Third Party & Independents: Archives

What’s next? Having the state take an interest in male seed being spent to the ground. How about the state dictating what a woman can and cannot eat, drink, smoke, how they can exercise and when and how, and what jobs they may and may not take, and how much sleep they get and when - all for the sake of protecting the fetus.

Get real. Until a fetus is viable outside the womb, their is only one person responsible for what happens to that fetus - the bearer of it - unless freely and voluntarily contracted otherwise. Any other legal position is as dangerous an intrusion upon citizen’s rights as can possibly be conceived. And NO - a fetus is not a citizen.

Nice diatribe, though.

ahhh… so the location of a child define whether they have the right to life. what a morally relavent distinction! A mother voluntarily assumed the risk of getting pregnant, so it is her responsibility not to kill her child. just like a mother and father cannot leave her newborn on the street to starve, she cannot have an abortion. There is absolutely no moral distinction between those two acts. Parents have special duties to their children, no matter where they are located. nice try.

Or is the distinction about whether the unborn child is “viable”. So on that ground, whether a child has a right to life is dependant on the level of technology avaliable in the country at the time! 20 years ago, an unborn child of 7 months was not “viable”, now that same exact child IS viable. It should hope that no one would seriously contend that killing the same exact child 20 years earlier should be any different, legally or morally.

ahhh misha…..you know…..i always enjoy reading your posts…..although i never agree with them.

i have been unfortunate enough to be in a relationship where my girlfriend became pregnant, and she decided she was not ready to be a mother….and had an abortion…

the right to choose does NOT mean it’s an easy choice.

I do not recommend abortion to anyone….it’s an incredibly painful thing to live through….however…..I do feel that it is a choice that a woman should be allowed to make.

the problem with your arguement is not that your stance on the issue is wrong, however, it fails to take into account the lives of the people having to make these tough decisions.

sadly…the way you make it sound all us leftist are out having abortions just to piss you conservatives off…

Rob- thank you for your measured response, and i am sorry if I came off sounding like that. I realize that for the people actually having the abortions, its a very very painful choice. In fact, for many women, especially young women, who are facing a decisions of this sort, its too much and many cannot resist not having an abortion even though they know its the wrong thing to do. I think this is actually a very strong argument for having anti-abortion laws. Right now, the law vests young women who are often in very difficult emotional and personal positions with an awesome power to end the life of their unborn child. It is in their self interest to do it, even though the choice is painful.

Professor Hadley Arkes tells a story in his book that one day after he had explained why abortion was wrong, one of his female students came up to him and said that while his arguments were correct in principle, if she was to get pregnant, she would not be able to resist having an abortion. But upon reflection, the girl said the key phrase that makes the point I am trying to make her “But isnt that why we have laws?” (page 415, First Things).

The law takes certain decisions that are wrongful out of the sphere of our decision matrix, it asks us to be better than our self-interest would often direct us to be. I remember a couple of years ago the girl who threw her baby in the dumpster during the prom. I have no doubt that the decision was very painful for her and I am sure she is suffering with that decision to this very day. The reason that sort of thing is rare, however, is because the laws puts a harsh moral sanction upon killing infants. The law need not be as unweildy as David suggested to effectual this purpose for unborn children. All it needs to do is to treat abortion as a wrong- and sanction those who perform it in SOME manner, and try to STOP abortions rather than being preoccuped with punishment. Punishment is not a requirement- we dont NEED to punish every wrongdoers or take every single intrusive measure to stop every wrong (in fact, I often believe in erring on the side of let people get away with wrongs if it protects our civil liberties- so, for example, that doenst mean we dont stop terrorists, but it does mean that while pursuing terrorists we dont investigate in a way that violates people’s constitutional rights). The goal of the law is to make people better than they would be based upon pure self-interested basis. I am sad that your girlfriend had to go through what she did, and I am even more sad that the law gave her such choice too painful for her to resist and an unborn child had to die because of it.

I may be one of the few with a fully consistent attitude on “right to life” but here goes:

1) I think the death penalty should be an option for the most heinous crimes

2) I am not only “pro-abortion” but I think when individuals are on public assistance, it should be mandatory. No breeding on the taxpayers’ dime!

Have you ever heard an angry mother say “I brought you into this world—I can take you back out?” Well, up until the third trimester that should literally be true.

You have to understand, Misha, that there is a significant cultural and philosophical divide between those who believe Abortion should be legal, and those who think it should not be.

These people have been talking past each other for decades, because in the end, they do not share the same attitudes or perspectives on what abortion actually does. Addressing these people as murderers does no good, and in fact is counterproductive, because these people do not see abortion as the killing of a sentient, complete human being in the first place, only the halting of a process that could potentially create one. If you call that person a murderer, typically they will not only fail to acknowledge your point of view, but will also get angry that you use such a perjorative label on them.

Also, with that process-oriented philosophy, it become an issue of bodily privacy, akin to getting a vasectomy, a norplant implant, or one’s tubes tied.

You have two challenges when addressing such people. First, you have to convince them of the living, sentient nature of that fetus. You’re better off doing this as closely as you can to unambiguous scientific terms, because pseudo-scientific stuff or uncertain material will only serve as the basis for a debunk.

Second, you have convince them that you and they share a common moral ground, and you have to do this as gently as possible, because there will be many who have been making decisions according to previous attitudes. If you come down hard on them, many will entrench themselves rather than leave themselves vulnerable to your accusatory onslaught.

It is Ironic, but the Christians among your movement would have an easier time of things if they weren’t so quick to judge and condemn. God, I feel, doesn’t need them condemning, on his behalf, those who get abortions and those who perform them. God already has that judgment in his hands, and needs no help in exercizing it. What they should be doing is presenting abortion as being wrong, but being understanding and forgiving towards those who made the decisions regarding that.

I mean, it’s only logical. If you want to be persuasive, you have to give off an aura of rationality, and you have to accept that people have a fight or flight reaction to those who threaten them, so attacking them will only lead them to resist or ignore your views.

If you wish to be a good advocate for this, you must do so in a way that acknowledges the sensitivity of the issue. Otherwise, you will step on the same landmines that so many other pro-life people have in trying to convince the other side of their arguments.

Misha, I respect your desire for moral clarity on this issue, but I am pretty sure you’re wrong on this. Abortion is an ugly wretched thing. But the state should not force somebody to have an unwanted child. A foetus doesn’t, and shouldn’t have the same rights as the mother. I know making a distinction between a baby and a foetus is unpalatable to most everybody, but for a mother carrying an unwanted child it really is a choice between two unpleasant options. Neither of which is completely right or wrong. It should be up to them, and their conscience, to make that choice. Not you.

P.s. how can someone be against abortion and for the death penalty?

Are you seriously comparing abortion to slavery? That goes beyond disingenuous and is almost crossing over into absurdity. Fetuses and embryos AREN’T full humans, and the fact that I even have to write that sentence makes me think that all logic and rationality has already left this conversation before it even started. It’s one thing to argue that non-viability or embyro state shouldn’t exclude them from the rights afforded to viable human babies, but it’s entirely silly to compare them to human slaves. PETA makes similar comparisons to slavery regarding animals, and is about on par with your level of rationality.

As for using the law to remove things you find unpleasant from other people’s decision matrix, well, at that point you’re bordering on the frightening. I’ve heard good arguments against abortion, or at least against Roe vs. Wade, and yours is not one of them.

Bob- you asked “how can someone be against abortion and for the death penalty?”

The death penalty is based on the principle that someone has done something that means they deserve to die (for example, killing a bunch of people). The unborn child has do nothing that makes them deserving of death. That would be like asking how can someone be for the death penalty and against mothers throwing their babies in dumpsters at their prom. In any case, I am rather ambivalent on the death penalty, I dont think its an issue that has extremely strong arguments on either side.

I ain’t Eddie- Arguments by assertion and attacks on the honesty (“disingenuous”) of the person put forth the argument are not impressive or useful. Without offering the slightest justification, you assert that it absurd to consider an unborn child equal an adult in her right not to be killed- yet it was equally as absurd to southerners in the 1850s to consider a black equal to a white person (go read what they wrote, i think you will find the rhetoric rather familiar). What you need to do is to try to decide some moral basis upon which to distinguish an unborn child’s claim to life with the claim to life of an infant. As I showed in my counters to David’s attempt, these fail rather quickly and decisively.

