A Newbie on the Abortion Issue.

Posted: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:12 am

Quote:

As "heartless" as this sounds, I find it less ethical to continue upon our course of gross overpopulation then to abort even healthy fetuses. I would of course promote not getting pregnant in the first place over aborting after the fact.

I don't find that heartless. I was just saying that since women with healthy fetuses don't generally get late term abortions, a bill that legalized abortions in every other case would be desirable as it would have a better chance of being better received by the majority of the populace. If the bill included abortion under every circumstance, then no body would vote for it and see the pro-choice movement as a bunch of infanticidal maniacs.

Posted: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:10 am

Cygnus wrote:

I don't find that heartless.

Most people would probably consider any mention of abortion as population control heartless. I find it a rational if undesirable response. Of course, a large percentage of the human population is still in denial when it comes to what constitutes acceptable/sustainable population levels. I'm of the opinion we've already surpassed that number by several billion.

Quote:

I was just saying that since women with healthy fetuses don't generally get late term abortions, a bill that legalized abortions in every other case would be desirable as it would have a better chance of being better received by the majority of the populace. If the bill included abortion under every circumstance, then no body would vote for it and see the pro-choice movement as a bunch of infanticidal maniacs.

I agree with you here. Such a bill wouldn't even get to the point of a vote solely because it does seem heartless and we all know the typical voter votes based upon their emotions.

Posted: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:57 am

Quote:

I'm of the opinion we've already surpassed that number by several billion.

So what would be a good method of population control? How would it come to be actively supported by most of everyone so that people start to push for regulation? How would said regulation be accomplished?

Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 2:43 am

Cygnus wrote:

Quote:

I'm of the opinion we've already surpassed that number by several billion.

So what would be a good method of population control? How would it come to be actively supported by most of everyone so that people start to push for regulation? How would said regulation be accomplished?

I don't think it will come through regulation. If it comes at all, and I'm hopeful that it will, it will come through understanding, through a realization of how limited our resources are, how our use of those affect the environment, and how population levels are directly proportional to those things. It's more likely however humans will not come to this understanding soon enough and essentially breed themselves into near extinction, serving a similar outcome, but not the ideal or desired one in my opinion. The suffering that over-population has, is and will continue to cause is far more disastrous then the very limited emotional distress of not having children or severely limiting the amount of children produced.

Ideally we would reach a certain, sustainable level then maintain it. This will not happen however until humans begin to think of reproduction rationally, instead of emotionally. Most people no longer need children, but they still emotionally/biologically want them.

China has tried regulation out of shear necessity with some success. They basically levy higher taxes on those who will not comply with a single birth per household regulation.

Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 2:59 am

If people are ever going to regulate the population by theirselves, it would most likely happen the way it is happening in Europe. People over there are actually having fewer children. It is possible that in lesser developed countries larger families are needed for families to survive. It is precisely these countries that are becoming over-populated. I think that as more countries gain a higher standard of living, then the rate of population growth might slack off.

Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 8:48 pm

Cygnus wrote:

I think that as more countries gain a higher standard of living, then the rate of population growth might slack off.

Yes, I've heard this before. However, there are still first-world countries (such as the US) that are growing at a high rate (one birth every 8 seconds to one death every 12). If standard of living was a valid indicator, the US would probably show a similar decline to the Europeans, which it hasn't. My guess is most of the Europeans are more socially aware of the impacts of over-population and also that they are confined to smaller, less-expansive countries where over-crowding is more apparent.

Quote:

It is possible that in lesser developed countries larger families are needed for families to survive.

This in my opinion is a perceived need not a valid need. More people require more resources to support; it's simple math. Where direct human labor is not offset by machine labor it maybe perceive that more "hands" give you a better advantage. Given the abject poverty of most of the third-world countries, this paradigm obviously isn't working.

Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 3:06 am

Quote:

This in my opinion is a perceived need not a valid need. More people require more resources to support; it's simple math. Where direct human labor is not offset by machine labor it maybe perceive that more "hands" give you a better advantage. Given the abject poverty of most of the third-world countries, this paradigm obviously isn't working.

I think that if there is this belief, then it is left over from the more primitive environment from which third world countries are exiting. Back before The modern age, wasn't it more beneficial and common to have larger families since a larger family was a more cohesive social network and therefore had a better chance of survival? Large extended families could form clans and maybe entire villages. The extended family was valued in China.

Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 9:11 pm

Cygnus wrote:

I think that if there is this belief, then it is left over from the more primitive environment from which third world countries are exiting.

The perceived need to reproduce at pre-industrial levels is most likely a traditional holdover, agreed. Can you imagine the stress on our planet's limited recourses if the entire human population consumed at the insane rate of the United States and how that would impact our environment? We must learn how and want to use resources many times more efficiently before we even begin to think about moving the entire population to first-world status, either that or have extremely lower global population levels.

Quote:

Back before The modern age, wasn't it more beneficial and common to have larger families since a larger family was a more cohesive social network and therefore had a better chance of survival?

Your appraisal is the traditional and probably correct line of thought on the topic. However, infant mortality was much higher and life span was much shorter during the period, leading to more stable population levels. We've reversed this trend with technology, which is basically the cause of the current population explosion. The consequences of living in our more modern world and yet reproducing like we're living in the Dark Ages hasn't become apparent to most of the human population.

Quote:

Large extended families could form clans and maybe entire villages.

The family paradigm has led us to such tribalistic concepts as organized religion, states, countries, etc.

Quote:

The extended family was valued in China.

I believe it still is.

Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 6:41 pm

Quote:

I believe it still is.

It would be interesting to see if they still do after many generations of the one child policy and modernization.

Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 10:49 pm

Doing some research on China I stumbled across Al Bartlett, Professor Emeritus, Physics. In his article, " The New Flat Earth Society " he makes one startling conclusion I found most enlightening.

If human population continues to grow at a very modest one percent per year, in only 17,000 years our numbers would total more then all the atoms in the known universe. We are currently growing at a rate much faster then this.

Newbie Joined: Jul 20, 2009 Posts: 19

NateV wrote:

Help me out here guys...(gals). I am a non-believer. (Neither here nor there with Abortion.) I am trying to understand the scientific support for Abortion, and I can't seem to get it. I'm not emotional at all about it, although it might depend on what age the removal is administered. I truly want to support women with pro-choice, but I'm having a hard time drawing the line on the death time. I know if it is near birth, I clearly think it's wrong. So (scientifically), (biologically), we have to set a time table on withdrawal..... Smile

At what point does a human become human enough to feel pain be considered a murder in the eyes of a pro-choice person? What we DO know is after birth is a person and to kill that person is murder. You will all agree, so, at what point inside is Murder? Really? I truly want to know.

Maybe 6-9 months? If someone says "no time", "It's totally up to her", that's total B.S. To abort a 9 month old person is heartless.

NateV,

I agree with you, aborting a 9 month old is heartless, but that’s my personal opinion and we should not try to shove it down some one else’s thought, I believe people should have the option to abort whenever they want, no matter how developed the fetus is, it’s their body, and it’s their baby, I know it’s a life, but, it’s up to the individual. Smile

Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 6:15 am

Partisan wrote:

Hey everyone

After reading the topic thread ("Obama’s Election may Lead to the Overturning of Roe versus W"), I realized I only had a very vague and blurry stance on the entire pro-choice/pro-life issue; I think I'm pro-choice, but thats about all I can say.

So, I was curious if anybody on the forums knew of any good sites that discussed this. Any help is good help. Very Happy

Thanks,
Partisan

Hi folks,

It has been a couple of years since showing up here, life keeps me busy, but I want to try and make time for things that I enjoy - and this forum was one of them, so hopefully I will be sticking around - if I do disappear for a while don't think I have fogotten you folk - I have not.
Glad to recognise some old faces (names) - hope all are well.

Abortion is one of thie subjects I feel passionate about - it is a woman's choice. Period.

My take on abrtion comes from the premise of rights - not from life, or its sacredness. A woman has a right to control her own body, a fetus/embryo/'baby'/'person' call it what you will does not have the same rghts as its mother while it is in side her body.

I agree with Judith Jarvis Thomson 'violin' argument.

