Political philosophy

[mirrille]

Originally posted by Cirdan
List of people who should shut up about abortion.

1.) Men

2.) People who haven't adopted a child.

3.) People who don't pay taxes to support unwanted children.

Not everyone has access to birth control. Not everyone is intelligent enough to think life through. People make mistakes. Abortion is sad, but not as sad as the child in the orphage that doesn't find a home. Not as sad as the crack-addicted baby. Not as sad as the abused child. If it were a perfect world we wouldn't need abortion.

So true.

I would add to that list: anyone who has never been in a situation similar in any way to the following -
1) been raped, molested, or similarly abused.
2) been abandoned the father upon discovery of pregancy, and otherwise alone on the world, barely able to support self, let alone baby.
3) risks being disowned/killed by family if pregancy is discovered, usually for "moral" reasons.

It's a hard enough decision to make already. Very often, women who need abortions have enough to worry about. They don't need people who have absolutely no idea what they are going through getting all judgemental (or worse) on them. If they do go through with the pregnancy, then I'll applaud their strength and resolve. If not, I'll do the same. If I were in a similar situation, I'm not sure I wouldn't suicide.

[azalea]

Where I'm living right now teen/ single mothers are commonplace. Even avid churchgoers are having children out of wedlock. There's really no recourse for them, aside from the inconvenience. They are still able to go to school thanks to their parents' support, or the support of government and social programs that pay for childcare, food, housing, etc. I really think adoption is the best thing either way, but around here it would be laughable to suggest that a woman or girl would be killed because she was pregnant.

And quite frankly, being abandoned by the father of the baby or disowned by the family shouldn't be that big of a hardship, aside from an emotional one. Everyone has someone, and those that don't have public assistance. Unless of course the mother decides to put the child up for adoption, in which case the "burden" will be gone after 9 months. And again, out of wedlock preganancy is so "normal" now it is very unlikely a family would "disown" their teen daughter. A woman who is not underage should be supporting herself financially anyway, so the financial thing wouldn't come into play anyway.

I think I stated earlier that I don't mean that abortion should be illegal for those who are the victims of rape or incest, or for women whose health/ lives are at risk from the pregnancy, or if the baby has a definate severe malformation that will cause it to die anyway. These cases are exceptional and not the norm.
This is the usual scenario is that girl/ woman has sex with boyfriend, boyfriend doesn't want to marry her, or she just doesn't want the inconvenience, or she realizes that the guy is a lout and doesn't want her fairy tale image of a family to be marred. Also she doesn't want to have to deal with upsetting her parents and other family members. It would be embarassing for her. So she has an abortion. Many times she doesn't think about adoption.

[Elvellon]

Now this is a long answer, so I ask for your patience.

Do you think life then starts once a fetus is able to live on it's own rather than on life support? There are a lot of parents of children who were born prematurely who might disagree with you, as their healthy children depended on life support to grow and become what they are today. I think they thought of their baby as a living human even though the baby needed a machine to breathe.
At what point do YOU believe "life" begins?

The answers to these questions will became clear in my explanation bellow, or so I hope.

They are both human. I don't like the idea of people being kept alive by artificial means if there is no chance of survival at some point when taken off of life support.
That person has lived and something happened to make that person die.

Yet, suppose that person is no longer capable of higher mental functions, if we consider him to be still a human being, turning off the machines that support him would actually be murder.

That person has lived and something happened to make that person die.

I believe that you are saying is; if the higher brain functions of someone are no longer possible to be recovered that person is effectively dead.

The conclusion his, a human being exists as such for as long as he (or she) is capable of the said higher functions.

An embryo is human, and unless it is deliberately aborted would most likely become a "funtional" human.

Here you are adjoining a “new” element to the equation:
Potentiality.

So, to rephrase the aforementioned conclusion:
“A human being exists as such for as long as he (or she) is capable of the said higher functions, OR the potentiality for such a state exist.”

Of course now we have several problems:

Is the potentiality for “life” equal in itself to the state of being?

If so, now we have to define what said potentiality is, were it starts, and were it ends.

