Pro Life versus Pro Choice Debate

[gearhead]

I never cease to be amazed at the stretches one will go to to justify something that is so obviously wrong. I believe it is called relativism and it is the opposite of seeking truth.

FWIW, I don’t believe that a zygote is a person in the first place, so strictly speaking, I don’t adopt the position I describe. However, I don’t think I’d call pointing out the inconsistency of a position “relativism”. To me, consistency implies the exact opposite.

Even if we totally ignore moral law and go with this secular legal argument, it does not hold water. The laws you refer to say you do not have to do something to prevent a situation that you are merely observing.

Actually, they say that except in certain special cases (e.g. a soldier or sailor), you always have the right to end a risk to your own life, even a slight risk, by removing yourself from danger.

It certainly does not say you can take violent action against that person to cause his/her death unless you yourself are in eminent danger from that person.

Actually, the law doesn’t even say that in many jurisdictions. Take “castle doctrine” as an example.

Your argument would make sense only if the pregnant woman was in danger of losing her life because of the pregnancy.

Every pregnant woman is at risk, even if it’s a small risk, from pregnancy. They’re certainly at more risk to their lives than many situations where we allow a person to extricate themselves from the situation.

Wow, I have to admit, I have not run into many people who will argue the case of killing the baby even if they admit it is a human being with rights under both moral and secular laws.

Then I suppose you haven’t met many people who factor the woman’s rights into the equation.

 

[CWBetts]

A sperm cell or unfertilized egg cell also has its own DNA, distinct from the parent.

Exactly how do you get from the number of chromosomes to worth? The actual attributes of the thing in question don’t matter to you?

If some anomaly caused the zygote to have 24 pairs of chromosomes, would you then consider the abortion of that fetus to be acceptable?

I realize that trying to gauge “worth” is difficult, but when I try to decide whether to treat a thing as a person, I ask myself questions like “can it reason?” “can it feel?” “is it self-aware?” It wouldn’t even occur to me to ask myself “how many chromosomes does it have?” To me, it seems that question is irrelevant: it’s not the number of chromosomes; it’s how the information on those chromosomes are actually expressed as attributes of the organism.

Do you support infanticide? Killing of the senile? Catatonic schizoids? If you do not, then your definition of “person” is inconsistent. If you do, that puts you in very disturbing company.

 

[gakroeger]

Why do you think that I am pro-choice? I’m not actually, which seems to make the majority of your statements here look pretty silly.

Why do I think you are pro choice; hmmm, maybe because you are arguing on the side of pro choice?

I did address your point about murder. Our laws about killing are actually considerable more complex than that. We have murder, self-defense, killing in war, and in the US there is the death penalty, and people are even allowed in some circumstances in the US to use lethal force to protect their property. And we also do not demand, legally, much in the way of self-sacrifice from people; we do not compel people to give up their lives to save another.

I think you need to get a dictionary and look up the definition of murder.

If you actually managed to pass a bill that said there was no way to get an abortion, even for serious medical reasons, than the first time there was a serious medical reason the law would be struck down. Which doesn’t seem very useful if you actually want to prevent abortions.

Your crystal ball is quite amazing. If you are familiar with history, we lived for several hundred years in this country when abortion was illegal just like any other murder. There was of course an option to terminate the pregnancy if the mother’s life was in danger and she chose to end the pregnancy. I don’t know whether you lived in those times, but in my humble opinion, things were better then. Yes, there were illegal abortions going on, about .1% of what happens today. At that time, people cared and looked out for one another, we did not have near the armed robberies or murders, and we did not even bother to lock up our houses or cars. The drug problems, sexually transmitted diseases, pornography, rapes, etc were virtually unheard of. Why do you suppose all of this has changed?

 

[gearhead]

Do you support infanticide? Killing of the senile? Catatonic schizoids? If you do not, then your definition of “person” is inconsistent. If you do, that puts you in very disturbing company.

Personally, I find it very disturbing that a person would stand by and watch someone in distress die. If it were me standing there, I’d feel a moral compulsion to jump in and help. However, I probably wouldn’t consider it justified to mandate that someone who doesn’t feel the same way should be legally compelled to jump in and help in the same situation. I recognize the law for what it is, even though it allows behaviours that I personally would not choose.

