Abortion Debate

[Hugo]

Canadian women obtained 105,427 abortions in 2000... does this sound like a crises situation that we need to change the laws. i did not think so.

Deaths from cancer in 1997: 58,703

Deaths from heart disease in 1997: 57,417

From Statistics Canada.

Looks like a crisis situation to me, when the two leading causes of death in Canada put together are only slightly more than the number of annual deaths from abortion.

[RB]

well since we are comparing death:death from your reliable statistics canada website

death from abortion = 0

… abortion is not recognized as a death stat, but there is documented record of infants' death from 0 – 1 year in 1997 < -- > 500

well i am glad you can all represent yourselves and the people in strong pride, talented with your believes.

only the confident one can represent the resistant, ... not to be imprudent but to have faith in what seem fact and set forth to perhaps to trade, and exchange ideas to what is mutual benefit

and isn’t it wonderful to watch an array of colorful display of selfish infusion scurry around in an instant to discover/uncover a truth.

only now it looks black or white. in trade, these are the same folks that none can supply them, and that they must be born to trade or they can never learn it.

what i meant is that the usual argument is with the rejection of a need to inquire about all possiblities and inclusion of all thoughts, so we come up with one sided solutions but indeed you are only in favor of the self in which only thine opinion rest.

as women with pure conscience, we usually come face to face with our own dignity and what is rightfully our freedoms, and we pay our compliments the same way we own it

[Charles Anthony]

I will jump on that bandwagon!

You would? (shrug) Whatever. I'm not familiar enough with your writing to have much of an opinion about that, but I have been reading August's messages for a long time and have come to expect a higher standard from him.

I understand your points.

First, if you label it a bandwagon, fine, I will jump on it because I think his use of the term "innocent" is not haphazard and I think it forces the reader into looking at his premise -- if the reader is open-minded enough to look. Often with abortion, discussions run passed eachother without any person actually looking at the other.

Second, I understand and agree with staying away from the personal side or assumption side in an online forum. People change opinions and assumed-opinions can be complete mistakes.

I wonder. You know how some otherwise normal person might like Rob Schneider movies? Is that because of some physiological defect that we could diagnose, or is it just unexplainable human individuality at work?

Actually, he makes me cringe too!

And, I was old enough to be the flowergirl when my parents finally got married; if abortion were as easy to get and as accepted in the early 1980s as it is today, I might well not be here to have this conversation.

Were you ever an innocent child?

Depends who you ask, I suppose.

You can get as dumb as you want, Chuck (and trust me, with this last question you're getting pretty dumb) but you're not going to goad me into an argument about the morality of abortion.

No. You oppose the use of the term "innocent" and I am calling you on it. You are refusing to justify your opposition.

So, if calling somebody on their argument is dismissed as "dumb", hell, throw me on that bandwagon too.

My point is that innocence is real and it does apply. If killing a murder is justified because we deem him to be guilty, than pragmatically a fetus is probably the most objectively innocent being in the equation.

If a fetus is not a child (that is: deserving of all the rights and protections as a sentient, self sufficient human being), then kiling it is not morally wrong, any more than killing a tumour with radiation or surgery is wrong.

Under what criteria do you assign rights to a child?

Whatever that criteria happens to be, why can not be applied to a non-aborted-but-still-umbilically-attached child?

If this question were a matter of pure pragmatism and no other moral question were considered, when you look at the effects of kids from broken homes and unfit parents... we would probably be *promoting* abortions.

Explain that pragmatism.

From what we have so far, it sounds like it could also promote infanticide, euthanasia and murder.

[Black Dog]

My point is that innocence is real and it does apply. If killing a murder is justified because we deem him to be guilty, than pragmatically a fetus is probably the most objectively innocent being in the equation.

But the left wing position (not universal, of course) is that killing a murderer is not justified. There are reasons for that that includes sanctity of life arguments (not my way) as well as pragmatic ones.

Under what criteria do you assign rights to a child?

Whatever that criteria happens to be, why can not be applied to a non-aborted-but-still-umbilically-attached child?

Biological self-sufficiency would be a good place to start.

(I find it interesting that this whole discussion has barely included any mention of the person within whom he fetus resides. Talking about rights for the fetus without mentioning the impact on the woman is to miss a huge part of the picture.)

Explain that pragmatism.

From what we have so far, it sounds like it could also promote infanticide, euthanasia and murder.

Prgamatic solution: when faced with a situation where the rights of a "potential human" conflict with the rights of a walking, talking human with full agency and capacity for self sufficiency, the rights of the latter should take precedence. IOW, both pro and con abortion positions involve abrogating an individual's rights: in my mind, real people trump potential ones everytime.