Should we consider that it starts when the first cell of the potential new individual is formed?
So, I ask again, what define a single cell organism as a human being? The potentiality, you might answer.
True, the potentiality does exist, but it hasn’t start there. The potentiality for a new human life starts, of course, with the reproductive cells. Each carries the potentiality to, if the conditions are right, to start a new life once it meets it’s counterpart.

Following this line of thought we would reach the absurd conclusion that since the potentiality of “life” exists, recreational sex should be banned (or, at least, any birth control method should).

Since, this is obviously not what you implied before, it is obvious I need a new parameter to my equation.

Well, the only thing that I can think of is the gene pool. Since our individual cell have the complete blue prints for the potential new individual, we could consider this as another limitative factor.

So here is my new definition:
“A human being exists as such for as long as he (or she) is capable of the said higher functions, OR the potentiality for such a state exist AND he (or she) have a complete and defined gene pool.”

What do you think, good enough?

Nope. It is not enough, because now we have to ask ourselves; what makes the condition defined by these parameters as an acceptable definition of what is Human life?
Why these and not others?

Potentiality, by itself (as a lone factor) has been ruled out as a necessary factor (as I have done before with the reproductive cells).

The gene pool, by itself, is also ruled out (an easy thing to do, no one would think a living skin cell is a potential human being, despite the fact that it have a complete gene pool).

This implies they are not determinative. Since we were able to exclude them without fear of denying the state of Humanity to someone.

So this leaves us with only one factor that is de facto necessary and sufficient to “bestow the Human condition” upon someone:
The existence of the higher mental functions (as produced by the activity of the Neo-cortex. I must say I’m far from being well learned in this subject, but I do believe it is the usual parameter used by both doctors to determine death and most abortion “proponents” to determinate when human life does begin, and therefore abortion cesses to be possible).

I am therefore returning to the first theory:
“ A human being exists as such for as long as he (or she) is capable of mental higher functions. “

Of course this is not satisfying definition to a lot of people. For starters, a considerable number of them could make a much better attempt that I to create a more valid definition.
On the other hand, many couldn’t or wouldn’t want it.
Some would use their religious beliefs to define were Human “life” starts. Uncaring with what the limited Human logic can contribute for the resolution of this problem.
Others prefer to rely on their common sense, not wishing to dwell on the problem for long.
Others may have yet another reason(s).

(Note: I personally don’t know what motivates your beliefs on this subject, so I’m not including you in any of these groups).

I hope I’ve clarified (something) of my position. Yet, now I wish to make a few questions of my own:

When do you believe that “life” starts? And why?

[azalea]

I believe that life begins at conception. As you said, obviously each sex cell by itself doesn't have the potential to become a life in the way I meant. A sperm cannot "become" a human unless coupled with an egg. But a zygote WILL be born as a human baby as long as it is not terminated, barring a miscarriage. I have known women who have had early miscarriages and they were very upset by it. They certainly saw it as being alive. Hmm, that hearkens back to the philosophical discussions on other threads -- perception creating fact. Well, a fetus is considered to be alive until a miscarriage or abortion. Doesn't that mean that it WAS alive and now it is not? And since abortion intentionally ends a life, isn't that enough for it to be considered killing?

No it wouldn't be able to survive without the mother, but that doesn't mean it isn't alive. The big question is whether the rights of the mother supercede the rights of the person who depends on her for life. We're talking LEGAL rights here. Any woman can terminate her preganancy if she wants to, but should the government allow doctors to profit from this? I say no, unless in the cases I mentioned before.

Morally I am opposed to it as well, because I am a Christian and I believe that it is killing an innocent life. I was opposed to it before I became a Christian because I felt it was unnecessary killing. But all in all it becomes an argument of a human being's rights, since we can't say that it should be illegal just because of religious opposition.

[Elvellon]

Well, a fetus is considered to be alive until a miscarriage or abortion. Doesn't that mean that it WAS alive and now it is not? And since abortion intentionally ends a life, isn't that enough for it to be considered killing?

