This is appalling....and nauseating..and back to appalling

Dave B wrote:

I have a thought for all of you:

What right does anyone have bringing a life into the word without it's consent? I think there is good argument that you have right to expose a person to suffering of life without their approval. Thus, it is immoral to have children in the first place; you expose them to suffering without their agreement.

btw, this is real among philosophers so don;t be too quick to dismiss it.

Ha. I actually used this exact same argument against my parents when I was a teen, mostly as a distraction from what I had actually done wrong. Didn't realize it was a real philosophical question. That's kind of awesome.

Then I suppose you don't see anything difficult about the situation involving bringing a sociopath into the world? Or a child who will suffer an agonizing death before the age of 10?

It is of your opinion that a fetus is equal to a human being. Not everyone shares your belief (the census bureau doesn't for example). So a developmentally disabled fetus (or any fetus for that matter) is not necessarily considered to be human being, even though you assert this as fact. Of course a person who is mentally ill is a human being. Someone who is a sociopath is a human being, someone who is born with a sexual proclivity to be attracted to children is also a human being. To deny that certain situations or circumstances are more difficult than others is flat out dishonest and utopian.

No one is saying that handicapped fetuses should have less value than "normal" fetuses, or that it's morally sound to have an abortion in such extreme circumstances. Just that the right to choose should be extended in certain situations.

Dave B wrote:

I have a thought for all of you:

What right does anyone have bringing a life into the word without it's consent? I think there is good argument that you have right to expose a person to suffering of life without their approval. Thus, it is immoral to have children in the first place; you expose them to suffering without their agreement.

btw, this is real among philosophers so don;t be too quick to dismiss it.

In emergencies in many States, if a victim is unconscious and you are trained to administer aid, you have implied consent to help that person. In that example, the law has given people the right to help someone survive without their expressed consent.

There is no genetic test for sociopaths. I actually believe that people can choose their actions and therefore you can't determine a sociopath in advance. Do you disagree with me here? I also (on principle) am comfortable with children being brought into the world who will suffer pain with tregic illnesses. I think obviously those people should be given the best possible medical care.

I know that there are some people who would not call a foetus a human being. (Although what the census bureau thinks has nothing to do with this - I think a foetus is a human being but from a practical perspective should not in included in census data.)

I actually don't have a problem with people with a sexual proclivity towards children being born. As I mentioned earlier, I think that people are capable of determining their own actions. Just as I am able to control my sexual appetite, so paedophiles (UK spelling, sorry) are too. Of course, the birth of paedophiles or handicapped people does mean certain consequences for society. But I don't think that the abortion law is the right place to address these issues.

I don't really see how you can say that the right to choose to abort extending to third trimester handicapped foetues doesn't mean handicapped foetuses have less value than non-handicapped foetuses. If a non-handicapped foetus has a right not to be aborted in at an age that a handicapped foetus doesn't, that is a clear difference in their value before the law.

Or concept of freewill is a bit outdated.

turkey leg wrote:

In that example, the law has given people the right to help someone survive without their expressed consent.

You assume a that survival is a good thing.

Furthermore implied consent is is still not consent, even is there is a law. This is philosophical issue not a legal one.

And creating a life is VERY different thing than sustaining a life. Procreation forces a life on a future being who otherwise wouldn't be here. Administering first aid is continuing an already existing life.

Thank you for your post. Good reasoning and good account of your mother's decision.

Coked Up Brit, I think you're the only one bringing in 3rd trimester selective abortion of handicapped fetuses into this.

I think what Let's Think is saying (and what I would agree with) is that when abortion is allowed (i.e. not in the third trimester), the reasons for the decision to abort are up to the mother. The mother may take whatever information is available under consideration, which may or may not include that the fetus is handicapped.

Nobody is supporting any hypothetical law that says abortion is illegal except in the cases of handicapped fetuses. Handicapped and non-handicapped fetuses are, and should be, treated equally under the law.

another average american wrote:

Coked Up Brit, I think you're the only one bringing in 3rd trimester selective abortion of handicapped fetuses into this.