Would you legally require all people to risk their lives to save others? If not, then why demand this of pregnant women?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Do you support infanticide? Killing of the senile? Catatonic schizoids? If you do not, then your definition of “person” is inconsistent. If you do, that puts you in very disturbing company.

This is what I was thinking…

Human life is now being given worth based on “productivity” as though people were nothing more than a machine. “Oh the lack of humanity of it”!!!

 

[gearhead]

Do you support infanticide? Killing of the senile? Catatonic schizoids? If you do not, then your definition of “person” is inconsistent.

How so?

And I do support voluntary euthanasia. I think it’s a sick sort of respect for life that demands a dying person prolong their suffering unnecessarily.

However, I don’t support euthanasia just for senility. And I don’t know what a “catatonic schizoid” is (if it’s even a real diagnosis), so I won’t give an opinion on that.

Back to my questions, though:

• what is it about “number of chromosomes” that you think implies worth or value?
• if a human fetus had a genetic defect that gave them 22 or 24 pairs of chromosomes, would their life not have worth in the same way that a normal human fetus would?

 

[Bluegoat]

Why do I think you are pro choice; hmmm, maybe because you are arguing on the side of pro choice?

I can support a position without thinking that every argument for it is correct. People have tried to convert others to Christianity by telling them it would cure them of deadly diseases. That isn’t true, although I think Christianity is. I am also not going to say something is always simple when it is sometimes complex, or denigrate all who disagree with me as being stupid or immoral without understanding their reasoning.

I think you need to get a dictionary and look up the definition of murder.

Not all killing is, by definition, murder. I am, in my professional life, a soldier. I can be legally obliged to kill people - some would say morally obliged. Certainly the Catholic Church does not prohibit its members from being soldiers. Which suggests that they agree that all killing is not murder. So one would have to show that abortion was indeed murder and does not fall under the other allowable circumstances. From a Christian perspective I think a grave threat to the mothers health would be the only one that is applicable. Legally, here in Canada, I think I would say the same. In the US, I am not sure, since they allow both lethal force to protect property in some places and have the death penalty, both of which I find incomprehensible - but it seems they must have more allowable reasons for killing in framing those laws.

Your crystal ball is quite amazing. If you are familiar with history, we lived for several hundred years in this country when abortion was illegal just like any other murder. There was of course an option to terminate the pregnancy if the mother’s life was in danger and she chose to end the pregnancy. I don’t know whether you lived in those times, but in my humble opinion, things were better then. Yes, there were illegal abortions going on, about .1% of what happens today. At that time, people cared and looked out for one another, we did not have near the armed robberies or murders, and we did not even bother to lock up our houses or cars. The drug problems, sexually transmitted diseases, pornography, rapes, etc were virtually unheard of. Why do you suppose all of this has changed?/QUOTE

I have serious doubts that all those things stem from abortions being allowed - though there may well be a common cause behind many of them. But your picture of history is perhaps rosier than it should be. In any case, here in Canada our abortion law was struck down some time ago for legal reasons (and wasn’t working well anyway, it was fairly easy to obtain a “legal” abortion though it wasn’t supposed to be.) In the US the abortion laws were struck down for legal reasons. Laws have to be framed in a way that allows them to operate within the existing structure or they will be struck down, or you have to change the structure itself. But the latter should only happen if it is indeed misguided - if not, then there was a problem with the law or its interpretation.

A good, tight abortion law would restrict abortion to medically necessary cases. The sticker is how to decide what are medically necessary cases in a way that is accurate to the situation,and does not cut the mother, the person who’s health is affected, out of the equation - we all should have a stake in our own health care. It should also not put the mother through some horrible ordeal any more than the situation creates in and of itself or insult her humanity by assuming an adversarial relationship.

 

[gakroeger]

I can support a position without thinking that every argument for it is correct. People have tried to convert others to Christianity by telling them it would cure them of deadly diseases. That isn’t true, although I think Christianity is. I am also not going to say something is always simple when it is sometimes complex, or denigrate all who disagree with me as being stupid or immoral without understanding their reasoning.

