Abortion: Your Views...

[T.G. Oskar]

RagnaToad: I personally don't believe you've made your opinion very clear. On the one hand you do not feel comfortable with abortion. On the other you are progressive and liberal-minded. And then you claim that you're not necessarily attacking abortion when you quote Phoenix. These aren't in contradiction, but they do not add up to a whole. I could guess, but I think having the opposition define/guess at your views is unfair for both parties.

I'd actually throw a slight bone at him. Not the whole skeleton, but just a bone. Perhaps he's not exactly liberal-minded, but inclining towards moderate thinking? Being liberal-thinking does not mean automatically accepting abortion as legal or ethically permissible (same thing with homosexualism and other "usually liberal" themes); it just means you think the opposite way of how conservatives do: if the now liberal stand becomes the majority, and some time passes, it will become the new conservative stand, and those who think differently will be the liberal thinkers.

Though, it's true that being shaky in assuming a position doesn't help much.

The problem with this line of thinking is that it leaves behind one very large implication. Humans are indeed multicellular organisms, but not all multicellular organisms are humans. That would mean we should extend this kindness to ALL beings that fit into this classification. Naturally, this means plants and animals. If you do not agree with this then I think it is necessary to explain why multicellular organisms born from a human egg and sperm are given priority. If you do agree... well, we're dead.

I'd like to see how you'd be dead if I agree with the position of extending kindness to plants and animals.

Still, it's something that you'd have to see from three points. One, the fact that it's a "potential" of your own species, something that to various degrees involves facing your own moral and ethical standards. You can argue that, given the potential circumstances of the fetus' birth, it can be even a blessing to the future organism that it does not reach birth, for it may be a potential criminal, murderer, even a genocidal maniac. On the other hand, you may be deriding the world of a possible savant with the right set of circumstances to allow breakthroughs in science and technology, or a possible reformist with the right mindset to solve humanity's problems, or at least reach a point where improvement can be seen.

This ties to the second point. Would you consider yourself responsible for the success or failure of that potential? Would you consider it is in your hands, or in the hands of the parents, to allow or cripple that potential? I must say no, but I must admit it's because of religious issues; not everyone will be supporting this, but I believe there's a higher being that has larger authority upon those potentials. If you do not believe in that, then consider to what do you respond, to whom you respond, and whether it is possible to bear the burden of such responsibility by merely assuming a position or not. This is not asking you to see it from another person's eyes, but to see it from your own perspective: are you willing to assume that responsibility? Most people can't, and think that ditching those responsibilities away they'll stave off or solve the problem; the end response is usually that they will not be capable of assuming any responsibility at all, and when that comes back to haunt them, they won't handle it. Those who do make a conscious choice to defend that position do it from their own perspective, having their own degree of understanding as to what's that responsibility and how much they must assume it.

Third, and this may sound completely ironic, is the worth of that possibility, and how the human being as a being of abstract intellect is naturally driven to discrimination, as a method of defense and as part of its point of view. Excess is definitely bad; racism and chauvinism/extreme feminism are examples of what happens when that discrimination is taken to extremes. However, it is difficult to determine just how effective can that discrimination be; the correct measure of discrimination and acceptance. I say this because of your position towards multicellular organisms: this is a question of discrimination, actually. Why give a human fetus, or even a blastocyte of all things priority over the blastocyte of an animal, or a seedling? Well, that depends on your degree of discrimination and acceptance. And the ironic point is this: you and I are humans (as far as I know), so I believe there's more importance in a human being than on other animals. Ironic, because it's going a bit counter to what I explained earlier. But feasible, as it is a product of my thought process: you might wish to save the fetus of an animal if you desire, but there's little importance to it unless it's sentimentally attached to you, or you see a depth of potential in it (using royal "you", just in case). Vegetarians wouldn't agree with me; I'm no vegan, so I can't say I agree with them. But, there's just a few set of moral boundaries that forbid me to even think in the case of human beings. Not the same moral boundary of, say, a Buddhist that believes that all life, no matter what, is sacred.