I guess you could say that unborn children arent “fully human” because they havent developed all of the faculties that an adult has. Then again, nor have newborns. The difference between a newborn and an adult is great in terms of faculties, yet we do not consider that difference in faculties a reason to value the life of the infant less than the adult. Pretell- what exactly is that reason? I think its rather obviously- its still a human being, just at another stage of development. Such is the case with the unborn child. Unless you can come up with some such distiction, you shouldnt go around calling other people’s arguments “absurd”.

As for what you claim is my attempt to “remove things you find unpleasant from other people’s decision matrix”- that is totally incorrect. I want to remove from their decision matrix actions that are wrong. I will now offer you a list of “liberties” that i am NOT pro-choice on:

1. Murder (be it of infants, adults or unborn children)
2. Rape
3. Child abuse
4. Theft

those are just a couple of things that ought to be removed from people’s decision matrix, if you think thats “frightening”, well…

Stephen- that is very good advice for many issues, especially this one. I am currently rather upset by all this march stuff that is going on around here- with friends coming down here just for that march, friends wearing these “i love choice” t-shirts, that I am unable to be a cool and collected advocate as I should be.

I guess what bothers me most isnt just that people dont agree with me on this, is that there is a TOTAL and COMPLETE disregard that unborn children matter in the least. A position like Bob’s, while I think it is ultimately untenable, doesnt bother me as much because it shows some concern for the unborn child. We can start from there and work toward improve things (for example, banning partial birth abortion, banning procedures where they induce labor, actually have the child be born, and then let the child die ect.) When someone where an “i love choice” tshirt, making abortion seem like its no more of an ugly choice than say, buying a candy bar, I get a little thrown off my debating and convincing skills…

My stance on abortion is as follows:

I don’t like abortion. Were I female, I would make every effort to avoid being in a situation that would require me to choose one. Were I in that situation, I’m not sure I’d be able to go through with an abortion. Who knows?

That said, I have never been in that situation. I’ve known people who’ve had abortions, and not one of them wanted to do it. Every one of them struggled over the decision, and the aftermath of it.

I don’t think it’s my right to decide what a woman should be able to do with her body. I don’t think it’s the right of several hundred crotchety old men in Congress to do so, either.

Misha, if I had a choice between being born into a family that didn’t want me, because the government forced my mother to carry me to term, and getting it ended quickly with some saline solution, I think I would choose the latter, myself.

You still think the Golden Rule is on your side here?

Wouldnt your argument apply equaly for killing unwanted newborn children in a quick painless manner? Would you seriously advocate that?

misha-
I am sure that the majority of people with STRONG opions on abortion are either young or religious. Or both. But while you make a legal argument (maybe a good one) comparing slaves to fetuses, a moral one doesn’t fit.
A black human can decide for themselves what choices they make. No fetus can do that. a fetus doesn’t breathe, a fetus doesn’t swallow, a fetus has no feelings to be hurt. All these things start when a fetus expeiences the outside world and begins to learn.

You what I like best about this whole thread?
You’re all a bunch of men, from what I can tell arguing about Women’s reproductive rights.
Cool, can i argue that every sperm spilt is a murder because a child might have , could have come from one of them?
We may never know when a foetus becomes a legitimate child, after the third trimester, at the end of the second? We will may never be able to ascertain it with perfectly.
Misha appart from not addressing the issue of the seriousness and pain that comes from an abortion, you also don’t really address the issue of when a women may not be in a position to adequately care for her child.
Like say the child of a junkie. Should the child to be, have to face a life of neglect , violence and abuse, when instead, a life of such misery need never have been created in the first place? Often these children are also born with disabilities and weaknesses.

Neither does your article address the issue of rape.

Since you’re a man, i can only assume, you have no idea what it feels like to be a woman, and feel so many times in your life the threat of rape, or molestation. You cannot imagine the deep, and surgingly dark feelings of hate that well up inside me, when i think of men who could do those things, to me or to my other women friends and family. I would never want a child to be born out of an act of that kind.
Should a women who has been put through that terrible experience,be forced into constantly being reminded of what happened to her, even though it may be no fault of the child-to-be?
I guess you’d just have to be a woman to understand it.

Suhasini, are you scolding me for agreeing with you, simply because I’m male?

Suhani-

(1) on rape, i wrote this on this weblog the other day:

“Rape- this one is by far the most difficult case, and I dont see an answer to it. The reasons that a mother cant have an abortion is because (1) an unborn child is a human being but also because (2) she has a duty to her child, one which assumed through a voluntary action (the father also assumed duties to the child by the same action, of course the duties differ because of biology, but both are bound). Element (1) still applies in the case of rape, but element (2) is gone. No one has a legal duty to take care of a stranger, even a stranger child, who is in danger- you can let a stranger starve if you want. You can’t let your own kid starve, however- you will be thrown in jail for that. I think the reason for this is NOT the biological link (after all, an adoptive parents cant let the child starve), but rather because the parent has a DUTY to their child. In the case of rape, it is difficult to say that the mother has a duty of care to her child- i would say she has no more a duty than to a stranger. This would be a forced obligation without any voluntary assumption of risk, which is unacceptable to people who believe in person freedom (if you are a socialist, this shouldn’t be a problem- but I assume none of us are). BUT the mother still has the NEGATIVE duty not to kill the unborn child, as she has a negative duty not to kill any human being. The problem is that abortion can be seen either as a failure to fulfill the positive duty of taking care of the child (she doesn’t have this duty if she is raped) or it can be seen as an active killing of the unborn child. I don’t think this is something that can be solved (it can be solved in the case where the child is viable, because the mother could just have the child taken out of her- but if she had the child taken out of her before viability the child would die). So I have no answer for you, except to show the rape case possess such a philosophical dilemma we are willing to make an exception for it, while giving lots of economic incentives for raped women to assume a duty of care to their unborn child. Theoretically, a raped women would not have the right to kill her unborn child, btu she would have the right to have the unborn child removed from her body and then let the child die, like she could let any stranger die, legally.”

So in the end, I would make an exception for rape, but give women all kinds of economic incentives to decide otherwise.

(2) on your gender argument- i have several responses. first, if you look at polling data, the suppport and opposite for the right to abortion among men and women is statistically the same. Second, the principle about whether an unborn child is a human being is an argument of moral philosophy and human rights. As such, we need as many brains as possible- men and women- arguing and debating this issue.

For evidence on these polling claims see:
http://www.coaauw.org/boulder-oldsite/aauwb_center_for_gender_equality.html - Center for Gender Equality 1999 survey showing opposing to abortion is higher among women than among men.

also, see here http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm for a combination of different polls about abortion (although it doesnt give you gender results, i dont think).

Wouldnt your argument apply equaly for killing unwanted newborn children in a quick painless manner? Would you seriously advocate that?

A newborn places no physical danger or demands on the mother’s body. Forcing her to carry a fetus, however, is forcing a physical risk of injury or death upon her.

Ciggy- lol, no offence , I’m not scolding any of you, I just thought it was funny, that you were all guys, arguing a topic that has so much to do with women.

Misha- Well I guess it’s easy enough to see that, atleast when it comes to the rape issue we’ve reached a sort of compromise.
Unfortunately, we can’t act upon this till we discover when a foetus becomes a child.( which we may never)
But I might just add this, in response to your suggestion about economic incentives, I think the matter goes a little deeper than the finances of the whole thing. I think very few women who were considering abortion after rape, were doing so because they were worried about the money. It’s more a case of trying to rid yourself of a sick feeling that makes you cringe when you think of it.
Mind you, I don’tthink abortion should be like some sort of pill you take for a headache. It should be enforced in cases strictly where the case for it has been made and approved, according to some affixed prerequisites.
As for the polls about the gender break-ups on this issue, you’ve got me stumped. Those women probably aren’t breathing the same air as I am.

I might as well open the can of worms, Suhasini: if reproductive rights lie solely with a woman, should exclusive rights not be accompanied by exclusive responsibility? If you make men responsible for things in which they have no rights, does that sound right to you?

For an analogous example, if you make a some postal worker in Duluth responsible for all that happens in Iraq, and yet give no power to that postal worker in Duluth, to effect any changes in Iraq strategy and policy, do you think that’s fair?

Or if you think a roll-back of responsibility should indeed accompany a roll-back of any right to discuss the issue of reproduction, when can we expect you to advocate laws exempting men from child support, seeing as the creation of babies is “uniquely a woman’s doman”?

