Abortion

[charles cure]

(Q):

charles cure:



One has no inherent right to murder another based on presumed impact of one's own life. Also, once again, no one, even an "informed adult", can decide what is better for someone else when the standards are subjective, specifically when such a decision involves the death of someone.

actually youre wrong about that. our laws allow that you can kill for the purpose of defending yourself from actions that will, in your judgement, lead to your death. this, more or less is a right to murder based on the presumed impact that the actions of one person will have on anothers life. this argument could be extended to sanction abortion when birth would put the life of the mother at risk, and in a more abstract way i think could be argued like this:

say i am a poor single woman living in new york city. the man who got me pregnant is nowhere to be found. carrying my child to term and giving birth to it will cause me to have to be absent from work for one week. although i will not get fired, i will also not get paid and i must get paid in order to continue paying rent on my apartment. if i do not pay my rent i will get kicked out of the place where i live. because i have a job, i will not qualify for welfare, but i will be homeless, and now with the additional financial burden of having a child to feed and clothe and care for, i will not have money for a new apartment. my child and i have nowhere to turn so now homeless, poor, and with a child, i cannot get health care if i need it, i cannot eat three meals a day, and my life and my childs life is now at risk. i should have aborted in self defense.

now i know this is an extreme hypothetical scenario but it is also a disturbingly common one among the working poor. you may accept it or not, but in my mind that scenario represents a good reason to abort based solely on the concept of self-preservation, putting aside any arguments of murder, viability, or anything else.


What the -possible-, not the -necessary- outcome. Unless you claim to be the God-Emperor Leto II, I doubt you have one hundred percent prescience, not to mention that murdering one's child is not the choice of the child, nor rooted in its subjective desires for life despite suffering or death because of suffering, but the parent's desires. Of course a parent can choose to do whatever they want, they are free to at any time murder their child, but this does not mean that isn't murder.

lets put an end to this garbage right now. no one on earth is omniscient or prescient. humanity has only the sensory tools that it is given with which to make decisions. just because you can speculate in a positive way about the potential life of a fetus and i can speculate in a negative way doesnt make either one of us right. what i am saying is that until birth a child is a part of its parents and therefore can be treated like every other part of the body. it is up to the parents of a potential child to decide using the information that they have available whether or not they are going to destroy that part of their body, or allow it to seperate from them and begin a life on its own. this has nothing to do with divine omniscience.



Many people have been "wards of the state" or adopted and been just fine.

and many of them have never been adopted and lived out childhood being shuffled from what amounts to one cold cell to another, without anyone to care for them, suffering abuse at the hands of careworkers and administrators, or descending into criminality and drug abuse and lives of desperation in general. just because some people are adopted doesnt mean they all are. and when you add an additional million and a quarter a year to the pool it makes it way less likely that any particular child will actually be adopted.



Total annihilation? No. Since limited resources are there, people will die off when we reach the maximum sustainable at that current time, but never will we "die off completely" because of it. Moreover, with modern techniques, technological advancements, et cetera, it is quite possible to sustain our population much higher then it presently is. Hell, we could end up with a "Coruscant-scenario" and house trillions upon trillions of beings.

are you trying to say that you think that based on the technological advancement of a society in a fantasy/science fiction movie, our civilization will someday be able to sustain what is patently an unsustainable number of people? because thats what im getting from this.

 

[(Q)]

charles

Excellent post! I had hoped that PJ would, from a scientific, ie. logical point of view, would at the very least, run several scenarios in his mind such as the one you presented, that he may understand that abortion is necessary at times. Of course, pregnancies should be well thought out so that abortions aren't required. But as you've shown, that is not the case, and most certainly, there are far more examples that can be shown.

 

[te jen]

What is this "more"?
Can you define it?

Humans are the carriers, transmitters and developers of culture - our collective memory and mythos.

Humans have the capacity for abstract thought, the ability to remember past, anticipate futures, manipulate the environment, etc, etc.

That which makes us undeniably more than our parts and arguably more than other animals is our participatory creation - I cannot have a human existence without the participation of other humans.

 

[beyondtimeandspace]

te jen, I do not see these qualities in an infant of 6 months. Does this make the infant non-human?

 

[beyondtimeandspace]

If a woman is allowed to kill an unborn infant because it is part of her body, is a twin, joined with its twin at the hip, allowed also to kill its twin?

