Abortion...

[Variable]

"And how many girls (I'm not including women, since a woman would be mature enough to kick a lazy, demanding jackass like that to the curb) like that have you known? Five? Ten? Fifteen? More?"

 

I've known enough.

 

 

"Or, nevermind. Don't bother answering the above question. This here tells me all I need to know about you, and it's enough to warrant you a spot reserved for all other shrieking extremists - the Ignore list."

 

Really? Or are you running out or rebuttals?

[LadyFeline]

Really? Or are you running out or rebuttals?

No, I just don't make it a point to deal with screaming retards who claim they know everything about a given group of people based on a scant few samples.

 

Go back to pretending that you're intellectual.

[garrisonjj]

Have your thoughts/beliefs/whatever changed on this since leaving christianity behind?

 

 

I absolutely believe that life begins at the moment of conception. I also believe that taking that life, for any reason, except to save the life of the mother is murder.

[Golden Meadows]

Have your thoughts/beliefs/whatever changed on this since leaving christianity behind?

 

 

I absolutely believe that life begins at the moment of conception. I also believe that taking that life, for any reason, except to save the life of the mother is murder.

 

Using the word "murder" sort of implies a breaking of a divine law or a human law. If I assume for the moment that you live in a country with legalised abortion how can you say its "murder" since you claim not to follow any Gods in your avator? Sorry if I appear to be pedantic but I am just trying to get a handle on why you use such an emotionaly charged word.

[Variable]

"No, I just don't make it a point to deal with screaming retards who claim they know everything about a given group of people based on a scant few samples."

 

Do you have many large samples that can disprove anything I said? I never claimed to know everything. I myself stated that my opinion was subjective and based on personal experience. As a said earlier, somethings (such as motivations) just can't be measured. The minute I see large groups of college men rallying and marching down the streets with tears in their eyes and signs in their hands, invading womens' studies courses, and wearing t-shirts with hangers on them. I will reconsider.

[LosingMyReligion]

I learned in Biology that the human body commits "apoptosis" which is basically the destruction of a fetus that may have certain defects...I am no biology major but it seems like abortion is natural...

 

Be that as it may, personally, I still don't agree with abortion. Well, I don't believe in partial birth abortion. If abortion is done while the baby is still just an embryo then that is justifiable.

 

This is such a tricky subject for me. While I don't want little babies dying, I realize that the vast majority of people pumping out kids shouldn't be having them in the first place.

 

So I am definitely pro-choice because I can't make up my own mind about it. I've felt this way since I was a Christian.

[exbeliever]

Was a pro-life Christian; am now a pro-choice athiest.

 

Why?

 

Two parties are involved in an abortion, a woman and an unborn child.

 

The unborn child is making a demand on a woman. The demand is, "Endure pain and/or suffering that I might have life."

 

I do not believe that it is morally REQUIRED that one endure pain and/or suffering for the sake of another.

 

P1: It is not morally required that one endure physical pain and/or suffering for the sake of another.

P2: Carrying a child to term requires one to endure physical pain and/or suffering for the sake of another.

C: Therefore, It is not morally required that one carry a child to term.

 

Premise one is a commonly held principle. We do not believe that that one is morally required to suffer for the sake of another. If someone is dying because of kidney failure, I am not morally required to give them mine.

 

Premise two is verified by almost every woman who has a child. In most cases, carrying a child results in pain (there are rare conditions that do not) but the mother does not feel this amounts to "suffering" because she wants the child. A woman who must carry an unwanted child to term but does not want to endures suffering. That woman is not morally required to endure physical pain and suffering for the sake of another.

 

The conclusion follows from the premises.

 

Further,

 

P1: It is immoral to make laws that force someone to undergo physical pain and/or suffering for the sake of another.

P2: Carrying a child to term requires one to undergo physical pain and/or suffering for the sake of another.

C1: Therefore, making laws that force someone to carry a child to term forces them to undergo physical pain and/or suffering for the sake of another.

C2: Therefore it is immoral to make laws that force someone to carry a child to term.

 

Premise one is verified by prohibitions against harvesting organs, etc. I think most parents would have a strong reaction against a doctor who grabs her child and harvests her child's organs for the sake of someone the doctor believes is "more valuable."

 

See above for support of premise two.

 

The conclusions follow from the premises.

 

In a pregnancy there are competing moral claims. Either the unborn child suffers or the potential mother suffers. This competition (at our current stage of technology) cannot be prevented. One must suffer. In the case of a pregnancy, the child is the one making a demand of the mother. The mother is not obligated to meet the child's demand (even after the child is born, the mother can give her child up for adoption and avoid meeting the child's demands, but this is not available to the mother who does not want to give birth). It is wrong to make the mother meet the child's demands.

 

I support a woman's right to an abortion at any stage of a pregnancy. I believe it is immoral to restrict her rights in any way.

 

There is more to be said, but I am pressed for time.

[Golden Meadows]

 

"Two parties are involved in an abortion, a woman and an unborn child.

 

The unborn child is making a demand on a woman. The demand is, "Endure pain and/or suffering that I might have life.""

 

An alternative viewpoint is that ordinarily the child comes into existence through the consent of the mother, i.e the child is not some alien intruder to the mothers womb but rather a consequence of its mothers voluntary intercourse. The baby did not come making any demands but was brought into existence through a voluntary act of its mother. n.b You will gather that in order to keep the arguments simple I am not discussing extreme cases like rape and am following your example of mother centric discussion.