Generally things are much simpler than people would like to admit. Right is right and wrong is wrong. There really isn’t any middle ground. The problem is the right path is usually not the easy path. This tends to make people want to find some middle ground that will both satisfy their conscience and still allow them the latitude to do as they wish. Abortion is a classic example of this, for all of the rhetoric on both sides; the issue boils down to abortions are performed certainly not for the good of the victim, but for the convenience of those affected by the birth. We all feel empathy for the pregnant teenager or poor family with another child on the way that can ill be afforded. However, there are a multitude of options other than abortion. Our society encourages the behavior that causes these situations and then wants to take the easy way out when there are consequences to these actions. There are thousands if not millions of married couples in the United States that are trying to adopt new born children, but our legal system makes this virtually impossible. I personally have known several couples that have tried for years to adopt and have not been able to. It is easier for the mother though the pushing of “Planned Parenthood” and others to abort the baby. And the really sad thing is that it is the under privileged that fall victim to this sad condition.

Our country is now paying a terrible price for 40 years of abortion on demand. Not only is our nation suffering from the effects of our corrupt society, we do not have sufficient people in our work force to sustain the necessary growth for survival, and we have to depend on the immigration from under educated nations. Our society desperately needs to return to teaching that there are consequences to our actions and the old sixties mantra “if it feels good do it” does not work.

I have serious doubts that all those things stem from abortions being allowed - though there may well be a common cause behind many of them. But your picture of history is perhaps rosier than it should be

All these things are not because of abortion. Abortion stems from all of these things. When our society decided somewhere along the line that God does not belong in our daily lives, this is when the trouble started. Back in the days I referred to; our country still believe that we were “One Nation Under God”. And as Ronald Reagan once said “If we ever forget that we are One Nation Under God, we will be a Nation gone under". How prophetic is that? As to if I painted a rosier than reality picture, can you dispute any of the points I made?

 

[gakroeger]

Then I suppose you haven’t met many people who factor the woman’s rights into the equation.

I love it when people use womens rights to kill a embryo that was created by that women’s actions. Anyone who has talked or worked with women dealing with the emotional trama of having had an abortion would not even think of using this as an argument for abortion. There are at least two victims in every abortion, the child and the mother, and probably several other people, like grandparents, siblings, and society in general.

 

[CWBetts]

How so?

And I do support voluntary euthanasia. I think it’s a sick sort of respect for life that demands a dying person prolong their suffering unnecessarily.

However, I don’t support euthanasia just for senility. And I don’t know what a “catatonic schizoid” is (if it’s even a real diagnosis), so I won’t give an opinion on that.

Back to my questions, though:

• what is it about “number of chromosomes” that you think implies worth or value?
• if a human fetus had a genetic defect that gave them 22 or 24 pairs of chromosomes, would their life not have worth in the same way that a normal human fetus would?

There are no genetic defects that replicate entire pairs without being fatal. You have never heard of catatonic schizophrenia? They are not self aware. Your definition requiring self-awareness and reasoning would eliminate infants, and other groups as being people

 

[DOShea]

Even if the embryo is human, virtually every jurisdiction recognizes the right of the average citizen to choose to not place themselves at even a minor risk, even if it means the certain death of another person.

Not human? Please tell me what biological classification other than human in which you would categorize it? It’s not an elephant, not a tiger, not an ostrich, not a plant… so what is it? Isn’t it odd that when Paleontologists come upon dinosaur eggs they call them “dinosaur eggs,” sometimes “baby dinosaurs” and make no distinction that these would - had they lived - been nothing except the particular type of dinosaur? But we can’t do that with a developing baby?

We’ve made great strides in making pregnancy safer, but carrying a pregnancy to term still represents a significant risk to the mother. It’s perfectly legal in most other situations for a person to stand by and do nothing at all to help while a person dies; why should it not be legal in this case as well?

I actually agree with you on this. We should stand by and do nothing. That means not seeking the help of a doctor to end the pregnancy on purpose… just stand by and do nothing. I’d support a law like that.

If we take as given (for the purposes of this discussion) that a fetus or embryo is a person, What’s the fundamental moral difference between these two cases?

• a pregnant woman in her first trimester decides that she doesn’t want the personal risk of pregnancy and gets an abortion.
• a mother decides that she doesn’t want the personal risk of minor smoke inhalation or first-degree burns and leaves her baby in its crib next to the curtains that have caught fire and runs out of the house alone.

