Abortion

I was with you 100% up to a certain point, and then started back the other way... That's a compromise? Jail poor people who are less likely to have/afford contraceptives in the first place, while letting educated, rich people have as many abortions as they want?Wayyyyyyyyyyy off. Think about this stance carefully, those two paragraphs are logically contradictory. If people don't have a basic human right of "choice", it is made up, then others certainly do have the ability to impose morality on others.In effect your argument becomes not that there is no morality and this is a practical issue, but how do we practically create a moral system for the nation to be imposed on the individual, using a system of compromise. At least in the US, this is not supposed to be the case. While what you might idealize for others to do, you can't make them do, you are supposed to be able to practice what you feel is ideal for yourself. Those are what form our "rights" and are placed beyond "compromise". That is in essence what the Bill of Rights is all about, placing certain ideals for onesself beyond compromise in the public square.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

First let me put in a nod to RAZD's earlier thread on the topic. It was very well reasoned.My own personal opinion is pretty different than most people's so I figure I should throw it in here.To me it is not about the offspring, but about the parent. All babies are an extension of the lives of the parents. That is reproduction, and the closest thing we get to physical immortality on this planet. As such reproduction should be at the control of the parents, and particularly the mother, whose life is put at risk in this act.Parents have the right to choose how their reproduction occurs, including factors such as the physical health and environment (physical/social) that a child would be born into.Because of this I am accepting of termination of pregnancies, as well as early infanticide.Of course, I understand others do not share this view and like Farva said, this comes down to practical compromises in law. We must balance the freedom of individuals to make reproductive choices, that is the best possible offspring for ourselves, with not violating the rights of other persons (which children eventually do become).In my mind one of the best put together arguments for such a compromise is in RAZD's thread, where the concentration is on a consistent definition of personhood, to effectively draw a line during gestation on where terminations should no longer be allowed.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

To be honest I haven't completely worked it out, as it has had no practical use within the modern world.I definitely agree with immediate post birth, as that is sometimes the first time one becomes aware of tragic deformities and conditions. How far after would depend (in my mind) on analysis of a child's cognitive/physical abilities. After birth there is still a period where the child is still "forming". That would seem to be appropriate.And there could be logical extensions based on success or failure of procedures to correct certain birth defects.Like I said though, I am certainly willing to compromise on this position.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I feel a bit awkward trying to work this issue out here, but I'll try. The primary reason for infanticide would generally by defect related, which one could think of as euthanasia, but that is just as controversial anyway.I personally understand and would allow for parental concerns for social concerns regarding the child. For example that the child would not have the proper access to food/shelter/protection that the parents would want for their child, and indeed would be harmed if allowed to live.That is different than just saying "I don't want to be bothered with the kid". Indeed I think if it ever managed to be allowed under law, it should require the consent of a doctor or other professional to sign off on a reason for the action. Casual murder for temporary ease in one's own life, is not a reason. The child (since it is now alive) could easily be placed elsewhere.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I don't understand how this position is not imposing a moral position on others. What reason do we have to want to give people a strong reason to avoid abortion?In any case it seems to me that there is already a strong reason to avoid it, its an operation that sucks and will usually involve some social consequences. Isn't that penalty enough?It would seem to me one could simply make alternatives to abortion even more appealing such that abortion looks even worse in comparison. Yes. First of all we can emphasize nonprocreative sex for those just looking for enjoyment. It really is fun and cheap. Next we can as a society have a better healthcare system in general, which provides free contraceptives for all females, and males when they become available. I'm agreeing that to form a functional society, that there will have to be compromise. However not everything must be on the table for compromise.You can think of the Bill of Rights in this way. One desires a society in order to better obtain and preserve life liberty and personal happiness (LLP) for onesself. If in order to have society one must sacrifice LLP, then society is not worth the effort. One is better off fighting unorganized jerks coming to step on you, then an organized state doing the same thing. The Bill of Rights is a description of those things that make up basic pursuit of LLP and so kept off the table for any compromises required to form the society. That depends on where and how you want to live. You can go live in the Boundary waters between MN and Canada and not depend on anyone else. I have a relative in the mountains of CO that does not require dependence on anyone to live well.Personally I want a lot of goodies and so I will depend on others. Most people are likely to do the same. In the end though it is always a choice.All we need to do in "sharing our lives" is deal with common issues, those things that will effect both of our lives. My choosing to have an abortion has absolutely 0 effect on your life, and so is not a common issue. In fact I am uncertain what moral concern there is which is a shared issue such that one's govt must act on it, except perhaps acts or communications directly in the public square (meaning it forces everyone to see or hear it).There is no necessity for sacrificing individual