"I do not believe that it is morally REQUIRED that one endure pain and/or suffering for the sake of another."

The ordinary pains of motherhood are a natural consequence of a process that starts with voluntary intercourse. Therefore one objection might be that since the baby did not ask for existence any avoidance of motherhoods normal pains that takes the babies existence away is an attack on its rights as a human being. The voluntary act of intercourse has brought in existence a dependent baby and it could be argued that it is immoral for the mother who brought that dependence into being to extinguish its life.

 

From another perspective: A child is dependent on its mother for period after its born. If the mother is experiencing any suffering through the babies existence, and there is no option of adoption, people would say that the mother cannot kill the dependent child and this argument can by extension be applied to the unborn dependent child.

[woodsmoke]

I also understand that most crisis pregnancies exist because of men who refuse to support them, and most wouldn't go through with an abortion if the father would be responsible. Often the husband/boyfriend coerces the women into "taking care of it" so he continue to have his cake and eat it to. Interestingly the biggest demographic pro-choice group is single males in their 20's and early 30's.

 

Right, because this couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that our mothers grew up during the height of the feminist movement.

 

It's (thankfully) not often one can paint a woman with the sexist brush. In your case, however, I'll be extremely surprised if anyone disagrees with my application of the term here.

 

As for abortion, my stance on the issue is simple. "Can I get pregnant?" "No." "Then sit down, shut up, and leave it up to those who can to figure it out."

[exbeliever]

The ordinary pains of motherhood are a natural consequence of a process that starts with voluntary intercourse. Therefore one objection might be that since the baby did not ask for existence any avoidance of motherhoods normal pains that takes the babies existence away is an attack on its rights as a human being. The voluntary act of intercourse has brought in existence a dependent baby and it could be argued that it is immoral for the mother who brought that dependence into being to extinguish its life.

 

GM,

 

I don't see how your "alternative viewpoint" changes anything that I said above.

 

1) A woman may have sex in order to have a baby.

2) A woman may have sex and not intend to have a baby.

3) A woman may be forced to have sex against her will.

 

Let's deal with these in reverse order.

 

3) A woman is raped and becomes pregnant. Is she, now, morally required to endure pain and/or suffering for the sake of her unborn child? You seem to indicate that she is not. There was no "voluntary action" on her part. I agree with you. The woman is not morally required to endure pain and/or suffering on behalf of the child.

 

2) Let's say a woman has sex because she wants to share intimacy with someone and gets pregnant. She does not intend to get pregnant. Her intent is only to have sex. Is she, now, morally required to endure pain and suffering for the sake of her unborn child?

 

Imagine a woman who decides to go for a drive (a "voluntary act"). A faulty stoplight causes her and another driver to collide in an intersection. She is unharmed, but the other driver's kidney is pierced and he requires an immediate transplant to live. Is the woman morally required to give her kidney to this other driver? Driving was a "voluntary act," but she did not intend to collide with the driver, to be partially responsible for the driver's need. The woman is not morally required to endure the pain and suffering of giving her kidney because her intention was only to drive, not to create a need.

 

1) This time, a woman intends to have sex in order to conceive a child. After conception, though, the woman decides that she does not want to endure the pain and suffering carrying the child would cause her. Is she, now, morally required to endure pain and/or suffering for the sake of her unborn child?

 

Imagine that a female fertility doctor fertilizes an egg in a dish. She hoped to implant the egg into a patient, but the patient died and there is no one to implant the fertilized egg into except herself. Is the doctor morally required to carry the child to term because she voluntarily acted to fertilize the egg? She is not morally required to do so even though she gave the child life intentionally. She certainly could go "above and beyond" and implant the egg in herself, but she is not required to.

 

It seems there is no scenario in which a woman is morally required to endure pain and/or suffering on behalf of another.

 

From another perspective: A child is dependent on its mother for period after its born. If the mother is experiencing any suffering through the babies existence, and there is no option of adoption, people would say that the mother cannot kill the dependent child and this argument can by extension be applied to the unborn dependent child.

 

After the child is born, the moral claims are no longer truly "competitive." If the woman did not want to endure the "suffering" of raising her child, she can leave the child with realitives, the fire department, or even on the doorstep of a kind-looking neighbor.

 

Again, I don't see how your "alternative viewpoint" affects my argument above.

[Flyby Stardancer]

I was never a Christian, so the before/after stuff doesn't really apply to me... As such...

 

Do I like abortion? No. Am I pro-life? No.

 

1. First and foremost, I have absolutely no right to tell anyone else what they may or may not do with their lives, barring things that have a negative impact on the lives of other people. If a women wants to get an abortion, I have no moral right to tell her no. This is the main reason I am pro-choice, same as my mother (who is Catholic and still belives this).

 

2. Until a fetus is able to live outside it's mother's body (with or without assistance by doctors), I do not consider it to be 'alive'. To be alive to me, it must be able to survive outside of the womb, even if that means on intense life-support assistance. If abortion occurs before a fetus is able to survive on its own, it's not being killed because it was not alive to begin with. If it happens after a fetus is capable of surviving on its own, then yes, it is murder.

