fairly

taconnol wrote: »

-what happens if the woman in question is addicted to cigarettes or alcohol

couldn't give a sh!te tbh. addiction doesn't give her a right to steal to feed her habit any more than it gives her a right to harm another human being. if a law banning smoking in the home with children was to be introduced would you make exceptions for those who were addicted?

taconnol wrote: »

-what is the current scientific consensus on alcohol and pregnancy?

i've no idea, why? also i said smoking should be illegal, not drinking

taconnol wrote: »

You asked me about another idea, not about a foetus. You carry the analogy over but I don't.

i asked you about making it illegal to smoke around your child. a foetus is your child, just in a less developed state in the same way as a baby is less developed than a teenager

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

You do realise this is the equivalent of me saying the following:

Nope. If you follow the child separate entity, has human rights (UNDCH Article 8), then no, they should live.

i think you might be missing his point. he's against abortion

Bottle_of_Smoke

Sam Vimes wrote: »

but you'd have to ask yourself why was he doing it and should he have been doing it. tbh i wouldn't like to see him go to jail either because with heroin, the person he's giving it to is a consenting adult and chooses to take it. personally i wouldn't think he'd done anything wrong at all, i used that example because most people wouldn't see it that way. but the unborn child is not a consenting adult and doesn't want to die


and that again is where we differ. as someone already said, that was the argument used to subjugate women, it was also the argument used to subjugate black people and it's now the argument used to subjugate the unborn. i sincerely hope that in a few years we look back on that argument with the same disgust as we do the other two. a human cannot be another human's property, whether they've grown a brain yet or not

Right, I was only going by the thread title. This argument has drifted into to "is abortion right or wrong?" territory, and we all know how futile that is.

You're right. We have different opinions on the foetus, so the the mentioning of my logic being used against women & blacks in the past means nothing to me. Just as my logic means nothing to you. It's agree to differ time for me.

thebman

Sam Vimes wrote: »

so it's perfectly ok to kill the baby but not to maim it.

should we then increase the penalty for assault but legalise murder since the victim doesn't have to suffer afterwards?


or is it just that you don't care what happens to the child as long as you don't have to deal with the results? out of sight, out of mind and all that?

When abortions occur it isn't a baby IMO. Way to early in development to call it a baby. If your going down that route, you might as well go the whole hog and end up in every sperm is sacred territory which is ridiculous.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Right, I was only going by the thread title. This argument has drifted into to "is abortion right or wrong?" territory, and we all know how futile that is.

You're right. We have different opinions on the foetus, so the the mentioning of my logic being used against women & blacks in the past means nothing to me. Just as my logic means nothing to you. It's agree to differ time for me.

Agreed, this thread should be locked IMO. Your never going to convince the other side that abortion is not wrong anymore than they are going to convince me that abortion is wrong. So it stops being debate and just becomes an argument.

philologos

thebman wrote: »

When abortions occur it isn't a baby IMO. Way to early in development to call it a baby. If your going down that route, you might as well go the whole hog and end up in every sperm is sacred territory which is ridiculous.

A sperm isn't a human life in and of it's own accord. A sperm is a prerequisite for life as is the ova.

It is only when these two prerequisites are fused together that it becomes a human biological lifeform that develops until the stage of birth. i.e A human being from conception until death, conception to birth is merely the first stage.

If this is a human being, then the right to life is conferred to it, and quite rightfully if we are to stick to these human rights laws that were given unto us in 1948, it should be illegal to violate this right for the child.

I think there has to be a balance between the childs rights and the mothers rights.

thebman

Jakkass wrote: »

A sperm isn't a human life in and of it's own accord. A sperm is a prerequisite for life as is the ova.

It is only when these two prerequisites are fused together that it becomes a human biological lifeform that develops until the stage of birth. i.e A human being from conception until death, conception to birth is merely the first stage.

Yes but once viewed it isn't a human being, it has more in common with sperm than humans at that point so I can't call that human life.

