After a friend printed a misguided defence of abortion (from her comments thread)

[fpb]

Rephrase your premise as follows:
I don't agree with abortions... but if they're going to happen (which they will), they need to be safe and legal.
I don't agree with rape... but if they're going to happen (which they will), they need to be safe and legal.
I don't agree with burglary... but if they're going to happen (which they will), they need to be safe and legal.
I don't agree with assault... but if they're going to happen (which they will), they need to be safe and legal.
I don't agree with embezzlement... but if they're going to happen (which they will), they need to be safe and legal.
I don't agree with fraud... but if they're going to happen (which they will), they need to be safe and legal.
I don't agree with forced marriage... but if they're going to happen (which they will), they need to be safe and legal.

etc., etc., etc.....

Excuse me, if something is wrong, why the Hell should it be safe and legal, only because "it's going to happen"? Crime is always "going to happen". That is the point of having laws. We do not have laws against something which, though wrong, is never going to happen (e.g. there is no law against stealing someone's soul). The point of having a law against it is to state that it is a disapproved and forbidden activity, and that, if you are caught (which, alas, will not always be the case), you will be punished. This trash about "it's going to happen anyway" is simply something that abortionists repeat ad nauseam, on the principle that if we hear a statement often enough we're going to take it for granted.

Comments

[curia-regis.livejournal.com]

"You have the right to try to change the law; but while the law allows slavery, you don't have the right to stop anyone from owning one."

Well as much as I am against slavery, I would agree with that argument.

In any case, I don't believe slavery and abortion are even on the same scale. One subjugates a fully formed human being. The other gets rid of a bunch of cells.

In any case, I'll be very glad if abortion is still around in 200 years time.

[headnoises.livejournal.com]

You ARE a bunch of cells. All living creatures are a "bunch of cells." (barring single-cell organisms, such as a virus, which are still in dispute)

The only difference between you and a child which can be aborted, biologically, is location.

A human inside the womb can be killed.

A child outside of the womb, (thanks to the born-alive infant protection act) cannot be killed.

[curia-regis.livejournal.com]

If the fetus can't live outside the womb; it isn't alive. If it can be kept alive on an artificial respirator, then it's a baby. If it can't, it isn't.

[headnoises.livejournal.com]

So, since you can't live outside of an environment without harmful elements and with the proper oxygen level, you're not alive?

Since you can't live without the proper forms of feeding, you're not alive?

Please don't try to re-define "life" as "able to live as I do, maybe with help." (Unless, of course, you've got a really good reason you can expound here?)

Unless you truly believe that life somehow appears at some point around extrauterine viability-- in which case the definition of "life" would change, depending on the available technology-- you might want to find another word.

[curia-regis.livejournal.com]

Unless you truly believe that life somehow appears at some point around extrauterine viability

Actually, yes, I do believe in this.

Perhaps 'life' wasn't the best term, but there really isn't a good term for it. A fetus, in my eyes, is a potential human until it can live outside the womb.

[headnoises.livejournal.com]

A human fetus, by definition, is human.

I believe what you mean is person; IE, you don't believe a non-viable fetus is a PERSON.

Which makes it really morally problematic, when you consider that kids these days are easily viable at 24 weeks-- that would mean that because of technology, they are a person now, when they wouldn't have been in, say, the 60s.

[curia-regis.livejournal.com]

Okay, I meant person then. I'm multi-tasking at work. Sorry. Bad choice of words.

Yes, there is a moral problem. However, I don't believe this moral problem outweighs the woman's right to choose whether to continue the pregnancy or not.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

To be frank, Ayla, I do not think you would "believe" anything else if an angel out of heaven gave you a crystal-plated solid gold answer. I think that, in this case, your reason is the servant of your will: you keep producing arguments because it is your will that sex should be available without the risk of another human being at the end of it. I also think this is a revolt against nature and reason.

[curia-regis.livejournal.com]

I also think this is a revolt against nature and reason.

I can get the nature argument, but why reason? The world is already over-populated. So wouldn't it be reasonable to enforce some sort of population control policy like China has?