 

[charles cure]

If a woman is allowed to kill an unborn infant because it is part of her body, is a twin, joined with its twin at the hip, allowed also to kill its twin?

no because the body is shared. one body did not pre-exist the other one and then branch off. it neither belongs to one twin or the other to begin with. twin A has no more claim to the body than twin B does so cannot say i will kill twin B because he is an unwanted part of my body.

and this may not have a lot of relevance for you but im guessing what youre talking about here is siamese twins and i dont know if youve seen thos specials where they try to seperate twins that share too many vital organs, but usually the death of one results in the death of the other. so if that were the case twin A would be comitting suicide by killing twin B.

 

[Wilhelm_N]

Philosophically I'm against abortion. However, I do believe that there is a problem with overpopulation. But hopefully war, hurricanes, and other natural disasters will continue to work on the population.

However, the science of eugenics provides solutions for the issues of abortion. I'm a strong advocate of what my ideal philosopher proposes. Thus, I advocate compulsory birth control. Unborn babies did not ask that they be born. Once babies are conceived, they should have loving parents, even if adoptive.

A stupid, irresponsible woman should not have the right to decide what she does with her body. Such would be a privilege, not an inherent right. If it can be determined that the man is more competent and responsible than her, then it should be up to him. Furthermore, all stupid, irresponsible idiots should be sterilized. There should be a system in place where it is against the law for women and men to have children unless they have passed a screening test. Rape victims should not have the right to abortion either, for they put themselves in the situation in the first place, regardless. The hunted will be hunted, unless they take their own steps to protecting themselves appropriately.

- Wilhelm

 

[beyondtimeandspace]

Does the body of the infant belong to the mother?

 

[charles cure]

Philosophically I'm against abortion. However, I do believe that there is a problem with overpopulation. But hopefully war, hurricanes, and other natural disasters will continue to work on the population.

However, the science of eugenics provides solutions for the issues of abortion. I'm a strong advocate of what my ideal philosopher proposes. Thus, I advocate compulsory birth control. Unborn babies did not ask that they be born. Once babies are conceived, they should have loving parents, even if adoptive.

A stupid, irresponsible woman should not have the right to decide what she does with her body. Such would be a privilege, not an inherent right. If it can be determined that the man is more competent and responsible than her, then it should be up to him. Furthermore, all stupid, irresponsible idiots should be sterilized. There should be a system in place where it is against the law for women and men to have children unless they have passed a screening test. Rape victims should not have the right to abortion either, for they put themselves in the situation in the first place, regardless. The hunted will be hunted, unless they take their own steps to protecting themselves appropriately.

- Wilhelm

this statement, i think, is massively idiotic.

eugenics has been tried and discarded as a useful form of birth control. why you ask? because the problem is not with the idea itself, that those unfit to have children shouldnt. everyone probably would agree to that. the problem lies with who is capable of making that judgement. i suppose that if a eugenics program were to be put in place it would be done in the interest of the public good, and as such be run by a government entity. now tell me of a government entity that you know of that is completely unbiased and impartial. because i cant think of one. in fact the nature of political control over governmental edifices is such in the US that it is biased by requirement. now can you imagine a situation more ready to be abused?
what happens the first time that the Republican Director of the Eugenics board sterilizes a group of couples because they are Democrats? what happens if there are accusations of racial profiling in sterilization rates?
in a free society this cannot be allowed to exist. it throws the concept of freedom of action out the window. it places control of your body in the hands of a committe rife with political bias (as it undoubtedly would be). its a beat arguement my friend.

 

[charles cure]

Does the body of the infant belong to the mother?

yes. because its made out of her body. it did not preexist her body in any way. the donation of the sperm from the father necessitates that it also belongs to him. so the two parents share the body of the child while it is in the womb.

 

[beyondtimeandspace]

So then she also owns the body of the infant after pregnancy, and so still has the right to terminate it's life?

 

[charles cure]

So then she also owns the body of the infant after pregnancy, and so still has the right to terminate it's life?

no she gives birth to it and it becomes a seperate entity. it leaves her body, no longer has a connection with it. that would be like me saying i could clone myself and then kill the clone because its my body. in the womb, the fetus, which is made of the womans body, is connected to her body by an umbilical cord, and resides in her uterus is in fact a part of her body. what youre postulating is like saying oh well my heart is alive but its not a part of my body because it is alive so if i smoke cigarettes and knowingly give myself heart disease, then i am murdering my own heart and shouldnt be able to do that.

