The Abortion Debate (continued) (1 Viewer)

[Serius]

in wat way not ethical? again taking ppls rights. i think that if they want to make the choice but are unable to do it physically themselves, then someone should be able to do it.
if ppl can make the choice not to be resusciated if they die, why cant they sign something to make euthanasia permissable if the situation gets too serious.
of course get a registered nurse or doctor to oversee it, and only in situations that have no chance of getting beter or cured.

but how exactly can you guage they have no chance of getting better? in my case both of my loved ones relished the chance to spend another few months with their family.
Someone who is critically ill is not in a good psychological frame of mind to decide wether they live or die.

Also our legal system does not say people have a right to choose if they die, thats why suicides are illegal. The reason no resus is allowed is because of beleifs, alot of religious people are against medical types of interference e.g the mormons. No resus isnt that simple either, alot of the time it isnt taken as valid as the patient isnt in their right mind.

As for the questions of ethics, i think you personally should take a course in it. Ethics is not wether you can justify something, but it is a moral code that helps decide what is right or wrong. Killing is wrong. Even if you have to kill someone in self defence, even if you do it in war, mercy killing, abortion, refusing to make the choice wether someone lives or die and of course euthanasia, thats ethics and you cant argue with it.

 

[Aime Fantasy]

for all those pro-life ppl, have any of you stood and watched someone die that was close to you? i dont mean sat on the couch and seen it on tv...but physically stood in a hospital room and watched a loved one die slowly and painfully from cancer over a period of 5 months? i have
in cases like this, euthanasia would of been an absolute blessing.

ok, over the gender issue, genders are equal.

i dont agree with murder or the taking of another life by force. i do not agree with abortion just for the sake of it, like so many teenage females do because its an inconvenience. however i do agree with abortion in special cases like rape or if their is something physically or mentally wrong with the baby.
i do agree with euthanasia

I'm not sure if what I say will have any relevence to your argument, though here it goes. My mum, as a special-education teacher works with the disabled. Last year, one of her students died from a degenerative body. She died at a relativly young age (19), but my mum and her colleagues will always maintain that she had a very happy life. She was loved and cared for by her parents and had many "friends" - her peers, teachers, family, etc. Granted, she wouldn't have been able to understand or comprehend even the simplest of concepts (she was a micro-caphalic (sp?) - her brain was 1/6th of the normal size.), though she still felt happiness. You could clearly see and hear it in her body language, facial expressions and verbal noises.

That's another side of the whole abortion debate. What is the meaning of life? At least to me (and a lot of people I've talked to), the ideas revolve around the concept of happiness. A person who has been raised in a dysfunctional home may grow up to be happy. They may not. A person who is severly disabled WILL have happy times in their life...

There is the side that if the disabled person would be in constant pain from their disorder, life would be like hell to them 24/7. I would still be opposed to abortion in this case, as you cannot know whether the person would be in this situation simply by examining the foetus/embryo's genes. Correct me if I'm wrong. Slightly off the topic, I wouldn't be able to make my mind up when it came to euthenasia (post birth). I do not want to have that power over someones life. I supose that's an irresponsible attitude, but I cannot get out of my paradox.

In my opinion, the only scenario where an abortion would be acceptable is if the baby and mother would have 0% chance of surviving the birth. Then, it would be rational to save the mother rather then letting her die with her already doomed baby. I think in the other thread (now closed), ur inner child came up with the example of an 8 year old being raped. Theoretically, it is possible to give birth at that age, but I don't like the chances. It would have to go case by case.

There is a big problem with this whole situation though. I personally don't believe humanity knows when to stop in terms of morality... either way... "up" or "down". That's another reason why I am so apprehensive of accepting abortion at any level (including the "0% case" as some people will take it as a sign that other abortion scenarios are in the green, though this is not practicle. There has to be a comprimise). Any thoughts?

 

[dieburndie]

Also our legal system does not say people have a right to choose if they die, thats why suicides are illegal.

Again, that's not true. Suicide is no longer illegal in any state of Australia. Stop making up laws to support your claims.

 

[bshoc]

Again, that's not true. Suicide is no longer illegal in any state of Australia. Stop making up laws to support your claims.