“No it wouldn't be able to survive without the mother, but that doesn't mean it isn't alive.“

Do you mean alive or “alive” (as in being human)?
The question is not if it is alive but if it is a Human being.

Is abortion a killing? Of course, but is it a murder?
It depends of what is being killed is, or not, a human.

The big question is whether the rights of the mother supercede the rights of the person who depends on her for life. We're talking LEGAL rights here. Any woman can terminate her preganancy if she wants to, but should the government allow doctors to profit from this? I say no, unless in the cases I mentioned before.”

All humans are equal before the Law. In the case of conflicting rights prevails the most important one. Of course the most important is the right to life , so we are left with the nagging question; what defines a human being?

Morally I am opposed to it as well, because I am a Christian and I believe that it is killing an innocent life. I was opposed to it before I became a Christian because I felt it was unnecessary killing. But all in all it becomes an argument of a human being's rights, since we can't say that it should be illegal just because of religious opposition.

In any circumstance abortion is highly regrettable (not to speak of the trauma it represents for the woman involved), I myself live in a Catholic country, albeit not a conservative one, and abortion was the subject from a recent controversy here (yet not really finished) Most pro-life people I spoke to defend that human life starts at the moment of conception because the human soul resides, from that moment on, in the body. But the people that support the legalization of abortion don’t believe it (even, I must say, many persons that classify themselves as Catholics), and try to find the solution in science. Personally, I’m not a man of faith; therefore I tend to rely upon science.

[Cirdan]

It's all very well and good to have high minded idealism about the soul existing in a cell. It should make one feel all warm and fuzzy. Will you then be willing to institute the uterine police?

"Miscarriage, eh? Likely story. Tell it to the judge."

It's problematic to criminalize abortion, especially if the claim is that it is a life, then it is murder, under the law. Rich women will go back to having a "DNC" and the poor women would have to go back to coat hangers.

Should abortion be discouraged? Of course.

As far as the potential arguement, cloning has made all sorts of cells viable for life. (Are these "potentials" soulless from a theological point of view?) Is poor prenatal care prior to a miscarriage manslaughter? Who will decide each case? Who will pay for the investigation of every suspicious teminated pregnancy?

There are new drugs on the market and in development that can prevent or abort on conception, a pregnancy.

[Elvellon]

It's all very well and good to have high minded idealism about the soul existing in a cell. It should make one feel all warm and fuzzy. Will you then be willing to institute the uterine police?

I’m under the impression you believe I accept the soul theory. Not so, like I said, pro-life people I spoke to do, but I’m not one of them (as I think I have made clear from earlier posts).

It's problematic to criminalize abortion, especially if the claim is that it is a life, then it is murder, under the law. Rich women will go back to having a "DNC" and the poor women would have to go back to coat hangers.

True, but the difficulty to uphold the law is no valid reason to make it nil.

The question is a simple one (albeit with a difficult answer), or it is human, and therefore it is murder, or it is not human, and therefore outside the ambit of the law.

A question:
Cirdan, how do you define human life? At what point do you consider that abortion stops being an acceptable practice?

As far as the potential arguement, cloning has made all sorts of cells viable for life. (Are these "potentials" soulless from a theological point of view?)

Ah yes, I had figure someone would go there (do you know Carl Sagan once used a similar argument?).

To answer your question, you would have to ask a believer; personally I suspect that they would consider that since those cells don’t have natural capability to transform themselves into a new human being their potentiality is irrelevant. Myself, I would consider that since, once again, we can easily discard potentiality, this attribute reveals itself irrelevant.

Is poor prenatal care prior to a miscarriage manslaughter? Who will decide each case? Who will pay for the investigation of every suspicious teminated pregnancy?

Let me put it this way, what do you think of it? What should be considered murder?

[azalea]

As far as the "alive" versus "human", of course a fetus is human. But if you mean "human" in the higher sense of the word, there are people who are not on life support, but are "vegetables". It would still be a crime to kill them. Do that mean that just because a living being has not yet experienced the potential for higher thought that it's okay to rob it of that potential?
(I don't mean this to be specifically pointed at you, Elvellon, I just mean anyone who is pro choice -- I guess you mean that when a being has not yet the awareness of being killed, it isn't killing, which would lead me to believe you think abortions should be legal until the brain is formed?).

