Abortion

[OntheWindowStand]

Originally Posted by Aedes

Ok, so you're elevating a metastatic cancer, choriocarcinoma, to the moral level of a human being. Choriocarcinoma is one possible outcome of a fertilized egg, but not all choriocarcinomas originate as a zygote. Does that mean that it's murder to treat a choriocarcinoma with chemotherapy if it arises from a fertilized egg, but it's fine to do so if the choriocarcinoma did not arise from a fertilized egg?

Lol your twisting things a little too far fertilized egg doesn't equal those conditions so I don't care if they are treated if you mean at the cost of the child or the mother situation that is different then just plain abortion for a relief from responsibility and of a child

[Aedes]

I know it's taking things a little too far -- that's what always happens with rigid moral stances. The problem is that it puts you in the position of defending ridiculous situations in order to remain morally consistent.

You seem to hold the position that all fertilized eggs are morally equivalent to humans. But when pressed on some of the things that a zygote can become other than a human, you are willing to allow for some exceptions (like when the life of the mother is threatened). Thus, you have an element of consequentialism here too, your moral stance is tempered by situational particulars. Well, that's exactly what a rigid anti-abortion advocate would accuse a rigid pro-choice advocate of, i.e. having moral inconsistency. In this case, it's just a matter of where you draw your line.

[OntheWindowStand]

Originally Posted by Aedes

I know it's taking things a little too far -- that's what always happens with rigid moral stances. The problem is that it puts you in the position of defending ridiculous situations in order to remain morally consistent.

You seem to hold the position that all fertilized eggs are morally equivalent to humans. But when pressed on some of the things that a zygote can become other than a human, you are willing to allow for some exceptions (like when the life of the mother is threatened). Thus, you have an element of consequentialism here too, your moral stance is tempered by situational particulars. Well, that's exactly what a rigid anti-abortion advocate would accuse a rigid pro-choice advocate of, i.e. having moral inconsistency. In this case, it's just a matter of where you draw your line.

Having lines isn't bad living by code so strictly that inhibits normal living is

[Aedes]

Agreed. Reasonable people can disagree about where the lines fall, though.

[Sidus]

Yes, reasonable people can disagree about where to draw the line. But what about the concequences to a society that believes that it is okay for a woman to "choose" whether or not her child should live or die? You obscure the debate by talking about fetuses who will be born extemely defective (a rare occurance). (Yes, I understand you were answering the limited question concering pain.) I believe in capital punishment, so I believe there are times when killing is justified, however, killing as a deterrent to murder is a far different thing than killing because you don't want a child.
And don't fool yourself, the majority of abortions arise not because the fetus is a "zygote" but from an irresponsible wish to rid oneself of an outcome that was not desired.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Sidus

But what about the concequences to a society that believes that it is okay for a woman to "choose" whether or not her child should live or die?

And what about a society that has an unsafe abortion "black market" as ours once did? And what about the implication for womens' ability to participate in society when they are legally committed to carry an unwanted pregnancy? These are the other sides of the debate.

You obscure the debate by talking about fetuses who will be born extemely defective (a rare occurance).

No, just illustrating how absurd is the argument that a zygote deserves the same moral consideration as any other human -- which is exactly what is meant by the idea that it's murder to kill a fertilized egg.

I believe in capital punishment

A separate debate, but it's hard to justify capital punishment in a system that is blatantly racist and that's at such peril of executing someone who is innocent.

And don't fool yourself, the majority of abortions arise not because the fetus is a "zygote" but from an irresponsible wish to rid oneself of an outcome that was not desired.

It's hard to see this point as analytical when you see the need to infuse it with your own moral judgement. Furthermore, whatever the statistics, you're conflating within "irresponsible" pregnancies among rape victims, among minors who were too young to fully understand consequences, and among women carrying a baby with a major congenital defect.

And if you say it's ok for rape victims to have an abortion at 12 weeks gestation but NOT ok for an "irresponsible" teen at the same gestational age, then you're not attaching ANY moral significance to the baby -- you're only passing judgement on the mother.

[Sidus]

This is strange. I thought I deleted this post, obviously I'm not too good at the mechanics of posting on this site. But, I still think you're wrong. Society pays a terrible price when it reduces the decision of life and death to choice. This is something that should be reserved for the flavor of one's ice cream cone.

It does not matter if some people actually do get abortions. And before Roe v. Wade it was up to the states whether or not abortion was legal. The real problem is when we accept that ANY pregnancy can be terminated on the whim of the mother; are there any repercussions for us as a society? I think so.

I only mentioned capital punishment to show that I'm not against all murder. There are times when it is absolutely irrefutable that someone has committed murder, but most liberals whould prefer to save the lives or murderers on the pretense of possible racism while they have no problem with allowing a mother carte blanche on decisions of life and death. Amazing.

[midas77]

Originally Posted by Sidus

Society pays a terrible price when it reduces the decision of life and death to choice....
... The real problem is when we accept that ANY pregnancy can be terminated on the whim of the mother; are there any repercussions for us as a society? I think so.

May I ask what is the potential repercussions for the society on abortion?

I see a lot of harm done on the individual forced by "society" to carry an unwanted pregnancy. Pregnancy is a sacrifice. Is it not unjust to force an individual to do something that she clearly do not want? Economical and emotional consideration should also be given to the individual. Will society pays for the individuals sacrifice? I will not certainly. It goes against my grain to pay for the stupidity of another. If they don't want to be pregnant why should they? Contraception is always an option.

Do not get me wrong. I do not condone abortion. I think its a sign of immaturity on the part of the person not to accept a responsibility for the result of his/her action. But think of it, it is always nice to have a cool, clean and green front lawn but if your neighbor can not afford it because of their bad decision in finances, are you willing to shoulder the cost for symmetry?

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Sidus

most liberals whould prefer to save the lives or murderers on the pretense of possible racism...

It's an issue of if we're prepared to execute innocent people. Sure, some are guilty of terrible crimes. Sure, some people are so horrible that they deserve to die. But our justice system is SO imperfect, especially with respect to the death penalty that I think it's ridiculous to assume that it can actually reliably determine who deserves to die and who doesn't. How many innocent people who are put to death would you consider acceptable in order to have a capital punishment system? I would answer zero.

...while they have no problem with allowing a mother carte blanche on decisions of life and death.

The problem here is you're looking at abortion in isolation from all the other issues that it's part of. If we are interested in a society in which women are able to fully self-actualize, then they need access to contraception, freedom to divorce, unrestricted access to education and to professional advancement, and unrestricted ownership of their own medical decisions. Pregnancy (let alone delivery and parenthood) places such immense physical, economic, social, and professional constraints on women that we will NEVER have a society in which women enjoy all the freedoms of men when women pay a far bigger price for the same "irresponsible" act.

[OntheWindowStand]

You may look at liberals and say they aren't consistent well its true they believe what helps their agenda.