Regarding abortion:

1) I am unwilling to allow technology to determine my moral decisions; therefore, I have concluded that viability of the baby is not the emphasis. To use viability as the basis for allowing abortion means that one must have a sliding scale which changes yearly with technological advances.

2) Women DO have reproductive freedom and choice already. They can choose whether to get pregnant or not (except in the case of rape and incest, which accounts for a very very small number of abortions, so lets not allow the smallest percentile to dominate the debate).

3) I am for freedom of choice, but I also include the child’s rights as well. In the same way that my freedom to swing my fist ends at the moment of contact with another’s nose, so too does a woman have freedom to do with her body as she chooses until she impacts another life.

4) For those who believe that “a woman should be free to do with her body whatever she wishes”, please consider this: In order to remain consistent with that belief, one must also allow a women to be free to engage in prostitution, the use of any and all drugs, and must be free to be able to sell any body organ for any price at any time.

Most people find the idea of selling organs to be especially egregious, but the principle of choice is the same….to be free to do with your body what you wish to do.

5) To be opposed to abortion does not mean you are judgemental or condemning. For instance, I also am against the idea of being addicted to alcohol or drugs, yet I dont condemn those who are. Neither do I suggest, though, that to be addicted is acceptable; it should be fought against with every fiber of one’s body, regardless of whether we consider it a disease or lack of willpower.

Finally (for those reading this, I’m sure there is a collective sigh of relief), it IS acceptable for both women AND men to engage in this type of discussion. If we exclude men from this discussion simply because of their lack of experiencing carrying a child, we would similarly have to exclude all of us posters from discussing politics UNLESS we have actually run for office, or exclude anyone who has not been homeless from discussing homeless issues etc etc. It becomes rather obvious how silly that idea is, doesnt it?

misha-
What is your veiw on the “morning after pill?”

Martinwitz- since an original being that is a homosapien begins at conception, the question is whether the morning after pill stops conceptions or acts after conception. I did some reading on this, and basically pro-life groups say it works after conception, while pro-choice groups say it stops conceptions from happening. My answer to this question would depend on who is right on this medical argument (i am not a scientist, so I dont know).

Ciggy-
It was a joke! A joke I say!
Ofcourse men have a fair and decent right to debate this topic. I was just pointing out the LACK of women here.
As far as reproductive rights go, sure I believe that men have a say in the matter. However, I was talking of rape. I don’t think the rapists will be having much to do with their children, whether they be born, or undeveloped foetuses.( foetuses?
foeti?)

misha-
doesn’t using contraception do the same thing as an abortion does? it seems to be silly to say a 1 day old fetus is so different from a sperm and an egg, to use your fetus infant analagy.

joebagodonuts,

I am a moderate when it comes to abortion (if that is possible) in that I think all abortions, except the morning afterpill, are a tradgety(it is possible that fertilization has happened but it is possible that it has not, and I think that is a much more acceptable ambiguity than “viability”) and it should be the role of the government to reduce the number of abortions that happen in this country. However making it completely Illegal has terrible consequenses as well (some women will get an abortion one way or another). I think that we must try much harder to teach our young poeple about birth control(the pill et al). When it comes to rape, the catholic church makes some sence, when they ask: what has the child/fetus done, is he/she culpable in the crime? BTW, Roe is not the be all and end off of abortion rights, states have the right to make laws against abortions like a 24 hour waiting period after first going to the doctor (sorry I forgot the case name, it was in Pennsylvania) basicly a state can not make it too difficult for a woman to get an abortion.
then joebagodonuts comments made me think, not anthing definite but interesting nonetheless:

you made me think of something that no one has really made clear: If we have laws to protect both social and personal interests, doesnt the essence of motherhood change one’s rights in society? Women have a “fundimental Right” to have an abortion because it is protected by a right of privacy (I know this too is hotly debated). This right to privacy is always going to be in conflict with power of the state, and does the balance get thrown off when we include another human life? The pro-choice people see it as just another “chioce” that women should be free to make, but dosent the state has a vested interest in protecting life, where ever it lives? Meaning that being a woman entails a different set of responcibility to society by the fact that they are the bearers of the next generation of life? Does this mean that we can arrest women who smoke, drink or do drugs while pregnant? Because the societal costs for these actions is clear? This is a ramble with no clear possition (where I like to be anyways) but I have to question the pro-choice possition because inflicting death must ultimatly trump a so called freedom? BTW France of all countries has more strict laws when it comes to abortion.

What about China’s state instituted abortion of fetuses conceived after the family already has the state instituted limit of children?

The Chinese are not Christians and therefore the morality of the issue as viewed by Americans does not come into play. What does come into play in China is the struggle between individual choice and policies designed by the collective to insure an immensely better quality of life for the people and their legally born offspring.

China faces starvation and hopeless, empty lives by 100’s of millions of its citizens if population control was not instituted. The majority of Chinese agree with population control and voluntarily submit to the law. To do so insures a better quality of life for all living Chinese by permitting limited resources to be distributed amongst a smaller population.

When abortion is viewed in such a secular and non-moral environment where an obvious need for abortion exists, a billion reasonable people can agree abortion is a justified and reasonable choice.

Now one can take the position the majority of Chinese are unreasonable and irrational, or, one must admit that the issue in China is not a moral one. If the issue is not a moral one in China, what does that say about the issue in America.

There are a number of animals who spontaneously abort if the mother finds insufficient water or food in the environment. Nature dictates for a large number of species whether abortion is necessary or not, and further dictates infanticide is healthy for a species under certain circumstances.

For me, all this says to me is that abortion is a moral dilemma rooted in religion. And if that is the case, religious freedom dictates a woman in America has the freedom and right to choose. It is such a uniquely Western manner of thinking that Nature and Man should be at such odds.

In the Eastern world of thought and philosophy, nature is the context for man and man, except for his capacity of viewing himself as separate, is simply an integral part of all that is natural in the world and if there is an immoral act, it is for man to destroy the natural context that supports his existence.

To deny abortion as an option for improving the quality of life for the already living is uniquely a western and ultimately Judeo - Christain - Muslim concept. All three religions have the same geographic and historical roots in the development of western culture. Note how American Indian thought and philosophy is so Eastern oriented due to the fact that it has not ties to religious origins of Western thought.

Ultimately, abortion is a religious issue. And those who believe in religious freedom must eventually accede to a woman’s right to choose in the context of what will be best for her, the family, community and even the fetus, as an exercise in religious freedom. Well, from a philosophical framework anyway.

To say that abortion in china its a non-moral issue is really nonsense. Is EVERYTHING then a non-moral issue just because its in China? What about what happend in Rwanda- was that a non-moral issue because it didnt happen in the west? Human rights, including the right not to be murdered, extend regardless of culture (and regardless of religion- i am sayign this as a completely agnostic person).

Also, to insist the Chinese- who are living in a dictatorship with no elections, no freedom of the press or anything else needed to make an informed choice, have somehow chosen forced abortion and that this is perfectly fine is completely confusing. China has a dictatorship that has forced its views, with no consultation of the people, on those it governs.

I find it amazing that one can, on one hand, somehow advoctate “Freedom of choice” (based on what principlesz? since you seem to think that all moral principles are based on religious foundations) in American, but promoted FORCED abortions in China. What is the philosophical foundation upon which people in America deserve more freedoms than people in other countries?

The conclusion is as follows, then: if you are in america, you can have an abortion for any reason whatsoever, no matter what. If you are in China, then you HAVE TO have an abortion, no matter what you want to do, no matter about your life nor the life of your unborn child. Somehow, these two positions are consistent?

also, given your analysis, I am not sure what you mean “woman’s right to choose”- what kind of concept is “right” in your vocabulary? Why dont chinese also have this “right”.. I could go on, but I think the full refutation of this way of looking at morality and the world has been laid out.

The concept of morality stems from religious precepts, Misha. Buddhism has an entirely different set of precepts from Christianity. It is difficult for Americans to separate objectivity from the Judeo-Christian assumptions about morality. It is important however, to do this if one is going to attempt to offer an objective discussion on abortion.

I am sorry you missed the point. You are viewing the abortion issue through the assumptions you grew up with based in the Judeo-Christian patriarchal cultural traditions. That is your right, but, your bias rings loudly when you impose your obviously unquestioned and even unaware cultural assumptions about morality onto a discussion about abortion which occurs in a society which does not have those same religiously based prejudices and biases.

The question of abortion in China is raised in an attempt to get those here discussing this issue to lay their prejudices aside and examine the issue objectively. Some will be able to do this, and I suspect, many will not.