[Charles Anthony]

But the left wing position (not universal, of course) is that killing a murderer is not justified. There are reasons for that that includes sanctity of life arguments (not my way) as well as pragmatic ones.

I can understand the pragmatic ones. They are distinct arguments.

As you note the non-universality of positions, we should dispense with the left-right-liberal-conservative ridiculotomy.

(I find it interesting that this whole discussion has barely included any mention of the person within whom he fetus resides. Talking about rights for the fetus without mentioning the impact on the woman is to miss a huge part of the picture.)

I understand. It makes more sense to deal with the issue as you suggest since it avoids a lot of arbitrariness.

Prgamatic solution: when faced with a situation where the rights of a "potential human" conflict with the rights of a walking, talking human with full agency and capacity for self sufficiency, the rights of the latter should take precedence. IOW, both pro and con abortion positions involve abrogating an individual's rights: in my mind, real people trump potential ones everytime.

Your criteria does not exclude infanticide, euthanasia or murder.

How do you deal with them? Myself, I am at a loss.

[kimmy]

Actually, he makes me cringe too!

Personally I think that people who enjoy Rob Schneider films should probably be put on a watch-list of some sort.

And, I was old enough to be the flowergirl when my parents finally got married; if abortion were as easy to get and as accepted in the early 1980s as it is today, I might well not be here to have this over tconversation.

Were you ever an innocent child?

Depends who you ask, I suppose.

You can get as dumb as you want, Chuck (and trust me, with this last question you're getting pretty dumb) but you're not going to goad me into an argument about the morality of abortion.

No. You oppose the use of the term "innocent" and I am calling you on it. You are refusing to justify your opposition.

So, if calling somebody on their argument is dismissed as "dumb", hell, throw me on that bandwagon too.

My point is that innocence is real and it does apply. If killing a murder is justified because we deem him to be guilty, than pragmatically a fetus is probably the most objectively innocent being in the equation.

I didn't oppose the term "innocent"; I didn't say anything about it at all. I think you have me confused with Black Dog.

And, to reiterate what Black Dog said on the subject, describing a fetus as an innocent child is not agreed on by everybody, and the question isn't on whether a fetus is innocent but whether it's a child.

If you believe that a fetus is a child, then "innocent" is a perfectly fair description, I suppose (unless you're a fundementalist Christian...)

But most people who support abortion disagree with the idea that a fetus is a person, or an entity at all. If a fetus isn't a person, then the term "innocent" becomes kind of nonsensical, right? Is my coffee-cup innocent? Is it guilty? Is it either? It just kind of sits there. It hasn't done anything wrong, so I guess you could call it innocent if you wanted to, but it seems kind of pointless to describe an inanimate object in terms that only make sense when applied to people.

And this is the part of the discussion where pro-life people jump in and say "but a fetus isn't an inanimate object!" and pro-choice people say "we'll it's not a person either", and Kimmy says "I don't know" and leaves others to fight about that part.

-k

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear kimmy,

If a fetus isn't a person, then the term "innocent" becomes kind of nonsensical, right? Is my coffee-cup innocent? Is it guilty? Is it either? It just kind of sits there. It hasn't done anything wrong, so I guess you could call it innocent if you wanted to, but it seems kind of pointless to describe an inanimate object in terms that only make sense when applied to people.

Indeed, it only becomes a time to worry if you catch your coffee cup plotting against you.

A chrysalis is not yet a butterfly, but it is an entity. I agree that the term 'innocent' should be viewed as sophistry, but for some divided on the issue, 'rights' are only given to one entity and not the other.

[Black Dog]

Your criteria does not exclude infanticide, euthanasia or murder.

How do you deal with them? Myself, I am at a loss.

It does exclude those things, absoutely. None of those involve conflict between individual rights, especially the most basic of all individual rights: agency over one's own physical self. Once a fetus is no longer biologically dependant on the mother's body, then a different set of criteria apply.

[Charles Anthony]

Your criteria does not exclude infanticide, euthanasia or murder.

How do you deal with them? Myself, I am at a loss.

It does exclude those things, absoutely. None of those involve conflict between individual rights, especially the most basic of all individual rights: agency over one's own physical self. Once a fetus is no longer biologically dependant on the mother's body, then a different set of criteria apply.

What criteria would that be?

Are you suggesting that the newborn child then has rights?

or

that the parent has a responsibility to the newborn child?

[Black Dog]

What criteria would that be?

"When faced with a situation where the rights of a "potential human" conflict with the rights of a walking, talking human with full agency and capacity for self sufficiency, the rights of the latter should take precedence."

If you can find an example where the rights of an infant or disabled individual conflict with another individual's right to self determination, I'm all for hearing it.

[Charles Anthony]

If you can find an example where the rights of an infant or disabled individual conflict with another individual's right to self determination, I'm all for hearing it.

