I need a reason for abortion being legal

[Atreus21]

By trying to use a moral absolute - protecting life - we leave ourselves open to the backlash. In the case of abortions it would be incredibly unsafe black market abortions. Back when we felt that alcohol consumption went against some moral absolute, the backlash was incredible. When we outlawed dueling people resorted to common murder. Alcohol consumption can be dismissed because it doesn't necessarily lead to the loss of life like abortion and dueling, but the backlash may be similar.

If we as a society do not generally feel that this is some moral absolute that we need to uphold, then the black market will be flooded with unsafe abortions, and the cost of enforcing this morality does not outweigh the benefit - which is why I brought up alcohol in the first place, since apparently dueling is bad and we'd rather people murder each other!

There's a backlash to any moral principle. I'm willing to accept the backlash inherent in protecting children from being killed by their parents. It's no different than accepting the backlash from outlawing murder.

The abortion issue, more than any other political issue, leaves me in such a dazed state. Here we are witnessing elegantly crafted arguments that ultimately serve to support the wholesale killing of, not just human beings, but infant human beings. It's hard talking about this without getting emotional. It's bizarre that we even speak of it in normal tones of voice. It's staggering to witness strong intellects deluded so easily.

 

[CLite]

There's a backlash to any moral principle. I'm willing to accept the backlash inherent in protecting children from being killed by their parents. It's no different than accepting the backlash from outlawing murder.

Preventing murder in it's current form does not require enforcing surgery and imposing additional controls over a person's medical decisions over the course of 9 months. Additionally, a large number of people do not perceive abortions to be murder. Please address my comments regarding states rights, and/or even if we nationally imposed a rule labeling abortion as murder there are complications. If someone goes to Canada to get an abortion will they be put on death row if they return to a state with capital punishment for premeditated murder?

Abolishing slavery was a moral choice which we can say about 50%? of the country did not support. However, abolition did not force slave owners to undergo medical treatments and give up control over medical decisions for the course of 9 months. Implementing abortion=murder policy would be similar in imposing a moral decision which half or less (approximately?) the country supports. However, the implementation of such a policy would be the opposite of abolition in that it requires significant relinquishment of rights for the host (mother) in terms of medical decisions in exchange for the freedom of the fetus.

 

[CLite]

The abortion issue, more than any other political issue, leaves me in such a dazed state. Here we are witnessing elegantly crafted arguments that ultimately serve to support the wholesale killing of, not just human beings, but infant human beings. It's hard talking about this without getting emotional. It's bizarre that we even speak of it in normal tones of voice. It's staggering to witness strong intellects deluded so easily.

The world is not black/white Atreus, there are no elegant arguments only reality.

*edit* I think if people believe so passionately that abortion is murder then their energies would be best channeled into helping impoverished/destitute single mothers that would go the abortion route if left no other options. If abortion was ever outlawed then the rich will just get treatment where it was legal and the poor would just get harmful back-alley treatments. You are trying to fight a sin that many people don't see as a sin, even if you win it will never go away. All you can do is help educate folks and take solace in the fruits of your labor.

 

[Atreus21]

Preventing murder in it's current form does not require enforcing surgery and imposing additional controls over a person's medical decisions over the course of 9 months. Additionally, a large number of people do not perceive abortions to be murder. Please address my comments regarding states rights, and/or even if we nationally imposed a rule labeling abortion as murder there are complications. If someone goes to Canada to get an abortion will they be put on death row if they return to a state with capital punishment for premeditated murder?

As I've already said, a human being's life is not cheapened because of the inconvenience of its existence.

Abolishing slavery was a moral choice which we can say about 50%? of the country did not support. However, abolition did not force slave owners to undergo medical treatments and give up control over medical decisions for the course of 9 months. Implementing abortion=murder policy would be similar in imposing a moral decision which half or less (approximately?) the country supports. However, the implementation of such a policy would be the opposite of abolition in that it requires significant relinquishment of rights for the host (mother) in terms of medical decisions in exchange for the freedom of the fetus.