It can only be something with potential to become human life. Sperm also has this potential.

BleedTheF!FtH

Unfortnately i cant watch the vid but i dont agree that it should be illegal.

Sam Vimes

thebman wrote: »

When abortions occur it isn't a baby IMO. Way to early in development to call it a baby. If your going down that route, you might as well go the whole hog and end up in every sperm is sacred territory which is ridiculous.

what you've done there is an example of the slippery slope logical fallacy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

this is roughly the 100th time i've posted exactly the following statement on various threads:

a sperm is a component of your body. it cannot live outside your body and will never be anything more than it is. if a sperm is put inside a womb (and no fertilisation occurs at which point it is no longer a sperm) then it will die.

a zygote on the other hand, is a living being. it needs a friendly environment and food to survive just like any other living being. for the first 9 months of its life it is a parasitic being in that it uses another being (the mother) to survive but that does not make it any less a separate being and it is not a part of the mother like the egg is.

i don't try to call a zygote a baby, what i call it is a human being. it is a human being, that is a fact which is not up for debate. a zyogte is just a human being at an early stage of development, a slightly earlier stage than a baby is

i don't bestow rights on a being because it meets my convenient definition of what i consider to be important in another being, rights are bestowed on it by dint of the fact that it is a human being. they're called human rights, not baby rights

Sam Vimes

thebman wrote: »

Yes but once viewed it isn't a human being, it has more in common with sperm than humans at that point so I can't call that human life.

It can only be something with potential to become human life. Sperm also has this potential.

you really need to read back through the thread. a sperm does not at all have the potential to develop into human life. it has the potential to fuse with something else and completely change it's nature so that it is no longer a sperm and this new object can then begin the process of developing a human life.

a zygote is not a potential human life, it is a currently developing human life, just the way a baby is and that is a fact. you might not think so but i'm afraid that unlike in most cases in debates with abortion i can say you are 100% wrong because what you're saying is factually incorrect

Sam Vimes

it might not be conscious yet, it might not be called a baby, it might not meet the definition of what you consider to be valuable in a human life but i assure you it is a human life

philologos

thebman wrote: »

Yes but once viewed it isn't a human being, it has more in common with sperm than humans at that point so I can't call that human life.

It can only be something with potential to become human life. Sperm also has this potential.

How isn't it a human being? If it is made of human biological material and if it is growing, it is a human life. Growth cannot be attributed to a sperm if an of it's own accord.

Why isn't it a human life if it is a) growing, and b) comprised of human biological material?

That doesn't make sense surely?

I could argue that a toddler has more in common with a cat than with an adult, but yet the toddler is still a human being.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

How isn't it a human being? If it is made of human biological material and if it is growing, it is a human life. Growth cannot be attributed to a sperm if an of it's own accord.

Why isn't it a human life if it is a) growing, and b) comprised of human biological material?

That doesn't make sense surely?

I could argue that a toddler has more in common with a cat than with an adult, but yet the toddler is still a human being.

i'd be careful of your definition there Jakkass. a lung is made of human material and grows. i understand what you're saying but someone on the other side will just point that out (as i just did i suppose )

the definition i prefer to use is that it's a self contained being that needs only food and a friendly environment to survive and develop. it seems to take care of all the people who compare it to a sperm or a fingernail etc

Sam Vimes

and the way i see it, my definition fits the facts and can be backed up with evidence. the multitude of definitions given by pro abortionists can pretty much never be backed up with any evidence and seem to me to just be what they want to be true because it allows them to abort their children without feeling guilty about it

Macha

Sam Vimes wrote: »

On a case by case basis in a sensible way. eg a woman 3 weeks pregnant might not know but one who's at 6 months, hasn't had a period in all that time and has a massive bulge obviously /QUOTE]

edit:by technicalities, i meant details that can be ironed out. it's not so massively complex an issue that it's impossible to adjudicate it fairly

I beg to differ.