 

[beyondtimeandspace]

So then the right to kill it rests solely in the fact that it's connected to the woman's body. Therefore the father has no say in the matter at all, since despite the infant being made of his body, it is not connected to him, and so has no right to say whether it may or may not be aborted?

 

[Wilhelm_N]

You may think it idiotic, but you're the idiot. I'll read, even take in consideration your post when you take the time to at least try to post correctly, intelligently, and grammatically. Also when you can come up with an actual argument against mine, idiot.

 

[te jen]

te jen, I do not see these qualities in an infant of 6 months. Does this make the infant non-human?

No, of course not. The 6-month-old infant has barely begun to develop those skills, but they are nascently there. But in I am suggesting that there is a stage in the development of the child, very early on, when there is no capacity for any of these attributes in any way whatsoever. To destroy the zygote or blastocyst at this stage is not to destroy a human being.

 

[SnakeLord]

actually, we are talking their own bodies, and im not sure why you dont understand this because its really basic.

But no, we're not - and I'm not sure why you don't understand this because it's really quite basic.

if a child isnt a part of a womans body while its in the womb, then what is it?

To all intents and purposes, that child is a 'parasite'. It dwells in the host, feeds off the host, and uses the host to further it's own development. A parasite, a mosquito, or a leech is not a part of your body - even if it decides to use your body to aid it's survival. In the case of parasites, they can and will be removed because of the harm they generally cause, and because as non-humans they don't have any rights whatsoever.

So now we would have to establish whether a fetus is a human. The fact is that it is, in it's very early stages yes - where you wouldn't even recognise it, but a human nonetheless.

where the hell did it come from, she didnt put it in her body

And you dare ask me if I took biology lessons? I wont get down to the 18 rated details but in short the man put it there. Do you have any idea how hard it actually is to get pregnant? You wouldn't think so given the amount of pregnant women around - but it isn't easy.

From gettingpregnant.co.uk

"Ideally you need to have intercourse three days or less before ovulation, so sperm are waiting when the egg is released. Eggs only survive for a maximum of 24-hours - unless they're fertilised. As it's impossible to predict exactly when that precious window will be, take advantage of the fact that sperm can survive for up to four days, and have them already present."

Basically what it comes down to is this: Every woman should go out and buy herself an ovulation predictor, (for a seriously cheap £9.99 at any good chemist). Then all she needs to do is avoid getting laid 4 or so days every month. Problem solved yes? No dead children yes?

Would you honestly prefer all these unwanted children to be killed than just not conceived to begin with? Why argue for the right to abort instead of arguing for the law to force all women to have ovulation predictors?

And so I suggest the compromise: That abortion be made illegal and that women + men combined make the small effort to ensure unwanted pregnancies don't occur. I ask them for 4 days every month, you tell them to kill.

Of course I am aware of circumstances beyond our control, (rapes/condom splits). In the latter I would advise they take up the free morning after pill, and the former is a much longer story where not only must one understand the position from the mothers side, but that in actuality the child is completely innocent. It's a long debate, and one I shall avoid for now.

so in fact it really is a part of her body in the same way that tumor is a part of your body when you have cancer.

It's nothing like a tumour. It will inhabit the body for 9 months and then it's done. It doesn't generally kill you, although you might suffer some discomfort and for that I'm sure the child will be truly sorry.

the only difference here is that sperm needed to be added to the equation to make it grow, so at the most a fetus is parts of two peoples bodies, fully entitling, as far as im concerned, the two of them to decide what to do with it.

I see.. So you did the duty of ejaculating while your missus did the duty of lying on her back and all of a sudden you have the decision over whether another being lives or dies? Please..

now seriously, in detail, describe to me how a fetus is NOT a part of a womans body while its in the womb because id love to hear it.