It sounds like you are attributing "rights" once the umbilical cord is cut. Specifically, what could those rights be?

Secondly, whatever those rights happen to be, they must be provided to the newborn by somebody else. Those rights are meaningless in the same way as it is meaningless to attribute rights to the non-aborted entity.

Who is responsible for upholding the newborn's rights?

If you can not assign a person who is responsible for such rights, the criteria accepts infanticide. Some cultures do accept infanticide in various forms -- commonly death by abandonment and exposure. Are you willing to go there?

[BubberMiley]

Who is responsible for upholding the newborn's rights?

If the parent has no interest in keeping the newborn child, the state, which legislates the newborn shall not be left to die, is therefore charged with making sure that doesn't happen.

The other instance is different because it involves a person's autonomy within her own body. Some people really believe in freedom and don't just use it as an excuse for war.

[gc1765]

Secondly, whatever those rights happen to be, they must be provided to the newborn by somebody else. Those rights are meaningless in the same way as it is meaningless to attribute rights to the non-aborted entity.

Who is responsible for upholding the newborn's rights?

I guess I'd have to say whoever chooses that responsibility. There are many people out there who would like to adopt. I'm sure there must be many on the religious right who would rather adpot the baby than see it killed, right? Because the person choosing to adopt does so by choice, no one is being forced to uphold those rights against their will, which I think was Black Dog's point but I'm sure he/she will correct me if I'm wrong.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Charles Anthony,

It sounds like you are attributing "rights" once the umbilical cord is cut.

All 'rights' are attributed, or granted. The question here is: Should the 'right to life' be granted at conception or delivery?

If you can not assign a person who is responsible for such rights, the criteria accepts infanticide. Some cultures do accept infanticide in various forms -- commonly death by abandonment and exposure. Are you willing to go there?

Anarchism would also accept infanticide, for the infant would be in charge of defending it's own 'rights'. Otherwise, 'society' (or a democratic majority) would be coerced into accepting that responsibility.

[Black Dog]

It sounds like you are attributing "rights" once the umbilical cord is cut. Specifically, what could those rights be?

Secondly, whatever those rights happen to be, they must be provided to the newborn by somebody else. Those rights are meaningless in the same way as it is meaningless to attribute rights to the non-aborted entity.

Who is responsible for upholding the newborn's rights?

If you can not assign a person who is responsible for such rights, the criteria accepts infanticide. Some cultures do accept infanticide in various forms -- commonly death by abandonment and exposure. Are you willing to go there?

I see where you're going, so I'll just head you off at the pass. The social proscription on certain behaviours such as infanticide have evolved with society itself. In some cultures, infanticide is still a viable option (morally, if not legally). Now from a pure logic standpoint, allowing abortion but barring infanticide is a wholly arbitrary excercise(as is defining life itself: once you deem a two month old fetus worthy of legal protection, why not blastocysts or individual sperm cells?), as the difference between a baby and a fetus is a matter of mere months. Despite that, though, there is a difference biologicaly (the self-sufficieny argument) and from an ethical standpoint (probably because a 1 month old baby looks like a human being and not a tadpole, thus its easier to confer personhood onto the former). One could build a logical ethical argument for infanticide on the same lines as abortion, but the resistance to the concept is strong, having been built up as society evolved. It's a logical inconsistency I'm comfortable with (and, as August points out, we tolerate such inconsistencies all the time in society, such as in war or in matters of self-defense).

[Charles Anthony]

One could build a logical ethical argument for infanticide on the same lines as abortion, but the resistance to the concept is strong, having been built up as society evolved. It's a logical inconsistency I'm comfortable with (and, as August points out, we tolerate such inconsistencies all the time in society, such as in war or in matters of self-defense).

Thank you for:

1) understanding the question

2) answering the question.

I am still interested in what "rights" are being attributed to personhood. They were renamed "right to life" but I want to know what that actually entails because regardless of what side of the fence we sit on the issue, neither one seems to have an answer.

[Rue]

killing babies is murder

thats why we dont do it

Uh hello how did you manage to turn this debate into what you did? This is a debate about abortion. Your suggesting a cell or an undeveloped embryo is a baby is silly. It is deliberately misleading. No one is talking about killing cuddly little babies. So relax. Go have a few.

[Rue]

Whenever I listen to people talk about abortion as an issue, I always seem to come across people who feel it is their right to impose their beliefs on others. To me that is the issue. The issue isn't whether abortion is acceptable or not, it is the notion that one human has the right to impose their spiritual beliefs on another because they think they are absolutely right and the other person wrong.

See I am not interested in anyone's religious beliefs, genetic theories, arguements as to cancer, etc. To me it comes down to a simple issue-a woman and her body. The decision what that woman does with her body is between her, her conscience and if she allows it, her doctorn and mate.