Where do you stop? Women are strongly advised to take folic acid. If a woman doesn't and her child ends up disabled as a result will we prosecute her? The children of vegetarian women have a higher rate of hypospadias, thought to be due to higher dietary intake of soy? Shall they be sent to prison?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

couldn't give a sh!te tbh. addiction doesn't give her a right to steal to feed her habit any more than it gives her a right to harm another human being. if a law banning smoking in the home with children was to be introduced would you make exceptions for those who were addicted?

Again for you, the needs of the mother are always subordinate to those of the infant. It's common throughout all your posts.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

i've no idea, why? also i said smoking should be illegal, not drinking

My original question on the subject was on smoking and drinking.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

i asked you about making it illegal to smoke around your child. a foetus is your child, just in a less developed state in the same way as a baby is less developed than a teenager

You have a point.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

and the way i see it, my definition fits the facts and can be backed up with evidence. the multitude of definitions given by pro abortionists can pretty much never be backed up with any evidence and seem to me to just be what they want to be true because it allows them to abort their children without feeling guilty about it

I personally take umbrage at the term "Pro-abortionist". I'm pro-choice. It's different. Again, please try to stop labelling us all one homogenous group.

My argument for abortion is not that the foetus isn't alive, but that it is not always wrong to take an innocent being's life. The preferences of the child should be weighed up against the preferences of the woman/parents and decided on.

thebman

Yeah I'm just not getting involved in this debate further, did it before on boards and it was like banging my head off a wall.

I imagine you all know my position by my line of posting anyway so the discussion is going nowhere.

metrovelvet

taconnol wrote: »

.

My argument for abortion is not that the foetus isn't alive, but that it is not always wrong to take an innocent being's life. The preferences of the child should be weighed up against the preferences of the woman/parents and decided on.

Finally some intellectual honesty from someone in the pro choice camp. Ok so you're not a pacifist. When would you say it is ok to take an innocent person's life? Genuinely curious.

Sam Vimes

taconnol wrote: »

I beg to differ.

Where do you stop? Women are strongly advised to take folic acid. If a woman doesn't and her child ends up disabled as a result will we prosecute her? The children of vegetarian women have a higher rate of hypospadias, thought to be due to higher dietary intake of soy? Shall they be sent to prison?

that's again the slippery slope logical fallacy. we use common sense in those situations and if the law is being abused then we stop the abuse but that doesn't mean the law is wrong

if someone is framed for murder and ends up in jail for 20 years for a crime they didn't commit do we legalise murder or do we say we must apply the law better?

taconnol wrote: »

Again for you, the needs of the mother are always subordinate to those of the infant. It's common throughout all your posts.

then you've misundstood my posts i'm afraid. they're not subordinate, they're equal. it's the pro abortionists who talk about subordinate. all i'm saying is they don't supersede the baby's rights

taconnol wrote: »

My original question on the subject was on smoking and drinking.

and i only answered the smoking part mostly because there isn't firm evidence that light drinking during pregnancy can harm the child

taconnol wrote: »

I personally take umbrage at the term "Pro-abortionist". I'm pro-choice. It's different. Again, please try to stop labelling us all one homogenous group.

you're a pro abortionist in that you are pro abortion in at least some cases. pro-choice is a completely misleading term to me because i could choose to kill you right now if i wanted but i have no right to. i try not to use the term

taconnol wrote: »

My argument for abortion is not that the foetus isn't alive, but that it is not always wrong to take an innocent being's life. The preferences of the child should be weighed up against the preferences of the woman/parents and decided on.

so you're saying that another being's rights are subordinate to yours, the same thing you're incorrectly accusing me of saying?

Sam Vimes

thebman wrote: »

Yeah I'm just not getting involved in this debate further, did it before on boards and it was like banging my head off a wall.