The fetus is an inhabitant, not a part of. The fetus will use the host to ensure it's survival, and it is indeed that fight for survival that gives it the right to survive. We're not talking about candy bars here, but life.. human life. A being that will do whatever it can to ensure it does survive. At no stage in it's development does a fetus wish to die, stop feeding, growing, etc. It can certainly be considered somewhat along the lines of a parasite, but not a part of her.

thats a pointless argument. you didnt borrow space from your mother

But I did. For 9 months I used her to ensure my survival. I fed from her, took all the nutrients and other things that I needed to survive. I might not have been aware that I was using her, but the fact remains that I was. From the very moment of conception, the fight was to survive, not to be exterminated. That is simply undeniable. I used my mother to make that happen. It might be her egg, his sperm - but my life.

you ARE your mother to a certain extent. did you not take biology class in high school? you are your mother and father.

Although I personally fail to see the value of that rather pedantic question, yes I did. But while my genes might have come from them, that doesn't mean I am a part of their body. I am still an individual human being regardless to who made it possible. From the moment of conception I fought to exist. That's all that needs to be said.

you were created by them from matter contained in their bodies and for better or worse, like it or not, while you were in the womb you were a part of your mother's body.

You're wrong. I was an inhabitant of her body fighting for my own survival. While I agree she might not want me inhabiting her body, once there the removal and destruction of me is murder.

its not like renting an apartment.

But it is.

what you should be saying is that your body NO LONGER belongs to your mother after birth at which point you became two distinct, seperate physical beings.

Well that's silly. At just a few months that child will be sucking it's thumb, kicking, crying, moving around and acting upon external influences. Is that not classifiable as a distinctly separate physical being? Sure, it's still inside the woman - but then would you not class a bot fly eating away at the inside of a person as a distinctly separate physical being? Yes, it uses that person to aid it's survival, but to think that it cannot be classed as a distinctly separate physical being until after birth is idiotic.

she doesnt have the right to kill you now, but at some time she had the right to choose to remove something growing in her body that she didnt want there.

Yes, because it is currently legal. That is what we're currently debating about if you didn't notice. She does have the right, but she shouldn't.

my argument wasnt meaningless, you just missed the point of it.

I didn't miss the point of it, you just missed the point of my response. Seriously, can we stop being silly?

i was discussing viability as it relates to how we define a living being.

Living: To be alive; exist

Are you stating that the fetus is dead?

Being: To exist; have life or reality

Are you stating that they do not actually exist, have life, or are real?

Sorry, you were saying about viability?

i was making the point that a fetus isnt a viable life unless it is given help and nurtured for a relatively long period of time.

Again, neither is my grandmother or the mentally ill cripple up the road. I can assure you they still qualify as living beings - although maybe not by your definition. Yes, "viability as it relates to how we define a living being" does include a fetus.

i was making a point about how bringing a child into the world is a far more complex undertaking than you have laid it out to be.

I have children.. do you?

it doesnt just involve some selfish little fetus with a right to live no matter what

But It does involve some selfish little fetus. It fights from day 1 to survive regardless to your well-being. It takes all the nutrients from you, makes you feel like shit and puke in the morning, without any care whatsoever other than it's own survival. The fact that it clearly wants to survive, gives it the right to survive, or at very least makes the termination of that being murder.

it involves a life altering decision on the part of the parents to actually raise the child once it is born and provide it with a quality of life.

Nobody said raising a child isn't hard work, but it is largely irrelevant to the discussion. A fetus is a living being and as such the termination of that living being is murder of something that clearly wants to survive. Whether changing nappies and breast feeding is a major pain in the ass is of no consequence to anything.

if they are unfit to do so, then they should, in all fairness not bring it into the world that way.

If they are unfit to do so then they should, in all fairness, get it adopted once it's born. The fact that a mother is unfit to properly care for and nurture a child after birth does not change the murder of that child before birth from being anything other than murder.

i understand that you were adopted, but once again, if you add another 1 and 1/4 million kids every year to the adoption pool, what do you think your chances would have been of having a family then?

Population issues are entirely irrelevant to the termination of an unborn human indeed being murder. To fully debate this specific issue however, I could use some statistics regarding annual adoption rates/ annual death rates and so on. You mention 1/4 million kids every year, but fail to mention how many deaths there are per year. Please provide some data.

and consider then, that if you were to have that child and leave it unadopted in a state facility somewhere, the public is forced to pay to support its life, and none of us had a say in that decision, but it becomes our burden as well.