The bottom line is an embryo as long as it is part of a woman's body IS her body. You want to start telling women how to manage their bodies then make sure you have police officers or abortion enforcement officers sitting with them through-out their entire 9 months of pregnancy and of course during their initial copulation so you can make sure no sperm gets wasted. And while you are at it, post these abortion enforcement officers all over the world because many of these women smoke, drinka nd do horribloe things that could cause their babies to abort or be killed including flying, driving a car, breathing in polluted air, etc.

To me this entire debate is absurd. None of you is in the position to tell a woman how to manage her own body. You can pontificate all you want about what is right and what God wants but the bottom line is each woman as an individual has to make the choice to remain pregnant or end it.

My personal beliefs are besides the point.

So I say to all women, what you do with your body is your business.....however I would suggest if you want to listen that given the rate of AIDS and other communicable diseases past on by sex, you should practice safe sex and in that manner, if you do get pregnant by accident, at least there is less of a chance you are gong to die from AIDS.

As for what each woman does with her body, that is her business and its between her and her doctor not me. I keep my religious opinions to myself. Its more sanitary that way. Spreading religious views is a lot like farting in a crowded elevator. It is not appreciated.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Rue,

I keep my religious opinions to myself. Its more sanitary that way. Spreading religious views is a lot like farting in a crowded elevator. It is not appreciated.

I have said before, "I believe the lowest form of communication is 'farting". So, fart away. The odd part is that religious beliefs have been, often are now, and could be in the future, the law of the land.

Thus, it is important for you to 'air' your beliefs, because the rest of us likely have to live with them in some form or another, even if the form is gaseous.

Wouldn't it be nice though, if everyone's religious beliefs were more like a friendly smile in a crowded elevating conveyance rather than an obnoxious odour?

[yam]

Im 100% with Rue on this one.

For me i look to nature.

The eco-system takes care of itself which also extends to the top predators of whom abort if they cannot rear their young safely. This activity balances out (scientifically) to be at one with the 'whole' ecosystem and actually saves more land and species than if it were to follow 'moral, religous doctrine' .

However; i do have some questions for those that advocate the 'right for life' religous doctrine.

if you managed to change a womans mind whom was about to undergo an abortion would you ever offer to rear the child and pay its life expenses? Surely this would be your gods will - right? This does not only include the usual high costs for rearing kids but also for those kids that may 'need' special requirements untill there death.

The reason why i ask is this.

That often many see taxation as a burden and poohoo single mothers claiming welfare. Id like to know why . . .when they have done the alleged 'noble' and 'god fearing' thing of daring to bring in a child to this world ( rape victims, incestual, severely disabled or even just through a split condom) in the full knowledge that those claiming right to life in one breath will step over these very people as a burden to the system.

i sincerely believe these religous nuts carry the worst form of self rightousness ever. They are the biggest hypocrites since they will not look after those babies 'rights to life' once they are born!!!

in fact they will condemn them as a burden to the system.

[jdobbin]

The bestselling book Freakonomics suggests that abortion has reduced the crime rate.

[geoffrey]

See I am not interested in anyone's religious beliefs, genetic theories, arguements as to cancer, etc. To me it comes down to a simple issue-a woman and her body. The decision what that woman does with her body is between her, her conscience and if she allows it, her doctorn and mate.

So instead of bringing in religious debate, you just bring in feminist speak?

Half of that embryo is the father's, does he have no right to raise his child? How about if he compensates the mother for her 'inconvenience' during pregnancy? Or are men just a means to an end for you?

The decision to get pregnant was with the woman, and she chose to get pregnant (most of the time, we aren't talking about rape cases and stuff like that, side issue). Why do we condone irresponsibility and have people change their minds when it's lives we're dealing with?

I'm not an advocate of banning abortion, I'm definitely not a supporter of the practice either. But when you claim abortion as some kind of liberating force behind women, I struggle with that being a justification for the practice.

Sounds more like an emotional peice than a rational line of thinking on the issue.

[BubberMiley]

Half of that embryo is the father's, does he have no right to raise his child?

You must have failed biology.

[geoffrey]

Half of that embryo is the father's, does he have no right to raise his child?

You must have failed biology.

It's not my strong point, I'll admit, but your saying a father isn't an equal requirement in the situation?

[Black Dog]

Half of that embryo is the father's, does he have no right to raise his child?

As long as the fetus depends on the woman's body, she should get the final say. So no, I wouldn't give the father equal standing in that dynamic.

How about if he compensates the mother for her 'inconvenience' during pregnancy?

How? Money? Sticking a watermelon up his arse in an approximate simulation of childbirth?