I imagine you all know my position by my line of posting anyway so the discussion is going nowhere.

tbh it'd go somewhere if you let go of your convenient definition that spares your conscience and looked at the facts. that's not to say that the opinions of all pro-abortionists are provably wrong but yours is

Macha

metrovelvet wrote: »

Finally some intellectual honesty from someone in the pro choice camp. Ok so you're not a pacifist. When would you say it is ok to take an innocent person's life? Genuinely curious.

Hey, at least I'm honest You cannot equate what I'm saying with not being a pacifist - those are two separate things. Hypothetically speaking, say someone gave you a time machine and said you could go back in time and kill Hitler when he was young, or Stalin or Pol Pot or Pinochet or whoever. Would you do it? Would that mean you're not a pacificst? I consider myself a pacifist.

I'm a consequentialist and it's not about morals (ie saying something is bad just because it is bad, not because there are any repercussions). Something has to be bad because of some sort of suffering it inflicts. Now, when you have a situation where suffering is going to be inflicted no matter what you do, you're going to have to choose the lesser of two evils. For me, abortion is one of those situations.

I haven't thought hard enough about for me where the line is drawn between the two evils and the circumstances etc. But for me, that's what every argument about abortion and the circumstances under which it should be allowed, comes down it.

Arguing that the foetus isn't alive is totally pointless. Hope that was clear As I said earlier, I'm still thinking about all this stuff and am even thinking as I'm writing!

Macha

Sam Vimes wrote: »

that's again the slippery slope logical fallacy. we use common sense in those situations and if the law is being abused then we stop the abuse but that doesn't mean the law is wrong

Well no, because what you're doing is creating a precendent.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

you're a pro abortionist in that you are pro abortion in at least some cases. pro-choice is a completely misleading term to me because i could choose to kill you right now if i wanted but i have no right to. i try not to use the term

So? Didn't you say earlier that if the mother's life were in danger, you would support abortion in that case? Does that make you a pro-abortionist? I don't like the term "pro-abortionist" because it suggests that people who are pro-choice really want to have abortions, like they can't wait to get them. It's misleading and inaccurate. Pro-choice is not misleading and it is more accurate.

Sam Vimes

taconnol wrote: »

Hey, at least I'm honest You cannot equate what I'm saying with not being a pacifist - those are two separate things. Hypothetically speaking, say someone gave you a time machine and said you could go back in time and kill Hitler when he was young, or Stalin or Pol Pot or Pinochet or whoever. Would you do it? Would that mean you're not a pacificst? I consider myself a pacifist.

I'm a consequentialist and it's not about morals (ie saying something is bad just because it is bad, not because there are any repercussions). Something has to be bad because of some sort of suffering it inflicts. Now, when you have a situation where suffering is going to be inflicted no matter what you do, you're going to have to choose the lesser of two evils. For me, abortion is one of those situations.

as a consequentialist do you not take into account the level of the suffering? except in cases where the mother's life is in danger (which i consider completely separate to the debate we're having), then the suffering for the woman involves stretch marks, pain and discomfort for 9 months. how much suffering is required before that suffering outweighs the life of another being?


also, you can't argue that the child doesn't suffer because i could sedate you and the suffocate you and you wouldn't suffer but you'd still be dead

metrovelvet

I think its precarious to point to consequences as the measure or determinism of your morality when it cant always be predicted. You are also assuming there aren't devastating consequences on a woman [aside from the child] who has an abortion. There are even cases of women who have died from legal abortion.