Morality is defined by a society’s norms and assumptions of what is good and evil, what is right or wrong. The discussion of abortion has no reconciliation as long as both sides adhere to the Judeo-Christian norms they were brought up with, mostly unquestioned and unexamined. For an objective discussion to take place, one must raise the discussion above those prejedices and biases. The Chinese context assists in doing this because that society is not blinded by Judeo-Christian cultural and historical premises and assumptions.

To deny that the Chinese choose to enforce abortion for a some millions of people in order to elevate the quality of life for 1.3 billion people as a moral justified choice, is to reveal involuntarily ones own prejudices and biases on the issue. In China, the greatest good for all is accomplished by enforcement of abortion as a limiting agent on population growth which threatens the existence of all who live there. Clearly, this is a case where abortion is a morally good and justified decsion. Afterall, the goal of morality is to foster the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

Thus, there is nothing inherently evil or wrong with abortion as an issue. It only becomes evil or wrong by virtue of the societal context in which it occurs. If one side of the debate is not capable of acceding this point, no rational discussion of the topic is possible.

David- your argument is completely circular and also self-contradictory at the same time! You first declared:

“The concept of morality stems from religious precepts, Misha.”

then you change it all around and say:
“the goal of morality is to foster the greatest good for the greatest number of people.”

In either case, this is just an uproven assertion (well two contradictory assertions), and so any reasoning you derived from those contradictions would suffer the same flaw.

Either morality is objectively correct for all people at all times- and then we are all bound to it, no matter what our culture (this is what I believe). Or morality is just something human beings made up and there is no such thing as moral truth (INCLUDING greatest good for the greatest number, which is just a restatement of utilitarinism, a concept developed in “the west”- ironic, isnt it?). If you believe that the second formulation of morality is correct you should do what Nietzche did and actually accept the logical consequences of your beliefs. stop talking about “rights” (including right to an abortion), stop talking about “morality” in terms of saying some policies are better or worse. Either we are debating about things that can be resolved based on the yardstick of truth, or we are not. If you believe we are not, I cant imagine why you would even care about which way things turn out.

what is going on here with David’s comment is actually a very typical problem in post-modernist thinking. One attempts to “deconstruct” judgements about right and wrong somehow, yet when you try to “rise above” these so-called prejudices you are left with absolutely nothing to stand on. The result is then one of the following:

1. Either admitting that you truely believe that there is nothing to be said about right and wrong- and accepting it.

2. refusing to accept it and then trying to import moral precepts through the back door- either by appealing to cultural “values”, as if those can be used to judge anything important (after all, if something is just created by the “culture”- what reason is there to respect it? why should it provide any guiding principle or standard of decision?); or by using a MORAL valuation themselves to judge other cultures, all while pretending to reject cross-cultural moral valuations (see “foster the greatest good for the greatest number of people”)!

Even the most basic things that one tries to argue, after accepting this radical relavist go up in smoke. Individual rights? nope! Democracy? nope! Freedom? of course not. All that is left is culturally determined “values”, which are really meaningless, by the relavists own terms. Of course most post-modernists arent that far gone to accept this radical conclusion, so they go back to option #2 and continue to be what Nietsche calls passive nihilists.

Misha, I give up. There is absolutely nothing contradictory in the two statements, that morality derives from religious precepts whose aim is to create the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

If you view these as contradictory, the discussion is hopeless since we don’t speak the same english, though, I did look up the term morality in the dictionary and have a degree in philosophy which included a course in philosophy of religion. So, have it your way, I am contradicting myself - but only by your particular and unique interpretation of the english language and body of western philosophical history.

Of course, your reaction is nothing new to me, it frequently occurs when one attempts to get others to examine their own prejudices and biases. Socrates was much better at it than I.

David:
When you say that “Morality is defined by a society’s norms and assumptions of what is good and evil, what is right or wrong”, you are engaging in relativism. This assumes that there is really no right or wrong, since it is entirely dependent on the society.

Yet I would submit that we all agree that murder is wrong, though in the subculture of the Mafia, murder is an acceptable form of retribution. Likewise, most would agree that the abuse of women is morally wrong, yet in some countries, women are treated as animals with no rights whatsoever. If a culture decided that blinding its children by sticking hot pokers in their eyes was morally acceptable (perhaps so that children would not see the horrors of this world), we would condemn them easily, and would have forgotten all abour your concept of “relativism”.

You also say that “religious freedom dictates a woman in America has the freedom and right to choose”, but I would disagree with this as well. It is well documented in the courts that a religious belief does not necessarily trump other societal issues. For instance, the use of drugs in religious contexts (peyote, ganja etc) are not accepted. Also, those who believe in faiths that result in the absence of acceptable medical care (preventing a child from having a life saving transfusion) are sometimes forced to alter their religious belief.

David, abortion at its simplest is about ending a life. The true question here is whether the fetus/baby is truly a life. I have heard only one person in my life who admitted that abortion is killing a child, yet who also agreed with that.

As far as your China conversation, your logic about China’s population control could also be used to eliminate and kill off old people, the infirm, the mentally ill, and virtually any group, in the name of population control. I suppose that has the beauty of being relativistic, in that its not necessarily wrong in a culture to kill anyone, if the culture allows it.

Somehow, I dont think thats where you want to hang your hat though.

>>>Misha,
Now I know better than to argue with a woman on this issue(or for that matter, any issue) and certainly not one who seems to be pre-law as you may be. Frankly I’d just as soon stick my [deleted by WB manager] in a hornet’s nest but here goes.

What constitutes life is ‘capacity of thought’ and my assertion is that abortion be done prior to the growth of neural networks in the brain.

Because what you are in defense of with the ardent pro-lifism, isn’t life but the potentiality of life resulting from the fertilization of an egg. And the fertilization of an ovum does not life make. If abortion is performed prior to the neural pathways to contain and engage in thought processese, is that murder or a hault to a path that could be a person? Is not human life the capacity to contain, engage and interact in cognizant activity?

(2nd point) I’m not pro-abortion, I see it as anti-extremism to question such insane statements that would perhaps even make contraception a moral outrage.

Right wingers take these things too zealously then refuse to address real sexual education that would prevent many such pregnancies and abortions in the first place, through sex education alone. But republicans instead do the ‘abstinence’ baloney which has led to higher rates of abortion than sex education has.

Republicans who loathe abortion seem to keep the clinics operating rather well with the teens who republican school boards refuse to give sex-ed courses to. And don’t give me that ‘it should be taught in the home’ because if it weren’t for ‘Penthouse letters’ and ‘Hustler’ most teen males wouldn’t get any sex education at all and teen girls get less than that, they get it from us guys. So really republicans feed into abortion clinics in good proportion. Oh but you play that you are against it, even though you create alot of it, that’s right.

Thirdly, (as has been said before on this thread) I’ll just echo the sentiment that women who have these procedures aren’t doing so flippantly. This is not an easy choice I’m sure for any woman.

joebagodonuts said: “When you say that “Morality is defined by a society’s norms and assumptions of what is good and evil, what is right or wrong”, you are engaging in relativism. This assumes that there is really no right or wrong, since it is entirely dependent on the society.”

In an objective discussion of the matter, religious precepts are a subset of a societies norms and assumptions. Ultimately all arguments regarding right and wrong are taken to the two opposite positions.

1) Religion dictates absolute right and wrong since God is the only absolute in the universe. This means that when discussing right or wrong from this position, one inevitably is speaking from the relative position of whichever religion, or religious tenets they presuppose as being absolutely right. Thus, the religious argument for morality is relative to the religious perspective one assumes.

2) The opposite position is does not stem from any religious orientation but rather, presupposes that when a decision must be made, that decision which renders the greatest good for the greatest number of people is the moral choice, given that the decider has done their homework as best they can to deliberate all of the possible decisions and their outcomes.

From either position, joe, it is relative. The whole issue of an absolute right and wrong is patently a false notion, unless one ascribes such absoluteness from a deity. But that then too becomes relative to some other religion’s concept of absolute right and wrong. In Buddhism, right and wrong are determined by what choice leads to the preservation of the harmonious natural state we are born into and results in enlightenment as to that harmonious natural state. Hence from a Buddhist perspective, overpopulation which destroys the quality of life and thus the basis for enlightenment of the natural harmonious state of balance, is evil, and abortion to restore that state of natural harmony for all people is moral.

