Abortion

[ultimatedinoking95]

Jun 22, 2014 8:24:44 GMT 5 Supercommunist said:

Okay. So you basically insinuated that I and several others are advocates of murder. No point in debating with you.

Yes, a fetus is gentically human, however it's lack of awareness makes it fundamentally from a full developed human. For example what do you think is worse, a robber killing a man during a bank heist, or a doctor pulling the plug on a patient who is in a vegetated state? Neither act is in the least bit pleasant but they are leagues apart from one another.

Anyway I am pretty much done with this thread. Politics is a tiresome topic and unless someone blatantly misinterprets the other position I'm butting out. just because a person is unable to communicate or respond dosnt mean you should pull the plug, that would be like walking up to the patient and shooting them.

[coherentsheaf]

Jun 22, 2014 5:26:47 GMT 5 Fragillimus335 said:

Jun 22, 2014 0:46:55 GMT 5 coherentsheaf said:

In case of breakage of contraception they did not go into it "willingly"


Murder? I do not understand. Murder is the killing of a person under specific legally defined circumstances. This does not qualify as murder at all.

Yes, failure of contraception is a risk understood and taken by both parties before having sex.

Yes, knowingly ending the life of a human against their will is generally known as murder.

Failure of contraception is nevertheless nothing but an accident, not an intended consequence. This is morally significant.

For the second part, this is simply flat out wrong. E.g. Killing someone n self defense is not murder.

[theropod]

Jun 22, 2014 8:24:44 GMT 5 Supercommunist said:

Yes, a fetus is gentically human, however it's lack of awareness makes it fundamentally from a full developed human. For example what do you think is worse, a robber killing a man during a bank heist, or a doctor pulling the plug on a patient who is in a vegetated state? Neither act is in the least bit pleasant but they are leagues apart from one another.

The situation is what’s fundamentally different. Pulling the plug in such a case is done in accordance with, or at least in the best interest of the patient, who has no chances of becoming better. It ends a life that is not worth living any more (or, depending on the definition, not a life at all).
Abortion is in many ways the exact opposite.

Why should differences in awareness justify killing someone, especially if that person is still developing? Would it justify shooting dumb people just because they are dumb? Or children? Where do you draw the line?
Won’t this reasoning eventually lead to after-birth abortion (or "ultra-late after birth abortion")?

In question, one should let the child live.

[theropod]

Wikipedia defines murder as "the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human, and generally this premeditated state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter)."

So technically abortion does not qualify as murder, since it isn’t unlawful. Whether it SHOULD qualify as murder when ignoring the "unlawful"-part is debatable.

It is undoubtedly premeditated, but it depends on whether we consider malice the motive, or rather just a voluntarily accepted consequence.

[Supercommunist]

I know I said I would stop be involved in this topic but I don't like the way people interpreted my posts so I am stepping in again.

just because a person is unable to communicate or respond dosnt mean you should pull the plug, that would be like walking up to the patient and shooting them.

1. Keeping a person alive while their in a never ending coma costs a lot of money.

2. Your dodging the question. What do you think is worse killing a person, or pulling the plug on a comatose victim?

The situation is what’s fundamentally different. Pulling the plug in such a case is done in accordance with, or at least in the best interest of the patient, who has no chances of becoming better.

I wasn't comparing the two in that way, I am simply stating that not all forms/state of human life are equal.

Why should differences in awareness justify killing someone, especially if that person is still developing? Would it justify shooting dumb people just because they are dumb? Or children? Where do you draw the line?

Wow really? I said life with NO awareness is less valuable than those with awareness, don't twist my words.

Won’t this reasoning eventually lead to after-birth abortion (or "ultra-late after birth abortion")?

You do realize your resorting to a slippery slope argument right?

In question, one should let the child live.

We are not talking about killing kids, we're talking about aborting undevoloped humans.

[ultimatedinoking95]

Jun 23, 2014 4:23:02 GMT 5 Supercommunist said:

I know I said I would stop be involved in this topic but I don't like the way people interpreted my posts so I am stepping in again.

1. Keeping a person alive while their in a never ending coma costs a lot of money.

2. Your dodging the question. What do you think is worse killing a person, or pulling the plug on a comatose victim?you may be coloring it differently, but no matter how you take a life, your still killing.

