Your Religious Views on Abortion

[Riverwind]

Left alone when I was about 4 years old, I probably would have died. Do you mean that infanticide should be legal?

Biologically speaking you were a self-sustaining organism that would survive if left alone as long as you had access to the food and water you needed. A 4 month old fetus would die if seperated from its mother - even if it was provided food and water.

[August1991]

Left alone when I was about 4 years old, I probably would have died. Do you mean that infanticide should be legal?

Biologically speaking you were a self-sustaining organism that would survive if left alone as long as you had access to the food and water you needed. A 4 month old fetus would die if seperated from its mother - even if it was provided food and water.

Riverwind, you just don't get it. Morality cannot be decided by an arbitrary line.

Anyway, a two month old baby can't survive on "food and water". It needs its mother's breast or a suitable substitute.

[Riverwind]

Riverwind, you just don't get it. Morality cannot be decided by an arbitrary line.

All morality _is_ an arbitrary line that society chooses. That is why we get into these kinds of debates. There would be no debate if morality was a simple absolute like the position of the planets in the sky. Philosphical arguments about when life begins are nothing more than attempts to rationalize positions that people have already choosen for emotional reasons.

[August1991]

Riverwind, you just don't get it. Morality cannot be decided by an arbitrary line.

All morality _is_ an arbitrary line that society chooses. That is why we get into these kinds of debates. There would be no debate if morality was a simple absolute like the position of the planets in the sky. Philosphical arguments about when life begins are nothing more that attempts to rationalize opinions that people have already decided on for emotional reasons.

Are you saying now that morality is based merely on "emotional reasons"? (BTW, isn't the term "emotional reason" an oxymoron - like "military intelligence"?)

Here's a radical approach to the question of morality or ethics. What if what we call "morality" are the basic rules we collectively seek to be able to work together well in society? A rule is moral if it means we work better together.

Morality is a rule for rules; and the morality rule is practicality - what works.

[Riverwind]

What if what we call "morality" are the basic rules we collectively seek to be able to work together well in society? A rule is moral if it means we work better together.

That is not a radical approach - it is statement of fact. Morality like human rights are a matter of social consensus that changes over time because practical concerns overwhelm the theoretical concerns. It used to be considered 'immoral' to have children out of wedlock - that is no longer the case because so many people choose to do it even if it was 'immoral'. As a result, society had to either accept that doing immoral things was acceptable or change the definition morality. Society choose the latter since it wanted to preserve the prohibition on immoral things.

[August1991]

Morality like human rights are a matter of social consensus that changes over time because practical concerns overwhelm the theoretical concerns.

I can live with that. Morality is like Easter. The dates change. It's a moveable feast (les fêtes mobiles.)

[Charles Anthony]

I will be a little nit-picky by suggesting that it be re-phrased: "The right of a human being to sustain itself without interference from any other individual or the state and without interfering with any other individual's rights."

Huh?

Left alone when I was about 4 years old, I probably would have died. Do you mean that infanticide should be legal?

No, I do not think it should be "legal" because I do not accept our legal system as it is. However, discussing the merits of our "legal system" does not further the argument nor do I think it is your point.

More pointedlly, with respect to comparing abortion with infanticide, I think people who kill their children should not be surprised to be treated in the same way by their peers if discovered. That is all I can do.

Personally, I think they are both disgusting however, Susan Smith may think otherwise if she takes a practical approach.

An American pilot just killed a Canadian soldier. Is the pilot guilty of murder? Well, he didn't "intentionally" kill the soldier on the ground. Huh? He was a pilot in a plane with guns - of course he intended to kill. But not a Canadian soldier.

Excellent example! It boils down to: the pilot is guilty of whatever his peers think.

With respect to "murder" or "war" or "abortion" or "infanticide" or any other form of killing, I believe it is disingenuous to identify the pro and con sides as relgious vs. non-religious. We all have "religious" views no matter what arbitrary side we take. Some "religions" are defined with ancient books and tradition while others are more pliable. Their validity with respect to reason or logic or objectivity are all the same.

Morality like human rights are a matter of social consensus that changes over time because practical concerns overwhelm the theoretical concerns.

I can live with that. Morality is like Easter. The dates change. It's a moveable feast (les fêtes mobiles.)

That is a silly analogy. You are just making fun of Christians.

[non legitimus carborundum]

August 1991.

I don't pretend to be the ONLY interpreter of the Bible. I merely pointed out the

FACT abortion is not regarded as murder in the Bible. That is not an interpretation.

An embarassing and awkward fact for many semi-literate Christians I admit, but that is not MY fault.

