WANTED: Abortion Logic.

Thank the good lord in heaven that there are some people still thinking out there. I could have used your help in this other forum where I was called sick and selfish for saying the very same thing. I totally agree with you girl, and as long as am able will vote for womens right to choice. Thank you for posting this.

 

Err, you cant equate the two. I'm pro gay marriage..but i dont 'love' gay marriage by any stretch of the imagination.

What i meant, of course, is that people who are pro choice facilitate abortions. I dont believe anyone 'loves' abortions..the harm they do mentally is horrible i hear.

Put it up for adoption if you cant take care of it. There is waiting lists for loving coupels who want to adopt infants. They dont have to suffer through poverty.

Again, saying its my logic doesnt make it my logic. Pro choice people allow abortion to happen. That is why they are pro abortion. As opposed to pro lifers who dont want it to happen, they would be anti abortion.

Pro life people dont want people to live in poverty. Somehow you equate a child being born into poverty as being 'pro poverty.' Its screwed up logic.

You simply cant compare the two. One allows abortion to happen..the other doesnt allow poverty to happen...Being pro life doesnt cause poverty. Remember, adoption is always an option.

 

You say this as if the foster care system was not already overloaded.

 

you make it sound like there isnt long wait lists for the adoption of infant babies..

 

Here is what I would like to know.

Supposing that abortion is murder, as admitted by our gracious host soulrebel51 here:

,and despite this, should still be allowed because the rights of the mother to choose still should outweigh the right of the fetus to life, how does this logic affect our other dilemmas in life?

NB the position that fetuses are people and the mother still has a right to kill them is argued for in Judith Jarvis Thompson's “A Defense of Abortion”. Go read it.

I would like to ask about the effect this line of argumentation has on legislating environmental standards. Using soulrebel51’s logic we have no right to legislate standard environmental practices because those such practices restrict our right to choose what we do with ourselves.

A defense of environmental standards appeals to our ‘duty to future generations’; it hinges critically on that ethical statement alone. For soulrebel51 to admit that such a duty in this case outweighs my right to choice he can not logically say that (if fetuses are people) that the right to woman’s choice outweighs the child’s right to life.

The only way to do that is spurt logical inconsistency.

If a duty to children of 100 years from now is enough to override my right to choose, than a duty to future generations that are nine months from birth must override the woman’s right to choose.

So soulrebel51 ... what say you?

 

You assume an absolute sanctity of life. This notion has never been practiced in our society. For example, did we put the rights of German civilians before our rights to fight Germany in WWII? Surely an ant-abortion argument based on the absolute right to life is only consistent if you're a pacifist? Are you a pacifist?

 

Here's why..for all u people who think it is alright to kill innocent babies....


U think murder is wrong right? then what is abortion..if u r gonna have sex, which u know is for creating another being, then u need to accept the concequences of ur actions...and accept the responsibility that comes along w/ it....it is straight up wrong to fucking kill innocent children cuz u don't feel like dealing w/ it...

and people who r anti abortion r not trying to tell u how to live ur damn lives...they just know the difference between right and wrong..

 

Maybe I should have entitled this "pro-life logic". I support free choices. We live in a supposed free country, why can't women that you will never meet have the choice to get something that they want?

 

Yes. Until a point. I realize that war is sometimes necessary and just.

No we did not. That is exactly what makes the killing of innocent Germans a tragedy of war. This is exactly what makes the killing of any innocent person unjust.

German civilians were never considered a means to the end of that war. Just armies do everything they can to avoid civilian casualties because they can not be considered a means to an end. Armies fight armies, soldiers kill soldiers, this is justified when the ends of the war are just and reasonable. Killing innocent civilians is not a consideration.

Of course you will argue that such innocent casualties, or side effects of war, are inevitable. And even with that knowledge of inevitabilities, even knowing that innocents will be killed, just armies with just causes will still go to war, they will still kill innocent people.

That is an ethical dilemma with incredible consequences. Most will argue that the war should still go on, the innocent lives should be sacrificed in light of what would be lost if they were not, and what could be gained if they were.

The same argument can not be made for abortion. What is lost is improportionate to what is gained. That is, of course, unless you are willing to argue that every person has the right to kill any other if they are inconveniencing hir. The argumentation behind abortion must be so that it can be justified in other, similar, cases. By that, I mean where the gains and losses are similar.

I disagree. But before I say why I must make it known that when we talk generally about society we must agree to talk either of a reasonable society or an unreasonable one. It is unfair to suggest that the people I mention are unreasonable, but the people in your examples are reasonable.

Amoung reasonable people, murder is prohibited. The action can not be enacted because the value of a human life is immeasurable and in most cases, what is gained by murder (the ends) is not proportionate to the life that is lost. Sanctity, value, worth, importance. Call it what you will. It is practiced amoung reasonable people now and always have been, if cultural norms of different societies offer any proof.

The eminent anthropologist Donald E. Brown published an extensive list from a comprehensive study of every society on record. The list was entitled “human universals” and on that list was the prohibition of murder of innocents.

Yes I do, but that assumption is as useless to this line of argumentation as my favorite colour would be.

The fundamental ‘right’ to life is what I am assuming here. I assume it here because such a right is guaranteed first and foremost in the constitutions of North American countries. I also assume it because of Social Contract Theories, which state that individuals forfeit every right they have to a government, to ensure a safe and functioning society, except one ... their right to life.

What say you?

 

You have avoided my question.

 

But it's not. Especially not in America. Many American states practice the death penalty. All countries advocate war in certain circumstances. Killing in self defence is considered acceptable. There is no absolute right to life. There are, as can be seen from these examples, situations in which the context is seen to outweigh the individual's right to live. Given that fact, it's impossible to use the absolute right of life as an argument against abortion. You can argue against abortion because you believe it to be wrong, but that's a subjective moral position.

Regardless of whether one believes abortion to be right or wrong, I would still argue that the most constructive way to approach the situation would be through the advancement of a society in which abortion is unnecessary and undesirable. That way, everyone can work towards the same end whilst supporting each other's endeavours. Wouldn't that be more likely to achieve a result that would make everyone happy?

 

I like this argument. Well done.

 

Before I begin I must mention that ‘absolute’ is your word. Not mine. I have made no appeal to absolutes.

You can call things like the death penalty and killing in self-defense examples that illustrate how the right to life is not absolute. First I will deal with the death penalty. I can not justify it, plain and simple. I think it wrong in instances where every possible process of rehabilitation has not been exhausted. Every possible process for rehabilitation is not exhausted before these criminals are killed and thus the death penalty is an unreasonable decision. It is based on the irrational ideas: that justice is vengeance, and people can not be rehabilitated. I asked in an earlier post that we speak only of reasonable societies.

In the case of killing in self-defense, I don’t see how this action is contrary to the idea of right to life. Killing in self-defense is characterized by very specific instances. The conditions that must be met in order that the act is characterized killing in self-defense are, i) that killing the aggressor is the only possible way of stopping the him, and ii) that the defender’s life is in imminent, direct, and clear peril. If these conditions are not met then the action is nothing more than murder.

If the conditions are met than the defender is doing the only thing possible to preserve the right to hir life. The killing of another is only just when what is being gained from the death is life.

For my position to be subjective I would have to agree that they are subjective and admit that moral/ethical judgements are expressions of human sentiments, attitudes, or feelings, and do not admit truth or falsities.

I do not agree that my position on the matter is subjective. I assume that it is the outcome of normal rational thought. You don’t have to agree with me, but such a discrepancy is irrelevant.

Yes.

 

No offence, but I'm not interested in arguments for or against these forms of killing. I was simply illustrating the point that, as a society, we do not enshrine the sanctity of life. The right to live isn't allotted to the civilians of countries with whom we're at war. The right to life isn't allotted to people on death row. Yet when a woman wants an abortion, we're told that life is sacred and the unborn baby has a right to live. Now I'm not arguing that there isn't a case to be made against abortion, and nor am I arguing that abortion situation as war or practicing the death penalty, but what I am arguing is that the 'right to life' is a concept that can not be fairly applied, since its application has already been seen to be subjective. It's not an absolute nor a fundamental right in our society.

No. To admit it's subjective, you would only need to admit that your personal interpretation of morality is one amongst many. Nowhere is there written a list of rights and wrongs upon which the whole human race agrees. Even if a christian cites the bible, there are many christians who will interpret the bible in many different ways. You may believe that your moral and ethical judgements are correct, but you have no way of proving that - and nor do I. Both our opinions are subjective interpretations.

I believe the same. But my 'rational thought' is shaped by my personal beliefs, environment, life experience and probably biology. It is, therefore, subjective.

Glad we agree on the important point

 

i think that males should not be able to make laws about this type of thing. that's not to say that they can't have an opinion, but it would be better if they didn't share it. I believe that women who have already been in the position to make the choice should be the only ones to debate on it for any actual lawmakey-ness. I have never been in this position and i will never be, so i try to avoid sharing my opinion on the matter.

 

None taken. But you must be interested in arguments for or against the right to life that is afforded you in your constitution. That is what these arguments are for. It simply isn’t enough to say that the right to life is not fundamental because wars, capital punishment, abortion, and killing in self-defense exist. It isn’t enough because these things are utilized in order that the fundamental right to life of the majority is observed. You kill murders so that they no longer murder; you go to war and wager the lost innocent lives in order that your opponent does not undermine the fundamental human rights in your own country and his; you kill the man that would kill you so that you may live. But in the case of abortion the right to life of the fetus is not a consideration. If this proves that the right to life is not a fundamental, or that life is not invaluable, than why do we outlaw murder at all?

Exceptions are only made if they uphold the right to life. To justify the taking of one life, an innocent life must be saved. Such cases are not contrary to the fundamental right to life because they employ the fundamental right to life.

You can not undermine the fundamentals of the constitution through an appeal to marginal and exceptional cases without examining the reasoning behind those cases. Every case you have mentioned must be examined. It is irrational to refuse such an examination as the consequences imply. Things are not as black and white as you suggest they are. Exceptions must be made so to ensure that the innocent are protected. When exceptions are made the ends must justify the means. In every case I have shown how the ends justify the means (such reasoning seems to mean nothing to you?). In the majority of the cases of abortion, the ends do not justify the means.

You are absolutely right in arguing that the fundamental right to life can not be applied to every person. But if you examined the cases you would find one common feature. In every case, the innocent person’s right to life is being protected.

Considering the reasoning behind killing in self-defense will you still deny the fair application of the right to life?

 

Let us see what happens when the logic used here is employed in other cases.

What you are suggesting is that only those who have been in the situation should have a say in the matter. Having partaking in the action in question awards them this honour. It suggests that men should not have say in whether abortion is right and wrong because they have not had an abortion. It suggests that women who have not had an abortion should not have say because they too have not had an abortion.

By that only those who have committed the act of murder should have their opinions matter when the laws that prohibit murder are being decided upon. I can not have a say because I have never been in the position. You probably can’t either. Charles Manson on the other hand ...

Opinions are accepted or ignored based on how reasonable they are, not who they are coming from.

 

no, stupid, taht's not what i'm saying.

I'm saying that something that so personally affects the body and mind of a person should only be judged ( if that's the term i'm looking for) by someone who knows what that's like. i'm not saying the woman had to have an abortion, that would be ridiculous, but i think she has to know something about what that other person is feeling.

 

If I kill two people, do I get two votes?

 

Why doesn't a soldier's mother have a right to keep her boy home from war in the name of pro-life? I'm sure she put a whole lot more into that than a few weeks of pregnancy. Death is a fact of life. And every war has it's casualties. If abortion can be done safe and legal, why would a woman NOT kill a life inside her if she doesn't want to contribute to it's having one. Just because a person gets pregnant is no promise of a life. the woman has the right to take that life away because it is depending on her to thrive. That makes it hers to decide what to do. Even though, it does take a human life, human lives are thown around like business ventures constantly, anyway, why cause women to take on any more prudence in the matter than anything else? Wake up and smell the coffee. Women cannot be expected to be supergoddesses of the reigning universe, never faultering, always doing the righteous thing, no matter what everybody else is doing. We're all products of our environments, and, if she sees that it's not a good enough life to put a life into and be happy with it, then that is her decision. Although, most of us do not know the sheer joy of baby until it's there in our arms, still, there is way too much expectation on women as it is right now, and, it is like a private war, and when life is made better so that mom and baby can be happy, the abortion rate will go down. God in the sky has no significance on whether or not there is a welfare program, obviously, or there'd be one, and men cannot develop the fetus inside their own gut, so women are left to face this decision alone, and that's why they abort. Not because the one woman needs the decision made for her, but that women in general, in this country, anyway, are not going to take being USED as baby manufacturiers for pompous men who think that they have the right. How about taking better care of the people that ARE in the world, instead of worrying about every little fetus that wants to be. Not everything in this world gets to have what it wants, every spring you find dead, frozen baby rabbits in the city. Suffering happens everywhere, and to take one form of it and place the blame on that on the women who have to resort to it in order to continue in their own best interest, is lame and surface. Itimakes me rather sick to recognize, that women have to earn their status by being tax payers. Doesn't it have ANY value that a woman can bear a child and raise it, happily, to form a society of emotionally healthy individuals? Since the culture we live in fails to notice that, maybe abortion and anti-abortion are both good things. At least something somewhere is retaliating that their falue isn't being recognized, and some of it does recognize that there is some value in bearing children. Too bad the negetivity of the matter always has to go back onto the women who are fighting this war. People don't fight war just to prove a point. Most women that abort aren't doing it out of spite or to prove a oint. I'd say most of them probably do it because they don't want to dedicate their lives to the slavery and drudgery of single parenthood, and, have to be working to support that child on her own at the same time. Where's HER getting a life in all this? And is that fair to a child, to put them in day care, to expose them to a home life (when they are there), where the mom is tired, bitchy, swollen and dying, for the sake of rasing that child? Not a pretty picture for that child's future, nor on the larger scale of a socially acceptable populace. So nobody should tell anybody what to do with their life and what will ultimately affect their life. If you think it hurts the rest of the family so much, then maybe they should have tryed harder to make life more comfortable to the woman they were expecting to give them the happinaess of the baby they claim to be so hurt not to have had. See? People expect too much of women. Maybe alot of women have decided to live just like men, and not give any lives to the world, then we will learn why you are all so selfish.