Imagine a woman is kidnapped and wakes up to find her self in a hospital bed, attached by medical equipment to an unconcious person next to her. It is explained to her that the person is a great violinist who is dying. Is life can only be saved if the correct doner can be found. Her kidnappers (a musical society) explain that she is the only person who is a suitable donar, and that for the violinist to survive she must remain attached to the medical equipment for nine months. At the end of the nine months the violinist will have recovered consciousness and will be able to survive and eventually completely recover without the help of the medical equipment or the use of her body. At that point she will be removed from the equipment, and can resume her life with no ill effects upon her own lhealth whatsoever.

Is the woman morally bound to remain attached to the medical equipment? No. It may be a 'unecessary' kindness for her to remain attached, but it is not morally wrong for her to refuse to do so. The violinist does not have the right to lfe if that right involves removing the autonomy of the woman to make choices over her own body.

Same with pregnency, a fetus (even if one believes it to be a person) does not have the right to life if that right invloves removing the autonomy of the woman to choose what to do with her own body. The right of a woman to decide what happens with her body outwighs the right of a fetus to use that woman's body against her will.

Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 8:29 pm

Hey nogods, welcome back Very Happy

Quote:

Same with pregnency, a fetus (even if one believes it to be a person) does not have the right to life if that right invloves removing the autonomy of the woman to choose what to do with her own body. The right of a woman to decide what happens with her body outwighs the right of a fetus to use that woman's body against her will.

I've seen this argument before and also find it rather solid. The only difference of course is, in the "violin" argument the women was forced, against her will, to support someone else. Aside from rape, which is a rare cause of pregnancy, this isn't the case. Generally speaking, the woman isn't forced into becoming pregnant. Pregnancy is commonly accidental or intentional, and the act that causes it is almost always intentional and willing. So the question is, does an intentional, willing act necessitate a form of responsibility to the persons who bring about another homosapien life, especially when those persons know the risks and consequences associated with the act? I believe if the fetus is brought to term, the parents are legally required to support that life.

Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2010 5:06 am

MockingGods wrote:

Hey nogods, welcome back Very Happy

Quote:

Same with pregnency, a fetus (even if one believes it to be a person) does not have the right to life if that right invloves removing the autonomy of the woman to choose what to do with her own body. The right of a woman to decide what happens with her body outwighs the right of a fetus to use that woman's body against her will.

I've seen this argument before and also find it rather solid. The only difference of course is, in the "violin" argument the women was forced, against her will, to support someone else. Aside from rape, which is a rare cause of pregnancy, this isn't the case. Generally speaking, the woman isn't forced into becoming pregnant. Pregnancy is commonly accidental or intentional, and the act that causes it is almost always intentional and willing. So the question is, does an intentional, willing act necessitate a form of responsibility to the persons who bring about another homosapien life, especially when those persons know the risks and consequences associated with the act? I believe if the fetus is brought to term, the parents are legally required to support that life.

Thanks for the greeting.

The violinist argument (I mistakenly called it the violin argument in my initial post) sets out to do two things.

1/ Show that even if we grant that a fetus is a person, a person does not necessarily have the right to use (consciously or unconsciously) someone's body against their will. The pro-life argument usually revovles around the issue on whether the fetus is a 'person.' If a 'person' it is automatically assumed by pro-abortionists that therefore the fetus has the rght to life and abortion is simply murder.

Pro-abortionists merely assume an 'innocent' person must always have a rght to life - and any removal of that right is murder. The violinist argument shows this is not the case. The violinist is innocent, had no part in the kidnapping of the woman who he now depends upon for his life. None the less, that does not mean his innocent life has an automatic justified right to continue - and that the kidnapped woman is implicitly involved in the violinists 'murder' if she demands that she is removed from the medical equipment that is keeping the violinist alive.

As a consequence, it shows
2/ that the right to life depends upon more than just being a 'person.' A woman does not have an automatic moral obligation to keep an 'embryo/fetus 'person' alive by lendng it the use of her body.

An extreme view on the anti-abortion front (held too by catholics/orthodox and some evengelical Christians - along with Muslims and ultra Orthodox Jews) would say a woman cannot choose an abortion even if the pregnency is due to rape, because doing so means destroying an innocent 'person' - after all the embryo/fetus is not responsible for the rape.

It seems we both agree that the violinist argument proves that position to be false. A woman who has been raped is morally justified in choosing an abortion even if we accept the pro-abortionist claim that what is being aborted is an innocent 'person.'