 

3. There's already far too many children who are parentless who need to be adopted already. Partly this is because many minorities face more beaurocratic blocks* and as such many willing and capable parents aren't able to adopt. Also, many of those who are "pro-life" would never adopt, even the rich and powerful who have more money than they can even burn. It is unfair to place even more children in homes when there's already a shortage of parents able to get through all the beaurocratic hoops.

 

4. Even if abortion was made illegal, women would still be having them. Keeping abortion legal means that the government can set standards that doctors and hospitals must reach in order to protect the life of the women seeking abortion. If abortion was illegal, the rate of death from women attempting to abort would be MUCH higher. Possibly even resulting in an unnacceptibly high mortality rate. Hello, take a page from the books on what happened when alchohol was made illegal. Quality (especially of high-proof moonshine) went down the drain, crime relating to it skyrocketted, and with that so did deaths relating to said crime.

 

 

 

*I'm pulling this bit from a presentation a classmate of mine did on adoption in the context of race for one of our required freshman (college) year classes. I don't have her figures or where she got her info from.

[garrisonjj]

Have your thoughts/beliefs/whatever changed on this since leaving christianity behind?

 

 

I absolutely believe that life begins at the moment of conception. I also believe that taking that life, for any reason, except to save the life of the mother is murder.

 

Using the word "murder" sort of implies a breaking of a divine law or a human law. If I assume for the moment that you live in a country with legalised abortion how can you say its "murder" since you claim not to follow any Gods in your avator? Sorry if I appear to be pedantic but I am just trying to get a handle on why you use such an emotionaly charged word.

 

Irregardless of my beliefs or lack thereof, I do believe in right and wrong. In my opinion, abortion is "murder" since it conveys the utmost evil act in being a human or the "most unjust wrong" a person may comitt.

[Biggles7268]

how is killing a bunch of cells an evil act? a fetus isn't a baby, it's not even human yet.

 

mankind is a friggin virus with shoes anyway. kill 'em before they can grow up and start hogging all the good parking spaces.

[Golden Meadows]

Exbeliever,

 

I think the essential difference between the arguments presented in your post and mine relates to the dignity and rights of human beings? From my viewpoint the baby shares in the mothers right, everyones right to life. Nobody should take anothers life unjustly and you will gather that I don't think abortion as it is currently allowed is just to the interests of the baby whose life is being extinguished.

 

exb:"I don't see how your "alternative viewpoint" changes anything that I said above.

 

1) A woman may have sex in order to have a baby.

2) A woman may have sex and not intend to have a baby.

3) A woman may be forced to have sex against her will.

 

 

 

Let's deal with these in reverse order.

 

3) A woman is raped and becomes pregnant. Is she, now, morally required to endure pain and/or suffering for the sake of her unborn child? You seem to indicate that she is not. There was no "voluntary action" on her part. I agree with you. The woman is not morally required to endure pain and/or suffering on behalf of the child."

GM: Do you have any information as to the percentage of abortion cases that involve rape? Is it not the case they are largely carried out for social reasons in some countries? Do you think it is right to justify abortion generally because of the number of rape cases? My mind reels at the anguish of a mother who is pregnant through rape but I would have difficulty in accepting that an innocent child is killed through no fault of its own. It would seem that two terrible wrongs are involved - the rape of the woman which is then compounded by the death of the innocent victim who has been conceived. This are terrible circumstances but not the norm in abortion practice that is why I wanted, at least initially, to deal with the mainstream abortion issues rather than lose site of them amidst all the exceptions to the norm. Maybe we can discuss this after the main issues?

 

 

exb:"2) Let's say a woman has sex because she wants to share intimacy with someone and gets pregnant. She does not intend to get pregnant. Her intent is only to have sex. Is she, now, morally required to endure pain and suffering for the sake of her unborn child?

GM:Sex is a voluntary act and a common and natural consequence - ignoring for the moment contraception - is pregancy, i.e I don't accept the separation of the intent from the consequence. Why should the baby be killed in these circumstances? If the mother had not wished to become pregnant then intercourse could have been avoided. Why should the baby's right to life be violated under such circumstances?"

 

 

exb:"Imagine a woman who decides to go for a drive (a "voluntary act"). A faulty stoplight causes her and another driver to collide in an intersection. She is unharmed, but the other driver's kidney is pierced and he requires an immediate transplant to live. Is the woman morally required to give her kidney to this other driver? Driving was a "voluntary act," but she did not intend to collide with the driver, to be partially responsible for the driver's need. The woman is not morally required to endure the pain and suffering of giving her kidney because her intention was only to drive, not to create a need."

GM:All I can say is if I was in that scenario I hope I would give the kidney. Intercourse and pregnancy are bound together, one is the natural consequence of the other - it's not the calamity of a car crash intruding into the daily affairs of ordinary people. The baby has come into existence through the natural mechanism of intercourse that the mother has consented to with conception resulting. The baby is the mothers own flesh and blood and has an essential dignity and rights that go with all human beings. Do you have figures for unwanted conceptions that have resulted through a failure in contraception? Do you support abortion as a means of birth control?

 

 

 

exb:"1) This time, a woman intends to have sex in order to conceive a child. After conception, though, the woman decides that she does not want to endure the pain and suffering carrying the child would cause her. Is she, now, morally required to endure pain and/or suffering for the sake of her unborn child?"