And yes. I do believe sex should be available without the risk of a baby. I honestly don't see what's wrong with this. Just say, I got pregnant now. It's entirely possible. I am in no position to raise a child. I would be an awful parent. Yes, I could give the child out for adoption, but that could possibly lead it to being in a not-so-nice home (I have nothing against adoption, adoptive parents or anything like that. I'm just saying it's possible). The whole pregnancy process could and possibly would disrupt my life enough that I might not graduate for at least a few more years. The baby-raising process would interrupt my life enough that I won't be able to get a good job. These might sound like selfish reasons, but if I ever had a child, I would want to to be able to ensure it had a good home. I simply couldn't do it now. And obviously I'm not going to have sex willy-nilly without protection, but if anything were to happen, I would want abortion to be around as a last resort.

And that's all it is to me. A last resort. I don't think women should be aborting babies right and left, but given the choice between a university student or a teenage mother raising a baby and abortion, I think aborting the pregnancy is a lesser evil than not being able to provide a good home for the baby.

If you could produce an angel from heaven, then I'd believe in God. If you could produce said angel who told me that fetuses at 8-12 ish weeks were conscious and aware, then I would be anti-abortion. I'm not stubbornly sticking my head in the sand. I'm just weighing up the odds. Coming from parents who should never have had children, I think that it would have been better for them if I had simply been aborted.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

NO IT WOULD NOT. Because then it would have been impossible for us to know you, and something which is both valuable and pleasant in our life would not exist. Your friends do not just put up with you, Ayla: they are grateful for your existence and welcome you - however wrong-headed, messed-up, obstinate, you may be - every time you turn up. You really have to understand that. I for one am not in the least amused by references to your possible not being there. But what you have said is that your views on this matter are a by-product of the terrible self-image that your parents managed to imprint in you; which does not surprise me in the least. However, it does not make a good argument. Because it means that if you had not had the kind of parents you had, then your views would be different. And the point with argument, reason, and indeed morality, is that they should be universal, not depending on individual attitudes. You yourself, when you say that "a woman should have the right to decide,", that "sex should not be coupled with conception", and so on, imply a universal validity for your demands. If you say that "a woman has the right to choose," then she has it whether she will or nill. If you exclude the male from that decision (which is contrary to all experience), then that has to be valid for all males. But your clear statement that your view depends on issues with your own parenting undercuts your argument.

As for it being a revolt against reason, you seem not to distinguish between reason, which is universal, and any individual's reasoning faculty, which is limited by the circumstances of that particular person. When I use these words in the abstract - reason, liberty, justice, etc. - I always mean them in their abstract and universal meaning, and I think you will find most people do the same.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Does that mean that a human in outer space, or in Antarctica, or in any other place where a human being cannot normally live, can be legitimately killed? It strikes me that you never stop to consider the consequences of what you say.

[curia-regis.livejournal.com]

Actually that wasn't my point at all.

If it can be kept alive on an artificial respirator, then it's a baby.

I didn't say that the baby had to be able to breathe on its own and surivive wholly by itself. That would be silly. But I'm saying that for a large part of the pregnancy, the fetus cannot be kept alive outside the woman's body.

Humans in Antarctica or outer space or wherever can be kept alive using modern technology.

If you want to dispute that something is a baby when it can't be kept alive in the outside world by any technology, then go right ahead. But I most certainly did not imply that people can be killed if they can't naturally survive somewhere.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Humans in Antarctica or outer space or wherever can be kept alive using modern technology.

Which is much more elaborate, difficult and expensive than that required to keep a baby alive. So?

[curia-regis.livejournal.com]

I was just saying that I certainly don't believe in killing people because they can't survive in a physical environment.

My point was also that while you can keep a 24 week old fetus alive, it's impossible (with current technology) to keep a 6 week old fetus alive outside the womb. It has nothing to do with how expensive it is. It's just completely impossible right now.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

It will be possible in time. And the way things are going, you, my friend, will live to see it. Then what? Because if we were to follow your premises, that would be the end of the right to abortion. And what would happen then to your deep-seated sense that abortion is your right? You have to understand that the only way to argue about moral issues is as though they were eternal.