Your objection breaks down to two parts. While abortion for rape is justified by the violinist argument, it does not justify abortion for a woman who has chosen to have sex, and as a consequence has become pregnent either by 1/ accident or 2/ intent. The raped woman is like the kidnapped woman in the violinist analogy - something has been forced upon her against her will therefore she is morally justified to abort, even if we accept the view that the embryo/fetus is a 'person.'

Let us see if we cannot first agree that the argument justifies abortion in the case of accidential pregnencies. If we can agree that the violinist argument can be modified to justify abortion in cases of accidental pregnencies - and not just in the case of rape - then we can see if the argument 'rights to life is secondary to the the right to autonomy over one's body' will also justify a woman's right to abortion in the case of intentional pregnencies.

Would you agree that if a woman uses contraception, but through no fault of her own the contraception fails, that she would still find her self in the same moral position as the woman kidnapped and attached to the machine against her will?

Let us say that the woman as a friend in the same hospital were the dying unconscious violinist is being cared for. Let us also say she has been warned that there is a danger - though small - that a fanatical musical appreciation group might use her visit to overpower the hospital staff and attach her to medical equipment against her will in order to save the violinists life. If the woman still decides to visit her friend, and despite taking precautions, is forcibly attached by the music appreciation group to the medical equipment, would you say that she must now agree to remain attached for nine months to save the violinists life. After all she knew of the risk and did not have to visit the hospital.

So if a woman has sex, taking precautions that she will not become pregnent, finds through no fault of her own that she has has become pregnent - some failure of the contraceptive method - she has no more agreed to the pregnency than the woman visiting a friend in hospital. To argue against this is to say that the woman should not have gone to the hospital knowing the risks to her being kidnapped, and that women should not have sex knowing the risk to the possibility of becoming pregnent.

Would you agree that an accidental pregnency, like a pregnency caused by rape, does not obligate the woman to allow the embryo/fetus/'person' to use her body for nine months - and that an abortion to terminate such a pregnency cannot be said to be morally objectionable?

Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:56 pm

First of all, you probably know that I'm NOT anti-abortion. I'm sure you've gathered that if you've read the entire thread.

nogods wrote:

Would you agree that if a woman uses contraception, but through no fault of her own the contraception fails, that she would still find her self in the same moral position as the woman kidnapped and attached to the machine against her will?

Not necessarily. People that use contraceptive measures are usually aware of their fallibility. That said, even if contraception is used, there is still a chance of pregnancy. If the person knows this, then the culpability hasn't changed, in my opinion.

Quote:

Let us say that the woman as a friend in the same hospital were the dying unconscious violinist is being cared for. Let us also say she has been warned that there is a danger - though small - that a fanatical musical appreciation group might use her visit to overpower the hospital staff and attach her to medical equipment against her will in order to save the violinists life. If the woman still decides to visit her friend, and despite taking precautions, is forcibly attached by the music appreciation group to the medical equipment, would you say that she must now agree to remain attached for nine months to save the violinists life. After all she knew of the risk and did not have to visit the hospital.

This analogy, while good, doesn't address my point that consensual sex isn't forced. In both the original argument and this argument, there is force used against the person's will, force that directly leads the "attachment". In the case of pregnancy, the act that leads to the "attachment" of the fetus is not, in most cases, forced.

Quote:

Would you agree that an accidental pregnency, like a pregnency caused by rape, does not obligate the woman to allow the embryo/fetus/'person' to use her body for nine months - and that an abortion to terminate such a pregnency cannot be said to be morally objectionable?

Think of this way, there is no guarantee that sex will yield a pregnancy, just as there is no guarantee contraception will prevent it. The act has a chance to produce a pregnancy in either case, albeit to a lesser degree using contraception. The act alone should be seen as the culpable factor. In my opinion, unless you believe people can have "accidental sex" can there be such a thing as "accidental pregnancy", as long as the people involved are aware that sex is what causes pregnancy.

BTW... I don't find abortion morally objectionable. I'm just attempting to address a point in the violinist analogy, which doesn't seem to jive with the abortion issue, aside from the instance of rape. Most pregnancy isn't the result of rape or ignorance.


Login/Register New account	Home · FAQ · News · Shows · Videos · Forums · Arcade · Listen & Chat · Book Store · Contact Us · Go Mobile