An argument that your taxes would rise is not an argument against abortion being murder, which it is. Much like you I do not want to pay more tax, but that is no call to order the slaughter of the unborn.

theres not just the desire of one being in question when you debate whether abortion is moral or not

But that is the discussion. Once we have worked out whether it is right to kill an unborn child, once we have established whether an unborn child has any say in the matter, and once we have established that an unborn child fights to survive and is classifiable as a living being, then we can move onto the questions of tax raises and the ability to afford nappies.

you are discussing killing already existing people.

So.. a fetus does not exist? It has not made it to the ranks of fully fledged 'person', but it is still a living being with the express goal and right to survive. You are merely arguing semantics. Ok, it can't walk, talk, or operate a computer, but it is still a living being using it's host to ensure its own survival.

you are suggesting publicly sanctioned murder of the elderly and prisoners (a large percentage of the ones you have described here probably being metally ill) because you would rather not have an unwanted pregnancy terminated before its ever become a person?

Most certainly. You purposefully didn't include "paedophiles, rapists, and murderers" that I had included, but it's ok, I forgive you. Earlier you mentioned the money you would have to pay. I might aswell point out that you pay a lot to house and feed those criminals. I would rather spend my money on the deserving, wouldn't you?

that has far worse implications for the moral fabric of society than a legal right to abortion does.

So, (I don't believe I got an answer but if I did I apologise), are you for or against capital punishment?

i wasnt putting forth the idea that things have gotten so bad that now we have to murder people. not only was i not doing that, but i cant believe that you are.

I wasn't. I was stating that if population was such an issue, I would rather see rapists and paedophiles die than unborn children.

as someone who is making an argument opposing abortion because the fetus has potential and no one can judge what its quality of life will be and it cant stick up for itself, doesnt it seem completely antithetical for you to then turn around and argue that we should murder people who can express a desire to live?

For someone who is making an argument saying abortion is ok, doesn't it seem really daft to then refuse to agree that we should murder people who sexually molest young children?

Both have the express desire to live, but one is clearly more deserving. You of course make the assumption that a fetus cannot express a desire to live, when that is all it does.

once again you miss my point.

Once again you missed mine.

how ridiculous is that, look for example at Alexander the Great, he undoubtedly murdered a lot of people, would you have just wanted to kill him because he wasnt innocent,

Alexander the Great, no matter how great he might have been, is completely irrelevant to anything. However, to answer the question: If you take life, then yes.. certainly before taking the life of an innocent "living being" that continually expresses it's desire to live.

however i am confident that had Alexander the Great been aborted, someone would have eventually been born to take his place in history. funny huh.

Whether the next child would have invented coco-pops is of no consequence. You are still taking the life of an innocent "living being" that expresses a desire to live. All the side swipes you take do not defeat or argue against that very simple notion.

so i am completely mistaken then when i read that you were advocating killing the elderly to thin out our population because according to this statement here, you wouldnt want to kill your grandmother would you?

Heartless maybe, but I couldn't honestly care. However, You "missed my point". My statement was that if population was such a big issue, then it would be better to kill those that were already at the ends of their life or those that spent their lifetime raping young boys and girls than the life of an innocent "living being" that has the express desire to survive. I wasn't stating we should go and kill old people, but merely pointing out, (as you had brought up population issues), that if faced with such a crisis whereby there were no resources or space for anyone, that we can find "living beings" to kill other than unborn ones.

none of your arguments make sense.

That's because you clearly missed the point. (oh how tiresome).

i do not advocate murder.

But you do. You might not consider abortion as 'murder' but it is, given that a fetus is a "living being" with the express desire to survive.

i also have made it clear that i dont consider abortion murder and why i dont think it is.

You did little more than tell me it would cost a lot in taxes, Alexander was cool, and that because it can't walk it has no right to it's own existence. Not much of an argument when you break it down.

if someone decided to kill me now it would be murder. if someone killed your grandmother its murder. if you give a murderer the death penalty, all it is is legal murder. thats how simple it is.

Because all those used in your examples qualify as "living beings" right? So does a fetus.

i was saying that a human that cant survive on its own is in a different category than one that can.

Then surely an unborn child, born child, child under 10, cripple, mentally ill person, and old aged person all fall under the same category?

I am aware of what you can legally do at 18 or 21, but that is completely irrelevant to the argument, and a mere attempt on your part to avoid the issue. By your own standards of argument here, we can happily kill pensioners and cripples because they "do not have the apparatus necessary to decide whether or not that choice impacts them negatively".

im saying it is one choice among many that people should be able to make for themselves.

Yes, and the fetus - that shows express desire to live, and is classifiable as a "living being", should have that choice.

say i am a poor single woman living in new york city. the man who got me pregnant is nowhere to be found. carrying my child to term and giving birth to it will cause me to have to be absent from work for one week.

Look, you can fart around with poor young, my husband left me, women scenarios all you like. That does not in any way change the issue, or argue for your side. There is still no excuse to murder an innocent "living being" that has the express desire to survive. Ok, you're a poor trampy lady who cannot look after the child - get it adopted. It has no weight or bearing on abortion.

 

[KennyJC]

And so I suggest the compromise: That abortion be made illegal and that women + men combined make the small effort to ensure unwanted pregnancies don't occur. I ask them for 4 days every month, you tell them to kill.

Not gonna happen. Young people especially do not have the maturity to understand consequences of having spontanious sex. We are no different to any other animal, but we no longer have mother nature attatched to our ankles like a ball in chain and I welcome that. Young lives could be wrecked if their hormones have tricked them into something as serious as a pregnancy when it is the last thing that person wants. So at least the option is there for people if they want to restore their lives and learn their lesson.

Abortion is hardly a cheerful subject, but I sure don't want my country to return to what Britain was in the 50's with many young people getting pregnant and the stigma that surrounded it along with the millions of wrecked lives.

Forcing the girl to have the baby then throw it into adoption is hardly fair on the baby either. And if abortion is made illegal, what problem would that make for all the extra unwanted kids getting thrown into adoption?

It's a stretch to call it murder since the law says it isn't murder. And I would say the law is correct - A baby should not be protected with the same laws we have until it enters the world or passes the cut off date for abortion.

 

[beyondtimeandspace]

te jen, how do you distinguish the nascent capacities of, say, memory, of a 6 month old (born) infant, to a 5 month old unborn infant?

 

[Prince_James]

te jen:

Humanity is far, far more than genetic code. Rooted, possibly; a certain sequence of base pairs does indeed indicate the POTENTIAL for a human being, but I vehemently assert that a zygote can not be considered human because NONE of the additional attributes that mean humanity are present.

This is unscientific. Your "other attributes" have no foundation in biology. There is no potential to become a human being, one -is- a human being when it is a genetically distinct entity as a zygote, just as there is is no potential to become a human being, one -is- human being at 21 years of age. 21 yea

You have backed yourselves into a rhetorical corner by arguing that potentiality equals actuality. And don't try to worm out of it by declaring that potentiality only arises at the moment of conception. You must acknowledge that sperm and egg separately have the same potential to make a human being as the just-created zygote. If you deny this than your argument collapses. If you accept this, then you must be implying that it is every woman's moral duty to see that she bears children from the earliest possible moment until the inset of menopause, so that none of the potential humans in her ovaries suffers negligent homicide.

Sperm and egg seperately do have the potential to make a human being, but are not themselves human beings. Sperm and eggs are reproductive cells which, when united, produce a zygote, but are themselves wholely part of the body from which they come.

charles cure:

actually youre wrong about that. our laws allow that you can kill for the purpose of defending yourself from actions that will, in your judgement, lead to your death. this, more or less is a right to murder based on the presumed impact that the actions of one person will have on anothers life. this argument could be extended to sanction abortion when birth would put the life of the mother at risk, and in a more abstract way i think could be argued like this:

There are also notions in our law of "excessive force". Unless truly life-threatening intent are displayed, one can, and often are, convicted of a crime. Whilst there may be some cases of extreme medical emergency when abortion would be permittable under the notion of "imminent danger to life", anything less than such would be impermissible, not to mention a doctor ought not be involved in any case. A doctor cannot opt to save one person's life for the life of another, and to engage in abortion even when the mother's life is in danger, is to sacrifice one life for the life of another, specifically as the child is doing nothing unlawful, which would allow one to interfere in the case of seeing a crime in processs. Which leads me to your next point...

say i am a poor single woman living in new york city. the man who got me pregnant is nowhere to be found. carrying my child to term and giving birth to it will cause me to have to be absent from work for one week. although i will not get fired, i will also not get paid and i must get paid in order to continue paying rent on my apartment. if i do not pay my rent i will get kicked out of the place where i live. because i have a job, i will not qualify for welfare, but i will be homeless, and now with the additional financial burden of having a child to feed and clothe and care for, i will not have money for a new apartment. my child and i have nowhere to turn so now homeless, poor, and with a child, i cannot get health care if i need it, i cannot eat three meals a day, and my life and my childs life is now at risk. i should have aborted in self defense.