If you know of any other source for truly absolute right and wrong, please enlighten me. After studying all the major philosophies of life from hedonism and pantheism to the major forms of monotheism and existentialism, I have yet to find any source for absolute right or wrong, outside of a biased and prejudiced view that one’s own religious tenets derived from one’s own concept of God as a basis.

In China, abortion is a tool to bring about a moral good which is the avoidance of millions of people starving to death and more millions living in abject poverty. What is one or two million abortions compared to 10’s of millions starving to death. Remember, most people in China comply with the law, perhaps not happily, but, knowingly, that it will improve life for all presently alive and those to be born.

Just an afterthought. If abortion is wrong because killing is wrong on religious absolutist grounds, then the U.S. must be a very immoral nation for all of the nearing 1 million people it has killed and continues to kill in the name of peace, freedom, patriotism, and the almighty dollar. Either killing is wrong, or it is a relative argument in which some killing is justified and not wrong. And if some killing is justified, what standard is used. That killing which will bring the most good to the most people if everyone subscibes to the standard of what constitutes justified or good killing.

This argument lies at the heart of much of the debates in politics today about war, abortion, poverty, resource allocation etc. Rarely however, do folks choose to delve so deeply into the underlying assumptions of what is good or bad and what differing standards are used to make those judgements.

Misha stated:

ahhh… so the location of a child define whether they have the right to life.

That’s right, it certainly seems to. Every year more than 10 Million children die in developing countries due to lack of nutrition or access to health care. These are real kids who never make it past their 5th birthday. Compare that to the 1.3 Million fetuses aborted in the U.S. and you see where we should really be puting our efforts. Sure it would be nice for both numbers to be zero, but this debate is all about moral relativity, and those 10 Million kids are literally crying for help.

Skunk- you have made several mistaken assumptions about me :) :

1. I am a guy, not a girl. Misha is russian for mike.

2. second, i am not a social conservative- i am a libertarian who believes that unborn children are human beings. I support sex education, I DO think anyone who has sex should be ready for the responsibility to be a parent should birth control not work. I think we should educate all kids to these facts- and tell them about their risks from sex and their DUTIES should sex result in a human life.

On your analysis of capasity- I will answer by saying that “capacity for thought” is not a morally relavent factor. What is relavent is that it is the same, uniform, unique human being from conception. There are different stages of development for that very same being. From conception to brain waves to heart beat to development of limbs to birth to adolesence to adulthood to old age- its still you- its still the same unquie person. During that time you may have less or more faculties, but you are still a human being- both medically and morally.

Al- I dont see what your point is. It is a DAMN shame that those children are starving, and went i get out into the workforce and actually have some money (instead of beign 40K in debt from law school), I will certainly give money to organizations who help them. We are, however, also responsible for our own polity. We have 1.3 million people being killed in OUR OWN COUNTRY every year- just because there are other trajedies going on around the world, how can we ignore what is happening in our own back yard? These goals are not mutually exclusive and its basically a red hearing to say otherwise.

Misha, unless 5 dollars spent here will save only one child from abortion but save 10 children from starving in East Africa. Would you then still argue that our own backyard needs to be dealt with first. If so, aren’t we being relative to some notion of absolute good regarding life?

David- We have intentional killings of human beings in our country in abortion- that needs to be stopped, regardless of what we do in other countries. ONLY the government can stop it because it requires laws and force- only our government will.

Everyone should give money to private charities like the one Bill Gates has set up in order to help starving children in other nations. These goals are can both be done without sacrifise of the other - one is done best through government, one is best done through people giving their own money to private organizations who do this work much more efficiently and effectively than government buerocrats.

Let me give you an example where we SHOULD have spent our resources to save lives oversees, one which we both agree on. We should have stepped into Rwanda with our military- even thought that would take resources that could be spent here. ONLY the government can do that- just like only the government can stop abortion. Government is the monopoly on the use of force, its function is limited to where we need to use that force to achieve some ends we couldnt achieve otherwise.

Anyway, there is no reason to believe that enforcing abortion laws would really cost us any more money- we could just redirect the time our police force is wasting to jail kids who buy pot, and have them shut down abortion doctors who mass-slaughter children. We are enforcing a LOT of frivolous laws in our country, and our police should be stopping murder with their 8 hours per day, instead of prowling the streets for a dime bag…

Misha, you mentioned things we do agree on. But, you seem to have avoided the direct question. If one defines abortion as immoral on the basis that willful killing is wrong, absolutely, then is not the death penalty, the war in Iraq, or any other willful killing wrong.

If you answer is no, killing under some circumstances is right, while under other circumstances wrong, then are you not back to a relativist definition of killing?

Misha, there are so many things I want to say right now. But I’m going to limit it to two: first, there’s no such thing as a “pro-abortion” organization any more than you’d like to be called “anti-choice.” Which you obviously are not (anti-choice that is) since you think unborn children fathered by rape or incest are not worth saving and the vessel should have a choice in aborting those cells. The abortion debate will always be a debate because we’re arguing two separate things. You’re anti-abortion; I’m pro-choice. Ne’er the twain shall meet, as they say.

And second, I respect your right to have an opinion on this subject. But your post was not about the politics of abortion; it (and your subsequent comments) appeared to me to be all about your argument against abortion and the women (and men too) who plan to march in defense of a woman’s private right to choose what happens inside her body. I appreciate that this is a difficult subject for you as well; but what about the politics of this extremely emotional issue? Maybe I’m the only one who does but I wonder what motivated you to use WB as the forum in the first place. Hope you don’t mind my two cents.

David- I must have missed that question, I am sorry. several thoughts on the question:

1. Your comment is not abortion-specific. If it proves anything at all, it would prove it about all murder laws. This is an important point that applies to many points of your analysis (including the 5 dollars to stop an abortion v. 5 dollars to save lives in africa ect- figure).

2. Murder (unjustified,purposeful taking of human life) is always wrong- killing is not always wrong- the question always turns on the JUSTIFICATION for the killing. So abortion is wrong when it is done because of convinience, it is not wrong when done to save the mother’s life.

The death penalty is wrong when imposed on an innocent person, or on a person who only comitted a minor crime, it is not wrong when impossed on a mass murderer.

As for the war on Iraq- we need to look at what we are achieving there and what is actually going on. For example, if a bunch of soldiers are running around killing off iraqi civilians for the hell of it- then that is surely wrong. if we are engaged in an operation to bring peace, democracy and freedom to that oppressed nation, and civilians are ACCIDENTALLY killed, then while that is tragic it is not wrong.

Let me give you a much more homely example- every time we build a building, some dies (just pure statistical matter). in fact, a man fell to his death from a building just around the corner from here a couple of months ago. if the contractor had shot that man in the head and pushed him off the building, that would have been wrong; if he fell by total accident after all reasonable precautions were taken, it is tragic but not wrong. I hope that helps.

In the very least we can all agree that in order to take human life we need to meet a rather high burden of justification. In abortion today, there needs to be no justification given whatsoever- that is an unacceptable state of affairs.

David- if you are interested in these sort of arguments (about right and wrong, and also some analysis of the abortion question) and want to read them from someone far more eloquent then me, I HIGHLY recomend reading “First Things” by Hadley Arkes. Since you hold a philosophy degree, I think you will enjoy it even if you dont agree with it.

9thwave:
(1) i never said a word about incest abortions

(2) this is a forum for politics and this march is calling attention to perhaps the most important issue of our time. I decided to give my thoughts on this march, and it has stimulated one of the better (or at least longer) discussion on watchblog. As a result, I consider my post a success.

Finally, if you read my post, it does talk about the politics of this issue. It talks about how the pro-abortion forces have used the courts to take this issue out of the political process, and then it offers a political solution (putting this issue BACK into the democratic process). I dont really see what else you wanted me to do- perhaps i am missing something.

David- Though I can understand your position, having once advocated it, I must comment on the whole “religion as the basis for morality” thing.

Specifically, I’d say its not true. Morality, I believe is the function of any stable society, basic ideas of what is right and wrong. No society survives long without some clear lines drawn in regards to personal behavior. What religion does is focus that sense, and modify it.

Also, I’d take issue with the idea that we can distance ourselves from moral issues and merely analyze them, which is part of my earlier point to Misha- that the people who get abortions, who support abortions don’t do so from some lofty perch of intellect, but often from their gut, their experience, and their cultural norms.