For me, I could not care less. I mentioned the Bible because there are millions of voters who DO believe in the scribblings of some bronze age nomads.

I am not one of them.

[Renegade]

Here's what I mean by "right to life": The right of a human being to sustain itself without interference from any other individual or the state.

I like that definition.

I will be a little nit-picky by suggesting that it be re-phrased: "The right of a human being to sustain itself without interference from any other individual or the state and without interfering with any other individual's rights."

Huh?

Left alone when I was about 4 years old, I probably would have died. Do you mean that infanticide should be legal?

No infanticide should not be legal, but for different reasons. It is not that the child's right to life has been violated, but the parent has violated a commitment which they voluntarily signed up for (ie parental responsibility). If they did not provide necessary sustaniance and care to the 4 year old, they would be guilty of criminal negligence (ie child neglect)

[Charles Anthony]

It is not that the child's right to life has been violated, but the parent has violated a commitment which they voluntarily signed up for (ie parental responsibility). If they did not provide necessary sustaniance and care to the 4 year old, they would be guilty of criminal negligence (ie child neglect)

Hold on. Your concept of rights now depends on available services.

Try to imagine a pregnant woman who does not have the services of an abortionist on hand.

Is she obligated to provide necessary sustenance? ????

What can she do? Nothing but give birth.

Does she have control over her body. No.

Does she consent to parental responsibility? No.

[M.Dancer]

If infanticide was legal my daughter would still misbehave.

But only once...................

[Renegade]

Hold on. Your concept of rights now depends on available services.

Try to imagine a pregnant woman who does not have the services of an abortionist on hand.

Is she obligated to provide necessary sustenance? ????

What can she do? Nothing but give birth.

Does she have control over her body. No.

Does she consent to parental responsibility? No.

No, my concept of rights does not depend upon available services. What I have always said is that there is a conflict of rights. Where there is availability of abortion, the mother's rights take precedence, at least early in the pregnancy. If despite the avaiability of abortion, should she decide to continue the pregnancy, in my view she has given implied consent that she will bear the child. At that point the child's right would take precedence. This is why I don't think late-term abortions should be allowed.

In my view, if no birth control or abortion were available, and a woman got pregnant, she is deemed to have consented to carry the child to term by vitrue of the act of her consentual participation in sex. If after the birth, she kept the child instead of putting it up for adoption, she is demed to have consented to accept the responsibilites of parenthood.

As a practical matter in our society any parent who did not want to provide a child with sustenance, is free to do so without causing infanticide. They simply have to give up their parental rights and responsibilities, and put the child up for adoption.

[Charles Anthony]

No, my concept of rights does not depend upon available services.

Then, explain what options are available to the following women:

1) raped (forced into sex without consent)

2) poor (nobody wants to adopt her poor child)

There is nothing in your distinction between infanticide and abortion that offers either of the above women a choice.

In my view, if no birth control or abortion were available, and a woman got pregnant, she is deemed to have consented to carry the child to term by vitrue of the act of her consentual participation in sex.

That is very unreasonable.

There are women who are forced into sex without consent. Furthermore, not everybody is fully informed about birth control. I know it is a bad excuse but it is true. I would still see abortion as an abomination but it would not make sense to say they "consented to carry the child to term" in either case.

In the event that abortion is physically not available, your condition of rights effectively enslaves the woman to her unwanted child.

If after the birth, she kept the child instead of putting it up for adoption, she is demed to have consented to accept the responsibilites of parenthood.

Until what age?

As a practical matter in our society any parent who did not want to provide a child with sustenance, is free to do so without causing infanticide. They simply have to give up their parental rights and responsibilities, and put the child up for adoption.

In "our society" that works fine. What would you do if you were poor and nobody wanted to adopt your poor child?

[Riverwind]

In "our society" that works fine. What would you do if you were poor and nobody wanted to adopt your poor child?

Each society makes moral rules that makes sense for it. A society living a subsistence level existence would likely develop a moral code that allowed the murder of disabled children since the society could not afford to support people who could not contribute. Outsiders from wealthy societies would be appalled but I doubt many would act differently if they were force to live in the same conditions.

[Renegade]

Then, explain what options are available to the following women:

1) raped (forced into sex without consent)

2) poor (nobody wants to adopt her poor child)

There is nothing in your distinction between infanticide and abortion that offers either of the above women a choice.

I will agree that that in situations where nothing in a woman's actions indicate implied consent to bearing or parenting a child, then they would not be culpable if they did not provide sustinance to the child. In the case of rape, it would be the rapist who would be culpable.

That is very unreasonable.