Whereas now it's complete relinquishment of the right of the fetus to live in favor of, not the mother's right to life, but her right not to have her lifestyle disrupted. No reason is bad enough to prevent a mother from aborting her child as it stands now. I would consider the arguments in favor of abortion in a more reasonable light if at the very least, they'd consider banning late term abortions. Hell, they were fine with partial birth abortion, which means delivering everything except the head, at which point the head is crushed and the brain vacuumed out, until Bush outlawed it. And even then it had to survive a 5-4 SCOTUS decision with all liberal justices in dissent.

 

[Atreus21]

The world is not black/white Atreus, there are no elegant arguments only reality.

The south managed to rationalize slavery. Germans managed to rationalize the death camps. We have not changed. We've simply offloaded the atrocity to a less vocal, less visible victim.

 

[First]

There's a backlash to any moral principle. I'm willing to accept the backlash inherent in protecting children from being killed by their parents. It's no different than accepting the backlash from outlawing murder.

The abortion issue, more than any other political issue, leaves me in such a dazed state. Here we are witnessing elegantly crafted arguments that ultimately serve to support the wholesale killing of, not just human beings, but infant human beings. It's hard talking about this without getting emotional. It's bizarre that we even speak of it in normal tones of voice. It's staggering to witness strong intellects deluded so easily.

Strong intellects are on the side of choice, though. A 1st trimester abortion is not a "child", at least if you adhere to the standard definition of child. 1st trimester beings have no legal rights, and since we are a society of laws that is of paramount importance. 1st and 2nd trimester babies are not viable outside of the mother's womb. Practicality dictates that trying to invade the privacy of a woman's body by dictating an entirely opinionated case for a 1st/2nd trimester fetus being a "person", when the legal definition says otherwise for those practical reasons. I would no more call sperm "people" than a 1 second old fetus "people".

"Murder" is a loaded term that means nothing when used to apply to 1st and 2nd trimester fetuses. "Murder" being applied to 3rd trimester would be more appropriate as they can actually survive outside of the womb, even then it's a stretch as they have not been born. Of course, again, the mother's rights outstrip those of a nameless, faceless fetus. It's a matter of practicality and once you (appropriately) strip emotion from the argument you're left with intelligent people making the intelligent decision that women must have choice, and that no gov't (federal or state) has any right to govern their bodily functions unless it harms citizens. Fetuses aren't citizens.

 

[Darwin333]

Does a person have the right to refuse to become pregnant against her will?

If someone tried to make her pregnant against her will, what limitations, if any, exist on the extent of force she could use to defend herself from becoming unwillingly pregnant?

If the only way she could stop someone from making her pregnant against her will was lethal force, would it be justified?

Being made pregnant against her will is considered rape, yes lethal force is justified to prevent someone from raping you.

 

[First]

The south managed to rationalize slavery. Germans managed to rationalize the death camps. We have not changed. We've simply offloaded the atrocity to a less vocal, less visible victim.

Except there are degrees of "murder"; some of the harmless variety (ants), some of the more entertaining variety (I murder my sperm all the time, both solo or with a companion), some of the slightly more serious variety (1st trimester fetus), and some of the much more serious than that variety (3rd trimester fetus abortion). None of those are equal to each other, and for reasons of liberty to choose, freedom from tyrannical gov't invading privacy, and simply freedom to live and abide by society's laws, we've decided that abortion is legal and acceptable because a person is not being murdered. A fetus is, and there's a big difference that is verifiable biologically.

 

[momeNt]

There's a backlash to any moral principle. I'm willing to accept the backlash inherent in protecting children from being killed by their parents. It's no different than accepting the backlash from outlawing murder.

The abortion issue, more than any other political issue, leaves me in such a dazed state. Here we are witnessing elegantly crafted arguments that ultimately serve to support the wholesale killing of, not just human beings, but infant human beings. It's hard talking about this without getting emotional. It's bizarre that we even speak of it in normal tones of voice. It's staggering to witness strong intellects deluded so easily.