And it would be frankly impossible for things not to happen this way. Day by day we are immersed in a values filled universe whether we like it or not. Sexuality, I feel, is one of those areas that can be a particular minefield of culture no matter what the culture is. Reproduction, too. Even in the most permissive cultures, issues of sexuality engender complex sets of rules and regulations, both written and unwritten.

Our minds are ruled over by chemicals, and those concerning our love lifes are particularly powerful, and very capable of causing disruptive or embarrassing behavior. Then, when you factor in all the diseases, and the very essential connection between sex and reproduction, you have an issue that no society has been able to deal with objectively, and none ever will.

Stephen, we are not in disagreement. I think you missed my subtle point that religion is the basis for absolute right and wrong. Also, that religious morality is a subset of cultural norms and traditions that make up a society’s moral doctrine.

The point I was making (perhaps not so obviously) is that all morality is relative. If it is religious absolutist morality like when Christianity teaches Thou Shalt Not Kill and Christ says “Turn the other cheek”, such absolute moral premises are also relative, relative to the premises of other religions, for what is immoral in one relgion can and often will be found to be moral in another.

As for objectivity, I agree it has limits, not the least of which is that human objectivity is uniquely different from alien objectivity as someday we will hopefully prove and for the very reasons you iterate.

However, as regards the abortion issue and the law, the greatest degree of objectivity is required if the law is to have any authority. In order to discuss abortion as law, the premises of absolute morality must be removed from the discussion because absolute morality lies within the province of a single relgious context.

Since we are a nation which protects the freedom of all religious observance, absolute morality has no place in the discussion of abortion law (I know this upsets the fundamentalist Christians, but, contrary to their desire,) American is made up of a host of different religions, including Buddhism, Hindu, Islam and others. The law must be fair and applicable to all Americans of varying religious faiths.

Misha, thank you for your response. We agree killing is not always immoral or wrong. Thus, on this issue at least, we agree that moral relativism is no defense against a pro-choice argument.

David:

You failed to answer one of my questions. Since you advocate abortion as a tool to bring about a moral good for the masses, why would it be any less acceptable to kill off the mentally infirm or the elderly who do not contribute their fair share.

By extending your logic, eliminating all those who drain more resources from a society than they provide, that society would prosper, which would be a moral good, in your terms. You might claim, as some do when challenged in this way, that I am simply taking a good point too far. But what I am really doing is simply taking your point one step further.

If we can justify abortion of a child/fetus, which I consider a life, then why not just pull the plug on those who are infirm. Think of the cost savings, the profit line, and the time savings without Grandpa and Gramma around to sap our resources.

By the way, David, I do believe in absolute good and evil. Our society wants to clutter things up with relativistic thoughts as you have done, but that does not change the truth. Whether you think of me as a man or woman, tall or short, caucasian or asian does NOT change the truth about who and what I really am. That truth stays constant and absolute. What changes is your perception of the truth.

Thats where relativism falls short. It focuses on the perception but does not deal with the absolute. A last example….scientists question evolution, creationism, the big bang etc., and they study and study and come up with their theories of what happened at the birth of this world and the birth of mankind. Yet, its all conjecture based on information, but regardless, it does not change what actually happened. What actually happened is the TRUTH—the rest is our attempt to understand and know the Truth.

Joebag-
Reality never boils down so simply. Yes ultimately acts fall in the category of good or bad, however, they have to be taken in context.
Tell me,
10 innocent Iraqi children killed in a targetted assasination, that also killed a top level terrorist in the same locality. Good or Bad?

Abstract philosophical morality is a fun topic, something to bat around over a beer or two at a sports bar between the periods of an Ottawa/Toronto hockey game. I like it.

My take is that “morality” is an evolutionary imperative, a sort of defense mechanism developed at a civilizational level, in an effort by the civilization to survive and to perpetuate the genetic alleles inhabiting it. Essentially, if individuals go wantonly killing each other, the civilization will destroy itself. Other “moral” tenets are adhered to as needed or as the need is perceived at the time, such as a restriction against homosexual activity in sparsely-populated civilizations—the impetus being that population needs to increase in order to gain defensive strength against external invaders, and to also gain economies of scale in industry. When populations start nudging up against a ceiling of what can be supported by a civilization’s systems, that civilization will begin to modify its moral code. The memes will no longer be of vicious reprisals against those who fail to breed, but rather increased tolerance for a non-breeding lifestyle. When a civilization reaches Chinese levels of overpopulation, it’s in a red zone of “rats in a crowded cage” and the population concentration is definitely unsustainable, and so the restriction and reprisal goes the other way: that a non-breeding lifestyle is the preferred lifestyle, and its then the breeders who are pariahs.

The place abortion takes in all of this is a place similar to homosexuality, lifetime celibacy, or natural or artificial infertility. It is a mechanism to adjust population levels. Yes, it’s a crying shame that the potential life growing in the womb is ended. It’s more of a crying shame, though, if a teeming horde of unwanted lives overflow the cities and exponentially inflate crime, unemployment, etc. Quantity of life is not the be-all, end-all of a consideration of life. Quality has to be taken into account as well (which is why the “starving children in Africa” tear-jerker hogwash is just that—Mother Nature is telling Africans they’re simply breeding too much!)

Darwinism can be a very cruel thing, but it’s tough love for the gene pool. Bad-tasting vitamins which strengthen us in the long run.

Suhasini:

YOur point is well taken, and I understand that often there are contextual facts that have to be taken into account. I still believe in ultimate good and evil, and ultimate truth.

A big consideration in your question would be whether the children were targeted along with the
top level terrorist. You see, mistakes do happen, and they are bad, but not necessarily evil. Evil comes from intent as much as from what actually happens.

In my mind, the Basra bombings were evil, because the bombers knew the school was there, knew that innocents were in the line of fire, and did nothing to limit the damage to those innocent children and civilians. Contrast that with American soldiers who put themselves in harms way in order to prevent civilian deaths, even though civilian deaths will certainly occur despite the most intense planning.

As far as the abortion debate goes, though, I see abortion as a choice that is made, and in many cases, because there was no prior planning. Im not talking about cases of rape incest mother’s health or dramatic genetic problems—-those are in the vast minority. Most often, abortion is simply a means to undo a pregnancy that should have been prevented by earlier planning.

Morality, is for a large part of the time, relative (as, I think, David is suggesting). A glance through history should be enough to confirm this. There was a time when vast numbers of probably quite reasonable people, in the Judeo-Christian tradition, believed that it was ok to burn witches, enslave Africans, convert natives, harass homosexuals/hereitcs, ostracise unmarried mothers……..the list goes on and on, yet this type of behaviour is now considered unreasonable because morality is directly linked to the (ever evolving)culture in which it resides.

Misha, you say “The death penalty is wrong when imposed on an innocent person, or…” which is something we can all agree upon, but it is equally obvious, to me at least, that innocent people are, and always will be, found guilty of crimes they did not commit, because the law is fallible, and unavoidably so. So either your in denial that innocent people have been falsely convicted and then executed, or you accept this is an unpleasant, but ultimately necessary evil. This has obvious parallels to the abortion debate. I would be interested to know your position as there appears to be a contradiction there.

Sorry Misha, I read through the thread more carefully and you’ve already declared your ambivalence towards the death penalty.

misha said:
“just like only the government can stop abortion.” Perhaps all together, but indivuals can and do stop abortion all the time. you bringing up your views on abortion might stop someone reading this from aborting a baby.
And I have a question about libertaians, like you claim to be, aren’t lib’s against gov. interference? Wanting the gov. to mandate a law about someone’s body seems to go against the very core of the party.

Martiniwitz, libertarians can fall on either side of the abortion debate. The just application of governmental power, according to Thomas Jefferson, is only to the extent that one citizen is harming another citizen. So if one interprets a fetus as a “citizen”, then one can be libertarian and still defend the fetus against attack by its mother. One could also interpret the fetus as not yet being a “citizen”, and thus outside the just jurisdiction of government, and thus be pro-choice. I was in the latter camp, in my Libertarian Party days. ;)

couldn’t it also be argued (if you beleave a fetus is a citizen) that the fetus-citizen is harming the mother-citizen by being born? I am not arguing this but it seems to use the argument.