freedoms, except to preserve the nation itself in an immediate sense. Again, this is the point of the Bill of Rights. This is only partially correct, though I see where you are coming from. We can't simply accept what some moral group believes and so have to compromise. If a growing number of reincarnationists held that killing cockroaches was murder, or jainists that the mere act of eating was murder, it is unlikely that society would feel compelled to compromise in a legal sense.What's more, there is a direct difference between a gestational entity and a person, the latter is what we normally define as an organism capable of being murdered. The gestational entity may not even have a separate existence from a host. Indeed a fertilized egg may not even implant.Thus before there is a compromise on the issue of what to do about the "killing", one has to have a practical concept of what a person is, and how rights attach to a person.Unfortunately that is the exact kind of argument you wanted to avoid by appealing to the practical of how two groups get along. And remember I did agree with that. In that case we have to ask how abortion actually impacts two groups getting along such that it requires compromise. Isn't the practical question then, how do we handle an activity where two groups differ on its offensive nature? That is correct, but there are limits to the compromise, as I hope I have advanced well enough so far.Nice post by the way. Keeping me on my toes.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Again, I am willing to compromise. There are very logical and practical reasons to count birth as the beginning of legal personhood with full protection, regardless of moral arguments like the ones I have been making, and even clinical ones like you made in your thread.Personally I do agree that it is exteremly rare that anyone would find themselves in a situation where they have to make a decision as late as the 3rd trimester. I mean I am sure there are some cases, though rare. Of course there are also cases where deformities are not caught until birth. That is still a very sticky issue for me.There was a case of a father whose wife died in childbirth and the child was damaged and the father simply did not want to have that child continue to live in those circumstances. He ended up killing the child in the hospital and then getting arrested and sent to jail. It seemed to me that those are one of the situations where infanticide... even in a modern culture... seems reasonable.Oh yes, on top of Egypt, Romans practiced what was called "exposure" which is infanticide. There were also some findings of this type of behavior in Greece and Phoenicia.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I'm not sure I'd agree with every point made, especially regarding conception as anything close to a point of "creation", but I thought your post was well written and formed a compelling argument which I would not disagree with.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I hope you understand we were specifically discussing the practice of infanticide, which is killing a child after it is born, and not the termination of a pregnancy.I am unaware exactly how long "abortion" has been around, and you are probably correct. Certainly abortificients have been around for some time.That is something that I find curious. Certainly it was around during the time the Bible was being written. Are there any descriptions of this and specific rules against it? I know most arguments stem from a passage discussing the knowledge of God, but if he really wanted it banned, wouldn't it be mentioned specifically?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Yeah, but not before that damn liberal feminist Jane Good-all-for-nothing arrived on the scene. Before that they simply abstained like good Xian monkeys.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Just so you know, I read your whole post so it wasn't wasted effort on your part. I think the major difference between our positions can be addressed in the last argument in your post. I find that an interesting position, given that what is specifically being discussed here is a group of people that is refusing to let othere lead their own lives, based on personal religious belief. It appears that they are the ones refusing to compromise on the most basic aspect of society: letting others live their own lives as they see fit.Indeed these are people refusing to agree to the compromise already worked out in the Bill of Rights... Well that's not exactly fair is it? The Bill of Rights was the compromise made by society to form the US, and since some people have violated that compromise over the years, more people can expect to treat the original compromise as nothing and expect a new compromise?If a person can appeal to the fact that the BoR no longer counts for what it originally did, then what is the point of making any new compromise as it can again be violated.You were right in pointing out that we cannot do things from scratch at this point, but we certainly can reject deviations from our original promises to each other (as a society).People fought and died for that initial set of compromises, and as I agree with those compromises, I am willing to go to war to defend them. As it stands the founding fathers predicted the original agreements would eventually be violated, by the natural process of encroachments that all govts adhere to, and they advocated fighting that. Thus I do feel justified in my position. You are cotrrect that a refusal to compromise can lead to violent conflict, but it doesn't have to. That depends on how both parties feel regarding an issue. I am a staunch supporter of the rights within the BoR being protected, and being viewed as the rights we take and secure for ourselves, beyond the reach of others.You say you'd be willing to compromise your ideals, but I do wonder how true that is. Is everything really up for grabs for you, or is there a limit.And more interestingly, what antiabortion advocate would agree with the level of compromise that you are espousing?Let's say I agree with your position. Okay, I have a problem with monotheistic religion. I despise all Abrahamic religions. They are abominations of intellect and lead to persecutions and horrors in practice. I think their practice should be ended or at least greatly curtailed. No children should be exposed to them, and decisions on whether to practice them (which must be done outside public view) can only come after age of majority has been reached.Now according to your argument, they now have to compromise with me on the practice of their religion. Does that sound right? Do you think they'll agree or will they resort to appealing to the original compromise... the original meaning of the BoR?What if some group arose condemning internet or for that matter any telegraphic communication, because they fear its use will lead to many crimes? Or that some specific books should be burned because they will lead to the downfall of society? Or how about a group of people that feel science should be redefined as seeking truth, rather than rigorous methodology to obtain empirical conclusions/models?Would you feel that any of the above should be compromised, just because someone else feels strongly about that position?Again, nice post, still on my toes.