Perhaps my post about circumcision was ignored because it was irrelevant to the discussion or because people trolled the thread for a few pages, but did you happen to read the defense of circumcision from a noted libertarian (somewhat of an outlier on libertarianism given his history)

http://jneilschulman.rationalreview....ldrens-rights/

I’ve been asked whether I would remove a girl from her family to prevent the operation where her clitoris is cut off. I answered twofold:


1. If I intervened to rescue a child from what I regarded as a criminal parent, I would regard it as taking on a Life Obligation for the welfare of that child.


2. In the case of someone old enough to ask to be rescued from violent harm, I would take the same action I would take if a slave asked me for help escaping from a plantation: I would become a station on an underground railroad.


But I certainly would not place my ass, and my immortal soul, on the line to stop a Jewish or Muslim family from cutting the foreskin off their son. I’ve lived quite happily with a circumcised penis for quite a few years, have no unpleasant memories of being circumcised, and have no resentment against a mohel sucking my baby dick.


Get some fucking perspective.

Is this too harsh a critique on those outlawing infant circumcision (in the case of females - not so infant...) in order for its message to be applied to abortion? The fetus didn't even know it had a life, much like a circumcised boy doesn't know he had foreskin until some point later in life.

It's much the same group of people that want to outlaw abortion, but also want to ALLOW circumcision. If this is off-topic just ignore and I'll refocus my contribution to the discussion.

 

[CLite]

The south managed to rationalize slavery. Germans managed to rationalize the death camps. We have not changed. We've simply offloaded the atrocity to a less vocal, less visible victim.

You will never win. Even if you win (which would never happen in the USA) it would be a states right issue. Even if it became a federal law (which would never happen) then there would be countries that keep it legal. The rich will simply get treatments elsewhere and the poor will get injured/die from poorly performed back-alley services.

Likening the concept of letting woman maintain control of their own medical decisions to death camps and slavery will not budge popular opinion but rather serves to further entrench both sides.

 

[Atreus21]

Strong intellects are on the side of choice, though. A 1st trimester abortion is not a "child", at least if you adhere to the standard definition of child. 1st trimester beings have no legal rights, and since we are a society of laws that is of paramount importance. 1st and 2nd trimester babies are not viable outside of the mother's womb. Practicality dictates that trying to invade the privacy of a woman's body by dictating an entirely opinionated case for a 1st/2nd trimester fetus being a "person", when the legal definition says otherwise for those practical reasons. I would no more call sperm "people" than a 1 second year old fetus "people".

"Murder" is a loaded term that means nothing when used to apply to 1st and 2nd trimester fetuses. "Murder" being applied to 3rd trimester would be more appropriate as they can actually survive outside of the womb, even then it's a stretch as they have not been born. Of course, again, the mother's rights outstrip those of a nameless, faceless fetus. It's a matter of practicality and once you (appropriately) strip emotion from the argument you're left with intelligent people making the intelligent decision that women must have choice, and that no gov't (federal or state) has any right to govern their bodily functions unless it harms citizens. Fetuses aren't citizens.

If strong intellects have led us to this, then it's no surprise people resort to emotional pleas.

I guess I can't see past the simple point that a child 5 seconds from birth is eligible to be killed, whereas 5 seconds afterward is bestowed with some magical right to life.

Except there are degrees of "murder"; some of the harmless variety (ants), some of the more entertaining variety (I murder my sperm all the time, both solo or with a companion), some of the slightly more serious variety (1st trimester fetus), and some of the much more serious than that variety (3rd trimester fetus abortion). None of those are equal to each other, and for reasons of liberty to choose, freedom from tyrannical gov't invading privacy, and simply freedom to live and abide by society's laws, we've decided that abortion is legal and acceptable because a person is not being murdered. A fetus is, and there's a big difference that is verifiable biologically.