Martiniwitz, to play pro-life advocate (though I’m not actually pro-life), it could be said that only in the case of the life of the mother could the fetus be waging an attack, the like of which would warrant a lethal level of force. If it’s an economic attack only (i.e., posing the threat of eating the mother out of existence over the next 18 years), then the measure of defensive action warranted thereby would be adoption into a home where such economic attack is more welcome. On the other hand, there mere fact of being born these days represents a cost on the parents, in the out-of-pocket component of what is otherwise covered by health insurance, so the only way to foil that theft in progress could indeed be lethal force, but that there is an argument between those who would support lethal force against economic attack, and those who wouldn’t go that far.

I actually step back a bit from the granularities of the above arguments, and take a more property-oriented approach to it. When a fetus inhabits a mother’s body, and attached bodily TO that mother, the fetus is a part of that body, and all decisions relating to it are the jurisdiction of the parents involved (assuming the father did not rape the mother—in which case it would be just the mother). This decision may or may not have some cosmic mystical consequences in an afterlife, but for the purpose of civic law, that is where the decision lies.

can’t an argument be made that it is always possible for birth to cause death to the mother? To answer my own question, it can so I’ll just put that out there as a reason why a libertarian should always be pro-choice even if they themselves are morally against abortion.

Martinowitz, I’m not a medical expert, but I think there can be reasonable assurance of the mother’s survival in most pregnancy cases. And if at any time the complications of labor become life-threatening, with the doctor providing information to the parents, a decision should be reached between the three of them whether the threat to the mother’s life is present enough to warrant an abortion at that time. That is, if one were to be one of those pro-lifers with an exception for cases of danger to the life of the mother.

Again, I personally am pro-choice.

Typo correction to Martiniwitz—sorry about that.

joebadodunuts, we do kill the mentally retarded in the U.S. Down here in Texas, Bush’s homeland, we don’t give mental incompetence much weight in cases of capital crimes. We execute ‘em anyway. So, your point is?

You see it is relative even in the great nation of America.

We treat drunkeness as mental incapacity in the U.S. and instead of trying and convicting drunk drivers for capital crimes, we more often than not take away their license and let them go with time spent. Exellent program on this very topic yesterday evening on MSNBC if I am not mistaken. I say, repeat drunk drivers who kill, should be charged with 1st degree murder, not manslaughter. But it is tough to find a jury that doesn’t rationalize, there but for fortune go I, and they acquit drunk drivers regularly of any capital crime.

I believe you can find the transcript on their web site.

Ciggy, your comments regarding “Abstract philosophical morality” were excellently presented and history is full of examples to back up your assertions.

joebagodunuts said:
YOur point is well taken, and I understand that often there are contextual facts that have to be taken into account. I still believe in ultimate good and evil, and ultimate truth.

A big consideration in your question would be whether the children were targeted along with the
top level terrorist. You see, mistakes do happen, and they are bad, but not necessarily evil. Evil comes from intent as much as from what actually happens.

joe, this is a direct contradiction within your own words. It is not possible to beleive in an ultimate good and evil on the one hand and mitigating circumstances such as intent on the other. The moment you open the door to mitigating circumstances, you have made absolute or ultimate evil and good, relative. Relative to the mitigating circumstances.

One more wrinkle to throw into the abortion debate. If a woman travels overseas, and 6 to 8 months later she desires an abortion and claims she conceived in Mexico, then the fetus is not a citizen and therefore afforded no rights as a citizen. This is similar to the question now being argued before the Supreme Court regarding the Constitutional rights afforded enemy combatants held without protections in Guantanamo.

I can see a very unfair and unequal application of an anti-abortion law where women living near the Mexican border have no problem getting an abortion for it would be up to the state to prove that she did not conceive in the U.S. What do we do then, require any and everyone having sex to register when and where they are doing it with the federal government?

David, your example is a good indication of why it’s best to just plain let mom ‘n pop decide if baby gets born or not.

sorry- i dont see it on that example. There are laws against killing any human being in the united states, no matter where they are born (citizens do have more rights in terms of the legal system, but in the right not to be killed, all are treated equally and the same penalities apply for killing non-citizens as citizens in the united sates). Say you are born in Mexico, and then your parents take you to the United States when you are 2 years old(either on vacation or cause they want to move to the US)- Then someone comes by and kills you while you are in Texas. That person would be prosecuted under Texas law, regardless of where you were born or concieved. the same would be the case with abortion.

more importantly, this line of reasoning continues to be a red-hearing in the abortion debate (kind of like the points about prosecuting mothers for smoking ect). We just need to apply the very same principles that we do in the laws of infants to unborn children. So, we dont prosecute mothers carrying around infants for smoking, for the same reason we wouldnt prosecute pregnant mothers for smoking (and if you think we should prosecute mothers for smoking with newborns, the argument is no longer abortion specific). similarly, we prosecute those who kill newborn babies in our country, no matter what country that baby is front- same would happen with abortion laws. the problem thus disappears!!

misha your example still leads back to when is a fetus-baby a human-baby, you said early in this thread that if the “morning after pill” stoped conception than you are okay with it, well i submit that the difference between a 8 month old fetus is more different from a baby, than a sperm and egg are different than a 1 day old fetus

I don’t see how your argument holds up Misha. You, or someone, previously argued the fetus was a citizen at conception, if I recall correctly. We don’t throw people in jail for killing ants, deer, or cows. Why, because they are not defined as citizens having protections afforded citizens. If a fetus is not a citizen, no crime has been committed by an abortion of a fetus conceived outside the U.S. One must establish that conception renders a full fledged in utero human being and citizen to afford it the full protections of the law applied to born citizens.

I was addressing the citizenship aspect of the argument. You now want to reintroduce the human being argument. That is fine. But, I just don’t buy the argument that an egg and a sperm lying side by side do not constitute a human being but a sperm within an egg does. Neither do 100’s of millions of other Americans. To create such a definition is nothing more than an arbitrary distinction which affords one group of citizens to dictate what another group can and cannot do with their own bodies and its contents.

David- I never said anything about citizenship. . I said an unborn baby is a human being. In any case, I do think you got your law wrong. After all, I was in this country for several years without being a citizen- had I been murderer, my killer would have been put in jail. We prosecute those who kill (and rape and rob ect) non-citizens ALL THE TIME, i think you are a little confused on this one.

as for your “location” argument- thank you for my point for me. The inquiry is NOT WHERE the being is located, but what sort of being it is. Since there is absolutely no way to distinguish between a child inside of the womb and the same child outside of the womb in terms of what sort of being they are- they must both either be human beings or both not be human beings. Surely an unborn child at a young stage of development doesnt have all of the faculties of a baby- but a baby CERTAINLY doesnt have all the faculties of you and I. yet we consider the killing of a newborn baby as serious as the killing of you and I.

Since, as you point out, location is not relavent-there must be something about the sort of being the baby is (which is the same sort of being that you are and that the unborn child is), that makes it worthy of legal protection and moral consideration. I submit that this factor is that it is a human being at one stage of development- and we do not distinguish between stages of development of people located outside of wombs, i dont see why we should for people located inside of wombs.

As for abitrary distinctions- we now have the supreme court make an arbirary distinction at the 2nd trimester (how much more arbitrary can you get!), not even allowing the people to make that decision. Its basically a powerplay by one small group of judges deciding that beings that half of the american populous believes ARE human beings, are not human beings, and can never be- without nothing more than handwaving. I am amazed that anyone can support this outside of just liking the result.

Misha, again my point does not come across. I am not sure why. Please reread what I said about a sperm laying next to an egg vs. a sperm in an egg. The entire weight of your argument hinges on your definition that when the sperm penetrates the egg a human being is thus created at that moment and should be entitled to all of the protections of the law in the U.S.

Another huge segment of our society does not accept that definition and have other definitions. Why should your definition have any more weight than another persons? With such a divide in definition, pro-choice folks enforce their will on none in your camp. Whereas, if your camp makes law, they will in fact force their will upon a huge other segment of the voting public.

It is clear to me that the less harm is done by leaving Roe V. Wade in place; and public efforts made to minimize abortions through a variety of programs which offer alternatives and more choice.

This is far less divisive and injurious to freedom of choice about the issue than if one segment of the population limits the choice of another segment.