Ugh, no?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia#Australia

 

[dieburndie]

Ugh, no?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia#Australia

I (and Serius) said suicide, not assisted suicide.

 

[Serius]

suicide is a common law crime. Suicide pacts are illegal, also any form of suggesting or helping with suicide is also illegal. People who commit suicide are thought to be of unsound mind.
Suicide in australia is decriminalised in favour of counseling and helping rather than punishment. This is not a reflection of the beleif that an individual has a right to end their own life.

 

[bshoc]

Another point - do pro-deathers believe if any random person smashed a pregnant woman in the stomach, slipped her abortion drugs etc. killing her unborn child, should this count as murder? Becuase then it's quite a legal paradox we have, where the validity of murder depends on whether the mother wanted it to happen or not.

 

[KFunk]

Another point - do pro-deathers believe if any random person smashed a pregnant woman in the stomach, slipped her abortion drugs etc. killing her unborn child, should this count as murder? Becuase then it's quite a legal paradox we have, where the validity of murder depends on whether the mother wanted it to happen or not.

The whole abortion issue revolves around the relationship between the mother and the fetus... the autonomy of the mother vs. the right to life of the child. If someone forces the death of the unborn child on both the child and the mother then they simultaneously deny the rights of both the mother and the child. The mother's involvment makes the situation more complex than a consideration of murder. I feel that such an action is immoral but I do not think that that it should be seen as 'murder' in a legal context, if only because to call it murder and to treat it as such is to oversimplify the situation and disregard important elements (e.g. the mother's autonomy).

 

[bshoc]

The whole abortion issue revolves around the relationship between the mother and the fetus... the autonomy of the mother vs. the right to life of the child. If someone forces the death of the unborn child on both the child and the mother then they simultaneously deny the rights of both the mother and the child. The mother's involvment makes the situation more complex than a consideration of murder. I feel that such an action is immoral but I do not think that that it should be seen as 'murder' in a legal context, if only because to call it murder and to treat it as such is to oversimplify the situation and disregard important elements (e.g. the mother's autonomy).

Since when did we as a society differentiate between who's doing the killing? A woman should get off becuase she's the mother? If anything she should get more. One person gets life in prison while another goes free legaly for commiting the same offence? A murder is a murder, dont weasel your way out of the question, if we recognize that other people killing unborns is murder, wheres the difference between that and abortion. There isnt.

autonomy of the mother

No such right.

 

[Serius]

bshoc is right, one main stance of pro-choice people is that abortion isnt murder because the baby isnt a person yet. If i were to go kick a pregnant woman in the stomach it would only be assult, not murder according to them.

In the states, second semester abortions are legal. What i dont get is that premies are plenty viable so i dont see how killing a baby that can survive isnt murder.

So the pro-choice people have to make a choice[haha] about when a baby goes from being a mass of cells to a person. In Australia legally i think its around 12 weeks, later abortions do occur but they need more than just a half-assed reason.
So i kick a 12 week woman in the stomach and she lose her baby, she lost a growth which isnt a person? that means i didnt kill any one, i only assulted her.

That doesnt sit right with me because that woman might be pro-life so the law has effectively weighted her beleifs against the assulters and she has been short changed.

If we are to judge that assult to be murder, than just because a different mother wants to kill her baby, that doesnt mean she can abort because that would be murder too.

 

[dieburndie]

Yeah Kfunk you idiot, stop weaseling your way out of the question using legitamite and logical arguments. Idiot.

Just because pro-death, anti-life individuals often don't consider an embryo/foetus a child yet, it doesn't mean they place no weight on it's existence whatsoever. Often the case is that they don't personally agree with abortion, they just consider the fact that the foetus relies on the mother for it's entire functioning sufficient to grant her that particular choice. So why should someone who the foetus has no dependence on whatsoever committing assault be equated with the mother of the child?
Clearly bshoc cannot understand or comprehend that a woman having a foetus developing inside her may entitle her to at least some(any, at all)control over it or herself in relation to it. I don't even know why I argue about this anymore.