Sam Vimes

taconnol wrote: »

Well no, because what you're doing is creating a precendent.

what you're doing is taking extreme examples of a law being misapplied to cases where it shouln't be and using that to say the law is wrong and that argument is simply wrong i'm afraid.

for example, a few weeks ago in america two 14 year old girls took nakes pictures of themselves and sent them to their 16 year old boyfriends. not only were the boyfriends arrested for possessing child porn, the girls were arrested for manufacturing child porn. that is an absolutely ridiculous situation and they're far from the only people in america who are now on the sex offenders register for retarded reasons but that's still not an argument for getting rid of the law. it's an argument for not letting retards apply it. if we are to get rid of all laws that can have disastrous consequences if applied by retards we'll just have to throw the law book in the bin

taconnol wrote: »

So? Didn't you say earlier that if the mother's life were in danger, you would support abortion in that case? Does that make you a pro-abortionist? I don't like the term "pro-abortionist" because it suggests that people who are pro-choice really want to have abortions, like they can't wait to get them. It's misleading and inaccurate. Pro-choice is not misleading and it is more accurate.

i said i'd be pro "abortion" in that case in a triage sense because it's unlikely/impossible for the foetus to survive without the mother anyway so the choice is mother or nothing. and anyway, in that case you're comparing life against life, not life against stretch marks

edit:i won't use pro-choice because imo it's not your choice to make. what other term would you prefer?

Macha

Sam Vimes wrote: »

as a consequentialist do you not take into account the level of the suffering? except in cases where the mother's life is in danger (which i consider completely separate to the debate we're having), then the suffering for the woman involves stretch marks, pain and discomfort for 9 months. how much suffering is required before that suffering outweighs the life of another being?

Well that's open for debate! I haven't thought about it yet. But I don't think that cases where the mother's life is in danger is a totally separate debate. It suits you to separate it out but there's no reason to.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

also, you can't argue that the child doesn't suffer because i could sedate you and the suffocate you and you wouldn't suffer but you'd still be dead

I used the word suffering in the general sense, not in the narrow sense of just pain or discomfort. I also consider it to incorporate mental suffering, not just physical.

metrovelvet wrote: »

I think its precarious to point to consequences as the measure or determinism of your morality when it cant always be predicted. You are also assuming there aren't devastating consequences on a woman [aside from the child] who has an abortion. There are even cases of women who have died from legal abortion.

I don't-I'm pretty happy being a consequentialist. It keeps my thoughts on things grounded in reality. I'm not assuming anything, I'm just putting across my point of view.

I think it a bit risible that you start to talk about women dying from legal abortions (the cases of which are few and far between), when the direct consequence of making abortion illegal is a cast increase in back-street abortions, which have a much higher fatality rate for the mother.

Sam Vimes

taconnol wrote: »

Well that's open for debate! I haven't thought about it yet. But I don't think that cases where the mother's life is in danger is a totally separate debate. It suits you to separate it out but there's no reason to.

i separate the two because when the mother's life is in danger i'd be on the same side as you in some ways. and people tend to try to argue that since it should be allowed then it should be allowed whenever people want it

taconnol wrote: »

I used the word suffering in the general sense, not in the narrow sense of just pain or discomfort. I also consider it to incorporate mental suffering, not just physical.

fair enough. just clarifying

taconnol wrote: »

I think it a bit risible that you start to talk about women dying from legal abortions (the cases of which are few and far between), when the direct consequence of making abortion illegal is a cast increase in back-street abortions, which have a much higher fatality rate for the mother.

the intended consequence of a law is that people don't do the thing that is illegal. the law can't necessarily be blamed for the suffering of the people who don't feel like obeying it.

for example, lots of thieves are injured and killed while trying to break into other people's houses and businesses. should we make it easier for them by legalising and facilitating it?

Sam Vimes

you hear that a woman died from a dodgy abortion and you feel sorry for her and call for it to be legalised but you hear a thief died and you say good enough for him and have no sympathy

And that's because you think the law against abortion is unjust but the one against thievery is just.