You certainly showed courage in wading into the abortion debate Misha and I applaud you for it. You might have the record for the number of responses to a post. My own feelings on the subject are one of a practical nature. In the cases of banning abortion and the death penalty I am against both of them because we as a society are incable of implementing them. What we wind up with are laws that punish the poor and let the affluent do as they please. Just as the death penalty is reserved for those who can’t afford a defense a ban on abortions will punish the poor but the rich will have access to abortions as it suits them. By simply banning a procedure many women feel they need ignores the problem and creates a much bigger one. I personally wish that no fetus will ever again be aborted but I also don’t feel I have the right to dictate what course of action a pregnant women may choose to take.

late to the thread, thanks for the great debate.

seems that after the abortion arguments get past the issue of morality, they always end up with a scratching of the heads about well, when does life start? since none of us agree on this, why don’t we start with something that is understood. a fetus is in a woman, a newborn is not. case closed. misha is exactly right that limiting third trimester abortions but not others is absurd. you can’t have your cake and eat it too. however i would disagree with misha that we need the government to tell us what is right and wrong. morals are indeed relative, and our laws are meant to protect society, not morality. a libertarian should know better. abortion is ugly. abortion is awful. but what is more awful is a society that insists how a person treats their own body. whether it be pregnancy, drug abuse, or euthanization, a person’s most inherent right is their capacity to govern their own being . if you disagree with this then you will never understand the point of the right to choose.

DaveO:

Considering that I was born at 8 months, I have a hard time swallowing your idea that others who are at that stage and are not yet born should be legally allowed to be killed and yet have it be illegal to kill a premie of the same age. That seems to elevate the moment of physical birth to pseudo-mystical status.

Here’s another moment in the process of development that is understood: when a sperm and egg meet, a human will result. Regardless of when “life happens”, it is at that point that a child’s genetics are brought together. It is both genetically human at that point, and genetically distinct from either the father or the mother alone, even if it has not yet developed adult capacities. Why not defend it from that point on, rather than from the point of birth?

Incidentally, for those who seem confused on the matter, that’s also the difference between sperm or egg and a zygote. Sperm and egg each have half the genetic structure of a human, not a whole and distinct set. You could never prosecute someone for jerking off, since it is clearly demonstrable that sperm is neither genetically human nor could it by itself create a human. A zygote, by itself, is both genetically human and will grow into a mature human if provided with the proper environment without needing an additional biological component.

ummm…thanks Jacqulyn.

Jarin,

I agree that your definition of when life begins is valid, and that ending that unborn life is not something to be taken lightly, or encouraged. However to legislate how a woman treats her body-it is still HER body-is not the way to eliminate unwanted pregnancies and the problems stemming from it. Rather, it further increases the role of government and it’s position of dictating morality. This is not what our country is about. There is no easy answer to abortion, I am only saying that criminalizing it is trading something bad for something worse. There have to be other ways, education being the first.

Her womb is her body, yes. But treating the fetus *in* her womb as if it were a part of her body when it is in fact genetically distinct and identifiably separate is not justified. And it is her treatment of that fetus that is at issue, not her treatment of her own body.

It’s interesting to note that the major arguments against the criminalization of abortion, or even making it harder to have one, are that it is an attack on the mother. I often hear the arguments that the next step would be to lock someone up for drinking while pregnant, or that it would reduce the status of women to broodmares in our society with no rights once there is a child in their womb. Yet little thought is given to how we would view that same woman giving a newborn child alcohol in its bottle instead of milk, or of the way a father’s status is reduced to that of stud or sperm donor if the decision to abort a child is left solely in the hands of the mother. The issue is not how they are treating their bodies, but how they are treating the unborn children they are entrusted with of necessity by virtue of human biology.

I used to think, like you do, that abortion should not be legislated either for or against, and that both sides of it should be promoted socially through debate and education, but remain ultimately a personal choice. But after listening to the arguments, and hearing the same people arguing that it is more compassionate to abort than to let a child grow up unwanted also calling unborn children parasites and equating the decision to have an abortion to the process of removing a tapeworm, I find myself less and less able to support their side. I find myself increasingly able to justify abortion only in cases of rape or instances of medical necessity. The latter due to overriding issues of self-defense, and the former because it seems to me that despite the innocence of the child forcing the mother to bear it to term against her will would be like allowing the rapist to continue to rape her every hour of every day for the full term of her pregnancy. In all other cases, abortion would only be a perverse form of contraception, and I can see no argument for its employment rather than the existing institution of adoption if one is not ready to be a parent for whatever reason. What pressing need is served by the legalization of abortion in cases other than rape or medical necessity?

It’s a strong argument, and I tend to agree with my heart.

However, I don’t think it’s fair to selectively justify abortion dependant on the circumstances of conception. That is changing the rules to solve an inherent flaw in logic.

My mind still sides with the right to choose, however awful the choice may be.

Could you elaborate on what you see that flaw as being? Why isn’t it fair to justify abortion based on the circumstances? Killing is justified under the law in cases of self-defense, war, and capital punishment. That clearly shows that things we consider crimes in normal circumstances may not be crimes in extraordinary circumstances.

I do not see it as a flaw of logic to take circumstances into account. I see it as a strength of logic, for it is by taking circumstances into account that logic moves beyond simple dualism and gains the capacity to give meaningful guidance in a world which is not simply black and white.

The flaw is that you first consider the fetus to be an independent being simply occupying the fetus - separate from the mother. Then you argue in the case of rape that the fetus and the mother are so completely linked, that it would be unconscionable to expect the mother to carry the unborn to term. If your first statement holds true, then wouldn’t it be equally unconscionable to expect the mother to care for the child after it is born? I doubt you would be for euthanizing a newborn conceived by rape. You switched criteria - in the same way pro-choicers change their tune when it comes to late term abortions. Of course the world is not black and white, but in order to legislate a limitation of personal rights, you had better have a rock solid case.

The fetus is an independent being occupying the womb, separate from the mother in that it is not simply a part of her body like a kidney or a tumor. I fail to see how you’ve interpreted my statement about rape to indicate a deeper link between the two. The difference is not in my interpretation of how closely they are linked, the difference is in the manner in which the conception took place and the psychological harm done to a mother to be forced to feel a child that is half hers and half her rapist’s growing inside her for nine months. That experience is clearly different from the experience of carrying a child that was conceived out of a consensual act, even unintentionally. In the former situation, it is hardly tenable to expect the average victim of rape to be able to hold out for nine months until the child is born and may be adopted out to another caregiver. In the latter case, such an expectation is far more reasonable.

Also, I fail to see your point with regard to the murder of a newborn conceived by rape. Yes, it would be a terrible thing to force someone to care for the child of their rapist against their will, but adoption is a clearly viable alternative to that situation at that point so murder would not be necessary. It is much less of an option while the child is still a fetus, barring finding a surrogate willing to allow a transplant until the child is ready to survive on its own or with medical assistance.

So then an unborn human has some of the rights of a born human, but not all - depending on the circumstances. Seems like a slippery moral slope, which I’m sure legislation will be able to clarify.

Not at all. An unborn human has all of them. But in some (two, precisely) cases those rights are outweighed by other concerns. This is identical to existing legal concepts. For example, one peron’s right to life is outweighed by anothers in cases of self-defense. A person’s right to life is also outweighed by the interests of government and society in cases of capital punishment. This would merely codify two instances (medical necessity and nonconsensual conception) in which the right to life of the unborn would be outweighed by other concerns. In what way is that a slippery slope?

If you are willing to outweigh the unborn’s right to life to save the psyche of the mother, then that means the mother’s psychological well being is more important to you than the “independent being” inside of her. This is hardly akin to self defense or capitol punishment, where a being has DONE SOMETHING WRONG to deserve retaliation or sentencing in the name of self defense and society, respectively. The fetus is the same “independent being” REGARDLESS of the circumstances of it’s conception. How can you punish/hurt/rule against it for something it had no control over, yet on the other hand claim that it has all these “rights” equal to a newborn. Does this really not seem to be a contradiction in logic to you? Maybe I’m missing something…

I guess I’m the only one that cares about this subject more than tossed medals or the impossibly stupid situation in iraq…

misha wrote about rape and abortion:

“Rape- this one is by far the most difficult case, and I dont see an answer to it. The reasons that a mother cant have an abortion is because (1) an unborn child is a human being but also because (2) she has a duty to her child, one which assumed through a voluntary action (the father also assumed duties to the child by the same action, of course the duties differ because of biology, but both are bound). Element (1) still applies in the case of rape, but element (2) is gone. No one has a legal duty to take care of a stranger, even a stranger child, who is in danger- you can let a stranger starve if you want. You can’t let your own kid starve, however- you will be thrown in jail for that. I think the reason for this is NOT the biological link (after all, an adoptive parents cant let the child starve), but rather because the parent has a DUTY to their child. In the case of rape, it is difficult to say that the mother has a duty of care to