GM: The ordinary pains of motherhood are a consequence of a voluntary act. At face value it seems very wrong that the rights of the baby should be violated in these circumstances.

 

 

exb:"Imagine that a female fertility doctor fertilizes an egg in a dish. She hoped to implant the egg into a patient, but the patient died and there is no one to implant the fertilized egg into except herself. Is the doctor morally required to carry the child to term because she voluntarily acted to fertilize the egg? She is not morally required to do so even though she gave the child life intentionally. She certainly could go "above and beyond" and implant the egg in herself, but she is not required to.

Since there seems to be many ethical considerations in this scenario that don't relate to abortion, considerations that I would have to think about in depth, maybe its better not to divert the thread away from its main purpose? It seems there is no scenario in which a woman is morally required to endure pain and/or suffering on behalf of another."

GM: The right to life is one of the very basic human rights, in fact THE basic human right, and I cannot see how the death of an innocent baby in the scenarios you give is justified.

 

QUOTE

GM:From another perspective: A child is dependent on its mother for period after its born. If the mother is experiencing any suffering through the babies existence, and there is no option of adoption, people would say that the mother cannot kill the dependent child and this argument can by extension be applied to the unborn dependent child.

 

exb:"After the child is born, the moral claims are no longer truly "competitive." If the woman did not want to endure the "suffering" of raising her child, she can leave the child with relatives, the fire department, or even on the doorstep of a kind-looking neighbor."

 

GM: Ordinarily the mother has the moral responsibilty for looking after the baby she has brought into existence and not pass that onto others except when it involves a greater evil in her looking after her own dependent child. Why should we regard the baby as an invader who is in competition with its mother? It did not force itself on anybody but was brought forth through a voluntary act, why should it have that life taken away?

 

BTW, thanks exbeliever for not indulging in the hysterical language that is so characteristic of extremists on both sides of the abortion issue. Am not advocating a dry rationality that takes away our humanity, expressed through emotions, but simply advocating that emotions and reasons should go together.

 

 

Have your thoughts/beliefs/whatever changed on this since leaving christianity behind?

 

 

I absolutely believe that life begins at the moment of conception. I also believe that taking that life, for any reason, except to save the life of the mother is murder.

 

Using the word "murder" sort of implies a breaking of a divine law or a human law. If I assume for the moment that you live in a country with legalised abortion how can you say its "murder" since you claim not to follow any Gods in your avator? Sorry if I appear to be pedantic but I am just trying to get a handle on why you use such an emotionaly charged word.

 

Irregardless of my beliefs or lack thereof, I do believe in right and wrong. In my opinion, abortion is "murder" since it conveys the utmost evil act in being a human or the "most unjust wrong" a person may comitt.

 

I think maybe in your own way you are observing "Natural Law" ? The trouble is most of us may only have a hazy notion of what "Natural Law" is or means and we can be inclined to think that anyone who uses the term "murder", when the act involved is legal under the law of the land, is being extreme and therefore minds become closed to the point the person is trying to convey - IMO

[exbeliever]

Why should we regard the baby as an invader who is in competition with its mother?

 

GM,

 

If a woman does not want to carry a child to term, then there are competing moral claims. The mother desires one thing, the unborn child demands another thing (implicitly). Both of these cannot be fulfilled. Both demands cannot be met. This is a true "competition."

 

It seems that you are willing to to take the side of the unborn child in every case. You would have a woman who was raped carry the rapist's child to term no matter what physical and emotional pain this caused her. You believe that a woman should not be involved in any sex act unless she is willing to reproduce if a pregnancy occurs. You believe that a woman cannot change her mind after she has intentionally conceived.

 

At the same time, however, you do not seem to disagree with my assertion that "It is not morally required that one endure physical pain and/or suffering for the sake of another."

 

Christian Greg Koukl makes an argument that you seem to agree with,

 

P1: It’s wrong to take innocent human life without proper justification.

P2: Abortion takes innocent human life without proper justification [consider the reasons usually given for elective abortion].

C: Therefore, abortion is wrong.

 

Let's assume that his argument AND my argument is valid and sound. Mine, again, is:

 

P1: It is not morally required that one endure physical pain and/or suffering for the sake of another.

P2: Carrying a child to term requires one to endure physical pain and/or suffering for the sake of another.

C: Therefore, It is not morally required that one carry a child to term.

 

Now, we are faced with a moral dilemma. Both parties have a legitimate moral claim and these claims are competing claims--i.e. they cannot both be met at the same time (given our current technology).

 

I should point out, though, that no matter what we, outsiders, think the woman herself is not acting immorally by refusing to carry the child to term. It is her moral right not to endure pain and suffering for the sake of another. The only open question is what side we, outsiders, take in these competing moral claims.

 

If the claims are competing, which side must we take? This is a normative question, but also rests on meta-ethical foundations. I am a moral relativist, but not in the sense that you read about it on the internet. My moral relativism allows for objective moral judgments. How is this possible?

 

Consider motion. Imagine that we are sitting at a dinner table and I start screaming, "My fork is moving! Sweet fuck, my fork is moving!" You look down at my fork and say, "You're crazy, your fork is perfectly stationary. It's not moving at all."

 

We have made two completely opposite, but objective claims (i.e. they can be tested). Both of our claims, however, are true.