I think what Let's Think is saying (and what I would agree with) is that when abortion is allowed (i.e. not in the third trimester), the reasons for the decision to abort are up to the mother. The mother may take whatever information is available under consideration, which may or may not include that the fetus is handicapped.

Nobody is supporting any hypothetical law that says abortion is illegal except in the cases of handicapped fetuses. Handicapped and non-handicapped fetuses are, and should be, treated equally under the law.

That might be the case in your jurisdiction. In my jurisdiction, handicapped foetuses can legally be aborted in the third trimester. That's why I raised the point. It's not hypothetical.

Wow, okay, my bad. I haven't heard of this in America at all, so maybe it's just in Britain? I also haven't heard any American support different abortion laws for handicapped fetuses, and I'm pretty sure even if a law like that were passed in America, the courts would rule it unconstitutional.

bigger picture wrote:

turkey leg wrote:

In that example, the law has given people the right to help someone survive without their expressed consent.

You assume a that survival is a good thing.

Furthermore implied consent is is still not consent, even is there is a law. This is philosophical issue not a legal one.

And creating a life is VERY different thing than sustaining a life. Procreation forces a life on a future being who otherwise wouldn't be here. Administering first aid is continuing an already existing life.

Okay, so you're saying the question is whether or not someone who does not exist yet gave anyone consent to create? How is this a real question? If they do not exist, that can not have any consent or dissent. They are at the mercy of the existing.

In this case, the mother has the right to self-defense. So does the baby, but if you can stop yourself from being killed, that is your perfect right to do so. The baby's rights aren't nullified as a result of this, but the mother has the right to defend her own life.

Let's Think wrote:

You can easily justify this position because you have defined the embryo as having the potential for human life. The potential for human life is not human life. If you want to start saying that the potential for human life is equal to human life, then you could say that every sperm is a human life, or every egg is a human life. Thus masturbation (or even sex for that matter) would be mass genocide on an unprecedented scale.

I wish people could understand that you simply cannot make black and white distinctions when it comes to issues like abortion and where human life begins. The governmental policy that minimizes human suffering is simply a shade of gray.

No, the potential for life only begins at conception. If the man with the sperm doesn't want to have sex, then there is no potential there. Just because a sperm exists, doesn't mean it is potential for human life. It is only there in case. The life beginning at conception will turn into a life whether people want it to or not, and the only way to do that is to kill something. Before then, nothing has to die to stop a baby from being born because there was never that risk if conception never happened. It's quite simple, really.

k girl wrote:

Yet again, a bunch of dudes discussing what a woman should do with her body and using big and meaningless words like "conception" "the beginning of human life" and "rights" hoping that somehow these abstract concepts will justify their meddling.

Somewhere a woman is pregnant and scared and faced with a tremendous and tragic decision. She can't know what is best in advance. And yet, she has to decide. Either way she decides, she will have regrets. That's the reality of the situation, and it can't be taken away by argument and appeals to "free choice" or a fetus' "rights."

You guys can keep watching your porn and discussing the origin of human life. It's cool by me if you get off on it. Just don't pretend your bullshit arguments have anything to do with a woman's decision.

Those are anything but meaningless, and believe it or not, abortion has an effect on males, too (some of them may want to be born).

Are you saying that people who are sociopaths don't have a mental disorder? I believe there certainly is a gene or at least a statistical pattern of genes that predispose someone to be a sociopath, and an abusive childhood will only enhance the disorder. So I do believe there certainly are circumstances where people who suffer from certain disorders cannot choose their actions. Do you disagree with me here?

It is true that people born with a sexual proclivity towards children do have the ability to determine their own actions. Statistically, only half of people with this proclivity act on that drive in their lifetime (which is pretty surprising considering how strong the human sex drive is). So when you have a child who has this proclivity, you know that there is statistically a 50% chance that he or she will end up molesting a child.

