A funny (conservative) take on abortion

[Dr. Zaus]

Although none of the arguments hold water on their own, they each touch on a key issue regarding assumptions that most people hold must be violated in order to support the "right to choose"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNkAfdOztpQ


Meth: Do we make something legal because not doing so is dangerous for those who perform the action?

Rape: If it hurts another human life* do we elevate our right to do what we want with our bodies to the point that the harm is not longer illegal?

Slavery: If it means taking the freedom from another human life do we use 'personal conviction' as an excuse not to make it illegal?

Child Porn: Do we allow a 'medical debate' regarding specific mile-stones regarding growth of a human life to keep us from making illegal to harm that human life?

Also:
Can we use convictions that some may come to religiously as a basis for law?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo3hGWqZnj0

* life:an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction; can anyone truly argue that two humans who have created a life together have not created a human life?

 

[zinfamous]

again, you are using one out of a bushel of definitions for "life."

there is not a single scientific or medically agreed-upon definition of "life."

The point I always make is that conception is no guarantee of life. hell, it is only through modern medicine that mortality rates have gone from some 35% to an astonishing ~4% in our modern era.

That is insane.

This means you can't really separate the concept of "the miracle of life" from "life--only through human intervention."


However you want to look at it, the anti-abortion crowd is universally going to be looking at this from a religious/moral standpoint. Safety and public health be damned when I feel that my morality is greater than someone else's.

I'm not for "abortions as birth control," but nothing is going to stop that. They have been happening for centuries. Shit, people have been aborting babies for eons. Making such illegal threatens 2 lives (by your definition), rather than just one.

 

[Atreus21]

However you want to look at it, the anti-abortion crowd is universally going to be looking at this from a religious/moral standpoint. Safety and public health be damned when I feel that my morality is greater than someone else's.

First, the best arguments against abortion are nonreligious. Second, the pro-abortion crowd is in the same boat, namely that they view their morality is greater. Their morality places the mother's convenience above her child's life.

I'm not for "abortions as birth control," but nothing is going to stop that. They have been happening for centuries. Shit, people have been aborting babies for eons. Making such illegal threatens 2 lives (by your definition), rather than just one.

Nothing is going to stop people committing murders, or rapes, or thefts. But they're illegal all the same, as they should be.

 

[Mursilis]

Safety and public health be damned when I feel that my morality is greater than someone else's.

If society didn't think that one moral tenet was superior to another, it could never pass a law.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
However you want to look at it, the anti-abortion crowd is universally going to be looking at this from a religious/moral standpoint.

No.

While I don't support throwing women in prison for having an abortion, I do feel abortion should be opposed.

My objection is not a religious objection (the term "moral" is irrelevent, even arguments made supporting a right to abortion can be said to be based 'moral' grounds).

IMO, if we were sure that abortion was the taking of a life I believe most of us would oppose abortions. But we don't know the answer to the question of when that life starts (at least according to current arguments and court opinions), so my objection is if you don't know for sure don't do it.

If I was demolishing a building and didn't know for sure it was vacant I wouldn't blow it up.

Err on the side of caution if the consequence is the death of a human life.

Fern

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Thanks for taking up the debate in a rational and respectful manner.

again, you are using one out of a bushel of definitions for "life."

This is a fair point, but does not knowing mean that we should not err on the side of life?

the anti-abortion crowd is universally going to be looking at this from a religious/moral standpoint. Safety and public health be damned

public health and safety is a moral standpoint as well. I'm for whatever saves the most lives because I believe human life has value (I don't think there are many that disagree).

I'm not for "abortions as birth control," but nothing is going to stop that.

But it may reduce it; Just as with all laws there will be negative consequences: but we should rationally weigh them against the outcome of not having the law.

I think the only rational conclusion would be to give a weighted average to the probability of various definitions of life and multiple the percent that would call a fetus a human-life by the number of abortions. Then compare that to the weighted number of fewer abortions minus the number of extra deaths that might occur from making abortions illegal.

 

[JockoJohnson]

Thanks for taking up the debate in a rational and respectful manner.

This is a fair point, but does not knowing mean that we should not err on the side of life?

public health and safety is a moral standpoint as well. I'm for whatever saves the most lives because I believe human life has value (I don't think there are many that disagree).

But it may reduce it; Just as with all laws there will be negative consequences: but we should rationally weigh them against the outcome of not having the law.

I think the only rational conclusion would be to give a weighted average to the probability of various definitions of life and multiple the percent that would call a fetus a human-life by the number of abortions. Then compare that to the weighted number of fewer abortions minus the number of extra deaths that might occur from making abortions illegal.

I too hope the debate stays civil. In this forum, it's not likely but could happen. I don't agree with abortion but I stand behind the right to have one. What was stated early on is true--women's lives would be in danger if abortions weren't legal. They would still try to get them but the risk of something bad happening to the woman is raised significantly.

