Abortion - "Murder" or "It's About Me"?

[Mountaineer]

Now that the "Evolution" and the "Figuring Out Religion" threads have quieted down, does anyone wish to take on another really controversial topic?  Somehow, we seem to be able to discuss such things without getting into flame wars like on so many other forums.  We have talked about abortion a little bit in the religion thread, but I sense there may be more to explore.

Some questions to address might include:

When does life begin?  Why do you believe that?

Do the "rights" of a living adult human being override the "rights" of a less developed younger human life form?  Why or why not?  Where do those "rights" originate?

How do your views on abortion fit into the euthanasia realm?

What is the political connection?

What is the cultural connection?

... Mountaineer 

[Libertarian666]

Now that the "Evolution" and the "Figuring Out Religion" threads have quieted down, does anyone wish to take on another really controversial topic?  Somehow, we seem to be able to discuss such things without getting into flame wars like on so many other forums.  We have talked about abortion a little bit in the religion thread, but I sense there may be more to explore.

Some questions to address might include:

When does life begin?  Why do you believe that?

Do the "rights" of a living adult human being override the "rights" of a less developed younger human life form?  Why or why not?  Where do those "rights" originate?

How do your views on abortion fit into the euthanasia realm?

What is the political connection?

What is the cultural connection?

... Mountaineer

1. Since the fetus didn't have any option not to be there, it is clear to me anyway that its rights (whatever they may be) don't depend on whether it is there due to consensual sex or rape.

Accordingly, if we are to be consistent, we must have the same position regardless of the source of the impregnation.

2. No human being has a right to live in another human's body, since human beings are by definition not property, and that would make the host(ess) effectively the property of the fetus.

3. However, equally there is no right to kill a human being other than in self-defense or similar limited situations.

4. Therefore, my solution to the abortion issue is this:

a. The prospective mother has the right to expel the fetus from her womb. However, she does not have the right to use unnecessary force in so doing. Thus, if the fetus is viable outside her womb, she may not kill it in the process of removing it but must have it removed alive.

b. Any outside person who wishes to take possession of the fetus and undertakes to raise it may then have it.

c. However, due to the exception for self-defense, if carrying the fetus to viability would seriously endanger the health of the mother, then she has the right to kill it if necessary when removing it.

I'm sure this won't satisfy everyone. 

I'm sure this

[Jan Van]

a. The prospective mother has the right to expel the fetus from her womb. However, she does not have the right to use unnecessary force in so doing. Thus, if the fetus is viable outside her womb, she may not kill it in the process of removing it but must have it removed alive.

And in the stage before becoming a fetus, can it be "expelled" without any constraints?

Merriam-Webster: Fetus: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically :  a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth

[Libertarian666]

a. The prospective mother has the right to expel the fetus from her womb. However, she does not have the right to use unnecessary force in so doing. Thus, if the fetus is viable outside her womb, she may not kill it in the process of removing it but must have it removed alive.

And in the stage before becoming a fetus, can it be "expelled" without any constraints?

Merriam-Webster: Fetus: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically :  a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth

Yes, it can be expelled at any time, subject to the rule against unnecessary force.

[TripleB]

1. Since the fetus didn't have any option not to be there, it is clear to me anyway that its rights (whatever they may be) don't depend on whether it is there due to consensual sex or rape.

Accordingly, if we are to be consistent, we must have the same position regardless of the source of the impregnation.

2. No human being has a right to live in another human's body, since human beings are by definition not property, and that would make the host(ess) effectively the property of the fetus.

3. However, equally there is no right to kill a human being other than in self-defense or similar limited situations.

4. Therefore, my solution to the abortion issue is this:

a. The prospective mother has the right to expel the fetus from her womb. However, she does not have the right to use unnecessary force in so doing. Thus, if the fetus is viable outside her womb, she may not kill it in the process of removing it but must have it removed alive.

b. Any outside person who wishes to take possession of the fetus and undertakes to raise it may then have it.

c. However, due to the exception for self-defense, if carrying the fetus to viability would seriously endanger the health of the mother, then she has the right to kill it if necessary when removing it.

