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?

[nix]

Would you prefer if i refered to Reagan or Nixon instead of Hitler? Only if your that anal about me refering to mass murderers of the nazi variety

Oh and what was the reference to Dr Manhattan? Went right over my head.

[SOLDIER #819]

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

We don't milk humans (often) or harvest parts of them. If I extend this right to plants and animals... then how am I going to eat?! =P

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......

Judging a potential life and how it will end up as a member of society is beyond our scope. If these potential human lives were to come into existence they would probably gravitate toward whatever the average in our population is with its regular anomalies, positive and negative, taking current trends into account. I'm sure there are people who would argue that this is an oversimplification as some of the women faced with the choice of abortion are also dealing with various issues that might impact the child physically, socially, or mentally. But, I don't see any reason to speculate about this matter very much. It just brings up too many things that neither of us really know or can't know.

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.

I don't see potential in itself as being human, which is what separates us. You may believe for your own reasons that it is destined to become living and breathing, but I don't believe in destiny in so far that it be preordained and that I am breaking some natural law. Responsibility here is also purely subjective and will vary based on beliefs. To me, if there is something I have to take responsibility for with making this sort of decision, it is not that I will have taken the life of a human being.

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......

Appending value to life is very difficult and I believe we do it much of the time as a means for survival. Then there are times where we do it simply for comfort, like with animals. But the reality is that, on some level, we destroy life and consume what's left in order to survive. If it isn't an animal then it is a plant, which is still living even if it doesn't walk like an animal or talk like a human. That's just how the world works, for good or for worse.

Potential is far removed from this equation. We can view living things directly, but we can't do that with the concept of potential life. We simply abstract its meaning and implications. Yet, how it is abstracted varies between people, but I don't expect that my view be "right" and your's be "wrong." I respect your opinion and believe they can coexist as long as you respect my boundaries and I respect your's.

What separates our stances is that I cannot force my views onto other people if abortion were to be kept legal. I cannot force you to abort what you feel is a living and breathing human being. But if abortion were to be banned, you would be forcing your views onto someone else by not allowing them to abort what they feel is not living as a human.

Imagine what would happen if vegetarians/vegans/Buddhists/etc. made up the majority and started pushing to ban the consumption of meat even if it had a negative impact on the livelihood of certain groups, beyond not being able to eat a juicy steak. Or maybe not being able to eat meat for the sake of it is enough for some. "Pro-choice" in this case would allow for the tolerance of both views and the ability for both parties to live their own lives to their liking. "Pro-life" would be forcing you to halt the activity of doing what you find acceptable, for whatever reason.

Granted, there is a key difference in that this example deals with protecting existing life while abortion seems to deal more with what something could potentially become. The effect of tolerance vs. restriction is the same, however. I don't want to go too far off-topic though, as this deals with implications of taking a certain stance as opposed to the stances themselves.

... 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.

That leads to the problems many philosophies are facing, however. People believe in their ideas, many of which they believe are innate and just, and claim that we simply have not found them yet without first giving substantial proof as to their existence. It is the same with abortion. No matter how far science goes without proving that life as a human begins at conception, people will continue to say otherwise until it is proven. Even if that time never comes.

Even with philosophy in play I am still an empiricist, which, fortunately or not, leads into a good deal of skepticism. I just don't find it fair to force people to wait for a conclusion that may never come. Even more so when the assumption made is not assumed by everyone.

[T.G. Oskar]

Would you prefer if i refered to Reagan or Nixon instead of Hitler? Only if your that anal about me refering to mass murderers of the nazi variety

Oh and what was the reference to Dr Manhattan? Went right over my head.

Oh, silly. I was just pointing Godwin's Law. Look at it over the interwebz, pretty nifty rule.

Though not Nixon, or Reagan. Castro, on the other part...

As for the reference to Dr. Manhattan, the reason is that both the movie and the graphic novel state Manhattan's detachment to his own humanity, by whichever reasons they are (I say it's the Big Bad's blame). Right when they're in Mars, he makes a really epic quote about how the existence of a human being is something akin to a "statistical miracle", because of the combination of factors that involve human procreation. That's what makes Manhattan make the decision to move along and stop being an a**.

I was referring to how you just countered (whether successfully or not) the statement of human birth as a statistical miracle (for lack of the actual words he used) by claiming that is no more special than a genetic reaction, akin to dropping a turd. When I saw it, I had no other thing to write than "dang, you just bitchslapped Manhattan right over there".