 

Consider my claim that my fork is moving. I could say to you, "Isn't it true that my fork lies on a continent that is drifting, an earth that is rotating on its axis, a planet that is revolving around the sun, a pinwheel galaxy that spins around a dense center, and a galaxy that is speeding away from other galaxies? My fork is definitely moving."

 

Also consider your claim that my fork is not moving. You could say, "EB, look at the stain on the table next to your fork. I have a ruler here and you can see that your fork is neither getting closer to nor moving away from that stain. Look at the fork and your plate. Your fork is neither getting closer to nor moving away from your plate. Your fork is not moving."

 

Both claims are correct and both are objective. What is different, however, is that they refer to different spatio-temporal frameworks. My claim is true according to the spatio-temporal frameworks of drifting continents, rotating planets, etc. Your claim is true according to the spatio-temporal framework of the other items on the table. The framework justifies the conclusion.

 

Suppose morality is the same way. The claim, "It is immoral to steal," is perfectly true according to certain moral frameworks and false according to others.

 

Would this mean, then, that a person whose moral framework suggests that it is immoral to steal must accept another person's framework who says it is moral to steal? This is an ethical question. If ethical questions depend on moral frameworks, then a person's moral framework will decide the answer. If that person has a moral framework that justifies the claim, "It is immoral to steal and it is my moral obligation to stop people from stealing," then even this type of moral relativist can actively work against another's moral framework. In other words, admitting moral relativism does not lead to moral nihilism. A person being true to his or her moral framework will act according to that framework in spite of the moral frameworks of others. [see Princeton's Gilbert Harman's work in meta-ethics for a more detailed explanation of this meta-ethic--especially his part in the book Moral Relativism and Moral Objectivity]

 

If this kind of moral relativism is the case, what kind of normative ethic makes sense in light of this foundation? Harman suggests that with relative moral frameworks, there must be some kind of moral bargaining. Moral bargaining takes place between two or more parties. Each party commits to following a certain set of principles that is important to other parties in exchange for the other parties' cooperation in following another set of principles important to the first party.

 

Consider a poor person's desire for food, clothing, and shelter. A wealthy person can provide these necessities for herself. She does not directly benefit from a moral obligation to provide food, clothing, and shelter to those who need it. The wealthy person, however, does benefit from a moral rule that says it is immoral to steal from those who have excess food, clothing, and shelter.

 

What takes place, in most societies, is an implicit moral bargain. The wealthy person acquiesces to giving to the poor (mostly through nationally-funded programs) and the poor acquiesce to not stealing from the rich. Each party needs the cooperation of the other party in order to live happily (or, at least, less miserably).

 

What does this have to do with abortion?

 

Remember that we are only talking about which side we, outsiders, should take in the competing moral claims between an unborn child and a pregnant woman. A woman, according to my valid and sound argument above, does not have a moral obligation to endure physical pain and/or suffering for the sake of another. We recognize, however, that an unborn child also has a legitimate moral claim not to have his or her life taken from him or her.

 

We must engage in some kind of moral bargaining with the unborn child and/or the pregnant woman. From an outsider's perspective, the choice is simple. The pregnant woman carries much more bargaining power than the unborn child. We place demands on women in society. We demand that they live up to certain moral obligations. No demands are placed on an unborn child. Because we need women to fulfill their obligations, it is more reasonable to side with the woman that it is the unborn child.

 

The first objection that I always hear is that if we follow this logic through, this would apply even after a child is born. An adult or adolescent woman has more bargaining power than an infant or child. As I have repeatedly stated, however, after a child is born, the moral claims are no longer in competition. While the child still makes demands in order to live, these demands do not have to be met by any one person. A father can feed a child and take care of his or her other demands. The state, in most cases, can take care of these demands. Adoptive parents or neighbors are other options. The claims are no longer competitive by necessity.

 

In more concise terms:

 

P1a: When moral claims are truly competitive, outsiders should take the side of the party with the most bargaining power.

P2a: In the issue of abortion, there are two truly competitive moral claims.

Ca: In the issue of abortion, outsiders should take the side of the party with the most bargaining power.

 

P1b: In the issue of abortion, outsiders should take the side of the party with the most bargaining power.

P2b: In the issue of abortion, pregnant women have the most bargaining power.

Cb: In the issue of abortion, outsiders should take the side of pregnant women.

 

Premise 1a is justified by the meta-ethical foundation I described above (i.e. moral relativism) and the normative ethic implied by this foundation (viz. moral bargaining).

 

Premise 2a is justified if both of the arguments that I made at the beginning of this comment are valid and sound. Both moral claims cannot be fulfilled.

 

Conclusion a (Ca) follows from the premises.

 

Premise 1b is justified by the meta-ethical foundation I described above (i.e. moral relativism) and the normative ethic implied by this foundation (viz. moral bargaining).

 

Premise 2b is justified because we, outsiders, make moral demands on women and make no moral demands on unborn children.

 

Conclusion b (Cb) follows from the premises.

[pandora]

 

*I'm pulling this bit from a presentation a classmate of mine did on adoption in the context of race for one of our required freshman (college) year classes. I don't have her figures or where she got her info from.

 

I'm curious to know what her perspective on race and abortion was... do you remember?

[LadyFeline]

I think maybe in your own way you are observing "Natural Law" ?

"Natural Law" does not assure or even guarantee the birth and/or survival of every infant. If it did, we'd be up to our eyeballs in various lifeforms.

