Abortion rights

I think it would be a mistake to allow the government to control such a personal issue with women across the country. By giving the federal authorities the right to say what is right, we are only succumbing to the ever-pervasive idea of "right vs wrong". Why can't we have such a moral desicion in politics? Because, though the majority of citizens may share a common set of morals/values, declaring them to be controlling factors of legislature is on the same level as the separation of church and state debate.

Is it really necessary to discuss the questionably appropriate population thinning in this particular debate?

Bottom line: it should not be the government's call.

i think that the choice of abortion should be up to the women. if one knows that they won't make a good parent then why go through the process of bringing a new life into this world. if the pregnant women knows that she does not have the resources to take good care of the child but is not allowed to have abortion then the baby and the mother would suffer.

Abortion is a huge deal, especially nowadays. I agree with you educationbug, but I can't help but feel for the child...I mean, the baby hasn't even been given a chance at life...I personally understand where the mother's intentions came from (i.e. she was raped or has the incapability) but I feel that the child should not be killed for a crime or circumstance that it has not caused! Maybe, I sound unreasonable for saying that abortion is wrong, but the parents abandoning an innocent life sounds even more unreasonable. As for the grandparents, I can't say what they were feeling, but would they have chosen to give up and watch the doctors kill their babies without hesitation??

Sorry, I tend to get sensitive over the smallest things, like the sight of an innocent baby, but I still think that the baby is innocent and naive and can actually serve as a good companion and friend...no matter what the conditions are...If one supports abortion rights, then who'll stand up for the baby's rights? the baby's right to live and see life for its very own eyes???

Babies who have not been born do not have "personhood": They barely have any cognition at all. What most of you eat for dinner had, at the time of it's death, more self-awareness and personhood than an unborn baby.

Actual persons (like the pregnant woman) will always have more rights than non-persons, hence why I support a woman's right to get an abortion.

I understand what you're saying, Zasch, but if a child has no personhood, and has no right to be given life, then where will all those adults with this "personhood" be coming from?? I still feel that the child should be given a chance. Without them, there is no future, nor will there be people left on this earth...they'd have been killed through an abortion...where's the rights and wrongs in that?

bebeswe3tz wrote:I understand what you're saying, Zasch, but if a child has no personhood, and has no right to be given life, then where will all those adults with this "personhood" be coming from?? I still feel that the child should be given a chance. Without them, there is no future, nor will there be people left on this earth...they'd have been killed through an abortion...where's the rights and wrongs in that?

Regarding your first point, just because adults (and thus persons) develop from unborn babies does not mean that all the rights and responsibilities of adults are thus transferred onto the unborn child. We can demonstrate this in two ways: The first is to actually attempt to transfer such rights and responsibilities. An adult is typically expected to secure a job, to pay taxes, to take responsibility for his own decisions...obviously these things would be absurd to expect from an unborn child, thus demonstrating that no 1:1 transference of moral imperatives can take place.

The second is to demonstrate that other regressed prerequisites cannot accept those responsibilities. It is, of course, the case that sperm and eggs are required in order to produce adults. Should we then give sperm and eggs all the rights of adults, including a "right to life"? Should we, for instance, prosecute those who masturbate for genocide (that is, for killing billions upon billions of unborn people?) Obviously this would be absurd, because sperm and eggs are not "persons". They are required for persons to develop, but just because they are a necessary for the development of personhood does not mean that they themselves are persons.
Similarly, just because being an unborn child is required for persons to develop does not mean that it itself is a person.

Your second argument, that we ought not affirm abortion because children are our future, can be attacked in two ways:

1. Your argument may be true as applied to all humans, but it is not true as applied to individuals: Whether one individual does or does not reproduce is not likely to significantly affect the integrity of the human race. No abortion advocates are advocates of forced, unwilling abortions upon the whole of humanity, and thus even allowing for unlimited abortions is highly unlikely to result in the extinction of the human race.