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Yes, this not only clarifies, it should streamline everything.To my mind we did not compromise the BoR with regards to killing. The BoR represents the rights each individual takes for themselves when agreeing to go into society. Clearly being killed by someone is the act of having all of one's rights violated by another person or group of persons. Okay well now we have the case of euthanasia as well as cannibals and the people who like to be eaten by them, but let's ignore that for now.The involuntary killing of another is a proscribed action, firmly within the reach of the BoR, because it protects all of that other person's rights. There may be instances of where this is not true (self-defence, war, police action...), but that is because of conflicting rights. For example the intruder in your home may be coming to kill you, in which case you have the right to self-preservation.Conflicts of rights opens the door for negotiation/compromise.In this particular case, abortion, the question of whether there is a conflict at all is itself under question. The typical view is that it is the right to live (all rights) of one individual, against the right of reproductive choice of another. But both positions are not so much fact as they are very much religious faith or philosophy. This brings into play even more rights.Does the state have to admit the existence of posited entities and their demise, based on religious convictions, such that others must agree that a conflict of rights exists?Those against abortion often have the line of personhood drawn at conception. This is not realistic, even if one brings into the conversation for argument's sake things like spirits having entered the body.Can I then say that I personally believe the "humunculus" theory of reproduction, such that every male masturbatory act is murder? That despite evidence this isn't true, my faith says that the truth simply hasn't been seen yet?Again, according to your current argument, my antimasturbation position, should be something the community has to accept and compromise with.And of course this is not to mention reincarnationists, where animals become elevated to "person" status for rights. I should mention that this is not a joke. I actually know of an incident where this occured.Is any conceivable entity posited based on religious conviction, especially if somehow tied to human personhood, available for equal protection or compromise on this?It seems this is the point not to compromise at all, but rather to point out that they get to practice their beliefs within their home while others get to practice their own beliefs within their homes (or in this case, bodies).The best (IMO) we can do is to come up with practical criteria for identifying "personhood" for the state, and then using that to apply rights to "persons". Being practical it must rely on physical characteristics we can measure in an objective fashion. This moves directly toward RAZDs discussion.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

You misunderstood what I meant. I was just trying to encapsulate how the abortion debate was typically viewed, using the BoR. That is the people who view abortion as murder would argue that all the rights of the "child" were being violated, while those who do not view it as murder (and so are prochoice) view only the woman's reproductive rights as being violated. Again, there has been a misunderstanding. I guess I need to use better terminology. By "admit" I did not mean judge validity, I was using it in the sense of "allow to enter". As in the usher will admit you to the theater if you have a ticket.I guess I could have used the phrase "entertain the possibility for sake of compromise".It does not seem to me that just because a group has an idea, even a popular one, that is strongly felt, that it is something which by its nature, can't be proscribed for compromise by the state. By allowing them to choose and live as they want, their belief has been accomodated. To allow their beliefs to be enforced on others (even in part) is to suddenly no longer accomodate other beliefs. I was actually trying for something a bit deeper than just science judging religion. Remember I was using the "humunculus" version of reproduction... that WAS SCIENCE. It took more scientific investigation to reverse that idea. So I was actually appealing to any and all beliefs, including those scientific beliefs which had been rejected by later science.If a person clings to earlier scientific knowledge, must it still be accomodated for compromise by the state?But let's say I meant it from a "religious" view. Science can certainly deal with epistemic KNOWLEDGE, even if it can'd get at metaphysical TRUTH. I think you made an equivocation between the two. If in fact we are to deny epistemic knowledge for use in law then essentially everything is up for grabs and I would fight that state with every fiber of my being.What progress or safety could there be in such an ad hoc nation?From the standpoint of epistemic KNOWLEDGE we could very well dismiss any scientific or religious claims to the humunculus theory of reproduction. Masturbation is not murder of little tiny humans. Sperm cells can be seen and dissected. To deny this for reason of accomodation and compromise, would be to reject reason itself. This is only partly correct. For sure an unchecked political majority can always strongarm a minority. One reason to avoid this would be to avoid conflict (including real violence). Two problems...1) There is another reason, which was discussed by the founding fathers, and that is more than mere temporary stability and safety for the majority. At some point