In the first case, there is no circumstance of emergent nature that compares with people running out of a building during a fire. In the second, a case that I suspect represents no mother I’ve ever met, you do have the physical aspect of smoke and fire that can prevent saving another even if one wanted to. The first case is a choice; the second is not clear choice.

Keep in mind that the second course of action is perfectly legal.

No, not always. If the mother could have saved the baby and didn’t, she will be charged with negligent homicide, a.k.a. manslaughter.

Even if you establish that a fetus is a person (which by itself is a massive leap to make), you still haven’t reached a rationale for prohibition of abortion.

There is nothing to establish. A fetus is a person, that doesn’t change just because you say so. If you think a developing baby isn’t human, the onus is on you to show it isn’t human. What else is it if it isn’t human?

I realize that trying to gauge “worth” is difficult, but when I try to decide whether to treat a thing as a person, I ask myself questions like “can it reason?” “can it feel?” “is it self-aware?” It wouldn’t even occur to me to ask myself “how many chromosomes does it have?” To me, it seems that question is irrelevant: it’s not the number of chromosomes; it’s how the information on those chromosomes are actually expressed as attributes of the organism.

There is nothing difficult about gauging worth. You either value all, or you impose a subjective set of criteria with which to devalue some of it. Can’t reason? I know adults who can’t do that. I know adults who are not self-aware also. Newborns can’t reason, and how do we know if they are self-aware or not at that point? Should we kill them?

The moral imperative your arbitrary system imposes is that the strong are perfectly justified controlling the weak. Anyone stronger than another then gets to impose his will on them. That’s the moral foundation you WANT to have?

If you insist on staying on the development idea, what do you say about women when they are 6 years old and don’t have their entire reproductive system in place? They aren’t fully developed; are they any less human than they are at 20?

Then I suppose you haven’t met many people who factor the woman’s rights into the equation.

I suppose you haven’t met many that factor the developing baby’s rights in the equation.

 

[fix]

Not all killing is, by definition, murder. I am, in my professional life, a soldier. I can be legally obliged to kill people - some would say morally obliged. Certainly the Catholic Church does not prohibit its members from being soldiers. Which suggests that they agree that all killing is not murder. So one would have to show that abortion was indeed murder and does not fall under the other allowable circumstances. From a Christian perspective I think a grave threat to the mothers health would be the only one that is applicable. Legally, here in Canada, I think I would say the same. In the US, I am not sure, since they allow both lethal force to protect property in some places and have the death penalty, both of which I find incomprehensible - but it seems they must have more allowable reasons for killing in framing those laws.

Direct abortion is about the intentional killing of innocent people. That is murder by any rational definition. Soldiers do not do that. Police do not do that. The state does not do that. That is not self defense.

 

[Bluegoat]

Direct abortion is about the intentional killing of innocent people. That is murder by any rational definition. Soldiers do not do that. Police do not do that. The state does not do that. That is not self defense.

Did you bother to read the whole post?

My point was that killing is not always murder, and one has to make an argument that abortion doesn’t fall into some other category. If you wanted to show that there could never be a reason for an abortion to be legal or moral, than there would never be a circumstance that it would be something other than murder, and from a legal standpoint that it was equivalent to other legal principles. If you think that the death of the mother might be a mitigating factor, then you need to account for that, both morally and legally. If a person thinks it should be allowed in any case, then they would have to show that killing in that case does not fall within prohibited bounds.

I don’t actually think your point about innocent people is valid. The innocence or lack thereof of babies is totally immaterial, as is the innocence or guilt of any other person in the context of deliberate killing. (And what innocence or guilt means from a Christian perspective is a big topic.) Even soldiers and police, as you’ve noted, don’t kill on that basis - police actually are very restricted in what they are allowed to do as far as killing goes, it is more an extension of the rules that apply to all citizens. And soldiers don’t kill the guilty, they kill combatants (and try not to kill anyone else if they know their jobs.)

OTOH, in the US the state does kill legally, people who are not an immediate danger to the lives or health of others. I have no idea what this would mean from the perspective of abortion legislation, and it doesn’t really affect me, but it does make me think that there are things, like property, that are held higher than human life in some circumstances. Which does not seem like a good sign from the perspective of the pro-life movement.

 

[fix]

Did you bother to read the whole post?

