Legal or Illegal: Abortion?

[Bond]

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

This is a good question. You actually pinpointed the very flaw in my stance on abortion, which is that I believe a woman should be entitled to make the decision to have an abortion during the first trimester, but that it is morally reprehensible in my book. It is a contradiction. I even suggested that if my girlfriend got pregnant I would want her to get an abortion, but I can't answer that honestly because she's not pregnant. If at all possible I would maybe strive for the adoption.

I see what you're saying, but...

But yes, I believe "human life" begins when DNA fertilization occurs. How could it not? Picking an arbitrary point during development and saying that at this point life begins is, to me, a non-logical argument.

Isn't saying it should be legal for women to have an abortion only during the first trimester putting an arbitrary timeline on the legality of abortion?

I very much so understand your contradiction, but I think we have to view this issue as a principle. If we can agree that human life begins at DNA fertilization, and we can agree that after DNA fertilization a human is created, I believe we have to protect that human's liberties. As I stated in my first post, it is essential for a government to protect the least among its citizens, including those who can not protect their liberties for themselves.

So, if after DNA fertilization we are considering this "thing" a human [terminology when talking about abortion is always tricky, haha], then how can we not refer to abortion as murder? It's also important to point out that mothers and doctors are legally responsible for unborn children. If one has to be legally responsible for this unborn child, then the unborn child is a legal entity - it has liberties.


Positive arguments with a goal of mutual agreements for the win!

[KillerGremlin]

Originally Posted by Bond

I see what you're saying, but...


Isn't saying it should be legal for women to have an abortion only during the first trimester putting an arbitrary timeline on the legality of abortion?

I very much so understand your contradiction, but I think we have to view this issue as a principle. If we can agree that human life begins at DNA fertilization, and we can agree that after DNA fertilization a human is created, I believe we have to protect that human's liberties. As I stated in my first post, it is essential for a government to protect the least among its citizens, including those who can not protect their liberties for themselves.

So, if after DNA fertilization we are considering this "thing" a human [terminology when talking about abortion is always tricky, haha], then how can we not refer to abortion as murder? It's also important to point out that mothers and doctors are legally responsible for unborn children. If one has to be legally responsible for this unborn child, then the unborn child is a legal entity - it has liberties.


Positive arguments with a goal of mutual agreements for the win!

Well, from a moral standpoint I believe a first trimester abortion is not good. It is bad and it compromises the value of that embryo.

And, even from a legal, or strictly from a dictionary definition, aborting the embryo would indeed be murder.

I guess I'm saying in a way I'm pro-advocating murder, only with moral reprehension? That sounds horrible! haha.

But, again, the question I ask is does the value of this living thing change in certain situations. For instance, how do you feel about Terri Schiavo?

I don't think there is a perfect way for the government to tackle abortion. The government does not exist to debate moral issues. So, if I had two choices;
A) Allow all abortions
or
B) Do not allow abortions

I would vote for option B). However, by denying the right to have an abortion at all, the government is essentially denying the right to some mother's life. We can agree that some pregnancies will compromise the life of the parent. At which point, isn't the government essentially violating its own goal of protecting the right to human life?

What we really need is a judicial system for abortions, one that has a judge and jury that exist without bias, where they make decisions based on the unique situations presented to them. However, that will never happen, right?

As far as "liberties" go, the main one I'm concerned about is the right to life. That seems to be the only real applicable one to discuss, correct?

Edit:
By the way, if this has any value to you, if I was in a vegetative state where I was unconscious and I wasn't coming back, like Terri Schiavo, I would want my family to terminate my existence. I would not want to be that burden nor do I feel that my life would, at that point, have any value. I wouldn't even want to be frozen indefinitely until a cure was discovered, what value would my life have if I woke up hundreds of years later without my loving family? I bring this up as an example of me supporting that situation. Now, I wouldn't want to be aborted if I was in the first trimester of a mother wanting abortion. However, since I would not have had knowledge of my very existence in the first place, nor would I have felt pain, to me now as a living thing with a waking conscience it seems like a big loss, but the reality is it would not matter as much.

[Bond]

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

Well, from a moral standpoint I believe a first trimester abortion is not good. It is bad and it compromises the value of that embryo.

And, even from a legal, or strictly from a dictionary definition, aborting the embryo would indeed be murder.

I guess I'm saying in a way I'm pro-advocating murder, only with moral reprehension? That sounds horrible! haha.

But, again, the question I ask is does the value of this living thing change in certain situations. For instance, how do you feel about Terri Schiavo?

I suppose my point here is that the unborn human has an inherent right to his or her own destiny. One has the inherent freedom to live one's life as one sees fit (as long as, of course, it does not violate the inherent liberties of others). Humans have a right to take their own lives, it's a freedom we enjoy in a free society, but because unborn humans don't yet have that option, we can't decide for them. They have a right to control their own destiny. I don't want to interfere, and I don't think the government should want to either. But I do think the government should interfere to protect one's liberties - that's the very function of government.

Concerning Terri Schiavo, I don't know enough about that specific case to have an informed opinion or argument.