Different standards, different conclusions

[culturalnomad.livejournal.com]

"I don't believe slavery and abortion are even on the same scale. One subjugates a fully formed human being. The other gets rid of a bunch of cells."

Let's look at that statement from a couple of different points of view.

"I don't believe slavery and abortion are even on the same scale."

There's also another way in which they are not "on the same scale." Abortion kills; slavery only "subjugates". While there are some people who would rather be dead than be enslaved, most people prefer to stay alive. As the maxim says, "Where there's life, there's hope."

"One subjugates a fully formed human being. The other gets rid of a bunch of cells."

First, few abortions are carried out when the child that has been conceived is still only a "blob" of undifferentiated cells. By the time most abortions are carried out, the baby is already recognisable as such -- a tiny but already "formed" human baby. "Viability" used to be the test -- could the infant survive outside of the mother's womb? But, on the one hand, medical science is constantly pushing back the date at which such survival is possible; on the other hand there is the particular abomination of the so-called "partial birth abortions."

Second, similar arguments could be advanced for all kinds of "inferior" groups. Not just the unborn, but newborns, and, indeed, all children, are not yet fully functioning and contributing members of society. Neither are the mentally handicapped. Can I take it that you also support infanticide and the culling of mental deficients? (See also my earlier comments on "Drawing the line.")

It is possibly to logically defend almost any position by appealing to differing standards and differing premises. Just because a certain view happens to be popular or unpopular at a given time doesn't make it right or wrong. It helps to have an objective standard. You have appealed to the law. But, as you pointed out yourself, laws can be changed. Most, if not all, of what the Nazis did to the Jews was legal by the laws they had enacted.

As a Christian, I am happy that an objective standard for right and wrong exists that does not change. It is commonly known as "The Holy Bible."

Re: Different standards, different conclusions

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Ah, but Ayla (curia_regis) is not a Christian, and nor, to be fair, is the majority of the human race. If we want to win the argument about abortion, we have to argue as if the Bible weren't there. That is what I usually do.

Re: Different standards, different conclusions

[culturalnomad.livejournal.com]

In general, I agree, and that is also what I usually do -- which is why, in all the comments I have posted here so far on this subject (thank you for allowing them), this is the first time I have said anything about being a Christian, and even here I did not advance any specifically Christian arguments regarding the abortion issue.

My point here was something different. I was pointing out the difficulty of reaching full agreement on the subject without some kind of common starting point in the form of an objective standard that we can all agree on, or at least some kind of hierarchy of values that we all subscribe to. Without one, even the genocide practiced by Hitler, Pol Pot, Idi Amin and many others can be defended logically by those who accept the values and standards they did.

In that context, it seemed appropriate to declare what my own ultimate standard is. Perhaps I stated it somewhat belligerently. If so, I apologise.

Re: Different standards, different conclusions

[curia-regis.livejournal.com]

As fpb says, I'm not a Christian. I plead almost total ignorance to the Bible. However, from what I have heard/read about it, it seems to contradict itself a lot.

In any case, I don't see how a book written 2000 years or so ago could have relevance to today's life. The Bible has no concept of modern technology or modern values.

I have difficulty seeing a day when, say, a six week old fetus can survive outside the mother's womb. I could be proven wrong, but

I'm not saying that abortions should happen because the unborn aren't fully functioning members of society. I'm saying that they should happen when the unborn are not capable of surviving outside the woman's body, even with the aid of modern science.

I have difficulty seeing a day when, say, a six week old fetus can survive outside the mother's womb. I could be proven wrong, but I doubt the line would ever be pushed back to that stage unless we manage to create fully functioning artificial wombs.

I don't have an objective standard to appeal to. I agree, laws can be changed. I just have my beliefs and my own standards which, yes, do constantly change when I get new information, but I try my best to operate within my own ethical boundaries. I personally believe this is better than just accepting an outside source as an 'objective standard'.

