Stance on Abortion?

[Northern Dominus]

I used to tthink abstance education was a waste of time until my conservative HS intduced graphic std pictures and overdone symptoms of strew. Oh the horrible pictures. It worked though, it got me to look at abstaining a little more seriously.

Or they could have not been dicks about it and demonstrated how to properly use a condom as well. Wonder how many teen pregnancies followed...

[Mavorpen]

If it doesn't work, we need to make it work.
If methods other than abstinence are effective, they wouldn't need to turn to abortion. If teaching people to be responsible results in more teenage pregnancy, it's worth the cost.

It won't work, no matter what you do. Deal with it already.
So you want to teach people to not be responsible by teaching them to be responsible? Seems legit.

[Manahakatouki]

They're still glorified balloons in my opinion...

Anyway, I'm pretty sure I'm Pro-Choice at the moment (If the name still means the same thing since I last checked...)...

Except they're not... for one balloons and condoms use different chemical formulas.

I don't think anyone's debating that balloons and condoms are of the same material and used for the same purpose...

Books are not made of the same material as coffee coasters, but they can still be used as one...

But it doesn't matter really...

[New Heathera]

To all pro-lifers- Have you even consideredanything beyod birth? Do you care at all what happens to a child after birth, or do you just want to see it born, regardless of what evironment it's born into, and what conditions it's born with?

We are talking about first world countries, right? Your life is going to be pretty cozy no matter what if that's the case.

What about a family that can't afford to raise a child properly (can happen after conception)? What about a child born with a painful genetic illness? What about a child born to a rape victim? The "First world country" excuse can't really work here.

[Raeyh]

If it doesn't work, we need to make it work.
If methods other than abstinence are effective, they wouldn't need to turn to abortion. If teaching people to be responsible results in more teenage pregnancy, it's worth the cost.

It won't work, no matter what you do. Deal with it already.
So you want to teach people to not be responsible by teaching them to be responsible? Seems legit.

While there may be more people who listen to you if you tell them they can have sex, that doesn't change the fact that you are putting everyone at risk by giving them bad information.

[Oibrithe (Ancient)]

(Note: Apologies, this post is too long. But then, on an issue like this, reasoning through it requires a bit of time.)

As a Communist, this is an interesting issue. I am irreligious, and thus not swayed by any argument hinging upon holy books or God. I believe in complete human equality, which includes equality for women and the assurance of rights for them, in opposition to the historic oppression they have faced.

There is, of course, the consideration that if the unborn fetuses qualify for human rights, then abortion would have to be decried as murder and an oppression of the weak by the strong. In this case, a woman's right to choose a certain medical procedure would be eclipsed by a fellow human being's right to exist. But that hinges upon whether or not the fetus has human rights, which requires a lot of thought. Because of this difficulty, I can understand those who believe women have the right to choose and those who believe the fetus has a right to live (well, those who say it without appealing to God or using a similar device that doesn't involve the application of reason).

Murder is, most basically, the intentional and unjust killing of a human being. This is the version of murder as a "wrong killing" rather than simply a "killing," as some hold. That abortion is an intentional killing is evident; it's the point of the procedure. So, is the fetus a human being? And, if so, is the killing unjust? These are the contentious questions.

"Human being" is used in the above definition instead of "person," because personhood is impossible to define. The use of "unjust" should cover the differences, though. There are, of course, a myriad of other issues associated with an unjust killing, in which killing a person might not be considered murder (e.g. killing an assailant in the necessary defense of oneself or another when that is the only course of action).

What constitutes a human being? In departing with religious extremists, I choose to use scientific definitions. A human being must then be a lifeform with the DNA of Homo Sapiens. It is a living being (distinct from the mother, not a mere extension like a toe nail, and thus a lifeform) and does have the requisite DNA, so must qualify for humanity. "Fetus" is a developmental term like "infant" or "adolescent," and thus does not impact one's place in a species. The fetus is unquestionably human, when considered scientifically (the consideration that matters). This point does contribute to the pro-life argument, or would if their advocates would use science. (Note: Whether it is a person is a separate issue to be considered later.)

So abortion is the intentional killing of a human being. That much can be shown scientifically. It leaves the issue of justice. Does abortion qualify as one of the instances in which a human being can be killed justly? Or maybe that should be phrased as "killed not unjustly," though it's semantics, since I would contend that if you kill someone in a method that is not justified, it is unjust, as killing human beings doesn't allow for much of a grey area (well, maybe in abortion, as later mentioned).

It would be wrong to merely apply accepted instances of justified homicide in comparison, since no one kind must necessarily be like any other kind. Saying the fetus isn't an assailant is just saying that it doesn't qualify as just under the idea of protecting oneself from a violent threat, not that it doesn't qualify as justified under some other reasoning. Thus, I find the only course of action examining the arguments that have been brought up to date and those others of which I can conceive—it is thus possible that my end conclusion will be wrong, for lack of some argument I haven't considered.

I initially had trouble assigning the burden of proof for this issue. In most cases, it's fairly obvious. The religious must prove God's existence; the irreligious need not disprove it. The prosecutor must prove that a man committed a crime; the man need not disprove it. In this instance, I initially thought that the pro-choice side had to prove the justice of abortion, rather than the pro-life side proving the injustice, since the destruction of a fellow human being, when reasons are not considered, is generally a bad thing. It then occurred to me, though, that the burden of proof also falls on the case for taking away a right; in this case, the right to self-determination in one's own person, for the mother. For example, the previously mentioned example of the burden of proof being on a prosecutor is in part because it must be proven why someone should go to prison, as it is a violation of their liberties and rights.

In the first case, it is taking away the right to life, in the second the right to control of one's body. Except for the fact that whether or not there is a preexisting right to life for the fetus has not been established. Thus, the burden of proof falls upon the pro-life side to show that the fetus has an initial right to life, since the natural state of any given object isn't to have such a right (taking it beyond "any given object" constitutes an argument, and will thus follow). If the pro-life side does not prove such a right, then the argument stops and the pro-choice side is justified. If the pro-life side is able to prove the right, then the burden of proof falls upon the pro-choice side to prove the justification of the alienation of that right.

Human rights are a creation of humans, and so you could say that they do not exist and should not be considered. In that case, the very idea of a moral argument is pointless, as the right to life and right to choice are equally nonexistent, and there is no real right or wrong to our actions. In this issue, I will depart from using only pure science, adopting a humanism of sorts, saying that human rights are a good idea. Also, as ideas, they do have physical existence, just not scientific authority. If we give them moral authority (and I think the right to life and the right to self determination of one's own body are acceptable human rights), then we might as well carry them all the way through into this issue. A lack of rights just means both points are moot, so the argument only matters if there are rights.

The right to life is generally seen as a primary human right (along with liberty where it does not infringe upon the rights of others). Unless one believes in an authoritative divinity, it is generally considered impossible to "endow" someone with a right; you either have a right or you do not. A human right must thus be defined as a right we are entitled to by the very nature of our humanity. As the humanity of a fetus is scientifically established, they must fundamentally have the right to life, and have it from the beginning of their existence as human beings. The alternative is either that there is no human right to life (a dangerous idea), or that it comes into existence at a later time. While the latter idea may seem better than the former, it raises the question of when.

The line could be at birth; when you are born, you become endowed with rights (we won't call them human rights, then, because they wouldn't be innate to one's humanity). Under this belief, it would not be murder if one was present at a birth and immediately before the finish, stuck a knife into the woman and killed the fetus/infant (Is it still a fetus immediately before birth? Like a magma/lava thing?). It would be a crime against the mother, but not murder. Though perhaps a minute later, the same action against the same lifeform would be considered murder. This seems the result of an inadequate system to me. You could instead put the line somewhere in pregnancy (at the hazy and variable line of viability, perhaps), but that leads to the same issue (murder one minute, not murder the minute before), just in a less visible way. The only way to appease reason in this case seems to be that there is no line; either humans have an innate right to life or they do not, and it must apply to humanity as a whole. Now, one could claim that this means a line at conception, resulting in this same issue. However, when viewing a human being as a continuous lifeform, immediately before conception it does not exist, only matter that will make it up in the future. Thus, the morality of the same action can never change, because the action is only the same when it is against the same lifeform.

A pro-choice response to this is the argument from development. The fetus may be a human scientifically, but it isn't a person. A person is a self-aware being that is able to consciously formulate ideas, and, as far as we know, a fetus does not meet that definition. It is, instead, at the cognitive level of large number of animals in the later stages, and basically just a cluster of cells in the earlier stages. If it isn't conscious like us, why should it have the right to life?

This seems pretty reasonable. However, I don't think it holds up, because it fails to account for potential. Potential seems to be an involved value, since killing a chimpanzee isn't murder, but killing a child under one year of age is, despite the fact that the former has equal or greater cognitive ability. Either the potential of the infant is valued, or the humanity is valued. (I do find the killing of apes and whales reprehensible, given their levels of intelligence.) Whichever the case may be, it applies equally to an unborn fetus.

Given these reasons, I feel that the initial right to life of a human fetus has been established. That isn't the end of the argument, though, since the same thing can be said of a man torturing and killing others—that he has an initial right to life. It can still be violated justly (or such is the mainstream view, as many pacifists would disagree). And so enters the main part of the debate. Since the burden of proof has shifted to the pro-choice side for this part of the issue, it is necessary to go through each major justification.

1. The woman has a right to the control of her own body. This is true. However, if we hold the right to life to the fetus, which has just been established, then it becomes a question if she also has the right to the control of the body of another. In general, the parents do have control over the body of a child, barring a violation of the child's well being. Given that killing the fetus would be against its well being, this departs the area of a parent's control. As for the liberty of the woman, the basic principle is unlimited liberty, where it does not infringe upon the rights of others. In this case, a non-medically-necessary procedure that kills another human being cannot be justified. Of course, lack of money for the pregnancy and for raising a child is a major issue, but that's why society must stand up for the poor. According to the most reliable data I could find, roughly 92-93% of abortions in the US fall under this justification, since their primary reason given entails some variant of inconvenience for the parents.

2. The woman was raped. Intuitively, this seems like a good justification; comforting a rape victim is inherently good. I was tempted to just call this just and move on to the next reason. However, right and wrong must be determined through reason, not feeling. After examining this, I had to admit that, ultimately, this is the case of one human being (mother) killing another human being (child) because a separate human being (rapist) did something wrong. If we subscribe to the belief that the crimes of the father are not the crimes of the child, then we must admit that the child is not to blame for the rape its father committed, and that it would therefore be unjust to punish it, especially with death, which the rapist himself will not even face as a legal punishment. Of course, the psychological well-being of the mother must be considered. Why should she have carry the child of her rapist? She should not, it is deeply wrong. However, the violation of the right to life of a fellow human being is also deeply wrong, and even more so. I would propose a government program completely covering the costs of said pregnancies and all related losses of income, in addition to a well-funded adoption program, so the woman need not deal with the torment of raising such a child if she does not wish. This could, in part, be paid for with a hefty fine (in addition to prison time, which really should be increased) attached to rapes that result in pregnancies. I admit to having a friend who was the product of a gang rape, so it is possible that I am somewhat biased in this case, but it clearly follows from the reasoning to this point. It is also of note that if abortion were outlawed in general, but not in the case of rape, just about every teenage girl that got pregnant would cry rape to get an abortion, which would put potentially thousands of teenage boys in prison. As it is, rape is the primary reason given for <0.5% of abortions in the US.

3. The fetus is unhealthy, and/or will be an unhealthy baby. In this case, I would equate it with either killing the mentally challenged (if the issue in question is Downs Syndrome or some such disorder) or the terminally ill (if the concern is how long the fetus/baby will live). Given that the basic human right to life is not suspended in such cases, this reason does not prove its burden for justice. The inconvenience to the parents is covered by the lack of proof for the first reason. According to the aforementioned data, this is the main reason given for approximately 3% of abortions in the US.

4. Birth will result in a danger to the health of the mother. In this, the pro-life side might argue that a danger to one human being is not sufficient reason for killing another, innocent human being. An analogy I have heard is that abortion to save the mother is similar to a heart-transplant patient killing the only viable donor so they can save themselves. However, I do not think this issue is black and white. It depends upon how you define killing. Obviously abortion is a physical action, whereas the mother's death would result from a lack of action. Does that make abortion the more wrong option? That might come to mind initially, but is allowing someone to die through inaction not tantamount to killing them, since you consciously made a choice you knew would result in their death? Given that the mother and child are both human beings with any rights innate to humanity, abortion and refusal of abortion in this case are equally wrong, and neither position can be truly just (the aforementioned grey area), and thus there can be no legal preference. Given that there must be a burden of proof on making something illegal, rather than on making it legal, the burden of proof is not met, and no legal action can be taken against such cases. This accounts for approximately 4% of abortions in the US.

Under this line of reasoning, approximately 96% of abortions in the US can be found to be unjust. I apologize for not gathering data on other countries, but the reasoning would apply just as well there, you'd just need to find out how many abortions happened in said countries for the health of the mother.

If the pro-choice side uses health of the mother/child or rape in their arguments, they are abandoning the position of reason one, which means they are leaving the point that shows approx. 92-93% of abortions to be unjust. Therefore, an argument that wants abortion in general to be legal, and not just in special cases, must make an argument assuming a woman who is pregnant due to consensual sex and is able to carry the pregnancy to term without undue health risks. If just the rape scenario is contested, then it must be clear that only <0.5% of cases are being argued over, and likewise just 3% if it is the health of the fetus, and we should join in getting the 92-93% out of the way while we debate the others.

If pro-life advocates use God, religion, or basically anything other than science or reason, they should be slapped. It does not escape me that I might be associated with conservatives for this argument, and rest assured, I am appropriately horrified. However, as a communist, I remain adamant in my resolve for standing up for the weak. Given this reasoning, these humans qualify.

[Raeyh]

We are talking about first world countries, right? Your life is going to be pretty cozy no matter what if that's the case.

What about a family that can't afford to raise a child properly (can happen after conception)?

Welfare.

What about a child born with a painful genetic illness?

Post birth abortion is illegal everywhere and I don't believe hospitals screen embryos for that sort of thing.

What about a child born to a rape victim? The "First world country" excuse can't really work here.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

[Northern Dominus]

Except they're not... for one balloons and condoms use different chemical formulas.

I don't think anyone's debating that balloons and condoms are of the same material and used for the same purpose...

Books are not made of the same material as coffee coasters, but they can still be used as one...

But it doesn't matter really...

If somebody is using a balloon instead of a condom for birth control then the issue is in their heads.... nevermind, I was going to state that less than 2 out of every 100 condoms break during use but nope, the comparison has been drawn between something used to hold a gas and something else used as a barrier device. Have fun with that.

[Manahakatouki]

I don't think anyone's debating that balloons and condoms are of the same material and used for the same purpose...

Books are not made of the same material as coffee coasters, but they can still be used as one...

But it doesn't matter really...

If somebody is using a balloon instead of a condom for birth control then the issue is in their heads.... nevermind, I was going to state that less than 2 out of every 100 condoms break during use but nope, the comparison has been drawn between something used to hold a gas and something else used as a barrier device. Have fun with that.

A book can be used as a coffee coaster...

A coffee coaster cannot be used as a book...

A condom can be blown up like a balloon (Not it's intended purpose, but it can for our enjoyment)...

A balloon can not effectively be used as a birth control agent...

They have similarities in their uses...

They are not the same thing however...

[Mavorpen]

While there may be more people who listen to you if you tell them they can have sex, that doesn't change the fact that you are putting everyone at risk by giving them bad information.

No one is giving them bad information. I'll say this again...

Considering it says...

It is widely accepted that young people have a right to sex education. This is because it is a means by which they are helped to protect themselves against abuse, exploitation, unintended pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases and HIV and AIDS.

You're whining over nothing.

They're teaching them about the dangers of sex.

[Northern Dominus]

If somebody is using a balloon instead of a condom for birth control then the issue is in their heads.... nevermind, I was going to state that less than 2 out of every 100 condoms break during use but nope, the comparison has been drawn between something used to hold a gas and something else used as a barrier device. Have fun with that.

A book can be used as a coffee coaster...

A coffee coaster cannot be used as a book...

A condom can be blown up like a balloon (Not it's intended purpose, but it can for our enjoyment)...

A balloon can not effectively be used as a birth control agent...

They have similarities in their uses...

They are not the same thing however...

Oh you weren't making an asinine comparison like a few notable examples in this thread.

My apologies, pulled the trigger before comprehending.

[Manahakatouki]

A book can be used as a coffee coaster...

A coffee coaster cannot be used as a book...

A condom can be blown up like a balloon (Not it's intended purpose, but it can for our enjoyment)...

A balloon can not effectively be used as a birth control agent...

They have similarities in their uses...

They are not the same thing however...

Oh you weren't making an asinine comparison like a few notable examples in this thread.

My apologies, pulled the trigger before comprehending.

I've seen the comparisons, so I totally understand the possible confusion...

Sorry too for perhaps arguing that a bit too harshly...

[Oibrithe (Ancient)]

I was walking along, and suddenly I saw my friend. And he was skydiving. And when he landed, I said, "Hey, skydiving friend, is skydiving cool?" And he was like, "Yeah, skydiving's awesome. You should try it sometime." So the next time my friend went skydiving, I went skydiving, too. And when my turn came, I walked up to the plane door and, with a little trepidation, jumped out. And as I was plummeting to the ground, enjoying the exhilaration, I heard my friend yell, "Where's your parachute?!"

What's a parachute?



(Edit: On the subject of condoms/sex-ed.)

[New Heathera]

What about a child born to a rape victim? The "First world country" excuse can't really work here.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Seriously? You're pulling that card now? Last I checked, people don't typically have an abortion to take out their anger on something. In the case of a rape victim, they're choosing not to undertake in parenthood forced upon them. They're not doing it to get back at the rapist. The fact that you even think think that way is apalling.

[Raeyh]

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Seriously? You're pulling that card now? Last I checked, people don't typically have an abortion to take out their anger on something. In the case of a rape victim, they're choosing not to undertake in parenthood forced upon them. They're not doing it to get back at the rapist. The fact that you even think think that way is apalling.

If they aren't getting back at the rapist, they should have no problem carrying his child to birth.

[Norstal]

Oh you weren't making an asinine comparison like a few notable examples in this thread.

My apologies, pulled the trigger before comprehending.

I've seen the comparisons, so I totally understand the possible confusion...

Sorry too for perhaps arguing that a bit too harshly...

You two now may kiss each other.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

ARGHHHHHH what?

[Mavorpen]

Seriously? You're pulling that card now? Last I checked, people don't typically have an abortion to take out their anger on something. In the case of a rape victim, they're choosing not to undertake in parenthood forced upon them. They're not doing it to get back at the rapist. The fact that you even think think that way is apalling.

If they aren't getting back at the rapist, they should have no problem carrying his child to birth.

Right. And if you're shot in the leg, you should have no problem with being rejected by a doctor to perform surgery.

[Oibrithe (Ancient)]

Seriously? You're pulling that card now? Last I checked, people don't typically have an abortion to take out their anger on something. In the case of a rape victim, they're choosing not to undertake in parenthood forced upon them. They're not doing it to get back at the rapist. The fact that you even think think that way is apalling.

If they aren't getting back at the rapist, they should have no problem carrying his child to birth.

Well, it's more of a psychological terror than antagonism against the rapist. They probably wouldn't even tell the rapist they were impregnated or had an abortion. Not that either of those constitute justice or injustice in and of themselves. I dealt with the question of rape in my (ridiculously long) post above, and don't particularly feel like retyping it.

[Northern Dominus]

I've seen the comparisons, so I totally understand the possible confusion...

Sorry too for perhaps arguing that a bit too harshly...

You two now may kiss each other.

...do we have to use tongues?

[Mavorpen]

You two now may kiss each other.

...do we have to use tongues?

If you do, can I watch?

[Raeyh]

If they aren't getting back at the rapist, they should have no problem carrying his child to birth.

Right. And if you're shot in the leg, you should have no problem with being rejected by a doctor to perform surgery.

Bullets don't expel themselves from the body after nine months. Shrapnel does do that (it comes out with the natural skin shedding proccess) and doctors, indeed, do not bother getting every piece out.

[Ashmoria]

Considering that one of the hot topic amongst religious and political folk is the idea of abortion, what does the NationStates community think about it? Are you Pro-Choice or Pro-Life? Also, why?

For myself, I'm very Pro-Choice. Women who are raped would almost always want to get rid of the child. For obvious reasons. But not just that. If a woman can't financially support the child for example. Rather than bring a child into this world who will spend all his/her time starving or living miserably with his/her parents also living miserably, why not alleviate the problem from happening in the first place? Same with really severe mental defects like if the child is born with an incurable disease or mental defect that keeps them from performing basic human functions.

my stance is that abortion is a private, personal decision between a woman and her doctor. i dont need to know anything about someone else's medical decisions.

[Farnhamia]

Right. And if you're shot in the leg, you should have no problem with being rejected by a doctor to perform surgery.

Bullets don't expel themselves from the body after nine months. Shrapnel does do that (it comes out with the natural skin shedding proccess) and doctors, indeed, do not bother getting every piece out.

Shrapnel may sometimes do that. The more you generalize, the deeper the hole you're in gets. It's none of your business.

[Mavorpen]

Right. And if you're shot in the leg, you should have no problem with being rejected by a doctor to perform surgery.

Bullets don't expel themselves from the body after nine months. Shrapnel does do that (it comes out with the natural skin shedding proccess) and doctors, indeed, do not bother getting every piece out.

And? Why should it matter? In both cases you were attacked against your will. Why should anyone help you? It's obviously your own fault.

[Raeyh]

Bullets don't expel themselves from the body after nine months. Shrapnel does do that (it comes out with the natural skin shedding proccess) and doctors, indeed, do not bother getting every piece out.

And? Why should it matter? In both cases you were attacked against your will. Why should anyone help you? It's obviously your own fault.

Because removing a bullet will not result in the destruction of another human life.