I don't have a problem with people of these proclivities being born either, I just think that it is the right of the parents to choose whether or not they want to endure a lifetime of hardship. I believe the right choice is to carry the pregnancy to term in just about every case. I believe that adoption is always an option and people who are thinking of getting an abortion should strongly consider that option. I don't believe I have a right to force my moral opinion down anyone else's throat.

I am not making a value statement based on the physical or mental viability of the fetus in the case of the third trimester abortion. I am conceding that the situation is fundamentally changed when this knowledge is given to the parents. The parents may not have the financial ability/proper health care plan to raise a disabled child. All fetuses being equal, I am weighing the added hardship of the situation as far as the caregivers of the future child are concerned. I am not saying that a handicapped fetus has less value than a non-handicapped fetus. I hope this is clear.

I could make the same argument that if you support the right to choose in the case that childbirth will end up taking the mother's life, then you are valuing a fetus that does not threaten a mother's life more than a fetus that does threaten a mother's life. But we both know that the value of either fetus has nothing to do with it in this case.

The right to life here is usually interpreted as, if you can defend your own life, you have the right to do so. If the mother is going to die by having the baby, she has the right to defend her own life.

A woman is not the same as a man. Do they deserve the same rights? That's why I consider a fetus different but the same. It's a purely biological difference, but should be treated the same no matter what age, sex, or other God-given characteristic. It's really the only consistent position, and the only one consistent with the Constitution.

So what you're saying is that there shouldn't be a blanket law against abortion. Abortion is permissible in the case of a threat to the life of the woman. So we agree here.

So what is a great enough threat to the life of the woman to warrant abortion being permissible? A 100% chance that she will die if the pregnancy is not terminated? A 50% chance?

Once we agree that there should not be a blanket law against all abortions under any circumstance, we get into a gray area.

What constitutes a "threat to life?" There have been quite a few cases recently where, for example, a 9-year-old girl became pregnant as a result of rape. This was in a Catholic Latin American country where abortions are never allowed. Doctors determined that it would theoretically possible to physically save the "mother" (I can barely call her that; she's nine years old) and allow the fetus to come to term. Would being forced to carry a pregnancy to term destroy this little girl's life in a way equivalent or worse than dying? Would allowing that little girl to have an abortion "save" her life? Some would argue that yes, an abortion in this case is just as necessary as an abortion in the case of a situation where the mother would physically die if the fetus weren't aborted.

k girl wrote:

iPad wrote:I have made up my mind about the issue, and am not going to change it.

Man or woman? Who knows?

Silly boy? Definitely.

K girl, you need to get off your high horse and realize there are consequences of this that go beyond the feelings of one woman. Just because men doesn't know what it's like to carry a baby, doesn't mean they aren't affected. A woman's feelings shouldn't trump a baby's rights in any case. It doesn't even matter how much of a say you think you have, there is another legitimate human being inside you who may disagree (not saying you are pregnant right now, but you get the point).

someone else wrote:

No, the potential for life only begins at conception. If the man with the sperm doesn't want to have sex, then there is no potential there. Just because a sperm exists, doesn't mean it is potential for human life. It is only there in case. The life beginning at conception will turn into a life whether people want it to or not, and the only way to do that is to kill something. Before then, nothing has to die to stop a baby from being born because there was never that risk if conception never happened. It's quite simple, really.

Show me a man with sperm who doesn't want to have sex...

I agree with you that there are different levels of potentiality, but they are levels of potentiality nonetheless. Yes, sperm does contain the potential for human life. Besides, there is not a 100% chance that the life beginning at conception will turn into human life. 10-20% of known pregnancies are miscarriages, and that is just the known pregnancies. Over 80% of those known miscarriages happen before 12 weeks, so it is likely a higher percentage altogether. Why do we not have a funeral when there is a miscarriage? Because there is clearly a fundamental difference between the potential for human life and a human being.