 

If anything, aborting offspring that cannot be cared for is more in line with "Natural Law" than birthing them. It happens constantly both in and outside of the human race. If there are not enough resources to properly care for said offspring, a mother-to-be can and often does abort her own pregnancy. She can always try again later - but only if she hasn't starved or exhausted herself to death first.

 

I'm curious to know what her perspective on race and abortion was... do you remember?

*cough* It was race and adoption... just though I'd point that out...

[Variable]

"how is killing a bunch of cells an evil act? a fetus isn't a baby, it's not even human yet."

-Biggles

 

The word "fetus" refers to the developemental stage between the ninth week of pregnancy and birth. Prior to 9 weeks it is considered an "embryo" (last if checked abortion is legal in all states up until 12 weeks). The embryo's heart begins pumping blood by the 4th week of pregnancy. Not quite a bunch of cells.

 

I copied this from my A&P book, in case you doubt the accuracy.

 

2 month old embryo

• Head nearly as large as body; all major brain regions present; first brains waves in brain stem.
  
• Liver disproportionately large and begins to form blood cells.
  
• Limbs present; digits are intially webbed, but fingers and toes are free by the end of this interval.
  
• Ossification just begun; weak, spontaneous muscle contractions occur.
  
• Cardiovascular system fully functional (heart has been pumping blood since the fourth week).
  
• All body systems present in at least rudimentary form.
  

Third month (9-12 weeks)

• Head still dominant, but body elongating; brain continues to enlarge, shows its general structural features; cervical and lumbar enlargements apparent in spinal cord; retina of eye is present.
  
• Skin epidermis and dermis obvious; facial features present in crude form
  
• Liver prominent and bile being secreted; palate is fusing; most glands of endodermal origin are developed; walls of hollow visceral organs gaining smooth muscle.
  
• Blood cell formation begins in bone marrow.
  
• Notochord degenerating and ossification accelerating; limbs well molded.
  
• Sex readily detected from the genitals.
  

Fourth Month (13-16 weeks)

• Cerebellum becoming prominent; general sensory organs differentiated; eyes and ears assume characteristic position and shape; blinking of eyes and sucking motions of lips occur
  
• Face looks human and body beginning to outgrow head.
  
• Glands developed in GI tract; meconium is collecting
  
• Kidneys attain typical structure.
  
• Most bones are now distinct and joint cavities are apparent.
  

Fifth Month (17-20 weeks)

• Vernix caseosa (fatty secretions of sebaceous glands) covers body; lanugo (silklike hair) covers skin.
  
• Fetal position (body flexed anteriorly) assumed because of space restrictions.
  
• Limbs reach near-final proportions.
  
• Quickening occurs (mother feels spontaneous muscular activity of fetus)
  

Sixth & Seventh Month (21-30 weeks)

• Period of substantial increase in weight (may survive if born prematurely at 27-30 weeks, but hypothalamic temperature regulation and lung production of surfactant are still inadequate).
  
• Myelination of cord begins; eyes are open.
  
• Distal limb bones are beginning to ossify.
  
• Skin is wrinkled and red; fingernails and toenails are present; tooth enamel is forming on deciduous teeth
  
• Body is lean and well proportioned
  
• Bone marrow becomes sole site of blood cell formation.
  
• Tested reach scrotum in seventh month (in males).
  

Eighth and Ninth Months (30-40 weeks)

• Skin whitish pink; fat laid down in subcutaneous tissues (hypodermis)
  

[AgnosticBob AtheistPants]

I'm split in this question. I'm pro-life and pro-choice; to me it depends on the situation. It shouldn't be too easy, but it shouldn't be too hard either. It has to be balanced.

 

 

My sentiments as well.

[Golden Meadows]

Exbeliever,

 

Even though we may not agree on this issue I think the points you raised in your post are of great interest especially to those ex-xtians who found order and stabiltity in moral absolutes but wonder at the implications for themselves, family and society when that framework goes.

 

This thread is about abortion but its scope, as you so clearly recognise, goes way beyond this particular issue.

 

I have thought about this and came to the following conclusion: In the absence of moral absolutes, provided as part of a religions life umbrella, then "might becomes right". Much of the developed world lives under some kind of pseudo democracy, i.e the "might" exists at present in an elected group of people legislating for society. In other systems "might" may be with a dictator or absolute monarch.

 

What's to be done when one group of people sincerely and strongly believe one thing and another group opposes it? For most of us this means working out some solution through a highly imperfect democratic political system. The majority vote holds the might and legislates for all. I think abortion is very wrong but I don't agree with the extremists of either persuasion who commit verbal or physical violence in order to force people over to their point of view. Extremists, however, would also tend towards "might is right" i.e the concept that the majority vote in an election has some special value is just a matter of one persons opinion over another -it has no absolute value or merit in their eyes. I can say that democracy should not turn into a tyranny of the majority, i.e society should not compel me to condone something I feel is evil but in the absence of an external absolute moral framework who is to say this is any more valid than somebody elses opinion?