 

[Serius]

i think the point is the mother can do whatever she wants...as long as no1 helps her. So that means no special abortion to make it a quick and easy process, if kiling your unborn baby is so important to you than throw yourself off a building - that aught to do it. Or take a note from drew barrimore and throw yourself down the stairs. Heaps of women wouldnt go through with abortions if it wasnt for the fact that medicine has made it quick, painless and without risk to the mother.

Abortion has only become a problem in about the last 30 years or so...has society changed so much in such a short time?

 

[dieburndie]

i think the point is the mother can do whatever she wants...as long as no1 helps her. So that means no special abortion to make it a quick and easy process, if kiling your unborn baby is so important to you than throw yourself off a building - that aught to do it. Or take a note from drew barrimore and throw yourself down the stairs.

Are you and bshoc having some sort of competition to see who can type the most incomprehensible, nonsensical and irrelevant shit possible? If so, you have taken the lead with these pearls of wisdom.

Heaps of women wouldnt go through with abortions if it wasnt for the fact that medicine has made it quick, painless and without risk to the mother.

Abortion has only become a problem in about the last 30 years or so...has society changed so much in such a short time?

Abortion has been more of a problem (or issue) in about the last 40 years. And yes I think society has changed quite a great amount since 1967 (Limited abortion allowed in the UK) and 1973 (Roe Vs. Wade), and even since 1976 (30 years ago)

 

[Generator]

Abortion has only become a problem in about the last 30 years or so...has society changed so much in such a short time?

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that, as dieburndie states, it has been over the past 30 years or so that abortions have moved from the dark backyard to the public (and private) health system? It stands to reason that it's going to be more of an issue now than in the past when not too long ago it was virtually ignored by the authorities and health officials.

 

[KFunk]

Since when did we as a society differentiate between who's doing the killing? A woman should get off becuase she's the mother? If anything she should get more. One person gets life in prison while another goes free legaly for commiting the same offence? A murder is a murder, dont weasel your way out of the question, if we recognize that other people killing unborns is murder, wheres the difference between that and abortion. There isnt.



No such right [as autonomy].

You should have made that last statement before your main argument. It doesn't hold as much water without the stated assumption that women lack the right to autonomy of self. If you really want to rebut my argument then your best bet is to make a case for why autonomy is not a right (instead of just outright asserting it). To try and make my position clearer:

I should first state that I'm not somone who is pro-choice in all circumstances - there are situations in which I believe it is entirely wrong to abort a pregnancy (I can detail these things at another time). The important point is that I believe women should be allowed to abort in certain circumstances because I maintain that they have a right to autonomy and self-determination.

When a women aborts a healthy embryo I do not see the act as amoral, I believe a certain degree of 'wrong' is commited. However, in given circumstances I think it is even worse to deny a woman the option of abortion and self-determination. Hence, what is lost in terms of embryonic/fetal death is made up for (if you can use such words) by respecting the woman's right to autonomy. When an individual forces the death of the child on the woman then no such balancing act exists - her right to self-determination is denied along with the right to life possessed by the embryo/fetus. As such, the act commited by the 'random person' is unacceptable and rates lower on the 'scale of morality' than an abortion that a woman chooses to have.

 

[KFunk]

bshoc is right, one main stance of pro-choice people is that abortion isnt murder because the baby isnt a person yet. If i were to go kick a pregnant woman in the stomach it would only be assult, not murder according to them.

It's a 'main stance' of some individuals who are pro-choice. Many who are pro-choice also factor the child's right to life into the equation. An example is Thomson's paper 'A Defense of Abortion' which uses the famous 'violinist' thought experiment (one which I think has quite a few flaws). Flaws or not, it is one of the more important arguments in the abortion debate and the child's right to life is one of Thomson's main considerations, i.e. it is not the case that those who are pro-life necesarily deny that the unborn child has a right to life or that they are a 'person'.

 

[bshoc]

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that, as dieburndie states, it has been over the past 30 years or so that abortions have moved from the dark backyard to the public (and private) health system? It stands to reason that it's going to be more of an issue now than in the past when not too long ago it was virtually ignored by the authorities and health officials.

