My views on abortion

Objectively? Nothing.We make the subjective value assessment in our own favor. That's all. It's arbitrary, but hardly unpredictable. The only distinguishing feature we have compared to any other animal is the level of our technological dependency (and adaptability) and our intellect.We make no real distinctions among animals for their intelligence, ability to feel pain, etc (if we did, we wouldn't eat pigs - they're damned smart, significantly more intelligent than dogs...and they also make decent companions if raised for the purpose, yet another example of the arbitrary value assessments we collectively make).We kill other apes all the time, despite the fact that many of them use tools, have complex relationships, etc. Some of our societies have decided to ban killing some apes due to endangerment, but not typically due to their intellectual or emotional abilities.Because we're talking about subjective value assessments, it is inevitable that some people will have different opinions. It's very difficult to address the issue of abortion rationally - the emotional baggage of the word "baby" or "unborn child" takes advantage of our instinctual desire to protect our young. And since we're not rational creatures by nature, it's very easy to subjectively value something nearly indistinguishable from any other clump of cells in menstrual discharge to be of somehow greater inherent value.This is of course exacerbated when religion claims that the barely-identifiable cluster of cells has a "soul." The connotation is that the "potential person" is not really potential at all - the actual person exists from the moment of conception, with the addition of the "soul."The problem is the very ambiguity of the question. It is (currently) impossible to determine whether a newly-fertilized egg possesses a "soul," since we cannot objectively determine that such a thing even exists at all. We have little or no objective basis for drawing a line and saying "now it has rights."We can all agree (well, most of us), however, that a woman has the right to determine the fate of her own body. The right of a woman to, say, decide whether to have sex, to decide whether to exercise, to decide whether to smoke, these are all unambiguous and nobody here is likely to dispute them.In the face of an unambiguous right (the right of self-determination), the ambiguity of fetal rights must always lose out. As the ambiguity lessens, so does the (potential) mother's ability to choose. When a child is born, there is no ambiguity at all - it is no longer part of the woman's body. Every other point of distinction is arbitrary.Personally, my arbitrary point of decision is the point at which the fetus develops significant brain function. My understanding is that this happens sometime during the second trimester. Since I personally value sentience as the divisor between what does and does not have rights, this makes sense to me. It also conveniently leaves the woman significant time to make her choice (note - I also fully support the right to terminate a pregnancy if the mother's health is at risk).But make no mistake - it's all pretty arbitrary. Just look at those who think abortion should be illegal except in cases of potential harm to the mother or in cases of rape or incest.Does not the fetus spawned from rape or incest still have the same value and rights of any other fetus? If the "soul" implants at conception/implantation/arbitrary 4 days/whatever, does not the fetus resulting from rape or incest have a "soul?"It's pretty obvious that the distinction is an arbitrary one defined by the personal beliefs of the individual.Perhaps it's best that we leave arbitrary decisions defined by the personal beliefs of the individual to the actual individual involved, meaning the potential mother, rather than trying to legislate one arbitrary distinction over another?

First, this has given me allot to think about. You guys have an interesting point and I am strongly considering changing my view point. This is one of the issues I have had a difficult time putting thought into. Emotionally, I want abortion to be wrong, but rationally you guys make allot of good points. Much of this is a political view point in my opinion, not necessarily a moral one. it is a compromise to get the people unsure on the issue to join the cause. It is the same reason I believe they have not made an issue of birth control pills, which sometimes kills the fertilized egg after the point of conception. It would alienate allot of the people who support those who don't like abortion, but are not willing to go as far as banning the pill(likely because they use it themselves). People can sympathize with rape victims and if the general view was that they cannot get abortions, guess who the next abortion poster child is?

I don't see how you could have derived that from what I said. My argument assumes nothing about the fetus. The point was fundamentally about the rights of the MOTHER.

---

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

Your argument was that the mother has the rights to her own body. If the fetus is not part of the mothers body, then it would not be solely her property to deal with. It would not be at her sole discretion to deal with.

Yes, I agree that it is currently arbitrary. But I don't think it has to be. We do have a legal defintion of death. Why can't we have a legal defintion of life?A long time ago, in a thread far, far away...RAZD had a discussion about defining Legal Life as the opposite of Legal Death. I found it to be a very good answer to this ambiguity problem. Message 25I'll repeat the latest "Legal Life" definition here: I don't see any problems that would arise if such a defintion was actually taken and used legally.What do you think?Personally, I think this is a decent "arbitrary" point to use legally. Since it's the same point we "arbitrarily" use to define legal death in the opposite sense. It does away with any silly "should the woman be allowed to have an abortion the day before her due-date?" issues and also allows the woman to decide whether or not she wants to use her body as an incubator. It just adds a possible defintion to begin legally defining what a woman can and can't do when pregnant.I think it's a better idea than ignoring the problem, anyway. (Not that this is what you're doing, I'm talking general-public-opinion there.)

None of this is relevant to my position. To restate it, my position is that the issue of rights arises in regard to fetuses, and it does not in regard to skin cells.Where the rights kick in is a matter of debate - but they do kick in somewhere. I think everyone would grant they kick in at birth at the latest.Thus a fetus is an entity that either has or potentially has rights, and a skin cell is not, as things currently stand. This is the difference between them.

No it can't. Cloning of humans is outlawed. If it were to be allowed (and feasible) then I agree it would raise a number of moral questions. Edited by Peepul, : No reason given.

Probably because of its innocence. There are alot of people that feel worse when animals die than when humans die. That must be because of their innocence.It somehow seems less humane to kill something that has no idea its about to die versus someone who can understand what is about to happen. Seems like the reverse would be true, but for some reason it is generally not so. Must be the innocence factor. I don't think "potential" factors in to it as much. I think some people may say to themselves that the older human has experienced more life, so why not give the little bugger a fighting chance to live life. That's the worst pro-life argument I've ever heard and I am in most cases anti-abortion... errrr, no offense. I don't mean to sound harsh but consider a few things.Everyone has potential. Even semen and ovum have potential to one day unite to form a human. Does that mean we should esteem its potential in a higher regard? I don't think so. I think you should come at this topic from another angle and not potential if you want to get anywhere with a pro-abort. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

---

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

While I agree with most of your points, this quote of you I have trouble following. You are making a reductionist argument. You are basically saying that since all living matter is made up of cells, they are basically the same thing.You are reducing all life to be a clump of cells.But I'm guessing that if push came to shove and somebody threatened to shoot a dismembered arm versus your child's head, that somehow your sensible nature would choose your mother.

---

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

But my mother isn't one of the choices and my child is not relevant to this discussion.What is the point you are trying to make here?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Along the frame of your question, I have a question about fairness that all may feel free to answer.Does the male that helped create that foetus have any say in it? Because if not, why should he have to pay child support if he wishes not to have a child, all things being equal?

---

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

That a reductionists argument won't answer legitimate questions on morality. All it does is convolute it and make it disingenuous.

---

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

Of course not, he's not incubating it. Your apples, they are not oranges.

So then I assume you believe he therefore has no obligation before or after.Deadbeat dad's/absent fathers everywhere will thank you.

---

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

It doesn't matter how you try to spin it, your comment still makes no sense. If you are trying to make some great point by putting together a nonsense sentence, it doesn't work. All it does is show you are capable of writing nonsense. Instead of writing a nonsense sentence, maybe you should write something that explains your point. Instead of making people guess what you are trying to say.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts