[Abortion Thread] (POLL 4) A compromising position...

[Xerographica]

*dictating what women can do with the souls of their children

When does a soul begin? Is it more or less arbitrary than when life begins? Seems safer to just stick with when individuality begins.

[A m e n r i a]

*dictating what women can do with the souls of their children

When does a soul begin? Is it more or less arbitrary than when life begins? Seems safer to just stick with when individuality begins.

Third month of pregnancy. How would you define individuality? A person's body separating from their mother or them developing a distinct personality?

[Xerographica]

When does a soul begin? Is it more or less arbitrary than when life begins? Seems safer to just stick with when individuality begins.

Third month of pregnancy. How would you define individuality? A person's body separating from their mother or them developing a distinct personality?

A soul begins in the 3rd month of pregnancy? How do you know this?

An individual is defined by unique DNA, as I mentioned in the OP.

[The Blaatschapen]

Merged xero's argument into the abortion topic.

[Vassenor]

Apparently dictating what women can do with their bodies isn't trying to control them now. Huh.

A woman's freedom to swing her fist ends where...?

OK then. I am now entitled to your kidneys. Your freedom to swing your fists ends where my nose begins ergo you have no right to deny me them.

[Xerographica]

Merged xero's argument into the abortion topic.

Please read my signature.

[Page]

There's a fire in your home.

Maybe you started it accidentally because you left something flammable on the stove. Maybe you started it intentionally because you have pyromaniac tendencies. Maybe a friend you invited over dropped a cigarette on your carpet. Maybe a psychopath broke in and set the fire to try to kill you.

Do any of these circumstances make it more or less morally justifiable to put out the fire? No. Does one even need to justify or explain themselves putting out a fire? No. It's a fucking fire - it doesn't have feelings. Until late in the second trimester, a fetus has the same amount of feelings, the same capacity for subjective experience as a fire - none.

"But a fire isn't alive!"

Fetuses are alive - that is an objective fact. But the state of being "alive" in and of itself does not entitle an entity to moral consideration. Humans intentionally kill trillions of alive organisms every day, from chopping down trees and uprooting crops to insecticides to antibiotics to cheeseburgers. Even vegans have to kill alive organisms to live. Even fruitarians. Animals are obligate killers. If the killing of alive organisms is morally wrong, then we ought to exterminate all animal life on Earth including ourselves and leave only photosynthetic plants, because in the long run, that would minimize casualties.

We do not even begin to afford moral consideration to a living thing until that living thing is at least shown to feel things, which again, fetuses don't in the first half of pregnancy. Therefore, aborting in the first half of the pregnancy has and needs no moral justification because it is an AMORAL action, just like changing your underwear and looking through your spice cabinet are amoral actions.

Only late-term abortions can be considered moral issues, and even then, the scale is decisively unbalanced. You are weighing a few minutes of pain inflicted on a being that has less capacity for feeling and less sapience than a fish vs. the prolonged suffering and undesirable life-changing consequences that an unwillingly pregnant person will face if forced to give birth. That the former causes a death while the latter does not does not remotely alter the balance. Would you kill a snake if doing so would stop someone you loved from being raped?

[Armeattla]

The pro-choice argument is basically that people should have the right to decide what they do with their own bodies. I strongly agree with this. However, a person can only ever have one body*. And it's really easy to differentiate between bodies thanks to DNA.

An individual is defined by unique DNA, as I mentioned in the OP.

I thought this was a rhetorical point and not a logical point-

Such a definition would raise several issues as it would mean a single person can be several individuals at once:
There are two phenomenons called Mosaicism and Chimerism which cause a person to have two or more groups of cells with different DNA - Chimerism might or might not be related to the "Missing Twin Phenomenon".
Also a person's DNA changes slightly over time, by external/environmental factors or by mutation - cancer for example is such a mutation going absolutely haywire.

AFAIK we do things such as DNA checks not by looking for an exact match, but by finding something similar enough to exclude by probability.

[Xerographica]

Until late in the second trimester, a fetus has the same amount of feelings, the same capacity for subjective experience as a fire - none.

So you're saying that a fetus is less valuable than an infant. And therefore an infant is less valuable than a toddler. And so on...

Basically you want to discuss economics, am I right?

[Godular]

Hey, Xero. I got a question for you.

Chimeras: one or two people?

[A m e n r i a]

Third month of pregnancy. How would you define individuality? A person's body separating from their mother or them developing a distinct personality?

A soul begins in the 3rd month of pregnancy? How do you know this?

An individual is defined by unique DNA, as I mentioned in the OP.

Fourth month, sorry. As to answer your second question, it was in a hadist. Also, oh it moved.

[Thepeopl]

Let me start off by saying that I'm pro-choice, especially when it comes to choosing where your taxes go. But in terms of abortion I recognize that the pro-choice position is logically inconsistent.

The pro-choice argument is basically that people should have the right to decide what they do with their own bodies. I strongly agree with this. However, a person can only ever have one body*. And it's really easy to differentiate between bodies thanks to DNA.

Ever heard of Chimera? Conjoined twins?

Admittedly, pregnancy is a weird case where one individual is entirely inside another individual. But should this weirdness somehow change individual rights?

Let's say that I'm in your home, thanks to your invitation. Does the fact that I'm on your property somehow give you the right to harm me? Nope.

think again, Yes if I've asked you repeatedly and you don't comply, I am allowed to evict you from my house with neccesary force. You've overstayed your welcome, i can revoke my consent to you being in my home.

Let's remove the invitation. I break into your home. Do you now have the right to harm me? Yup.**

But what if I end up in your home against my will? Someone kidnaps me, ties me up, and puts me on your property. Do you still have the right to harm me? Nope.

Consider this passage from Murray Rothbard's Wikipedia page...

In Rothbard's view of parenthood, "the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights".[110] Thus, Rothbard stated that parents should have the legal right to let any infant die by starvation and should be free to engage in other forms of child neglect. However, according to Rothbard, "the purely free society will have a flourishing free market in children". In a fully libertarian society, he wrote, "the existence of a free baby market will bring such 'neglect' down to a minimum".

A pro-choice person will say that a pregnant individual should not be responsible for supporting the new individual inside her. However, the same pro-choice person will also say that, once the new individual is no longer inside another individual, then somehow the mother should be responsible for supporting the baby. Because... a baby is more individual than a fetus? Eh? The more individual someone is the more rights they should have?

The majority of people who debate abortion seem to assign great significance to when life begins. So a pro-choice person who shouts "it's MY body" will very conveniently ignore when individuality begins in order to focus on when life begins.

The same pro-choice person would also probably abhor Rothbard's idea of people legally selling babies.

The abortion debate is a small picture issue. It's only a debate because most people miss the big picture. The big picture issue is that we aren't mind-readers. A pro-life person will say that a fetus is priceless. A pro-choice person will vehemently disagree. But if it was legal to sell babies, how much money would the average baby be sold for? We have absolutely no idea. We can't use everybody's words to correctly guess everybody's values. If selling babies was legal, and the average baby sold for $5, then nobody could reasonably argue that a fetus is priceless.

Of course, if the average baby sold for $800,000... then what would happen to the debate about abortion? Who in their right mind would flush a ton of cash down the toilet? Very quickly we'd see clinics paying big bucks to remove fetuses and keep them alive in test tubes. So much for the abortion debate.

Right now a small committee, in this case the supreme court, can decide whether abortion should be legal. As if this small committee, or any committee, can read our minds. They can't. The decision should be made by donations to the government. Whichever side donates the most money to the gov should win. Then, and only then, would the most beneficial decision be made. Plus we'd all get more public goods and/or less taxes.

In the big picture, we are more likely to make more valuable decisions when we aren't ignorant of each other's true valuations. This is why markets work.

* Perhaps you thought I'd point out a real exception to this rule? Naw. I just wanted to point out how absurd it is to have to state that an individual can only ever have one body.

** Anybody remember my thread where I argued that if you have the right to kill intruders, then you should also have the right to enslave them? Hmmmm does slavery count as an exception to the rule that an individual can only ever have one body?

Nope. I am legal guardian of 2 other adults. I make all medical and financial decisions for them. One is my eldest son, the other is an elderly person who asked me to perform this task for them. So i am guardian of 3 adult bodies and 3 minors.

[The Blaatschapen]

Merged xero's argument into the abortion topic.

Please read my signature.

I don't moderate by Forsher (or anyone's, except fellow staff members') quotes.

[Dogmeat]

We're back to the idea that twins are one person, I see.

[Godular]

We're back to the idea that twins are one person, I see.

And apparently Chimeras are two people, as well.

[Necroghastia]

There’s not a lot of point in arguing with the pro-choice crowd.

They think that being anti-abortion is some kind of evil, misogynistic effort to “control women”, when it’s actually just concern about a baby’s life.

I agree. There's also the fact that a pregnant woman is obviously a distinct individual from her child from her soul. Something we've known for centuries before we had DNA tests.

Have we, now? How have we known this? What's the documentation?

[Diarcesia]

We're back to the idea that twins are one person, I see.

And apparently Chimeras are two people, as well.

Vegito is two people.

[Necroghastia]

There’s not a lot of point in arguing with the pro-choice crowd.

They think that being anti-abortion is some kind of evil, misogynistic effort to “control women”, when it’s actually just concern about a baby’s life.

Riiiiight, that's why conservatives are so in favor of social welfare programs, right?

[Diarcesia]

There’s not a lot of point in arguing with the pro-choice crowd.

They think that being anti-abortion is some kind of evil, misogynistic effort to “control women”, when it’s actually just concern about a baby’s life.

Riiiiight, that's why conservatives are so in favor of social welfare programs, right?

If you go by the conservative official reasoning: "because government is corrupt and inefficient"

If that is so, why is the military big government?

[Elwher]

Admittedly, pregnancy is a weird case where one individual is entirely inside another individual. But should this weirdness somehow change individual rights?

Let's say that I'm in your home, thanks to your invitation. Does the fact that I'm on your property somehow give you the right to harm me? Nope.

Let's remove the invitation. I break into your home. Do you now have the right to harm me? Yup.**

But what if I end up in your home against my will? Someone kidnaps me, ties me up, and puts me on your property. Do you still have the right to harm me? Nope.

To complete the analogy, let's stipulate that the conditions outside your home will immediately kill me for whatever reason.

Do you have the right to remove me from your home under these conditions?

The problem, of course, with this analogy is that the pro-choice do not, with good reason, believe that the fetus is a human being while the anti-choice side, with equally good reason, believe that it is; this analogy assumes the latter.

[The Alma Mater]

Admittedly, pregnancy is a weird case where one individual is entirely inside another individual. But should this weirdness somehow change individual rights?

Let's say that I'm in your home, thanks to your invitation. Does the fact that I'm on your property somehow give you the right to harm me? Nope.

Let's remove the invitation. I break into your home. Do you now have the right to harm me? Yup.**

But what if I end up in your home against my will? Someone kidnaps me, ties me up, and puts me on your property. Do you still have the right to harm me? Nope.

To complete the analogy, let's stipulate that the conditions outside your home will immediately kill me for whatever reason.

Do you have the right to remove me from your home under these conditions?

And, to take the next logical step:

If the answer to that last question is "no" - is it allowed to deny people in general the use of your home if the outside conditions would kill them?

[Page]

Since the whole soul thing was brought up again...

The belief held by most Christians and most monotheists in general is that the soul of an aborted fetus will go straight to heaven.

What's better? Going straight to eternal paradise, or having a life on Earth in which suffering is guaranteed and you might end up going to hell if you reject Jesus?

If Christian beliefs about fetuses and souls were legit, abortion would be a moral imperative and giving birth would be a crime.

[The Alma Mater]

Since the whole soul thing was brought up again...
The belief held by most Christians and most monotheists in general is that the soul of an aborted fetus will go straight to heaven.

Is it? The traditional view is that one needs to actively accept Jesus (or at least have undergone some ritual like baptism).
It is why missionaries exist - they believe that people unware of Jesus and therefor not able to embrace him will go to hell.

[Godular]

Admittedly, pregnancy is a weird case where one individual is entirely inside another individual. But should this weirdness somehow change individual rights?

Let's say that I'm in your home, thanks to your invitation. Does the fact that I'm on your property somehow give you the right to harm me? Nope.

Let's remove the invitation. I break into your home. Do you now have the right to harm me? Yup.**

But what if I end up in your home against my will? Someone kidnaps me, ties me up, and puts me on your property. Do you still have the right to harm me? Nope.

To complete the analogy, let's stipulate that the conditions outside your home will immediately kill me for whatever reason.

Do you have the right to remove me from your home under these conditions?

Yup. Though I continue to caution against introducing increasingly ridiculous scenarios to prove one's point. The issue is that when it comes to removing someone from your home, you can do it in a way that does not inherently require lethal force. If the person being ejected refuses to leave, and presents a threat to the homeowner's life or property, it'd be really hard for me to say that they are NOT justified in using whatever force is necessary to remedy the situation.

For a pregnancy, the only means of ejecting the interloper is lethal. That's unfortunate, but it shouldn't preclude anyone from seeking remedy.

[The Free Republican Union]

From the CCC:
2270: Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.₇₂

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.₇₃
My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.₇₄

2271: Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.₇₅

God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.₇₆

2272: Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"₇₇ "by the very commission of the offense,"₇₈ and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.₇₉ The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

2273: The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."₈₀

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."₈₁

2274: Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual. . . . It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."₈₂

2275:

"One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival."₈₃

A human is a human from conception, and it develops on its own. It is its own being. Just because something relies on another thing does not mean it is that which it depends on. (i.e. A human on a ventilator does not belong to a ventilator) That being may not have a say in what happens to it, but you would kill someone who couldn't speak, see, hear, or move just because they can't stop you. Abortion is murder. Each individual has the chance to become someone, do something. You destroy their uniqueness and potential when you kill them. Each person is inherently good and made in the image of God; we all have human dignity.

Not only is immoral and wrong, but it is selfish to abort a life. If you can raise and have a child, you have no excuse. If the child's life is in danger, you don't kill them, you try to save their life. If they die, after all you could do to save their life, then that is what God wanted for them. A child that survives, even with defects, has been put there for a reason.

(Psalm 1:1–6; Luke 6:20–23)
₃“Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
₄Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
₅Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
₆Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
₇Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
₈Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
₉Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called sons of God.
₁₀Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

The only time when it is okay to have an abortion, in my opinion, is when the mother's life is in danger after every other option has been exhausted to their limits.