Given the birthrates and moral restraint (in terms of marriage, sexual relations etc.) of past generations that's an incorrect notion. Our current abortion problems stem from liberalized sexualization of society and the inability of women to deal with it's risks/consequences.

 

[bshoc]

You should have made that last statement before your main argument. It doesn't hold as much water without the stated assumption that women lack the right to autonomy of self. If you really want to rebut my argument then your best bet is to make a case for why autonomy is not a right (instead of just outright asserting it). To try and make my position clearer:

I'll repeat, nobody in this country (men or women) really has autonomy rights, the government could still put out compulsory vaccination for the entire population tommorow, they have that power, parents are required by law to care for their children, if not family services steps in etc. etc. etc. Autonomy isn't a right, the right to life is.

I should first state that I'm not somone who is pro-choice in all circumstances - there are situations in which I believe it is entirely wrong to abort a pregnancy (I can detail these things at another time). The important point is that I believe women should be allowed to abort in certain circumstances because I maintain that they have a right to autonomy and self-determination.

And I'll re-iterate mine - children shouldn't have to be killed for the selfishness and stupidity of their mother. As long as the mother had some bearing on her pregnancy (ie. her life isnt under threat by it, or rape), she has no right to kill the child/fetus for her own convenience (fetuses have no say in their own conception you see). Thus approximately 99% of abortions today should be illegal (not just becuase of my views, but to be consistant with murder and manslaugher laws, currently the legal system is impsing double standards). To me anyone who holds views outside this is making excuses for women to absolve themselves of personal responsibility, society should not be this way under any circumstances

When a women aborts a healthy embryo I do not see the act as amoral, I believe a certain degree of 'wrong' is commited.

"Certain"?

However, in given circumstances I think it is even worse to deny a woman the option of abortion and self-determination.

What kind of circumstances?

Hence, what is lost in terms of embryonic/fetal death is made up for (if you can use such words) by respecting the woman's right to autonomy.

As we've derived and proven already, the "right to autonomy" only exists in your head.

When an individual forces the death of the child on the woman then no such balancing act exists - her right to self-determination is denied along with the right to life possessed by the embryo/fetus. As such, the act commited by the 'random person' is unacceptable and rates lower on the 'scale of morality' than an abortion that a woman chooses to have.

Why isnt it the legal for the father to kill the fetus, after all his right to autonomy would be violated to a certain extent by the birth of this child (either through care or through monetary responsibility - again becuase there is no such thing as autonomy rights). All you're doing is creating double standards though a hole-filled argument based on right that doesent exist, since when do murder laws depend on the accused rather than on the victim, murder is murder, and by legal precedent abortion is murder too.

 

[KFunk]

Ethical principles aren't dictated by governmental policy. The fact that the government denies autonomy in certain instances by no means proves that autonomy is not a reasonable ethical principle/ideal to use to guide our judgements.

The father doesn't have to carry the child for 9 months and experience the physical burden(s) of pregnancy - his body is not involved in the way hers is.

Food for thought: Overpopulation has the potential to cause a lot of death in terms of famine, exhaustion of resources etc. If one were to force every women to carry through with her pregnancy they would directly contribute to such effects. Is it reasonable to prevent the deaths of embryos/fetuses when the impact may be that many more individuals die due to the effects of overpopulation?

 

[Serius]

If we are going to argue ethics, then you just lost. Aborting a baby is murder, it is wrong no matter what the situation. Ethically, any form of murder is wrong wether you can justify it or not. They were going to kill you first? its still wrong. Someone held a gun to your head and made you kill someone else? still wrong. End the right to life of an innocent baby, even if you were going to die giving birth? wrong.

Abortion for pro-choice isnt about the ethics of it, its wether there is a justifiable reason to go ahead with murder.


Again, if you are going to argue overpopulation you just lost. Australia has a negitive population gain, somewhere around 1.7 kids survive per couple thats why our imigration is so high. If you were so concerned about overpopulation you would be lobbying for manditory sterlisation if not just for women in our country who abort their kids, then for most of china, india and africa. That should sort out any overpopulation qualms you have right now, because in the scheme of overpopulation, 75 000 aborted babies arent going to make that big of a difference.