the majority could become the minority. Proscriptions protect the beliefs of the current majority. It is actually a prudent measure to defend the rights of minorities as one day it can protect yourself. If your precedent is of strongarming based on political power, that is likely to be your own fate in the future. And wisely, this also protects the state itself by keeping laws focused and consistent over time. If domination of the minority by the majority was the rule, then laws would be turning over much more quickly and dissatisfaction with the state would be high.2) Given the above, proscriptions were written into our govt which is the BoR. Those proscriptions inherently act as a check on the majority so that they cannot politically strongarm minorities.I would deny that majority strongarming has been the absolute rule in this nation, and indeed civil rights victories in the US point to the fact that minorities CAN block political majorities when their rights are being compromised away.I might add that the recent removal of anti gay sex legislation is yet another instance of this. Clearly the majority (especially in specific states) find gay sex to be harmful, and I do mean an overtly harmful act. According to you gays should accomodate those majorities? Legally we don't have that ability. If no one stands up to defend the rule of law, then of course we revert to jungle law, and the majority wins.That is why I find this administration particularly repulsive. Bush and Co consistently refer to the "rule of law" yet repeatedly reject actual civil law, and act only on the law of the jungle. I mean they even suggest that only might makes right and that majorities should not have their desires checked by minorities. They are of course traitors.I guess I would like to stay away from drawing lessons from how Bush and Co are abusing the state. To my mind they are not reps of what anyone should be doing. And I agree they are creating a weaker nation.What I don't understand is why you think they'd be willing to compromise at all. I have not seen one overture toward the possibility of compromise on their part. It almost sounds like appeasement, to suggest if we compromise they will actually be satisfied and not further erode our rights, or will accomodate our beliefs.Bush Sr is on record as having said atheists cannot be patriots or American. Because physical characteristics are the only characteristics we can (and that means all of us) measure, and so make a determination of whether a person qualifies as a person. Can you name any nonphysical characteristic a religious person could use that would be practical?By the way, I was not attempting to say there are no spiritual components to life or in any way denying religious beliefs from being "true". I am simply trying to suggest that when the state comes in to identify if an entity is a person, that it will ultimately have to appeal to physical characteristics.I thought RAZDs argument was a strong one, using how we separate "dead" from "alive" to create a distinction. I would hope even religious people admit that there is death, and so an absence of life. I'm not sure what you meant by this. It may be that I skipped something to focus on the prime points. You may revive these if you want. I definitely don't want to avoid anything. Thanks, I like your writing as well. You've been consistently high quality, and challenging. I never felt like any of the miscommunications have been anyone's fault nor an intentional attempt at dodging.I will apologize in advance if my responses start getting more spaced out (in time). I am getting a bit busier with things (including some good weather) and so may not respond every day.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Statistical evidence please.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Then don't make factual statements to support your claim. It's just that easy.I don't believe rape, incest, etc form the majority of unwanted pregnancies, however the remainder need not be from "lifestyle choices". Someone within the last year posted a comprehensive study on abortion. If I remember correctly the majority ended up being married couples whose choice of birth control failed (for whatever reason), or who could no longer accept the risk of having a child.But you could go look it up. In any case, even if this is about conversation I am sure you agree that I don't get to simply make things up. Please have courtesy to do likewise.I might also ask, since you drew a line at conception, whether you realize that actually reduces birth control choices? The Pill would certainly be knocked out, as well as other abortificients.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Thus you equate getting pregnant after taking more than adequate precautions to not get pregnant, with someone who got pregnant after intentionally having sex without any protection. They are equal "lifestyle choices". Right.Then how is getting pregnant through rape not a lifestyle choice? If you don't want to get pregnant through rape you certainly can prevent that... 100%, just the same as with regular sex.You seem to have an inconsistent criteria for what you call a "lifestyle choice" as it impacts pregnancy. This is absolutely true, and that includes through rape.Don't get me wrong, I am a firm advocate of avoiding unwanted pregnancy through use of nonprocreative sexual acts, or heavily protected sexual acts. Masturbation, oral, anal and homosexual sex never could get anyone pregnant. So there you go.Its just when someone makes the "lifestyle choice" of protecting themselves, and an accident occurs, then I don't lump that in with their "lifestyle choice". That seems rather broad.Of course you never really did address the fact that some people could no longer risk childbirth. That means medical or economic concerns arising after the pregnancy began, which led to the abortion. Unless they were supposed include precognition or omnipotence (to reverse medical conditions) as part of their "lifestyle choice", then I am unsure what you are squawking about.If you make a claim, and you have no knowledge, then you are making it up, purely guessing. It really is that simple. I believe that is practically the definition of a guess. Isn't it?Oh yes, I'd still like a better reaction regarding the Pill. Are you for it or against it. Exactly what methods are available besides the ones you listed?This message has been edited by holmes, 08-31-2005 09:14 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)