There are women who are forced into sex without consent. Furthermore, not everybody is fully informed about birth control. I know it is a bad excuse but it is true. I would still see abortion as an abomination but it would not make sense to say they "consented to carry the child to term" in either case.

In the event that abortion is physically not available, your condition of rights effectively enslaves the woman to her unwanted child.

Of course it is unreasonable, because the scenerio you are portraying is unreasonable, at least in our society. You are construing a scenario where either choice (ie abandonment of the child vs violation of a woman's control of her body) is egregious. There is no "correct" choice in such a situation and in either case someone's rights will be violated to a considerable extent.

Until what age?

Any criterion selected is somewhat arbritary. Our society picks the age of 18 as the threshold. Parents are aware of this support obligation until age 18 at the point they make the decision to be parents.

While age is an unambigious means of defining the threshold, it would be equally valid to choose some other criterion (such as when the child moves out or gets a job). Of course I'm glossing over some of the complexities involved in determining when the child can be deemed "independant".

In "our society" that works fine. What would you do if you were poor and nobody wanted to adopt your poor child?

I expect that what woudl happen, is exactly what does happen in many poor societies which bear unwanted children. They are left to die.

Maybe I can ask you a question. In your opinion at what point does the father and mother decide that they will be the child's parent (ie when to the accept the obligations of parenthood). Also, once they accept it, what does that obligate them for?

[Charles Anthony]

Each society makes moral rules that makes sense for it. A society living a subsistence level existence would likely develop a moral code that allowed the murder of disabled children since the society could not afford to support people who could not contribute.

There are problems with this:

1) it really does not clarify any difference between right and wrong. It puts abortion or infanticide on par with other violence.

2) I think we have turned away and refused to accept any concept of morality. In effect, we are discussing "legality" instead.

Outsiders from wealthy societies would be appalled but I doubt many would act differently if they were force to live in the same conditions.

I have no doubt you are right.

You are construing a scenario where either choice (ie abandonment of the child vs violation of a woman's control of her body) is egregious. There is no "correct" choice in such a situation and in either case someone's rights will be violated to a considerable extent.

Exactly. I think that is the salient feature that puts reproductive rights aside from all other concepts of morality.

As an aside, I wonder how we could follow the same line of reasoning by examining the opposite concept of rights: the right to reproduce. Some people believe everybody has that right.

While age is an unambigious means of defining the threshold, it would be equally valid to choose some other criterion (such as when the child moves out or gets a job). Of course I'm glossing over some of the complexities involved in determining when the child can be deemed "independant".

Despite the glossing over, I would attribute more validity to the act of "moving out" as a defining point because it reflects consent. However, not all children move out. Some children are kicked out which makes it more difficult to determine who is responsible.

Maybe I can ask you a question. In your opinion at what point does the father and mother decide that they will be the child's parent (ie when to the accept the obligations of parenthood). Also, once they accept it, what does that obligate them for?

Excellent dilemma!

I must preface my response with the fact that I do not impose personal preference and make it state policy.

In general, I believe both parents accept the obligations of parenthood as soon as they find out of the pregnancy. I eliminate as much subjectivity as possible. That is the only threshold that makes sense to me in terms of morality. It transcends all cultures and financial situations.

[However, their consent is analogous to when they "accept the obligations of" dealing with a broken leg. They can not ignore it. They must physically do something for their own sake and their choices in life are limited compared to before the broken leg.]

Morally, I view the relationship (more precisely, the competeing rights) between every mother and unborn child as if it were two separate people stranded on a desert island with limited resources. In my eyes, anything short of cooperating and sharing within the available means is wrong. In fact, I would hope that the mother makes a little more of a sacrifice for her creation.

Now comes the difficult part: what does the obligation of parenthood entail??? I do not have an answer. The same question was posed before and I believe that it creates a stalemate in attributing human rights or responsibilities. I believe all objectivity ends and it is impossible to convincingly define a threshold age for everybody. For this reason, I think it makes sense to step back and consider the possibility of us having a purpose in life to which we can not appeal to reason. What that purpose may be, I can not prove but maybe it exists. The concept of reproduction may be at the center of it. I liken it to how we take gravity (or magnetism or electricity) for granted: we do not understand much about these physical phenomena but our entire world seems to magically depend upon them.

I expand the implications of parental responsibility to include the actions of a child too. A person can not create a monster every 9 months and let it loose on the world without baring some level of responsibility. When a child commits a crime, I first look at the parents who created a criminal. Blaming school or television or video games or street gangs does not cut for me. By further extension, it creates an inherent dilemma: how old is old enough to be fully responsible for ones own actions??? I think a 5 year old is too young but certainly a 50 year old is probably old enough -- but maybe not.

[Black Dog]

In general, I believe both parents accept the obligations of parenthood as soon as they find out of the pregnancy. I eliminate as much subjectivity as possible. That is the only threshold that makes sense to me in terms of morality. It transcends all cultures and financial situations.

Wait: they accept, or should accept?

Morally, I view the relationship (more precisely, the competeing rights) between every mother and unborn child as if it were two separate people stranded on a desert island with limited resources. In my eyes, anything short of cooperating and sharing within the available means is wrong. In fact, I would hope that the mother makes a little more of a sacrifice for her creation.

But they aren't speerate people. Co-operation is impossible. As for the last stement "her creation" implies that the mother has some responsibility toward the fetus (it also implies ownership). Sez who?

[Charles Anthony]

First, I am not talking about policy. I am not talking about imposing my way upon anybody.

The thread discusses "Your Religious Views on Abortion" and I am now stating them in instances where it is impossible to be objective with respect to conflict of rights. I am talking about opinion and how I judge people. To put it in context: if I observed you walking down the street naked but for a flower-pot on your head, I would suspect you as being mentally ill and I would judge you. I would not trust you to baby-sit my children. Nevertheless, I would not deny you the right to portray yourself in anyway you choose. Here is a different example: if I tripped and could not get up on my own and you were standing beside refusing to help me up, I would judge you as a bad person. However, I would not impose a requirement on your part to help me.

I hope that clarifies the value of my opinions.

Now, for more of my religious opinions (like anybody really cares...) ....

Wait: they accept, or should accept?

Should. Otherwise, they must suffer the wrath of my scorn. I will shake my head at them and say: "Tsk! Tsk!"

But they aren't speerate people. Co-operation is impossible.

I know. Morally, I view the mother's actions in that way. A mother who does not make the same sacrifice as her mother made long ago, is a bad person in my opinion. Again, I will shake my head and say: "Those damn kids! Listening to all of the Rock And/Or Roll music! What is this world coming to???" in the same way as people condemned Elvis Presley, The King.

As for the last stement "her creation" implies that the mother has some responsibility toward the fetus (it also implies ownership). Sez who?

Three people: me, myself and I.

Do not worry: neither of them will impose their will upon you nor will they expect you to pay for their personal sense of morality.

The thrust of my round-about arguments is to force people to examine the absolutes and recognize that every side of the debate must accept an arbitrary decision. Thus, both sides (pro-abortion and anti-abortion) can be said to have a subjective opinion one way or the other. It is not fair to just label one side as religious.

[Renegade]

In general, I believe both parents accept the obligations of parenthood as soon as they find out of the pregnancy. I eliminate as much subjectivity as possible. That is the only threshold that makes sense to me in terms of morality. It transcends all cultures and financial situations.

[However, their consent is analogous to when they "accept the obligations of" dealing with a broken leg. They can not ignore it. They must physically do something for their own sake and their choices in life are limited compared to before the broken leg.]

Did you not say it it was unreasonable that the parents are deemed to accept responsibilty by virtue of their participation in the sexual act? Is there really any difference in them accepting responsibilty by participation in sex and accepting responsibility when they find out of the pregnancy? What happens in the case of rape?

Morally, I view the relationship (more precisely, the competeing rights) between every mother and unborn child as if it were two separate people stranded on a desert island with limited resources. In my eyes, anything short of cooperating and sharing within the available means is wrong. In fact, I would hope that the mother makes a little more of a sacrifice for her creation.

There is a difference between two people stranded on an island with shared resources and a pregnancy. It would be hard to imagine that the woman's body is a resource which should be under the control of anyone else but her. She can share that resource or choose not to at her own discretion.

Let's extend the question further, if the woman's womb is a resource which potentially can be shared, why limit it to just the woman and fetus?. Suppose a man, wishes to reproduce, and can't find a willing woman. Can he claim an unwilling woman's womb as a shared resource and force her to host a pregnancy?

------

When you look at the abortion issue as a conflict of rights, in implementing a policy, there is always a decision to be made on who's rights should prevail. In many cases the decision is easy, as the balance is heavly tilted one way or the other. You can always contrue situations where rights violations are egregious regardless of which side the decision falls on, and in these situations the decisions can be somewhat arbitrary.

In general, regarding the abortion issue, it is clear to me that balance is heavily in favour in preserving the mothers rights to choose the use of her body, at least until such time that she implicitly or explicitly makes the decision to host the pregnancy.

[Elder]

Don't your views on abortion depend upon your religious view?

But then wouldn't the separation of church and state require that you

not try to make others live by your religion?

Anyones religious beliefs have a huge impact on their morality, on how they view right or wrong. Would you ask any man or woman to endorse or encourage something they believe to be wrong? Do you consider that to be right? I doubt it, and as such, you probaby won't. We vote based off what we believe represents us. That's the beauty of it. I can vote against abortion representing myself, and if if this sad sick world votes against me, than they can have their abortion, and while I won't be happy about it, they will have made their choice. On the other hand, if enough people agree with me, and that represents the majority of the people, than my side will win. It's the beauty of modern government. We don't have a few people lording over many who disagree with them.

[Riverwind]

On the other hand, if enough people agree with me, and that represents the majority of the people, than my side will win. It's the beauty of modern government. We don't have a few people lording over many who disagree with them.

It is not that simple. The charter of rights and freedoms ensures that it takes more than a simple majority in parliment to take away freedoms from others. When it comes to the abortion issue any attempt to restrict abortion infringes on the rights of others. Allowing abortion infringes on the rights of no one (as far as the constitution is concerned).

[Charles Anthony]

In general, I believe both parents accept the obligations of parenthood as soon as they find out of the pregnancy.

Did you not say it it was unreasonable that the parents are deemed to accept responsibilty by virtue of their participation in the sexual act?

Yes. In my opinion, having sex (with or without consent) is not saying: "I want to be a parent." at all.

Is there any really difference in them accepting responsibilty by participation in sex and accepting responsibility when they find out of the pregnancy?

Yes. I think they are different by virtue of the animal instinct to have sex. Without understanding or knowledge of how sex leads to reproduction, I think it is a safe bet to say that two (relatively normal) people (or animals) will eventually have sex upon maturity. Whether by design or not, the animal kingdom is wired that way. I believe that the pleasure of sex is unique compared to any other animal's experience and it makes sense to have such pleasure associated with perpetuating the species. I realize that it could be the result of random mutations long ago although, personally, I prefer a super-natural explanation.

What happens in the case of rape?

As policy, it only makes sense to NOT attribute consent to the pregnancy. I will not stop the new mother from doing whatever she wants.

However, anything short of carrying the pregnancy to term, would lead me to not trust that women. I would not let that woman babysit my children.

There is a difference between two people stranded on an island with shared resources and a pregnancy. It would be hard to imagine that the woman's body is a resource which should be under the control of anyone else but her. She can share that resource or choose not to at her own discretion.

Correct. As policy, I would not stop her from doing whatever she wants. Morally, I would expect her to share her body with her unborn -- if she wants my respect, that is (like as if she cares).

Think of it this way: if a woman aborts her kid without the consent of the father, she should not expect the father's adoration. She should not be surprised if he thinks of her differently.

Let's extend the question further, if the woman's womb is a resource which potentially can be shared, why limit it to just the woman and fetus?. Suppose a man, wishes to reproduce, and can't find a willing woman. Can he claim an unwilling woman's womb as a shared resource and force her to host a pregnancy?

As policy, simply no. Morally, no again. Both instances are slavery.

Morally, I am only making an exception for the mother-unborn relationship different because of the physicologic connection. I make more demands on the pregnant women.

In general, regarding the abortion issue, it is clear to me that balance is heavily in favour in preserving the mothers rights to choose the use of her body, at least until such time that she implicitly or explicitly makes the decision to host the pregnancy.

As policy, I agree.

However, morally, their choices over their body influence the choices I make in dealing with them. I see women who had abortions [i understand that people can change, but with all else being equal] in a different light: I would not let them babysit my children. That is my right too.

I can vote against abortion representing myself, and if if this sad sick world votes against me, than they can have their abortion, and while I won't be happy about it, they will have made their choice. On the other hand, if enough people agree with me, and that represents the majority of the people, than my side will win. It's the beauty of modern government. We don't have a few people lording over many who disagree with them.

Although I agree with you that "this sad sick world" can have their abortion, I disagree with your opinion on "the beauty of modern government" completely. Your example actually demonstrates the opposite to me and illustrates why I believe democracy is wrong: regardless of what the majority thinks, nobody should have the power to compel anybody to do anything -- self-defense excluded. Therefore, even though I believe abortion is abominable, I firmly believe people should be free to be abominable.

The charter of rights and freedoms ensures that it takes more than a simple majority in parliment to take away freedoms from others. When it comes to the abortion issue any attempt to restrict abortion infringes on the rights of others. Allowing abortion infringes on the rights of no one (as far as the constitution is concerned).

The constitution seems like a check and balance. However, if (in the unlikely event of) a vast majority of Canadians change their minds and oppose abortion, a policy change could be made to outlaw it. There is nothing inherent in our democracy that defends human rights.