My point was that killing is not always murder, and one has to make an argument that abortion doesn’t fall into some other category. If you wanted to show that there could never be a reason for an abortion to be legal or moral, than there would never be a circumstance that it would be something other than murder, and from a legal standpoint that it was equivalent to other legal principles. If you think that the death of the mother might be a mitigating factor, then you need to account for that, both morally and legally. If a person thinks it should be allowed in any case, then they would have to show that killing in that case does not fall within prohibited bounds.

We all agree that not all killing is murder. The point is the baby is always innocent. If you are talking about different categories of murder in terms how people may be charged I agree that usually depends on certain factors, but it is always unjust and ought to be illegal.

I don’t actually think your point about innocent people is valid. The innocence or lack thereof of babies is totally immaterial, as is the innocence or guilt of any other person in the context of deliberate killing. (And what innocence or guilt means from a Christian perspective is a big topic.) Even soldiers and police, as you’ve noted, don’t kill on that basis - police actually are very restricted in what they are allowed to do as far as killing goes, it is more an extension of the rules that apply to all citizens. And soldiers don’t kill the guilty, they kill combatants (and try not to kill anyone else if they know their jobs.)

This makes little sense. A guilty person who is killed in self defense is much different than an innocent person targeted for killing.

OTOH, in the US the state does kill legally, people who are not an immediate danger to the lives or health of others. I have no idea what this would mean from the perspective of abortion legislation, and it doesn’t really affect me, but it does make me think that there are things, like property, that are held higher than human life in some circumstances. Which does not seem like a good sign from the perspective of the pro-life movement.

The US intentionally kills innocent people?

 

[gearhead]

Direct abortion is about the intentional killing of innocent people. That is murder by any rational definition. Soldiers do not do that. Police do not do that. The state does not do that. That is not self defense.

I disagree.

On occasion, soldiers do do that, and by extension the state.

Consider some of the actions that took place in WWII: air crews would bomb strategic targets like weapons factories, knowing full well that their bombs were so inaccurate that they would inevitably hit surrounding homes and kill innocent people. Despite this, they and their commanders deliberately chose to take an action that would result in the killing of innocent human life.

There are no genetic defects that replicate entire pairs without being fatal.

For argument’s sake, pretend that wasn’t the case. Is your valuation of a fetus really based on the number of chromosome pairs it has?

What about a tumour? A tumour in a human body will have distinct DNA and 23 chromosome pairs. Do you value the life of a tumour as you would the life of a person?

You have never heard of catatonic schizophrenia? They are not self aware. Your definition requiring self-awareness and reasoning would eliminate infants, and other groups as being people

I didn’t give a definition. I only gave a small sample of questions and said that the determination of what constitutes a “person” is difficult.

Not human? Please tell me what biological classification other than human in which you would categorize it? It’s not an elephant, not a tiger, not an ostrich, not a plant… so what is it?

Arrgh. I’m sure you know full well what I meant. A human fetus is human in the same sense that human hair is human. The fact that something is composed of living tissue with human DNA doesn’t mean that the thing itself is human… and I’d be very surprised if you thought so as well.

However, if you hold regular funerals for your stomach lining, I might be inclined to change my mind.

In the first case, there is no circumstance of emergent nature that compares with people running out of a building during a fire.

Yes, there is: the risk to the mother of childbirth.

In the second, a case that I suspect represents no mother I’ve ever met, you do have the physical aspect of smoke and fire that can prevent saving another even if one wanted to.

In this hypothetical, it doesn’t actually prevent the mother from taking action; it just makes whatever action she takes somewhat more risky.

No, not always. If the mother could have saved the baby and didn’t, she will be charged with negligent homicide, a.k.a. manslaughter.

Now, I’m no lawyer, but AFAIK, the test for negligence is what was reasonable to do in that situation. If a person is reasonable in perceiving an unacceptable danger to their life, then the law wouldn’t compel them to risk themselves.

There is nothing to establish. A fetus is a person, that doesn’t change just because you say so. If you think a developing baby isn’t human, the onus is on you to show it isn’t human. What else is it if it isn’t human?

You’re equivocating. “Human” doesn’t necessarily imply personhood. Human hair, human growth hormone, human nature, and human rights all receive the label “human”, but none of them are persons.