I wasn't comparing the two in that way, I am simply stating that not all forms/state of human life are equal.

Wow really? I said life with NO awareness is less valuable than those with awareness, don't twist my words.

You do realize your resorting to a slippery slope argument right?

We are not talking about killing kids, we're talking about aborting undevoloped humans.

[coherentsheaf]

Jun 22, 2014 16:13:54 GMT 5 theropod said:

Wikipedia defines murder as "the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human, and generally this premeditated state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter)."

So technically abortion does not qualify as murder, since it isn’t unlawful. Whether it SHOULD qualify as murder when ignoring the "unlawful"-part is debatable.

The lawful part is important to the definition, so rejecting it is at best a very conscious decision to muddy the waters of the debate.

It is undoubtedly premeditated,

Oh, there are many people disagreeing with you there. For example republicans in texas are pushing for a law that requires women to name their children before they abort, strongly suggestion a widespread belief that abortions are impulsive decisions.

but it depends on whether we consider malice the motive, or rather just a voluntarily accepted consequence.

What if the motive is not malice butconcern with the human population level or the later wellfare of the child for example. I think you are straining when you are trying to interpret malice into these decisions.

[theropod]

The lawful part is important to the definition, so rejecting it is at best a very conscious decision to muddy the waters of the debate.

I doubt anyone would deny that is the intention of calling something murder. There wouldn’t actually be a reason to do so if it was considered such by law.

Oh, there are many people disagreeing with you there. For example republicans in texas are pushing for a law that requires women to name their children before they abort, strongly suggestion a widespread belief that abortions are impulsive decisions.

By that definition, murder could also count as an impulsive decision in many cases. That a decision may not be logical or properly thought through doesn’t mean it isn’t planned at all.

What if the motive is not malice butconcern with the human population level or the later wellfare of the child for example.

It seems strange to kill a healthy child for concern about its wellfare…

I think you are straining when you are trying to interpret malice into these decisions.

I am not interpreting malice into these decisions, in fact I clearly wrote that it depends on interpretation. My opinion is that usually the motive is rather fear or simply convenience, but one can’t expect to get objective data on something like this to prove it anyway.

[creature386]

Jun 25, 2014 22:59:12 GMT 5 theropod said:

It seems strange to kill a healthy child for concern about its wellfare…

His point is that there are also children where we know that they will have a genetic disorder that could make their life hell when they are born. We can know this through stuff like preimplantation genetic diagnosis. The method I mentioned may be a subject for another debate because it is not legal everywhere, but that isn't the point.

[coherentsheaf]

Jun 25, 2014 22:59:12 GMT 5 theropod said:

Oh, there are many people disagreeing with you there. For example republicans in texas are pushing for a law that requires women to name their children before they abort, strongly suggestion a widespread belief that abortions are impulsive decisions.

By that definition, murder could also count as an impulsive decision in many cases. That a decision may not be logical or properly thought through doesn’t mean it isn’t planned at all.

In cases of impulsive killings the laws differetiate things like manslaughter from murder.

What if the motive is not malice butconcern with the human population level or the later wellfare of the child for example.

It seems strange to kill a healthy child for concern about its wellfare…[/quote]
You mean just like euthanasia is bad for peoples wellfare? I believe in most cases where abortions happen the prospective parents would not be able to take care of the child very well. If we have a widespread policy to abort i such cases the wellfare of everyone on average gets improved since then most children are wanted children with economically stable backgrounds whereas else may childre are born to someone who is illequiped to look out for them.

I think you are straining when you are trying to interpret malice into these decisions.

I am not interpreting malice into these decisions, in fact I clearly wrote that it depends on interpretation. My opinion is that usually the motive is rather fear or simply convenience, but one can’t expect to get objective data on something like this to prove it anyway.
[/quote]
I suspect even if the motive is fear it is a damn good motive. Someone who does not think they can raise a child, they shouldn't. And to preempt stuff about adoption: Yeah that is a theoretical option that is not used often- once the kid is born the parents bond and are relctant to give it away.

[ultimatedinoking95]

well, there goes not starting a debate...

[theropod]

You mean just like euthanasia is bad for peoples wellfare?

There is a difference between a healthy person with his/her whole life still open and a person that is braindead or at least has no scientifically feasible chance of getting better.

I believe in most cases where abortions happen the prospective parents would not be able to take care of the child very well. If we have a widespread policy to abort i such cases the wellfare of everyone on average gets improved since then most children are wanted children with economically stable backgrounds whereas else may childre are born to someone who is illequiped to look out for them.

Getting a child does not necessarily mean having to care for that child.

I suspect even if the motive is fear it is a damn good motive. Someone who does not think they can raise a child, they shouldn't.

I fully agree, they shouldn’t. I never wrote they should.

And to preempt stuff about adoption: Yeah that is a theoretical option that is not used often- once the kid is born the parents bond and are relctant to give it away.

It is still the parents decision to make. Do you think it is a good think that as long as the child is not born they do not bond and that it is made a more "attractive option" to kill the child before it is born than to give it up for adoption afterwards?

[coherentsheaf]

Jun 26, 2014 3:30:55 GMT 5 theropod said:

You mean just like euthanasia is bad for peoples wellfare?

There is a difference between a healthy person with his/her whole life still open and a person that is braindead or at least has no scientifically feasible chance of getting better.

And a fetus is not a person at all so what is your point? Your argument would work i the case of children and arguably babies but at earlier stages all we have is a particular combination of chromosomes as identifier.

Getting a child does not necessarily mean having to care for that child.

Empirically it often does/ the child will be taken care of by the state which is not a good option.

I suspect even if the motive is fear it is a damn good motive. Someone who does not think they can raise a child, they shouldn't.

I fully agree, they shouldn’t. I never wrote they should.

And abortion is currently the most effective method of ensuring this.

It is still the parents decision to make.

Sure.

Do you think it is a good think that as long as the child is not born they do not bond and that it is made a more "attractive option" to kill the child before it is born than to give it up for adoption afterwards?

Correcting for the idiosyncratic use of the word child I can only answer with a intense yes. The alternative is having loads of unwanted children(real children this time), generating generations of misery. Abortion if often far more ethical than the alternative.

[theropod]

And on what basis do you not consider a fetus a person? "Person" is a synonym of "human being" among other things→. And since a child is an immature person, a fetus, being an ontogenetic stage in human developement, does certainly qualify as such.
Differentiating between them so sharply seems quite arbitrary, since the real difference is not sharp at all.

The alternative is using saver contraceptives. Doing so consistently will not result in having "loads of unwanted children", it will make these ocurrences relatively rare.
"Generations of misery" is a complete exagreation. Some countries actually have birth rates that are too low, not too high, and in countries with high birth rates, misery results from other factors just as much or more.

[coherentsheaf]

Jun 26, 2014 16:30:44 GMT 5 theropod said:

And on what basis do you not consider a fetus a person? "Person" is a synonym of "human being" among other things→.

I am using a more relevant definition of person to ethical debates. Under your definition Yoda or Elrond would not be persons even though they have far more ethical relevance if they exist than a brain dead coma patient. Maybe a good definition for this form of personhood would be: A creature capable of mental agency comparable to or exceeding that of a human child.

And since a child is an immature person, a fetus, being an ontogenetic stage in human developement, does certainly qualify as such.

Only if you use ethically irrelevant definitions of persons.

Differentiating between them so sharply seems quite arbitrary, since the real difference is not sharp at all.

This is the problem of fuzzy connections. The gradient between fetus and human child has no discrete but both states are very different. This difference has ethical relevance since one of the two has consciousness and agency whereas the other one on the early stages is just a particular combination of chromosomes and has no individuality beyond that.

The alternative is using saver contraceptives. Doing so consistently will not result in having "loads of unwanted children", it will make these ocurrences relatively rare.

This just wishful thinking. For example the 'pill' is an incredibly safe contraceptive. This does not change the fact that people make errors and these errors would result in negative outcomes if not for other measures. So contraception is vital and complimented by abortion.

"Generations of misery" is a complete exagreation.

Absolutely not and I am almost certain that you are writing this from a position of a sheltered life with two loving parents. The difference between children that are amply provided and planned for and children in poor socioeconomic happenstances is large.

Some countries actually have birth rates that are too low, not too high, and in countries with high birth rates, misery results from other factors just as much or more.

And these countries should create incentives for people with stable backgrounds to have children, not advocating that people in unplanned pregnancies keep their children.