2a. The above argument does not matter, however, because reproduction is not a moral imperative: Is the choice to have babies not a *personal* choice, rather than a social choice? Let us suppose that we exist in a world where absolutely *every* person on Earth decides they do not want to have children. What place is it of yours to tell them "No, sorry, nonreproduction is immoral and so you have to have children"...What would you suggest we do? Allow people to rape each other, or the state to forcibly impregnate women? Even if there are no people left on this Earth, if the last generation decided unanimously not to have children, I personally do not see anything wrong with that so long as the decision was arrived at by choice.
I should also note that this argument is only indirectly related to abortion: It is more directly related to whether people should be allowed to choose to not have children at all.

gosh zasch, not to take it that you are trying to put it at me that you can hold your beliefs very strongly and persuasively speak to others as well...are you on a debate team of some sort, if you don't mind me asking? ;)

Anyways, I do understand that the concept of abortion is the freedom of the individual parents, but since I have seen so many babies killed at the free will of one individual without hesitation is just plain out cruel...

It is true that the individuals have a right to choose between whether they want to reproduce or not and you did make a point with the sperm and the eggs, but how can you compare the actual reproduction cells to a combined sperm and egg which has already transformed itself into a live human form? That is the point that I am trying to make when I say that abortion is wrong. Surely, the parents have the choice, but do they not feel for the life form in which they are killing? True, this child has never seen life outside of the womb, but if none have been able to prove otherwise, we all know that this life form already has the living needs of a human with "personhood." It has to receive food, drink, growth and the basics of survival (even if it's through its mother)...so how can you state that it is not a person itself? has it not shown the needs of a person nor has it shown to you the life that it already possesses while developing in its mother???

And about the human race not being affected by these abortions at free will, if you stated that all humans should have a right to choose whether or not they want to have children and you also stated that there may be a world where no one wants to have children...so wouldn't that also state that there will be an end to humanity since there will be an end to human reproduction??

Additionally, I agree that this argument is somewhat indirectly pointed towards abortion, though if the individuals did not desire the want of having these babies in the first place, why has the rate as to which both illegitimate babies and the offspring altogether stayed so high? Shouldn't the people just stop with the masturbating and sexual intercourse altogether since they have such an opposition to keeping the children that they produce???

Quote:are you on a debate team of some sort, if you don't mind me asking?

In fact, I am :P

Quote:but how can you compare the actual reproduction cells to a combined sperm and egg which has already transformed itself into a live human form?

My sole criterion for personhood rests on intelligence: When I look at an object and determine whether it is a person, in essence all I see is how intelligent that object is and everything else is disregarded. Thus, while a live human form superficially resembles a human person, ultimately since it isn't anywhere near as intelligent as a human person, it is roughly the same as all other members of its class (Thus, I would compare it to various higher-level midaged animals). From this perspective, a sperm is little different than a 2nd trimester baby when it comes to determining personhood.

Quote:Surely, the parents have the choice, but do they not feel for the life form in which they are killing?

They may or may not, but it isn't relevant as a moral consideration because the life they are killing has very little moral standing: Do you (the generic "you") feel for the life that you have indirectly contributed to the death of when you go to McDonalds and eat a burger or some chicken soup or when you wear that nice leather jacket? Most people don't, because most people don't see these animals as having sufficent moral standing to give it the "right to life" - they aren't intelligent enough to be granted that right.

Quote:It has to receive food, drink, growth and the basics of survival (even if it's through its mother)...so how can you state that it is not a person itself?

Because personhood is not defined by need, but rather by intelligence. If I were to enter a state where I was essentially braindead and there was no chance of recovery (say, like Terri Schaivo) then while I would still need food and water in order to survive, I would no longer be a person. I would still be a homo sapiens, of course, and as an organism I would still be alive as long as I was being properly nourished, but now that my personality has been destroyed and my brain's ability to analyse the world severely compromised, it would be difficult to differentiate me from any other organism (indeed, the cow "you" eat for dinner would be more of a person than I would be in such a state). Whether I'm kept alive or not would become a question of property - who has legal right to my body?

Quote:? has it not shown the needs of a person nor has it shown to you the life that it already possesses while developing in its mother???

But this reasoning makes an error: It may be the case that, presently, all persons have X need (Where X is food, water, that sort of thing), but that doesn't mean that everything that has X need is a person - all persons need X, but not things that need X are persons. For my body to function, I need oxygen, and I am a person. My cat also needs oxygen in order for its body to function...but is my cat a person? Just because we share the same requirements does not mean we share the same properties.