We don't milk humans (often) or harvest parts of them. If I extend this right to plants and animals... then how am I going to eat?! =P

What about not harvesting them? I have the distinctive belief, if albeit jokingly, that we DO harvest human organs.

Lifelink, or organ donations, is one way.

A more closer way is the black market, and how people suddenly end up suffering a clandestine operation. That's as close to harvesting an organ as I can see it.

But that's how the third point I stated went. It's mostly the issue of discrimination; you wouldn't extend that to plants and animals since their purpose, whether abstract or not, is to provide food and perhaps some utility. Perhaps you may refrain from X or Y specimen, for sentimental reasons, but most of the time you would consume them as food. Not like you shouldn't have some respect for them, but not go overboard with sentimentalism. Which, while it may seem to apply to the discussion, it ends up on a very different way since it's not speaking of someone not of your species, but rather someone of your own, quite possibly even your family.

There's a reason why there are charges for "homicide" and "manslaughter", and those charges are dead serious.

Judging a potential life and how it will end up as a member of society is beyond our scope. If these potential human lives were to come into existence they would probably gravitate toward whatever the average in our population is with its regular anomalies, positive and negative, taking current trends into account. I'm sure there are people who would argue that this is an oversimplification as some of the women faced with the choice of abortion are also dealing with various issues that might impact the child physically, socially, or mentally. But, I don't see any reason to speculate about this matter very much. It just brings up too many things that neither of us really know or can't know.

See? I wasn't wrong about that at all. I presume that is a reflection of your moral and perhaps even your ethical standards: you don't believe it is yours, or society's, mission to judge the potential of a life. Speak of others, who believe that only the best specimens are meant to survive (eugenicists), or that believe that they truly are meant to decide whether a life is important or not, or those who don't even care and see abortion as a "commodity", much like tobacco or alcohol, so to speak.

While it is not similar to the stance you are assuming, I also don't believe it is my position to judge how a human life will end, but I do believe there is someone who can. Out of respect to that someone, I can't also assume that because there is no one to be capable of judging said life, it must be relegated to a possibility that couldn't came to being.

I don't see potential in itself as being human, which is what separates us. You may believe for your own reasons that it is destined to become living and breathing, but I don't believe in destiny in so far that it be preordained and that I am breaking some natural law. Responsibility here is also purely subjective and will vary based on beliefs. To me, if there is something I have to take responsibility for with making this sort of decision, it is not that I will have taken the life of a human being.

Only certain parts of responsibility are subjective to the society a person lives in. Others are shared between nearly all societies, barring their possible exceptions. Nearly all societies, from nearly all parts of the world, believe that taking a human life is a crime, running from the very serious to the unforgivable.

The main difference is what it is judged as a human life. Your argument mostly consists that there is a period during conception and birth in which that future creature is no more living than, say, a seed. I presume even you agree that, by the moment the fetus shows signs of movement and reaction to it's system, it must be already considered a living being and not just mere potential. By the time it's about 7 months old, attempting abortion there would be manslaughter, since albeit with external aid the baby would be capable of surviving. At times, even during the 6 months of gestation. You would say that during that moment, the one where the fetus, or even the blastocyte, isn't considered a human life per se, there is no responsibility upon it.

I, though, wouldn't like to take that risk. I consider birth, from the moment of pleasure (with the woman) to the moment of pain (for the woman), to be something upon which I can't decide, and if something happens with it, I must bear that responsibility. Call it a societal quirk, but I wouldn't want to take that risk of not considering a future child a "possibility" and thus not considering it human life.

Appending value to life is very difficult and I believe we do it much of the time as a means for survival. Then there are times where we do it simply for comfort, like with animals. But the reality is that, on some level, we destroy life and consume what's left in order to survive. If it isn't an animal then it is a plant, which is still living even if it doesn't walk like an animal or talk like a human. That's just how the world works, for good or for worse.

Ironically, while you mostly destroy life and consume it in the case of animals, apparently plants are better in that case: they remain alive, and even after digested, are supposedly better than destroyed life.

Not my point, though. That's mostly Vegan thought (I have to listen to it quite a lot, actually). For those people, getting a fruit isn't destroying life, but actually respecting life. Or eating herbs, or tubercles, or farinaceous.

According to them, such lifestyle actually both improves us, and it's the natural way of life. Again, not what I say (I'd be anathema to them, as I have no qualms in consuming meat since I see it as a byproduct of some animals, and the main product of others); it's their position. And for what it seems, it seems to work nicely.

I'd like to hear their response when you state that. It's a bit of a thought-inspiring comment, but even in the very end, good or bad, it's something you may not place much attention. However, applied in different circumstances, it does.

