Abortion

[de_budding]

With regards to 'man reigning over woman's body': I have had make-believe 'abortion' discussion with my girlfriend before, and it seems that the act of aborting would not just morally cross her, but mentally distraught her. She brings up examples of woman who have flashbacks and nightmares after such an experience like abortion, and by guilt alone, I find myself conceding my half of the hypothetical decision to abort. We have been in no such position, but I often push the subject into conversation and find myself quite willing to sacrifice my say on such things because of the visceral and personal connection said mother would have with the foetus.

Am I feeling sorry for woman? Is this gentlemanly dedication, like Didymos', or does it represent something more objective, serious and worth considering under the 'man reigning over woman's body' umbrella?

Dan.

Edit: Surely it makes sense to 'draw the line' when a foetus has a nervous system?

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by iconoclast

Abortion - great issue for men to play moral politics with - when we can't truly understand the situation; and better yet, american and european men - wringing our hands over decisions we can't understand while elsewhere in the world thousands of children die from preventable diseases every day.

I'm pro-choice by default, in that I don't consider myself qualified to express any other opinion. I imagine it can't be an easy decision to make - and if it is, it's probably better that person not breed. But for the vast majority of women, I imagine it's a deep and traumatic question that shouldn't be made more difficult with layman's opinions.

One way or the other, the woman will have to live with her decision for the rest of her life, and thus I think it important the woman be free to make that decision without the emotional blackmail of religious and political agendas - pushed by people who don't know and couldn't care less about the welfare of either mother or child, but are simply playing politics.

I recognize there are interesting philosophical questions here about where life begins, conflicts of rights and so on, but it infuriates me that these questions get worked up into political issues - and there is nothing more bizzare in all the world than a Catholic priest - a man, and a celibate man at that, telling women that abortion is wrong.

iconoclast.

While I do agree that men have no place telling a woman how she should handle her body and medical decisions, I disagree that men aren't entitled to make judgments on the morality of abortion.

[Zetetic11235]

I want to clarify somthing. Is it not true that a tumor has the same genetic identity as the person in which it develops? If this is true, then a zygote is not comparable to a tumor, is it? I may well be missing somthing here, but the comparison to a tumor seems inaccurate.

"You avoid complications by picking clearly defined biological points and stay away from impossible to measure things like "viability" or "neurologic maturity" as your criterion.

But that leaves us with either conception or birth as the only two defined points, and they're both extremely problematic. With conception, the problem is that you never know exactly when it has happened, so by that measure you could either never allow or never prohibit abortion -- nothing in between would be logical."

Yes, I thought I was very clear in saying that. No abortion at all could be allowed from the point of view I proposed.


I sympathize with those stricken with diseases like tay-sachs, and I am well aware of how horrible some of these diseases can be, but I purposely cast a wide net to open up the way for this question: How do we legitamize abortion in the case of congenital disease without allowing any undesiered traits/abnormalities/defects to be on equal grounds? How do we keep this from moving into Negative Eugenics?

A negative eugenics and a couple types of eugenics methods a la wikipedia

Negative eugenics is aimed at lowering fertility among the genetically disadvantaged. This includes abortions, sterilization, and other methods of family planning.
Both positive and negative eugenics can be coercive. Abortion by "fit" women was illegal in Nazi Germany and in the Soviet Union during Stalin's reign.

promotional voluntary eugenics, in which eugenics is voluntarily practiced and promoted to the general population, but not officially mandated. This is a form of non-state enforced eugenics, using a liberal or democratic approach, which can mostly be seen in the 1900s.
private eugenics, which is practiced voluntarily by individuals and groups, but not promoted to the general population.

Is such a form of eugenics actually beneficial? Can it be justified?

P.S. How do you guys feel about Obama lying about his position and voting record in regard to live-birth abortion, which hewas in favor of? Is there any justification for allowing live birth abortion at all? Is it not in actuality akin to murdering live infants?

[Aedes]

Tumors are not genetically identical to the host, actually. They are derived of course from the same zygote originally, but they accumulate genetic errors. That is one basic characteristic of tumors, that they have unique genetics.

As for the eugenics point, the issue is that our abortion discussion is not taking into account a population based policy on which pregnancies to keep and which to abort. This is still an individual decision, with the mother at the center of it weighing all the personal and (in some cases) medical considerations. Thankfully in 2008 we don't know much about how to detect qualities like strength or intelligence in the fetus, so aside from gender the only info we have is purely medical.

[Didymos Thomas]

P.S. How do you guys feel about Obama lying about his position and voting record in regard to live-birth abortion, which hewas in favor of? Is there any justification for allowing live birth abortion at all? Is it not in actuality akin to murdering live infants?

Except that he didn't lie about his position; the people at the NRLC just refuse to read. The bill in question is not the same as the Federal bill of the same title, no matter how many times Alan Keyes says otherwise.

[Zetetic11235]

I read that it was the illinois bill though CFP: Obama Lied About Vote Against Live-Birth Abortion Ban, Media Mum.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by Zetetic11235

I want to clarify somthing. Is it not true that a tumor has the same genetic identity as the person in which it develops? If this is true, then a zygote is not comparable to a tumor, is it? I may well be missing somthing here, but the comparison to a tumor seems inaccurate.

The zygote is not identical genetically, but that is beside the point, unless you want to return to the idea that genetic identity endows something with a right to life at the expense of the host.

What about a tape worm?

And its for another thread, but if you want to see somebody draw universal opposition, watch me argue in favor of infanticide and designer babies.

Those topics are rather frustrating; they never yield concession.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by Aedes

Tumors are not genetically identical to the host, actually. They are derived of course from the same zygote originally, but they accumulate genetic errors. That is one basic characteristic of tumors, that they have unique genetics.

As for the eugenics point, the issue is that our abortion discussion is not taking into account a population based policy on which pregnancies to keep and which to abort. This is still an individual decision, with the mother at the center of it weighing all the personal and (in some cases) medical considerations. Thankfully in 2008 we don't know much about how to detect qualities like strength or intelligence in the fetus, so aside from gender the only info we have is purely medical.

We aren't far away from the point, though, are we?

[Didymos Thomas]

I read that it was the illinois bill though CFP: Obama Lied About Vote Against Live-Birth Abortion Ban, Media Mum.

"Believe nothing you hear, and only half of what you see." - Twain

Stanek is a staunch anti-abortion-in-all-forms activist. Have some doubt. Or just go read the legislation if you're really unsure.

Personally, I hate reading legislation. It's boring as hell. Looking around, I found some interesting info, though.

Barack Obama on Abortion

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

We aren't far away from the point, though, are we?

Well, we are quite far technologically and much farther away in terms of practical implentation. But it doesn't matter... we could have this debate twice, once taking into account the prospect of identifying "desirable" and "undesirable" qualities; and then have it again taking into account the current state of technology that does NOT include that option. Would opinions on abortion change with these two different debates?