Edit: Oh, and all that shutting up about abortion smacks of censorship to me!

[Cirdan]

I’m under the impression you believe I accept the soul theory....

No, my response was general to the discussion thread. The soul in the cell thing kept popping up since my last post. It was annoying me

Cirdan, how do you define human life? At what point do you consider that abortion stops being an acceptable practice?

Human life? As opposed to proto-human, I guess is what you mean. Viability, conscienceness. At what point...? That would be presumptuous for me to pick a specific instant at when it is acceptable or not. I can't become pregnant and never have been... It's a very general question and it's a personal one without relation to circumstance, With respect to the law I don't feel that any change in the current stutues is necessary.

In no case of terminated pregnancy should it be consdiered murder.

[I]Azalea posted:[I/]
Do that mean that just because a living being has not yet experienced the potential for higher thought that it's okay to rob it of that potential?

"rob" implies crime... potential does not mean inevitable... higher thought? higher than what? It's easy to make judgements in theory. What is practical from a legal standpoint is another issue. I think many things aren't "okay" but I don't think they should be criminalized.

[I]Azalea posted:[I/]
Edit: Oh, and all that shutting up about abortion smacks of censorship to me!

Yes, my opinion about who should shut up is just that. If I sought to make it a law it would be censorship. Kind of ironic, ain't it?

[Elvellon]

As far as the "alive" versus "human", of course a fetus is human. But if you mean "human" in the higher sense of the word, there are people who are not on life support, but are "vegetables". It would still be a crime to kill them.

I don’t know what is the current law in the USA. But if what you mean is a person whose higher mental abilities have permanently terminated, then I believe it is considered legally dead, even if certain automatic functions remain.

Do that mean that just because a living being has not yet experienced the potential for higher thought that it's okay to rob it of that potential?

Potentiality doesn’t equate with being. I’ll give an extreme example:
suppose a pregnant woman discovers, after becoming pregnant, that if she carries her pregnancy to the end she will probably die (but that there is no certainty of it), yet the child will probably survive.

She decides not to take that risk to her life.

If we consider both the women and, (let’s say) the zygote are both humans (supposing that was the stage of development it had reach when the women made her decision), then their rights should be the same. Should she then be allowed to end her pregnancy?
After all, her life is under a potential threat, but if she carries the act it would be certain death to the zygote.

If we consider that her rights prevail, then we are saying that the rights of a de facto human being and those of a potential human being are not the same, that the zygote is less then human.

..., which would lead me to believe you think abortions should be legal until the brain is formed?).

Actually that is (roughly) the opinion of many scientists I have heard (many of them women, by the way). Is it mine? It does make sense to me, more that other opinions I have heard. Do I believe with certainty in it? No, to make my decision I would still need much more information that I currently have.

[Elvellon]

Human life? As opposed to proto-human, I guess is what you mean.

Not really, I meant what are the characteristics that define us as human, from a scientific point of view.

[it] would be presumptuous for me to pick a specific instant at when it is acceptable or not. I can't become pregnant and never have been... It's a very general question and it's a personal one without relation to circumstance,

Presumptuous? It would depend of what one is trying to say. If what is in one’s mind is to decide the use women do to their bodies, it certainly would be an arrogant presumption. If it is to determinate when a life stops being a potential human being to became truly one, I would say it certainly is not presumptuous.

With respect to the law I don't feel that any change in the current stutues is necessary.

In no case of terminated pregnancy should it be consdiered murder.

I suppose that you mean, terminated during the legally allowed period (I don’t know what the relevant American law is).

[Cirdan]

...to determinate when a life stops being a potential human being to became truly one....

At live birth.

[BeardofPants]

Well, it's a little more complicated than that now, given the "miracle of science". It could be said that when they can survive outside the womb - taking into consideration via artificial means. Which is problematic, because it means that the life expectation of a foetus outside of the womb is being pushed back further and further every time.