Murder, as I and I believe most people would practically define it, is killing another human being without essentially a damned good reason, like self defense or warfare.

The severity of murder varies by the intent of the murderer, not who they murder. First degree is planned. Second degree is more accidental. But the object of murder is a human being. Not sperm and ants. And to argue that a child isn't a human being because it's not yet born is sheerly arbitrary. If a child is a human being right before it's born, then logically one concludes that at some point within the womb, the child becomes a human being, and to kill it at any point after that is no different than killing an infant.

 

[Ninjahedge]

The stupidity in this thread is mind boggling. Just mind boggling.

It helps when you do not have a mind to boggle.

 

[First]

If strong intellects have led us to this, then it's no surprise people resort to emotional pleas.

I guess I can't see past the simple point that a child 5 seconds from birth is eligible to be killed, whereas 5 seconds afterward is bestowed with some magical right to life.

3rd trimester abortion that late is largely illegal in the U.S. and comprises under 1% of all abortions. It's a moot and pointless statement to make.

Very few Americans bestow a magical right to life for fetuses 5 seconds old.

 

[Darwin333]

Here is one thing that I do not understand about abortion.

Late term abortions were the fetus could and very likely would survive. If the doctor kills the fetus in the womb it is abortion and perfectly legal. If the woman goes into labor and the baby pops out right before the doctor was going to abort it the same thing is now murder.

To me that is like saying that the difference between a perfectly acceptable and morally correct medical procedure and murder is nothing more than "place of residence".

 

[momeNt]

If strong intellects have led us to this, then it's no surprise people resort to emotional pleas.

I guess I can't see past the simple point that a child 5 seconds from birth is eligible to be killed, whereas 5 seconds afterward is bestowed with some magical right to life.

I think that First and many others tend to agree that viability outside the fetus is one of the main determinants of whether or not an abortion should be illegal.

Nobody enters the 3rd trimester not knowing they are pregnant, and if they do then odds are they will end up in labor before knowing they were pregnant, at which point an abortion isn't an option, adoption is. If you went by your 1st and 2nd trimester knowing you were pregnant, then suddenly in the 3rd, with a viable fetus, decide you want an abortion, then most would probably admit that there is something morally wrong there and there are other options besides abortion without causing undue harm to the mother's liberty.

 

[Ninjahedge]

10!

10 Pages, ah! ah! ah!

/The Count

 

[Atreus21]

You will never win. Even if you win (which would never happen in the USA) it would be a states right issue. Even if it became a federal law (which would never happen) then there would be countries that keep it legal. The rich will simply get treatments elsewhere and the poor will get injured/die from poorly performed back-alley services.

Likening the concept of letting woman maintain control of their own medical decisions to death camps and slavery will not budge popular opinion but rather serves to further entrench both sides.

The battle isn't over.

 

[CLite]

The battle isn't over.

I didn't mean in terms of laws. Please address this "The rich will simply get treatments elsewhere and the poor will get injured/die from poorly performed back-alley services."

You can pass any law you want, but it will still be a procedure that is heavily practiced because people don't view it as an inherently immoral concept to have control over their own medical decisions. Lambasting them as murderers sure as fuck won't change their opinions.

 

[Atreus21]

I think that First and many others tend to agree that viability outside the fetus is one of the main determinants of whether or not an abortion should be illegal.

Then by all means, amend Roe v. Wade or whatever it takes. Now. Even though I disagree with the viability argument, it hasn't been put into effect. We'd be saving a thousand lives a year if it were in place.

Nobody enters the 3rd trimester not knowing they are pregnant, and if they do then odds are they will end up in labor before knowing they were pregnant, at which point an abortion isn't an option, adoption is. If you went by your 1st and 2nd trimester knowing you were pregnant, then suddenly in the 3rd, with a viable fetus, decide you want an abortion, then most would probably admit that there is something morally wrong there and there are other options besides abortion without causing undue harm to the mother's liberty.