Quote:And about the human race not being affected by these abortions at free will, if you stated that all humans should have a right to choose whether or not they want to have children and you also stated that there may be a world where no one wants to have children...so wouldn't that also state that there will be an end to humanity since there will be an end to human reproduction??

Yes, that would be the implication of every person choosing not to reproduce. I find such a world to be exceedingly unlikely to ever come about, but if it were to come about I would see no justification in forcing people to reproduce against their will.

Quote:though if the individuals did not desire the want of having these babies in the first place, why has the rate as to which both illegitimate babies and the offspring altogether stayed so high?

Social pressures, lack of proper medical facilities, lack of education, that sort of thing: We should note, though, that the rate of "illegitimate" babies being born climbs as fewer and fewer couples decide to get married, but rather pursue things like cohabitation.

Obviously, though, many of these people don't want their children, hence why they get an abortion.

Quote:Shouldn't the people just stop with the masturbating and sexual intercourse altogether since they have such an opposition to keeping the children that they produce???

I don't see why (particularly in the case of masturbation, since masturbation doesn't lead to the creation of children). Unborn babies are not persons, and so if someone wants to use abortion as a method of birth control, there isn't anything wrong with that (As well, I'm not sure you really want such a person being a parent anyway, but that is a bit tangential).

Obviously a lot of people engage in sexual behaviours for purposes unrelated to procreation (the biggest one, of course, being the pleasure that most experience during sex :))

So I understand why you're so good at debating against me...hahaha...practically winning...

But I still have the thoughts in the back of my head that these unborn babies are still life forms...and not mere animals as you have portrayed them.

Also, I feel that the people who believe in cohabition are really pathetic, because if they are not committed to being together with definitey yet, nor have they given to the thoughts of getting pregnant and having children...why would they start that in the first place?

True, the process is pleasurable, but they should think of the consequences before taking it too far and then having to have an abortion and pulling the plug on a newly formed organism.

And to your question of me not feeling for the food I eat, I do actually...I cry when I see meat (haha...too many peta movies...and I am buddist so :D )...I am trying to stop my entire family from eating the poor animals and going vegetarian...As for leather and fur, I've never touched them...I'm actually horrified of that stuff...even faux fur...Oh gosh, I'm so terrified of talking of animals' rights too...my AP Eng teacher loves to use animals getting hurt as her visuals...it terrifies me...and I do feel strongly for animals' rights too...;)

haha...so off topic from the debating issue...this is why i'd fail a debate team or class itself! haha...change from one to that...and i'm so easily persuaded on some things...i sound so sad...**cough..no laughing..**

Quote:But I still have the thoughts in the back of my head that these unborn babies are still life forms...and not mere animals as you have portrayed them.

This is mostly the doing of evolution: Your brain is wired to recognise anything vaguely human-like as being human (especially when they are human), and so for most people (me included) there is a visceral negative reaction to things like abortion. There is, as well, a strong social component to it.

Also, animals are life-forms. :)

Quote:Also, I feel that the people who believe in cohabition are really pathetic, because if they are not committed to being together with definitey yet, nor have they given to the thoughts of getting pregnant and having children...why would they start that in the first place?

Assuming that they want to minimise their risk in the relationship and maximise any potential benefits, it does seem to be the rational choice to choose cohabitation: It is easy to get out of in case things so sour, while also preserving many (if not all) of the legal benefits of marriage.

There is also a feminist argument that could be made (In that marriage has traditionally been an institution for gender-based oppression and thus things like cohabitation increase the amount of equality in the relationship)

Quote:True, the process is pleasurable, but they should think of the consequences before taking it too far and then having to have an abortion and pulling the plug on a newly formed organism.

But if unborn babies aren't persons (and the earliest stages of pregnancy almost certainly do not qualify for personhood), then there is nothing morally wrong with the action, even though it may be somewhat distasteful for some.

Quote:And to your question of me not feeling for the food I eat, I do actually..

Whereas I, in considering animals to be not-persons, afford them very few rights :)

Quote:haha...so off topic from the debating issue...this is why i'd fail a debate team or class itself!

Bah: You should join your debate team so that you can get more practice in debating :p Nobody gets better at anything without practice!
My debate team is so small though, compared to basically everywhere else in Utah, so I naturally want everyone who possibly can to join :(