There is no imminent death, only harsh situations. Charities, both secular and religious, abound within New York City (and most other arreas), not to mention that one can ask assistance from friends, family, and other such things. Moreover, it is excessive to use deadly force against the non-malicious intent of a child growing in one's womb.

lets put an end to this garbage right now. no one on earth is omniscient or prescient. humanity has only the sensory tools that it is given with which to make decisions. just because you can speculate in a positive way about the potential life of a fetus and i can speculate in a negative way doesnt make either one of us right. what i am saying is that until birth a child is a part of its parents and therefore can be treated like every other part of the body. it is up to the parents of a potential child to decide using the information that they have available whether or not they are going to destroy that part of their body, or allow it to seperate from them and begin a life on its own. this has nothing to do with divine omniscience.

I shall address this on the foundation of your chief fallacy: The child is not part of the birth parents (mother or father). The entity is distinct, both genetically and bodily. You do know that a child in the womb is even protected from the mother's body, yes? To avoid blood being transfered betwixt the two entities?

and many of them have never been adopted and lived out childhood being shuffled from what amounts to one cold cell to another, without anyone to care for them, suffering abuse at the hands of careworkers and administrators, or descending into criminality and drug abuse and lives of desperation in general. just because some people are adopted doesnt mean they all are. and when you add an additional million and a quarter a year to the pool it makes it way less likely that any particular child will actually be adopted.

Again: Since nothing can be presciently determined by our means, we cannot say what will happen. Moreover, we can think of means where society can handle the influx of children, perhaps breed them for military service or bureaucracy.

are you trying to say that you think that based on the technological advancement of a society in a fantasy/science fiction movie, our civilization will someday be able to sustain what is patently an unsustainable number of people? because thats what im getting from this.

The notion of a planet-wide city is, actually, not so far fetched. Considering recent efforts in Japan towards a mile-high biospheric building which can hold 150,000 people, as well as advances towards skyscraper farming, we could imagine an Earth population approaching several hundred billion with no trouble. Not to mention that if we were to more efficiently use third world resources, we'd have plenty of room for food, water, and other necessities.

(Q):

Excellent post! I had hoped that PJ would, from a scientific, ie. logical point of view, would at the very least, run several scenarios in his mind such as the one you presented, that he may understand that abortion is necessary at times. Of course, pregnancies should be well thought out so that abortions aren't required. But as you've shown, that is not the case, and most certainly, there are far more examples that can be shown.

Feel free to respond to my post to Charles Cure, too.

 

[Roman]

Prince,
All I see is that you're against abortion, no reasoning why. As a liberal (as opposed to a fundamentalist nut), I see that all human life has value as long as it is capable of rationality.

A zygote requires something like 6-8 years to get to rationality. Prior to that it's either a squirming fleshy mass or a clever monkey. And I just don't see what's so great about that. Hardly human to me.

And then the assumption that a baby human is somehow innocent. Yes, it's innocent as it's not yet human, but as it's not human, it has little worth. The only thing that gives an infant worth is its potential to be human. And when it has potential to be human, then it has potential (guarantee) that it will no longer be innocent. So we may as well exterminate the bugger now since he'll grow up to be a bugger anyway.

There is the "what if it was you" argument, but if it was me who got aborted, I wouldn't know. No one would. I'm fairly fatalist in individual affairs, so I don't really see the problem of getting rid of something before anyone even knows what could happen of it. Everything afterwards would be post hoc.

[edit]
Maybe I'm liberally a fundamentalist nut? Or fundamentally a liberal nut? Or a fundamentally nutty liberal?

[editx2]I came here on the suggestion on seeing your argument against abortion. How does abortion adversely affect our society? Surely it's no worse than beating a person to death.