I'm sure this won't satisfy everyone. 

I agree with you 100%.

If "it" is alive, then take it out, put it on the table, and let it be alive there, outside of the woman's body who doesn't want "it" inside her.

If "it" "dies" upon removal, then it wasn't really alive to begin with.

The problems with the abortion arguments are:

1) People who believe God instills life and a soul into every living being. Thus, the soul is infused at conception and "it" is alive when it's a fertilized zygote.

2) People who confuse anatomical features with "human life". If "it" has defined fingers or a heartbeat, then people are uncomfortable aborting "it". What these people don't realize is pre-born animals of all kinds look very similar to pre-born humans.

3) People are uncomfortable with the fact that "it" could grow up into a human. These people blur the causation logic line. There "could" be a human grow up if I have sex with a random girl on the street. If I don't have sex with that random girl, no one would argue that it's murder of an unborn child. Where does the blurry line make it "okay" to perform an action that results in a person who isn't yet born to be not born? If a woman takes the morning after pill and "it" can't bind to her, then she's preventing a life from being born. But, it's no guarantee. She might have miscarried regardless of the morning after pill. Similarly, there's no guarantee me having sex with a random girl will result in pregnancy and viable offspring therefore me abstaining from sex is no guarantee that I "murdered" a possible human.

Is it a statistical thing? If a woman has an abortion 1 day before the baby would be born, then there's a 99%+ chance that had she not taken the action of getting an abortion, there would have been a viable baby born. If I abstain from having sex with a random girl, there was maybe only a 1 in 10,000 chance that sex would have resulted in a pregnancy and viable birth. My action of abstaining from sex was statistically much less likely to prevent a birth. A woman taking the morning after pill might have a 1 in 100 chance of having a viable baby if she didn't take the pill.

Consider a spectrum of time between conception and birth whereby the likelihood of viable offspring increases exponentially as the 9-month mark approaches. In the early stages, miscarriage is likely and could simply be caused by failure to bind inside the woman. People who believe in a statistical argument would have to create a dividing line. Perhaps at the 2 month mark there's a 50% chance of delivering to term. Then any abortion after 2 months would have a greater than likely (more than half) chance of preventing a human life. Does that make it not okay?

In conclusion, there's logical fallacies in play by each and every persons who argues against abortion. The only argument against the morning after pill is because God infuses a soul into the zygote at conception. The belief or existence of God and/or the use of God in any argument is a logical fallacy in and of itself. Anyone who believes abortion is permissible up until a certain point in the development cycle is guilty is one of the other two logic problems above.

The only answer is what Libertarian666 proposes. It's the only answer that's "fair" to the woman and is also based on pure science of what "life" is. If you remove "it" from the woman, and "it" "dies" then it wasn't really alive to begin with so there's no problem. If "it" continues to live after "it" is removed, then "it" didn't die, so the abortion was not murder.

[Pointedstick]

Grandmothers may be a bad example. I think I've known more old witches who tormented everyone around them (including both of my own two grandmothers) than I'd prefer. Frankly I find it incredible that my father didn't do just what you were joking about given the abuse he put up with for decades from his mother-in-law. Few people who knew the both of them would have given him too much grief about it.


PSA: don't be an asshole to your children or children-in-law and expect that your grandchildren will remain blissfully ignorant forever. Eventually they'll come to hate you for continuously hurting their parents, and they won't shed a single tear the day you finally kick the bucket. They may even besmirch you on online forums so the entire internet will forever know you to have been be a hateful bitch who didn't deserve a shred of the kindness people showed you anyway.

[Mountaineer]

Grandmothers may be a bad example. I think I've known more old witches who tormented everyone around them (including both of my own two grandmothers) than I'd prefer. Frankly I find it incredible that my father didn't do just what you were joking about given the abuse he put up with for decades from his mother-in-law. Few people who knew the both of them would have given him too much grief about it.


PSA: don't be an asshole to your children or children-in-law and expect that your grandchildren will remain blissfully ignorant forever. Eventually they'll come to hate you for continuously hurting their parents, and they won't shed a single tear the day you finally kick the bucket. They may even besmirch you on online forums so the entire internet will forever know you to have been be a hateful bitch who didn't deserve a shred of the kindness people showed you anyway.

Observation:  The bolded phrase is a very Christian thought.  It is exactly what Christ thinks of each of us - but He loves us anyway.   

... Mountaineer

[Libertarian666]

Why be constrained by all these so-called moral choices; if it's inconvenient or expensive, kill it.  This could apply to the unborn, the recently born, grandparents that have outlived their usefulness, etc. 

Why are you getting hung up on morality, when morality is obviously subjective and loaded with religious biases.  If grandma can't keep herself alive after you kick her old ass out the back door, then she didn't deserve to live anyway.  She was just going to be a drag on free enterprise anyway.  Are you going to take money from me at gunpoint to feed and clothe that old fossil? 

Whew, I love being an atheist libertarian.

No libertarian, atheist or otherwise, has that position; murder is forbidden in every libertarian system.
Nice straw man argument, though. 

[Kshartle]

Why be constrained by all these so-called moral choices; if it's inconvenient or expensive, kill it.  This could apply to the unborn, the recently born, grandparents that have outlived their usefulness, etc. 

Why are you getting hung up on morality, when morality is obviously subjective and loaded with religious biases.  If grandma can't keep herself alive after you kick her old ass out the back door, then she didn't deserve to live anyway.  She was just going to be a drag on free enterprise anyway.  Are you going to take money from me at gunpoint to feed and clothe that old fossil? 

Whew, I love being an atheist libertarian.

No libertarian, atheist or otherwise, has that position; murder is forbidden in every libertarian system.
Nice straw man argument, though. 

People shouldn't be forced to pay for crappy state run schools = I hate kids and books
People shouldn't be forced to pay for armies and navies = I hate being safe
People shouldn't be forced to pay for state built roads = I hate leaving the house
People shouldn't be forced to pay for state run health care = I want to die sick and have everyone else die too.
People shouldn't be forced to pay for police = I love crime

[Kshartle]

If I abstain from having sex with a random girl, there was maybe only a 1 in 10,000 chance that sex would have resulted in a pregnancy and viable birth.

TB if those are the real stats I have to ask if you're doing it the correct way biologically.

That is more than once per day with a random girl for 27 years. If only one slips by the golie in that span of time you need to get your swimmers checked!

I'm 35 and have yet to reproduce, but I think I've gotta be under 2k at this point with only 1k or so "random".

Thanks Army!

[Libertarian666]

If I abstain from having sex with a random girl, there was maybe only a 1 in 10,000 chance that sex would have resulted in a pregnancy and viable birth.

TB if those are the real stats I have to ask if you're doing it the correct way biologically.

That is more than once per day with a random girl for 27 years. If only one slips by the golie in that span of time you need to get your swimmers checked!

I'm 35 and have yet to reproduce, but I think I've gotta be under 2k at this point with only 1k or so "random".

Thanks Army!

Actually it is MUCH higher than that. Girls are much more likely to engage in sex with strangers when they are ovulating. Some estimates range up to a 33% probability of conception in such a case, obviously assuming they are not on birth control.

[Kshartle]

If I abstain from having sex with a random girl, there was maybe only a 1 in 10,000 chance that sex would have resulted in a pregnancy and viable birth.

TB if those are the real stats I have to ask if you're doing it the correct way biologically.

That is more than once per day with a random girl for 27 years. If only one slips by the golie in that span of time you need to get your swimmers checked!

I'm 35 and have yet to reproduce, but I think I've gotta be under 2k at this point with only 1k or so "random".

Thanks Army!

Actually it is MUCH higher than that. Girls are much more likely to engage in sex with strangers when they are ovulating. Some estimates range up to a 33% probability of conception in such a case, obviously assuming they are not on birth control.

Ok I better get the swimmers checked. Thanks for the stats.