 

[Scotteq]

Personally, I believe in Birth Control not abortion.

With regards to others choices, I hold a Libertarian Point of View: It's not for the Government, nor anyone else to decide.


As far as "Sanctity of Life" - I disagree that life is somehow sacred. It merely "Is".

 

[Mursilis]

Personally, I believe in Birth Control not abortion.

With regards to others choices, I hold a Libertarian Point of View: It's not for the Government, nor anyone else to decide.


As far as "Sanctity of Life" - I disagree that life is somehow sacred. It merely "Is".

Sounds more anarchist than libertarian.

 

[Scotteq]

Sounds more anarchist than libertarian.

No - An anarchist wouldn't like the baby crying and would kill it.

A Libertarian would allow the parents to choose as they like, but would require they care for the child they created.

Since the topic is abortion, not child care, I didn't feel the need to elaborate further.



or were you referring to the Sanctity of Life comment?

 

[Dr. Zaus]

What was stated early on is true--women's lives would be in danger if abortions weren't legal. They would still try to get them but the risk of something bad happening to the woman is raised significantly.

I feel the importance of not repressing someone's rights and I conceded that some amount of public health may be harmed. But are you arguing that legalization of abortion will take more lives than it saves?

As far as "Sanctity of Life" - I disagree that life is somehow sacred. It merely "Is".

If life doesn't matter then what does? Why have liberty in life if life is without inherent value?



As for 'who will take care of the unwanted pregnancies': There is a line of infertile couples wanting to adopt such 'unwanted' babies. Further, humans have an amazing potential and no one is destined to be forever in poverty; many are lifted out and do great things for humanity.

 

[ElFenix]

i like how people try to minimize a legitimate ethical issue by claiming it must based on morals. of course it's based on morals. it's based on morals from both sides! there are competing factors on each side, both weighty. that's why abortion is a question worthy of debate.

 

[Scotteq]

If life doesn't matter then what does?

I didn't say Life didn't "Matter". I said I don't believe it's somehow "Sacred".

Why have liberty in life if life is without inherent value?

I didn't say 'Without Value' - I said 'not Sacred'. And why not have Liberty?

 

[Mursilis]

No - An anarchist wouldn't like the baby crying and would kill it.

A Libertarian would allow the parents to choose as they like, but would require they care for the child they created.

Since the topic is abortion, not child care, I didn't feel the need to elaborate further.



or were you referring to the Sanctity of Life comment?

All of it, really. You weren't clear on what choices (if any) you'd allow the gov't and/or society to interfere with.

 

[Scotteq]

All of it, really. You weren't clear on what choices (if any) you'd allow the gov't and/or society to interfere with.

Given the topic is Abortion, I think the choice I was referring to is eminently clear.

 

[Mursilis]

I didn't say Life didn't "Matter". I said I don't believe it's somehow "Sacred".

Of course it is. Not all definitions of "sacred" are related to religion. Dictionary.com also lists "secured against violation, infringement, etc., as by reverence or sense of right". Most people would consider themselves to have a right to (their own) life, and most societies protect life in one form or another.

 

[Scotteq]

Of course it is. Not all definitions of "sacred" are related to religion. Dictionary.com also lists "secured against violation, infringement, etc., as by reverence or sense of right". Most people would consider themselves to have a right to (their own) life, and most societies protect life in one form or another.

Where did I say Life was without value? I didn't.


But thank you for your valuable input, Mr. Webster.

 

[shira]

I think the only rational conclusion would be to give a weighted average to the probability of various definitions of life and multiple the percent that would call a fetus a human-life by the number of abortions. Then compare that to the weighted number of fewer abortions minus the number of extra deaths that might occur from making abortions illegal.

The problem with this calculation is that it treats all human lives as having equal value. It doesn't differentiate the values of the lives of, say, a day-old zygote and a newly-born infant. Yet surely virtually none of us, if given the choice between ending the life of a day-old zygote and ending the life of a newly-born infant, would think it a coin flip.

When discussing the costs/benefits of abortions, the basis for differentiating the value of human lives is personhood. A day-old zygote isn't a person. A newly-born infant is. The life of a newly-born infant is >>>>>> the life of a day-old zygote. The life of a pregnant woman is >>>>>>> the life of her day-old zygote. These truths are self evident. The problem with the anti-abortion crowd is that their intellectual dishonesty won't allow them to acknowledge these comparisons. They use "human life" and "human being" interchangeably, and they arrive at absurd, extremist positions as a consequence.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

I didn't say Life didn't "Matter". I said I don't believe it's somehow "Sacred".

I didn't say 'Without Value' - I said 'not Sacred'. And why not have Liberty?

Without a basis for truth then the totalitarian's point of view is as right as the libertarian's. I misunderstood your statement that life "just is" to imply that you have no basis for believing human life is more important than other things. The use of sacred I intended was "b : entitled to reverence and respect ". If we do not have reverence and respect for life then how can we say it is of value?