However, that doesn't mean there should not be any respect for that to which you don't agree with. One thing is to not agree with a vegan or a Buddhist but respecting their opinion and not be cynic about it; another is to ask someone to respect their beliefs when at times they don't seem to respect theirs. I don't see why I should respect a doctor that's willing to chemically burn a fetus, or even shred it to pieces, and then neatly placing it on a biohazard bag. Not every pro-choice supports such treatment, but it's important to consider that while both sides have some shady stuff to deal with, part of the propaganda against pro-choice is pretty gritty.

(Note to add: I've heard the statement that true Christians should be Vegans. They have pretty solid points. Quite solid points. Doesn't mean I won't respect them, but doesn't mean I'll stop being an Omnivore with inclinations to meat)

The issue is when we can finally call a multicellular organism a human. Before that, it is merely potential. I would say that the brain would need to develop to some particular stage before you could label it as such. It's really a debate left up to science, but I am not under the impression that it begins at conception. If so, we really need to broaden our definition of what it is to be human.

Funny that you find the entire purpose of this thread. And of most discussions, actually. What makes a breathing, consuming, growing, self-reproducting, humanoid-shaped being with near-human intellect not a human being? Genes? What if it shares the genetic pool? Faith? What if it has the same religious inclinations? Intellect? What if there's a small part of that population that's truly outstanding, to the point that they exceed the human average?

I'd assume the opposite position, but mostly out of religious determinations (and even then, I can be flexible about that, since I don't know everything and probably won't in the expense of this lifetime); there's a possibility that life begins at conception, and that we won't know it because of the limits of modern science. Not everything should be left only to science; there's a bit of room for philosophy as well. But it's a good base to work from.

Mine would be this simple, perhaps even outdated position: a sperm-embedded ovum probably doesn't fulfill this, but when the first steps of cellular division begin, the potential gains the capability of reproduction. Eventually, to keep dividing, that mutating unicellular proto-being gains the abilities of cellular respiration and nutrients to consume. By the time it becomes a blastocyte, it should be considered a multicellular organism that has no other choice but to grow or die. Again, might sound outdated, but if it has the ability of self-respiration, a method of feeding, a method of self-growth and a method of either sexual or asexual reproduction, it should be considered a living organism. By the moment it reaches the blastocyte period, given the fact that it can split and form a second blastocyte and thus a second organism, it should be already considered on the side of the living, if not suspiciously upon the edge.

As for the issue of rape... ethically, I suppose it becomes extremely hard to justify abortion even under those circumstances if it is in fact living and thinking as we do. But I have no reason to assume that a living organism is human simply because it is conceived, which in my mind gives a window of opportunity for choice. Beyond that... it's just a tragedy, and the feelings of those who have experienced that pain are just on a level that I could never completely understand.

Again, that is mostly point of view. I'd admire a woman that raised her child and proved such event didn't make a dent upon her, for showing courage. Perhaps you don't see it the way I do, and believe that rape events will leave a mark at any moment. I don't see it as a tragedy if the woman manages to overcome it, learn from that experience, and live her life without fear of such person; I believe that completely ruins the intention of the rapist, for it failed on perhaps its most important mission (scar a person's life for a prolonged period of time). I can't say, though, if that is a valuable position or not since I haven't experienced it; what has formed my point of view upon the matter is outside experiences of people who have done so, and managed to defy the odds despite that. Others, though, won't probably have the same support or line of thought to defy those odds, and will live traumatized by that. Even then, I still consider that aborting the result of such event to be morally debatable, and I consider it's a higher moral victory to raise the child to be the exact opposite of what the other parent isn't. Perhaps even mocking the rapist, I'd say. That's why I say that going on with the abortion is a victory for the rapist; you can't bear to face that, and are taking what seems to be the easy path. It's hard to do so in the face of such trauma, but that doesn't mean it's not entirely possible at all.

@nix: Perhaps it's not entirely a bad thing? You have a new chance to make it, and probably even deepen the argument a bit further. Perhaps it's for the good of the discussion.

Alternatively, perhaps the answer was so long and winded, and it would eventually be too easy to defeat, that it would end up better not to post it.

In either case, think of it as a chance of working it out again.

Or perhaps your work computer won't let you post the retort because you invoked Godwin's Law?