 

I can argue from expediency, i.e if the right to life is not held to be inviolable then recent past history tends to perhaps to show that by advancing degrees the existence of the less powerfull and more vulnerable in society become ever more threatened, e.g >abortion is introduced only for extreme cases>abortion for social reasons begins to predominate>euthansia of the elderly develops> this grows into euthanasia of the mentally and physically handicapped> eugenics as a science is exalted> ethnic cleansing of societies>followed by genocide of whole peoples. At this stage in the developed world we are at stages 3/4, IMO, but much of it is covert - society turns a blind eye. Civilised countries have already had experience of the latter stages. Most of us will feel a revulsion for much of these things but who can argue with those who maintain its just a matter of opinion in the absence of moral absolutes? Always its "might is right" in a post xtian world whereas in the past xtian morality - at least in principle - tended to protect the weakest. This is something which I think was very much to its credit - however thats just an opinion in world without moral absolutes.

 

 

 

Your thoughts?

[exbeliever]

In the absence of moral absolutes, provided as part of a religions life umbrella, then "might becomes right".

 

I disagree. "Might" becomes "legal," but that is much different than saying "might becomes right."

 

If it is true that moral rightness is relative to moral frameworks, then there are many things that are morally right. Just as it is true in the issue of motion that an object can be either moving or not moving depending on the spatio-temporal framework one adopts, so might an action be moral or immoral depending on the moral framework one adopts.

 

What one "ought" to do is dictated by the moral framework one holds, not by someone else's moral framework no matter how much power that person or group of people hold.

 

For example, most people in my American society believe that homosexual marriage should not be allowed. I believe that it is immoral to disallow homosexual marriage. Just because more people and more powerful people have a different moral framework than I do does not mean that they are "right" and I am "wrong." I am right according to my moral framework and they are right according to theirs.

 

According to my moral framework, I must act to end the "evil" of disallowing homosexual marriage with all of the means available to me that comply with my moral framework (e.g. Because I consider it immoral to enforce my morality by violence, that option is not available to me). I do not have to accept the majority moral framework. I can work to change it.

 

This is not tyranny. This is the way of the world. Consider Foucault's work on knowledge and power. Foucault argues that knowledge is defined by power structures. "Madness," for example isn't a thing that one can touch or smell. Madness is a concept defined by power structures. Originally, it was the church and families who defined madness. The church had to have a means of discerning between "legitimate" revelations from God and "illegitimate" ones. Those who had visions that the church found unacceptable were called "mad." In our day, it is the psychologists, psychiatrists, and medical doctors who define madness.

 

Knowledge itself, then, is a power struggle. Everyone attempts to influence everyone else. This is not a "bad" state of existence, it simply is.

 

This is exactly what is going on in our present discussion about a woman's reproductive freedoms. We disagree on the issue. I believe a woman should have the freedom to make her own decisions about when she will reproduce. You believe a woman's reproductive freedoms are of less significance than the "right to life" of an unborn child. I am trying to influence your thinking on this issue by pointing out other values that are within your moral framework (e.g. the belief that it is immoral to force another to endure pain and/or suffering for the sake of another) and demonstrating that it is better to support a woman's reproductive freedoms than it is to oppose them.

 

My moral framework dictates the means available to me in this discussion. I cannot, for instance, resort to name-calling in the discussion because I feel this is both morally wrong and intellectually unhelpful. My hope is to lay out a case that demonstrates my position is reasonable.

 

At the same time, you are attempting to demonstrate that my case is lacking (e.g. in your first response, you indicated that I did not take into account the fact that a child was brought to life because of a "voluntary act" and that this makes a difference in the case).

 

Both of us are trying to influence the other by reason. Others might try to influence by force. How we respond to either reason or force depends on our moral frameworks.

 

I can say that democracy should not turn into a tyranny of the majority, i.e society should not compel me to condone something I feel is evil but in the absence of an external absolute moral framework who is to say this is any more valid than somebody elses opinion?

 

I don't think this is the right question when discussing a moral issue. Imagine arguing over whether my fork is moving or not. It is moving relative to the other planets in our solar system and it is stationary relative to the other items on the table. Both are true according to a specific spatio-temporal framework.

 

In the case of whether a democracy should or should not "turn into a tyranny of the majority," it is true or false relative to a specific moral framework. There will be some people who believe a democracy should be a tyranny of the majority. Their belief can be justified by some moral frameworks. There are others who believe democracy should not be a tyranny of the majority. Their belief can be justified by some moral frameworks.

 

Just like Foucault argues about knowledge, so will there be a power-struggle over these competing beliefs about democracy and tyranny. Each side will try to influence others limited by the means available to them by their moral frameworks. If one side has a great power advantage, that side will probably succeed in codifying their moral framework in the form of law. "Unjust" laws, however, can still be debated and fought. Societies' legislations will ebb and flow in one direction or another. This is just the way life is.

 

I can argue from expediency, i.e if the right to life is not held to be inviolable then recent past history tends to perhaps to show that by advancing degrees the existence of the less powerfull and more vulnerable in society become ever more threatened, e.g >abortion is introduced only for extreme cases>abortion for social reasons begins to predominate>euthansia of the elderly develops> this grows into euthanasia of the mentally and physically handicapped> eugenics as a science is exalted> ethnic cleansing of societies>followed by genocide of whole peoples.

 

I'm not sure that a slippery-slope argument is very effective. In the way I presented it above, there is a right to life. When this right to life is in direct competition with another right (viz. the right not to be required to endure pain and/or suffering for the sake of another), then the person whose rights are competing against the right to life has no moral obligation to relinquish her own rights for the other person's right to life.