This is why i keep saying that the only relevant thing in this debate is whether or not the foetus should have rights because all arguments on both sides are based on one assumption or the other

Sam Vimes

my point of view is that it should and the point of view of people who are for abortion seems to be that it should have rights when they want it to have rights (eg the double homicide law for killing a pregnant woman or disapproving of a pregnant smoker) but not when it having rights is inconvenient for them

nacho libre

Edit: nacho libre, I've changed my opinion insofar as I cannot argue that a foetus is not a living thing but I am still opposed to making abortion illegal.[/QUOTE]

just a few questions on this reponse:

you recognise the foetus is "a living thing" so in your view the foetus, while living, is not distinct(not worthy of special status) from other forms of life i presume. therefore this means you are able to justify abortion being llegal. or, are you saying it is, in fact, human but you think killing humans in some cases should be legal?
if it's a case of the former,
what if a man punched a pregnant woman in the stomach and as result she loses her foetus. would you object to that man being charged with anything other than assault against the woman?

or should the charges he faces depend on whether the individual woman views the unborn as a clump of cells or a developing human?

also, is it not inconsistent, for those who argue "personhood" in defense of abortion, to view a mother who drowns her six month old child as a murderer?
since that child is not aware of itself- merely a ball of instincts, who is dependent on another human being to survive. it seems to me based on the logic of this argument the drowned child is really no more a "person" than the aborted child.

Macha

The short answer is I don't know nacho libre. Ill put Singer's argument up because it's a better explanation of my view than any other I can find:

Abortion, euthanasia and infanticide

Consistent with his general ethical theory, Singer holds that the right to life is intrinsically tied to a being's capacity to hold preferences, which in turn is intrinsically tied to a being's capacity to feel pain and pleasure. In his view, the central argument against abortion is equivalent to the following logical syllogism:

First premise: It is wrong to take innocent human life.
Second premise: From conception onwards, the embryo or fetus is innocent, human and alive.
Conclusion: It is wrong to take the life of the embryo or fetus.[25]

In his book Rethinking Life and Death Singer asserts that, if we take the premises at face value, the argument is deductively valid. Singer comments that those who do not generally think abortion is wrong attack the second premise, suggesting that the fetus becomes a 'human' or 'alive' at some point after conception; however, Singer remarks that human development is a gradual process, that it is nearly impossible to mark a particular moment in time as the moment at which human life begins.
Singer lecturing on medical ethics.

Singer's argument for abortion differs from many other proponents of abortion; rather than attacking the second premise of the anti-abortion argument, Singer attacks the first premise, denying that it is wrong to take innocent human life:

[The argument that a fetus is not alive] is a resort to a convenient fiction that turns an evidently living being into one that legally is not alive. Instead of accepting such fictions, we should recognise that the fact that a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being's life. (Rethinking Life and Death 105)

Singer states that arguments for or against abortion should be based on utilitarian calculation which weighs the preferences of a mother against the preferences of the fetus. A preference is anything sought to be obtained or avoided; all forms of benefit or harm caused to a being correspond directly with the satisfaction or frustration of one or more of its preferences. Since a capacity to experience suffering or satisfaction is a prerequisite to having any preferences at all, and a fetus (up to around 18 weeks) has no capacity to suffer or feel satisfaction, it is not possible for fetuses to hold any preferences at all. In a utilitarian calculation, there is nothing to weigh against a mother's preferences to have an abortion, therefore abortion is morally permissible.

Similar to his argument for abortion, Singer argues that infants similarly lack essential characteristics of personhood - "rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness" [26]- and therefore "imply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person."[27].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer

Macha

Sam Vimes wrote: »

in all honestly taconnol, i think you do know. deep down you know that abortion is wrong and that it shouldn't be done but bringing a child to term is difficult and dangerous so you're having difficulty accepting it

In all honesty, Sam Vimes, I would ask you not to presume to know my mind. I find this part of your post quite condescending. That's not what I think at all.