Potential is far removed from this equation. We can view living things directly, but we can't do that with the concept of potential life. We simply abstract its meaning and implications. Yet, how it is abstracted varies between people, but I don't expect that my view be "right" and your's be "wrong." I respect your opinion and believe they can coexist as long as you respect my boundaries and I respect your's.

What separates our stances is that I cannot force my views onto other people if abortion were to be kept legal. I cannot force you to abort what you feel is a living and breathing human being. But if abortion were to be banned, you would be forcing your views onto someone else by not allowing them to abort what they feel is not living as a human.

Some opinions aren't meant to coexist. One must eclipse the other, no matter how valid it may end up being. I can understand where you're going: it's not like, say, legalizing homosexual marriage will end up forcing people to become homosexuals. The premise is ridiculous in theory, as it is a concept of personal rights and moral points of view. However, abortion adds something to the equation which will always be present no matter how much you believe it is irrelevant. It's not just the possibility of human life, it is the possibility of potential homicide that's present. One side can say that, so as long as it is done at a certain period during gestation, it is not murder and thus can be possible, but that there is no rush or command to do it, just an option. The other side can, and probably will, say that the gestating fetus is a human being, and being born in the specific country makes it a citizen, which means it's meant to have the same degree of rights as anyone, and that removing his definition as a human being removes it from any law that might protect it, thus potentially turning into a violation of rights.

Your position is that, being merely a potential and not a fully fleshed human being, it is not subject to law. You also seek respect to your position, stating that you will respect your opponent's position and rights to believe in what they want. I must respond with "what about the rights of that potential?", what about respecting my belief that said being is a human being in formation, that it probably has life, that it probably will become a citizen of the country where I live in, and that it has rights that cannot be violated.

That's something I'd like you to think. Even as much as you might want to, there's something that you won't be capable of respecting, or a position you simply can't allow. I can't allow a human fetus to be aborted, even though it violates your right to choose. On the other hand, your position implies that I must keep shut and swallow my belief that said "potential" being has inalienable human rights, and that I must ward over those because said being can't.

Imagine what would happen if vegetarians/vegans/Buddhists/etc. made up the majority and started pushing to ban the consumption of meat even if it had a negative impact on the livelihood of certain groups, beyond not being able to eat a juicy steak. Or maybe not being able to eat meat for the sake of it is enough for some. "Pro-choice" in this case would allow for the tolerance of both views and the ability for both parties to live their own lives to their liking. "Pro-life" would be forcing you to halt the activity of doing what you find acceptable, for whatever reason.

Look up. I mostly drove to this point, since your example quite well elaborates what you believe in through a different lens. Both sides will always have something that they won't be capable of dealing with. While you state that the "pro-choice" side (aka, the meat-inclined Omnivores, and to a certain extent near-Omnivores and ovo-lacto-vegetarians) will promote respect and tolerance to both sides, the point remains in that you are, in the side of the other group, violating the natural laws that protect those animals' right to live. Or worse, the cosmic laws that promote reincarnation, which means you become an instrument of Samsara and are preventing people from reaching Nirvana. "Pro-life" may seem a bit less tolerant, but in the end, they recognize that they are serving a law that's probably more important than human law; what they'll tolerate, though, is people rambling against it. Not the same degree of tolerance or respect, but it still exists.

Yeah, it sounds a bit too long, but here's what it should be: no matter what happens, there's a point in which you won't tolerate or respect their position. You must assume your position with respect, but knowing that eventually, there will be a point that you must say "I can't respect that". Mostly, because if you are to respect and tolerate my position, you must respect that which you probably haven't considered. That implies, in the case of vegans and Buddhists for example, that you* are consciously violating their own rights in order to promote their own. In the case of abortion, you* are quite probably violating the rights of that fetus in order to protect or support your* own.

*Both examples use the royal "you", just in case.

Granted, there is a key difference in that this example deals with protecting existing life while abortion seems to deal more with what something could potentially become. The effect of tolerance vs. restriction is the same, however. I don't want to go too far off-topic though, as this deals with implications of taking a certain stance as opposed to the stances themselves.

It's natural that it happens. While you didn't wanted to assume that, I took the liberty of assuming that implication for you. It's important to do so, though. It's certainly not off-topic if the implications of assuming pro-choice or pro-life relate to the topic of abortion. I could understand it's making the post larger than it should, but I don't see it's counter to the interests of the debate: furthermore, I say it's exactly what the topic needs. Examples are good, so as long as they support the topic and not derail it.