 

If you'll notice, I never denied the unborn child's "right to life." I simply said that when this right to life is in competition with another person's right not to have to endure pain and/or suffering on behalf of another, that person is not morally required to relinquish her own rights. I also argued that it is more reasonable for outsiders to side with those who have more moral bargaining power. Nowhere do I indicate, however, that there is no right to life.

 

In order to get to your more extreme cases down your slippery-slope, one would have to deny a right to life. I have not done so in my argument.

 

. . . in the past xtian morality - at least in principle - tended to protect the weakest. This is something which I think was very much to its credit. . .

 

This was Nietzsche's biggest complaint about Judeo-Christian morality. He believed it actually went further than simply protecting the weakest. Instead, he thought that it was openly hostile to the strong and noble. He believed it placed the weaker above the stronger, which he believed was a tragedy.

 

It is hard to associate modern Christianity with protecting the weakest. By and large, these are the people who vote to cut federal programs that provide for the weak (but that's another argument that I don't want to get into--especially with the Randroids I suspect are hanging around).

 

Today, I think you will find that those considered politically liberal or progressive are the ones usually taking the side of the weak. In the case of a woman's reproductive freedoms, though, there are different moral claims to consider (namely that of the woman).

[Golden Meadows]

Exbeliever: "I disagree. "Might" becomes "legal," but that is much different than saying "might becomes right."

 

Yes but your opinion of right might differ from anothers sense of right. Somebody might say "put it to a majority vote" but that's only their opinion. Somebody might say "lets sit down and discuss and see if there is a compromise in the absence of solution that will satisfy differing opinions", but that is only their opinion. A powerfull dicator says his sense of right will prevail and he has the power to impose, who will say that is not his right? The point I am trying to make is that in the absence of moral absolutes, an external standard of measure, who shall say what is right. In the final analysis it is settled by might - IMO.

[Knightley]

Have your thoughts/beliefs/whatever changed on this since leaving christianity behind?

 

 

 

Even as a xian I was pro-choice and I got attacked by xians on this. I am still pro-choice and will be until the day that I die. I don't want the government or anyone else deciding what I should do with my body. Its concerning because South Dakota recently banned abortion even in the case of rape, its disgusting. I mean what if rape happened to me? I would not have a rapists child, that's sick. If abortion became illegal in this country then I'm all for doing it illegally.

[Biggles7268]

"how is killing a bunch of cells an evil act? a fetus isn't a baby, it's not even human yet."

-Biggles

 

The word "fetus" refers to the developemental stage between the ninth week of pregnancy and birth. Prior to 9 weeks it is considered an "embryo" (last if checked abortion is legal in all states up until 12 weeks). The embryo's heart begins pumping blood by the 4th week of pregnancy. Not quite a bunch of cells.

 

I copied this from my A&P book, in case you doubt the accuracy.

 

your not a human being until your in my phone book, end of story.

 

as a whole this world is totally unable to care for the people who are already here. worldwide how many millions of people are living on the streets or in total poverty right now? where is the huge anti homelessness campaign? do we stop caring about people once they've reached a certain age? what age is that specifically? is the life of an unborn baby more valuable than the life of an adult? if so how?

 

if we can't take care of the people who are already here all the cries about how bad abortion is sound a bit hollow to me. it's easy to vilify something when it has no personal effect on you.

[exbeliever]

Exbeliever: "I disagree. "Might" becomes "legal," but that is much different than saying "might becomes right."

 

Yes but your opinion of right might differ from anothers sense of right. Somebody might say "put it to a majority vote" but that's only their opinion. Somebody might say "lets sit down and discuss and see if there is a compromise in the absence of solution that will satisfy differing opinions", but that is only their opinion. A powerfull dicator says his sense of right will prevail and he has the power to impose, who will say that is not his right? The point I am trying to make is that in the absence of moral absolutes, an external standard of measure, who shall say what is right. In the final analysis it is settled by might - IMO.

 

GM,

 

Perhaps we are arguing semantics now.

 

I'm saying that moral frameworks make "right." I'm arguing that morality is in the same epistemological boat as motion.

 

Imagine having an argument over whether something is really moving or not. One party says, "My fork is moving." Another party says, "Your fork is not moving." Someone else asks, "In the absence of motion absolutes, an external standard of measure, who shall say what is moving?"

 

It's the wrong question to ask. There is no one true spatio-temporal framework by which to judge motion and I'm arguing that the same is true of morality--i.e. there is no one true moral framework by which to judge moral rightness and wrongness.

 

That is why might cannot make right. There is no one right or wrong without moral frameworks. They are relative to moral frameworks.

 

What you are arguing, however, is that the practical outcome of this is that people with power end up determining what is "right" and "wrong" for others. And I agree with you if you mean this in legal terms. The people with power make certain things legal or illegal.

 

But power is not only defined in terms of might. It is also defined in terms of influence. Scientists are not "powerful" in the sense of military power, but they are very influential in our society (as are religious leaders). Groups have a lot of affect on moral rightness or wrongness dispite physical power.

 

More people oppose late-term abortions than those who, like myself, support them. Yet they are still legal in many states. Other influences than governments are at play, then.

 

Anyway, this feels like it is getting off-topic from a woman's reproductive freedoms, so I'll leave it at this.