There is nothing difficult about gauging worth. You either value all, or you impose a subjective set of criteria with which to devalue some of it. Can’t reason? I know adults who can’t do that. I know adults who are not self-aware also. Newborns can’t reason, and how do we know if they are self-aware or not at that point? Should we kill them?

Your criteria are subjective as well. If a fertilized egg is a person, then why not an unfertilized egg? It’s “human”, it has distinct DNA from its parent, and given the right conditions it will grow into a fully-developed human being.

AFAICT, the only reason to decide that a fertilized egg is entitled to special protect that an unfertilized egg is not is the idea of ensoulment at conception… however, this idea itself depends on religious doctrines that can’t be defended with evidence.

The moral imperative your arbitrary system imposes is that the strong are perfectly justified controlling the weak. Anyone stronger than another then gets to impose his will on them. That’s the moral foundation you WANT to have?

I don’t see how you reached that conclusion. Can you connect the dots to show me the chain of thought that led to it?

If you insist on staying on the development idea, what do you say about women when they are 6 years old and don’t have their entire reproductive system in place? They aren’t fully developed; are they any less human than they are at 20?

You do realize that attacking my position does not automatically strengthen yours, right? There are many more alternatives than my opinion and yours.

I suppose you haven’t met many that factor the developing baby’s rights in the equation.

Virtually everyone I know places weight on the rights of developing babies. It’s just that many of them don’t consider fetuses to be babies. And very, very few people I know would try to make the argument that a blastocyst is somehow a person.

 

[fix]

I disagree.

On occasion, soldiers do do that, and by extension the state.

Consider some of the actions that took place in WWII: air crews would bomb strategic targets like weapons factories, knowing full well that their bombs were so inaccurate that they would inevitably hit surrounding homes and kill innocent people. Despite this, they and their commanders deliberately chose to take an action that would result in the killing of innocent human life.

That may or may not be just depending on certain factors. In any event, there is a big moral difference between intentionally targeting innocent people to be murdered and attacking an enemy with no intention of killing innocents that have an unintended consequence.

 

[gearhead]

That may or may not be just depending on certain factors. In any event, there is a big moral difference between intentionally targeting innocent people to be murdered and attacking an enemy with no intention of killing innocents that have an unintended consequence.

… which is the same difference as the difference between an abortion motivated by a specific desire to kill the fetus and an abortion motivated by a desire to not go through with a pregnancy.

 

[gakroeger]

OTOH, in the US the state does kill legally, people who are not an immediate danger to the lives or health of others. I have no idea what this would mean from the perspective of abortion legislation, and it doesn’t really affect me, but it does make me think that there are things, like property, that are held higher than human life in some circumstances. Which does not seem like a good sign from the perspective of the pro-life movement.

To compare the actions of a state government in punishment of a criminal who has taken human life and to protect society from them doing it again, to murdering a baby in its mother’s womb is beyond all logic.

Whether you agree with capital punishment or not; for a state to execute a psychopathic killer is not because they do not value human life, it is because they DO value human life and are taking steps to prevent this killer from killing again.

Again, I am amazed at the attempts to justify the unjustifiable by those wanting to eliminate the inconvenience of a new baby.

It is a poverty to decide that a child must die
so that you may live as you wish.

~Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta

 

[fix]

… which is the same difference as the difference between an abortion motivated by a specific desire to kill the fetus and an abortion motivated by a desire to not go through with a pregnancy.

No, in both those cases the intent is to kill the child.

A better analogy would be in treating a pathologic condition the baby dies as an unintended consequence.

Again, there is a big difference between directly willing the death of the baby and the baby dying as some secondary effect never intended.

 

[gearhead]

Whether you agree with capital punishment or not; for a state to execute a psychopathic killer is not because they do not value human life, it is because they DO value human life and are taking steps to prevent this killer from killing again.

Once the killer is incarcerated and held securely, that goal is accomplished. If he represents a threat to other inmates, then you can isolate him from them.

Capital punishment is nothing more than state-sanctioned revenge. It’s worthless as a deterrent and serves no legitimate purpose.

No, in both those cases the intent is to kill the child.

And the intent of those bomber crews was to decimate whole sections of cities. Now…whether they were doing this to target a strategic railway yard or an orphanage plays a key role in the morality of their actions, but the effects are the same regardless of what was in their hearts.