Sam Vimes

taconnol wrote: »

In all honesty, Sam Vimes, I would ask you not to presume to know my mind. I find this part of your post quite condescending. That's not what I think at all.

you seem to be wrestling with your thoughts on the matter. you don't seem to be able to give any justification of why the foetus shouldn't have rights, your arguments are all that it's traumatic for the mother, which could very likely end up being you. it just seems to me that you're wrestling with what you would like to be true and what the evidence is saying is true. if i'm wrong i apologise


also, that singer just seems to have his own definition what he considers to be "valuable" that allows him to dismiss the life of another human being without guilt, the same as any other person who's for abortion, or misogynist or slave owner. i could just as easily say:
Sam Vimes argues that black guys similarly lack essential characteristics of personhood - "whiteness" [26]- and therefore "imply killing a black guy is never equivalent to killing a person."[27].

Macha

Sam Vimes wrote: »

you seem to be wrestling with your thoughts on the matter. you don't seem to be able to give any justification of why the foetus shouldn't have rights, your arguments are all that it's traumatic for the mother, which could very likely end up being you. it just seems to me that you're wrestling with what you would like to be true and what the evidence is saying is true. if i'm wrong i apologise

Sorry, that was a bit too harsh. My arguments are based on the rights of the baby/child/foetus being balanced with those of the mother/parents.

In all honesty, though, I would never have an abortion myself but then again, I have access to contraception, live in a wealthy country, am in a loving, stable relationship, am in my mid-20s, am well off and would be able to provide for my child very well. Plus I don't live in a society that "punished" women for becoming mothers (well, not very much anyway..) BUT, I don't feel comfortable forcing my own view on this onto other people.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

also, that singer just seems to have his own definition what he considers to be "valuable" that allows him to dismiss the life of another human being without guilt, the same as any other person who's for abortion, or misogynist or slave owner. i could just as easily say:
Sam Vimes argues that black guys similarly lack essential characteristics of personhood - "whiteness" [26]- and therefore "imply killing a black guy is never equivalent to killing a person."[27].

LOL, so I ask you: are you a vegetarian??

Sam Vimes

taconnol wrote: »

Sorry, that was a bit too harsh. My arguments are based on the rights of the baby/child/foetus being balanced with those of the mother/parents.

In all honesty, though, I would never have an abortion myself but then again, I have access to contraception, live in a wealthy country, am in a loving, stable relationship, am in my mid-20s, am well off and would be able to provide for my child very well. Plus I don't live in a society that "punished" women for becoming mothers (well, not very much anyway..) BUT, I don't feel comfortable forcing my own view on this onto other people.

but this isn't a situation of a personal preference or a religion or something like that, it's reminding them that murder is wrong. hardly a "view", no?

taconnol wrote: »

LOL, so I ask you: are you a vegetarian??

singer uses arbitrary parameters that are valid to no one but himself to decide if a being is valuable or not. he is grading human beings the same way slave owners did

i simply use the criteria: "it is a human being"

an animal is not a human being which can be verified by either looking at it or doing a dna test. therefore i look on them in much the same way as a pro-abortionist looks on a foetus. and no i'm not a vegetarian

Macha

Sam Vimes wrote: »

but this isn't a situation of a personal preference or a religion or something like that, it's reminding them that murder is wrong. hardly a "view", no?

What can I say? I'm a social liberalist. I find it a bit too easy to dictate to others when I'm not in that position myself. It's a lot harder when it's happening to you.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

i simply use the criteria: "it is a human being"

Why? Can animals not suffer? You're arguing that the foetus should not be aborted because that would cause it suffering (in the general sense of the word).

Using that logic, you should not eat meat because you are causing suffering on a living thing.

Sam Vimes

taconnol wrote: »

Why? Can animals not suffer? You're arguing that the foetus should not be aborted because that would cause it suffering (in the general sense of the word).

Using that logic, you should not eat meat because you are causing suffering on a living thing.

that would be poor logic, good thing i'm not arguing that :P

i'm arguing that it's a human being and it's not ok to kill human beings

pts

Just read the proceeding pages. Some stimulating arguments on both sides so far.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

i'm arguing that it's a human being and it's not ok to kill human beings

I'm curious to if you believe it is always wrong to kill humans, or if it is justified under certain circumstances.