I don't think there is a perfect way for the government to tackle abortion. The government does not exist to debate moral issues. So, if I had two choices;
A) Allow all abortions
or
B) Do not allow abortions

I would vote for option B). However, by denying the right to have an abortion at all, the government is essentially denying the right to some mother's life. We can agree that some pregnancies will compromise the life of the parent. At which point, isn't the government essentially violating its own goal of protecting the right to human life?

I view this scenario as a unique one - in this scenario the mother's life is threatened by the baby, it's no longer simply the mother threatening the baby's life. Both the rights of the baby and mother could potentially be compromised. I don't have an easy answer...

[KillerGremlin]

Originally Posted by Bond

I suppose my point here is that the unborn human has an inherent right to his or her own destiny. One has the inherent freedom to live one's life as one sees fit (as long as, of course, it does not violate the inherent liberties of others). Humans have a right to take their own lives, it's a freedom we enjoy in a free society, but because unborn humans don't yet have that option, we can't decide for them. They have a right to control their own destiny. I don't want to interfere, and I don't think the government should want to either. But I do think the government should interfere to protect one's liberties - that's the very function of government.

Concerning Terri Schiavo, I don't know enough about that specific case to have an informed opinion or argument.

I actually pretty much agree with you 100% from a moral standpoint. From a government standpoint, things get messy because we have a government and a society that likes to establish some rules and follow them. So, if we allowed some abortions in particular circumstances, even thought it might be morally reprehensible, the good might outweigh the bad? I don't really know. It's a good question, and something to ponder. And it drives my current stance of supporting pro-choice through the first trimester.

Originally Posted by Bond

I view this scenario as a unique one - in this scenario the mother's life is threatened by the baby, it's no longer simply the mother threatening the baby's life. Both the rights of the baby and mother could potentially be compromised. I don't have an easy answer...

There is no easy answer. That's the brilliance of this argument. No one wins. This is why philosophy is an important subject (I always joke that is equally useless as well since it provides no concrete answers a lot of the time). This is the type of question I would like to ask a religious person, because I think it throws a curve ball at them. This is the type of question that makes these debates stimulating, and this is the type of question that divides crowds.

Some people don't even feel that it is debatable - the mother's life trumps all. Again, from a moral standpoint that doesn't work for me personally. In my own world though, if my future wife had to chose between her life or the baby's I would push with all my motivation for her to end the life of the baby. I would be fine dealing with the moral repercussions. But, as selfish as I am, it still would be her decision at the end of the day, and no matter how much I hated her for doing it, I would respect her decision if she chose the life of the child. I would be biter for the rest of my life.

[KillerGremlin]

I figured I'd summarize some of my thoughts and views and points:

*abortions occur in nature; that is the expulsion of an embryo that does not implant (Bond and I agree that the embryo marks the beginning of life)

*while this abortion is "natural" and it is not premeditated by the mother (unless she takes the pill, but that is debatable), it is still an abortion

*so, while a premeditated abortion is morally reprehensible on the grounds that it is premeditated, it still falls in line somewhere close enough to nature that it may not be SO bad

*also, I believe if the life of the mother is going to be compromised she should have the option to choose - her life, or her child's life. there is no clear moral winner here. she should be entitled to make the choice as it is her own moral thoughts guiding her.

Ideally, in my opinion, all abortions are indeed morally reprehensible. They conflict with the value of life of the embryo.

*I also stated that the value of life has some fluctuation depending on the situation, that is my own opinion and I expect people to disagree


So, what line can we draw in our government that allows the ultimate good for everyone? This, too me, is where this debate becomes challenging. Everything up to now falls in place through logical thought process or variations of opinion.

[Vampyr]

I apologize for my original non-cohesive post. I just get very angry on this subject, as I feel quite strongly that my opinion is absolutely the right one. There are a few positions I hold in life that I will never waiver on, this is one. The rights of gay people is another.

Most other topics I am open for influence on, including religion, foreign policies, economics, etc.

I'm currently working on a more structured argument that better represents my side.

[Professor S]

The real question that needs to be decided is "When does life begin?" Once that question is answered, the rest of the questions become irrelevant.

If human life begins at conception, it doesn't matter if the mother was raped, a life is a life despite its origins. Also you can't get an abortion even the day afte becoming pregnant.

If human life begins at birth, then you can end the pregnancy at any point before the child exits the womb, making partial birth abortion morally and legally acceptable.

The problem is the real answer lies somewhere in between those examples, and that is where we may never find an answer.

Personally, I find it depressing that as I society when we can't define when a human life begin, we default to "kill it". In my mind, that ideology has bled out into other issues, such as the Terry Schiavo case. We couldn't determine whether or not she was truly living, and even her family disputed the case, but not knowing we defaulted to "kill her".

That is a depressing state of affairs.

[KillerGremlin]

See, I think that by making all abortions illegal you run into another moral dilemma.

Both your scenario and my scenario are flawed. In your scenario you might still get into an issue of mother's life vs. child's life

at which point you need to decide which life you value more

Or, you allow abortions in the unique situation that the mother's life is being compromised.

Just a fun thought...and, if you say it's okay to abort a child to save the mother's life, then one could argue you are violating a moral standard that is no worse than me saying that I'm advocating pro-choice first trimester abortions, or abortions in circumstances that will save a mother's life.

But you haven't said any of that, so we will see where this goes.