I'd be inclined to agree if pro-choicers slowed the slightest interest in actually applying the viability restriction. Any restriction against abortion whatsoever is fought heavily. Witness the partial birth abortion ban act.

 

[Atreus21]

I didn't mean in terms of laws. Please address this "The rich will simply get treatments elsewhere and the poor will get injured/die from poorly performed back-alley services."

You can pass any law you want, but it will still be a procedure that is heavily practiced because people don't view it as an inherently immoral concept to have control over their own medical decisions. Lambasting them as murderers sure as fuck won't change their opinions.

If people are willing to go to such lengths to kill their own children, no words of mine will convince them otherwise. Perhaps the law will have better results.

 

[CLite]

I'd be inclined to agree if pro-choicers slowed the slightest interest in actually applying the viability restriction. Any restriction against abortion whatsoever is fought heavily. Witness the partial birth abortion ban act.

The number of people who do late 3rd term abortions is so incredibly small and they are very desperate people. If you want to prevent them the best way would be though education, love, and support, not harassment and threats which would just drive them to areas in which it was legal.

The reason no one will budge is because gaining control over a woman's medical decisions even in the 3rd term would open the floodgates to do it in the 2nd term and 1st term. They don't want to budge an inch of ground because it would set legal precedents.

Personally I believe abortions after the first couple months to be reprehensible, and I would strongly encourage family/friends to seek means to give away an unwanted mid/late-term pregnancy through adoption. However, the USA can't enact laws that legislate woman's medical decisions, there are many elegant arguments but the bottom line is that it's not even the best way to tackle the fundamental issue of unwanted pregnancies.

 

[Atreus21]

The number of people who do late 3rd term abortions is so incredibly small and they are very desperate people. If you want to prevent them the best way would be though education, love, and support, not harassment and threats which would just drive them to areas in which it was legal.

The reason no one will budge is because gaining control over a woman's medical decisions even in the 3rd term would open the floodgates to do it in the 2nd term and 1st term. They don't want to budge an inch of ground because it would set legal precedents.

Personally I believe abortions after the first couple months to be reprehensible, and I would strongly encourage family/friends to seek means to give away an unwanted mid/late-term pregnancy through adoption. However, the USA can't enact laws that legislate woman's medical decisions, there are many elegant arguments but the bottom line is that it's not even the best way to tackle the fundamental issue of unwanted pregnancies.

Side note: Thanks for being civil. Others are not.

Gotta go home.

 

[momeNt]

Side note: Thanks for being civil. Others are not.

Gotta go home.

There have been a surprising large amount of well reasoned and thoughtful responses to this thread, a few pages devolved into name calling and trolling, but overall it's once of the better abortion threads I've seen on this forum.

The number of people who do late 3rd term abortions is so incredibly small and they are very desperate people. If you want to prevent them the best way would be though education, love, and support, not harassment and threats which would just drive them to areas in which it was legal.

The reason no one will budge is because gaining control over a woman's medical decisions even in the 3rd term would open the floodgates to do it in the 2nd term and 1st term. They don't want to budge an inch of ground because it would set legal precedents.

Personally I believe abortions after the first couple months to be reprehensible, and I would strongly encourage family/friends to seek means to give away an unwanted mid/late-term pregnancy through adoption. However, the USA can't enact laws that legislate woman's medical decisions, there are many elegant arguments but the bottom line is that it's not even the best way to tackle the fundamental issue of unwanted pregnancies.

Honestly I'd like the first inch to be budged to be on the side of not trying to ban contraceptives or even plan-b. It would be a different argument as to whether or not they'd be federally funded, but at least do not outlaw what can easily prevent a great many abortions. It only makes the abortion argument that much more problematic.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

10!

10 Pages, ah! ah! ah!

/The Count

The idiocy on page 1 was enough for me to bail. Now.... Just wow is all I can say for this thread.

 

[Munky]

Funny how a woman's body is all about her and her rights, but if she decides to keep the baby against the father's will, he's on the hook supporting her ass for the next 18 years.