Re: Different standards, different conclusions

[fpb.livejournal.com]

"Modern technology" does not imply "modern values". "Values" do not change. You have, for instance, the very same values as an ancient Roman with the power to decide if a child of his lived or died. (Abortion, incidentally, is so modern a technology that the ancient Egyptians and Chinese knew all about it. So, probably, did prehistoric men.) The notion that morality changes to suit the times is the dreariest and most oft-exploded nonsense in the whole panoply of immoralism. Read Plato's Menexenus, and tell me whether there is a single moral issue it deals with that is outdated or irrelevant today. (This does not mean that you have to share his conclusions, which are in my view pretty perverse; but the questions it poses are relevant to anyone with a family, today or ever.) Even better, seeing your background, read Confucius. And reflect on the parable of his thought and influence in modern China. When the Communists needed a justification for their enormous bloodshed and political immorality, they pretended that the course of history had put Confucian morality out of date; when their power was sufficiently consolidated (and the mad emperor - you know who I mean - was safely dead), they suddenly discovered that his teachings had some current value after all. Does this not show that the notion of morality becoming outdated is nothing more than an excuse for contemporaries to do things that are convenient but immoral?

Re: Different standards, different conclusions

[thysanotus.livejournal.com]

The Bible also suggests that it is perfectly legitimate to sell your daughter. It proscribes the eating of shellfish, the wearing of mixed cloth, and declares women on their menses to be unclean.

Re: Different standards, different conclusions

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Your sorry, cheap, uncomprehending, yet clearly well-rehearsed little list of "funny" arguments against what you conceive to be the Bible shows that you are a True Believer with little individual ability to reason on this matter and no interest in anything remotely resembling a debate. You have come here, not to make a point, let alone to listen to anyone who disagrees with you, but to troll. And that being the case, I refuse to answer anything you set out. Keep talking to yourself.

Re: Different standards, different conclusions

[thysanotus.livejournal.com]

Not only have I read the Bible at length, but I have studied it in depth at several tertiary institutions. I take offence to your assumption that I am unable to reason with my own opinions and logic on this matter.

I was merely pointing out some of the other things that the Bible says, without even bringing up the fact that nowhere does it mention anything about abortion. And let's not have the Commandment argument - Thou shalt not kill was actually Thou shalt not murder, and if a pregnant women was murdered, the only compensation that was due was that for the woman, not for the unborn child.

I am willing to listen to and respond to rational arguments. The fact that I've seen none here has been what's led to my almost complete silence.

Re: Different standards, different conclusions

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Trolls should not be fed, but I cannot resist the arrogance, vanity and ignorance in this response. The notion that this person's previous post invited anything more than scorn shows a lack of self-awareness that is terrible to behold. And the notion that she is, of all the people who posted here, for and against, the only one who has so far proposed a "rational argument" - the rational argument being, if you please, some pathetic anecdote about Jewish law, as if Jesus Christ and Sts.Peter and Paul had never happened - adds to that a distinct tone of comedy. Go away, troll.

Re: Different standards, different conclusions

[culturalnomad.livejournal.com]

I agree with fpb that it's probably a waste of time to give a serious answer to this, but I will attempt a brief one anyway.

". . . legitimate to sell your daughter." I don't remember that one. The others, I agree, are in the Bible. However . . .

First, you shouldn't be too quick to knock them. A lot of the Old Testament laws seem really quaint to those of us living today, but scholars have suggested logical reasons for many of them (e.g. many of the dietary rules and most of the sanitary laws), while some served as "object lessons" of deeper truths.

Second, some of the laws reflected the culture and customs of the time and place where they were written -- but were more "advanced" or "enlightened" than those of surrounding peoples. For example, slavery was so much a part of the prevailing culture that it probably would have been impossible to abolish entirely. But the Law required that slaves could not be mistreated, and that every seventh year was a "Sabbatical" year in which all slaves were to be freed. O.T. laws required that adequate provision be made for widows, orphans, strangers and all the poor -- almost a "welfare state", in fact!

Third, and most important, the Christian Bible has two main sections, the Old Testament and the New Testament. The New Testament teaches that it supersedes the Old, and that "The Law" (the Torah, the Pentateuch) was annulled by Jesus Christ. Not only are people not required to obey the O.T. laws any more, but those who seek "salvation" (or who claim any kind of superiority) from keeping the O.T. Law are condemned.