The problem with this calculation is that it treats all human lives as having equal value. It doesn't differentiate the values of the lives of, say, a day-old zygote and a newly-born infant. Yet surely virtually none of us, if given the choice between ending the life of a day-old zygote and ending the life of a newly-born infant, would think it a coin flip.

That's fine; how many of us, if given a choice between a 40 year old woman and a baby would think of it as such an easy decision? How many of us would honestly think that a few inches of flesh between the infant and the outside-world should make this any easier?

If you want to amend the equation to weigh the life relative to the probability of that life becoming an active member of society you're welcome to.

It seems that we use our emotions about 'rights' to over-shadow a rational respect for human life and laws that will reduce death.

 

[Scotteq]

Without a basis for truth then the totalitarian's point of view is as right as the libertarian's. I misunderstood your statement that life "just is" to imply that you have no basis for believing human life is more important than other things. The use of sacred I intended was "b : entitled to reverence and respect ". If we do not have reverence and respect for life then how can we say it is of value?

Because sure as the sun rises, some jackass will presume "Sacred" means having to do with "God". This *is* P&N at AnandTech, after all. Not like we don't already assault people who don't agree with us with labels like 'Facist', 'Anarchist', 'Neocon' and 'Liberal', right?


And I don't believe "Life" is somehow "Sacred": Human Beings, after all, pick and choose what is and is not "Sacred". And usually as a matter of convenience. i.e. 'Cute and Furry' is Sacred. Ugly is not. Except when we're hungry - then we kill and eat the cute furry thing because it happens to be made of Meat.

The people who believe in this book here are Sacred, and the people who believe in that book there are not.

The People who live here are Sacred. We get to kill the ones over there.

In an ultimate sense, What kind of Morality exists when we make it up as we go along and change it to suit the current situation?

 

[Dr. Zaus]

In an ultimate sense, What kind of Morality exists when we make it up as we go along and change it to suit the current situation?

I would say that diminishing human life, as you described, doesn't mean morality changed; only that those who diminish a particular human life are wrong. It is on a basic respect for persons that morality exists (empirically) across civilizations and cultures; It is only in re-defining 'person' that we find a basis on which people have justified not holding human life sacred. It seems clear, then, that we should never ascribe non-person-hood to any human life.

 

[Scotteq]

I would say that diminishing human life, as you described, doesn't mean morality changed; only that those who diminish a particular human life are wrong. It is on a basic respect for persons that morality exists (empirically) across civilizations and cultures; It is only in re-defining 'person' that we find a basis on which people have justified not holding human life sacred. It seems clear, then, that we should never ascribe non-person-hood to any human life.

I could /sign that


Back on Topic: I consider Abortion (and what we do with our own bodies in general) to be highly personal and that as a general rule the Government should stay out of these decisions unless we are creating issues for others.

 

[thraashman]

There's an inherent problem with the conservative anti abortion crowd (not saying all anti abortion comes from a conservative political standpoint, just saying that the part that does is hugely flawed). These are the people who want abortion to be illegal, but then don't want to teach any form of birth control, then don't want there to be any form of assistance for the poor. So basically the conservative crowd wants people to not know anything about birth control, once they get pregnant not have any option but to keep it, then once they have it to not have any assistance in supporting it.

Which is yet another bit of evidence showing that conservatives want the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer.

I personally have known a few people who've had abortions and I don't think less of them for that and given the situation they were in at the time, I think they made the right choice.

 

[CitizenKain]

There's an inherent problem with the conservative anti abortion crowd (not saying all anti abortion comes from a conservative political standpoint, just saying that the part that does is hugely flawed). These are the people who want abortion to be illegal, but then don't want to teach any form of birth control, then don't want there to be any form of assistance for the poor. So basically the conservative crowd wants people to not know anything about birth control, once they get pregnant not have any option but to keep it, then once they have it to not have any assistance in supporting it.

That crowd doesn't give a shit about the sanctity of life, it's simply a matter of control.

 

[zinfamous]

First, the best arguments against abortion are nonreligious. Second, the pro-abortion crowd is in the same boat, namely that they view their morality is greater. Their morality places the mother's convenience above her child's life.



Nothing is going to stop people committing murders, or rapes, or thefts. But they're illegal all the same, as they should be.

there is no pro-abortion crowd. there is a pro-choice crowd.

don't be daft.

again, it goes around the definition of life. The mother makes her own choice--the outsie crowd should not be making choices on "her behalf" that she is somehow not allowed to make. Seriously...for all of the conservatives that are very much anti-abortion, this forced choice that you advocate flies completely in the face of "legislation for your own good."

The pro choice crowd does not consider this a morality vs morality issue, it's simply a complex choice that someone should have the right to make on their own. Why you choose to equate this to murder, rape theft, is well...fucking naive.