For me, however, it's not so much of an issue of when a baby/foetus becomes "human" because as far as I'm concerned these things do not happen until the baby is outside the womb and is picking up on cultural indicators. And I'd say the issue is more: who has more rights? The mother, as a human being, or the foetus who has the potential to become a human being? And as far as I'm concerned, the mother is the one who has the rights, and therefore, she also has the right to terminate "potential" life. Miscarriages happen all the time. Is an abortion really any different? Instead of a natural miscarriage, it's just an artificially induced one.

[Andúril]

Prosecutor: Ms X, you aborted your potential baby. What do you have to say for yourself?
Ms X: It was self defense, I tell you.
Prosecutor: Say what?
Ms X: Yeah, had I gone through with the birth, I would have had to throw my life away.
Prosecutor: True that.
Ms X: So, since the baby, once born, is a hassle, the potential baby, before birth, is a potential hassle.
Prosecutor: Hmmmm.....so.....
Ms X: ....so, since we regards potentiality as a factor in our equations, I am justified in ridding myself of the potential hassle, okay.
Judge: Enough! Enough I say! Order in the court. I want to hold myself in contempt. I am Jar Jar.

[Elvellon]

Originally posted by Anduril
Prosecutor: Ms X, you aborted your potential baby. What do you have to say for yourself?
Ms X: It was self defense, I tell you.
Prosecutor: Say what?
Ms X: Yeah, had I gone through with the birth, I would have had to throw my life away.
Prosecutor: True that.
Ms X: So, since the baby, once born, is a hassle, the potential baby, before birth, is a potential hassle.
Prosecutor: Hmmmm.....so.....
Ms X: ....so, since we regards potentiality as a factor in our equations, I am justified in ridding myself of the potential hassle, okay.
Judge: Enough! Enough I say! Order in the court. I want to hold myself in contempt. I am Jar Jar.

[Wayfarer]

Very funny.

But, seriously. Taking potential into consideration, even an embryo has everything it needs to become a productive member of society.

Once that sperm and that egg get together, the genetic totality of a human being exists.

Think about it.


Back on topic:

I'm a conservitive.
I'm also a liberal.

I believe that we should keep those things that have worked well in the past, while discarding those that haven't.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Well, I took that quiz thing BoP posted. Apparently, I'm very liberal, leaning towards anarchy. I didn't need that to tell me, though. I know I am a liberal.

And as for abortion, I am most definitely pro-choice. And even if I thought abortion is the most horrible thing in the world, and completely wrong (and I am not saying it is a good thing--it is an extremely difficult choice to make, etc, it's all been said before) the government, etc. has NO place to make such a decision for all women; it should be entirely the woman's choice what she does with her body, and her potential child. Even if it is wrong, it is not anyone's choice but the woman's.

And if you ask me, even I shouldn't be talking about this; as has been said before, there are few people, in my opinion, who are qualified to talk about the subject. But I will never forget the pregnant girl at the ACLU student conference who said she chose to keep her baby, but she was glad she had that choice.

[Wayfarer]

it should be entirely the woman's choice what she does with her body, and her potential child.

So, you say that since the child is dependant on it's mother, she should have the choice to kill it?

Does this mean that parents should be able to kill of their children, who are after all still dependant on them for everything they need to live?

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
So, you say that since the child is dependant on it's mother, she should have the choice to kill it?

No. Not a child. The potential for a child. An embryo.

Does this mean that parents should be able to kill of their children, who are after all still dependant on them for everything they need to live?

That's a really dumb analogy, and hardly productive to this argument.

[Wayfarer]

I disagree with you, bop.

An embyryo has the potential to become an infant in the same way that an infant has the potential to become a child, a child has the potential to become an adolescent, and the adolescent has the potential to become an adult.

So tell me-how is killing an embryo because it is not yet an infant any different from killing a infant because it's not yet a child.

I'm also reminded of several cases in which a mother has delivered her baby and then left it to die.

I also think of partial birth abortions.