Another Abortion Thread

[keltzkroz]

Hi everyone! This topic came up in the Abortion/parental fairness thread. We have gone off topic so I'm starting this one.

The question seems to be pretty simple, or perhaps not so simple. IF the fetus is a person, is abortion ok?

[sin_is_fun]

Reckless homicide. The "accidentally" also produces a weak parallel as compared to abortion, since having sex isn't an accident.

Almost all teenage sex and teenage pregnancy is accidental.Nobody plans to have sex and then implements the plan.

Further what if Adam wasnt reckless and exercised necessary caution and the accident was mistake of nobody?

Similiar to having sex with condoms,but condoms were of bad quality which wasnt visible to eye and baby was conceived accidentally ?

Adam has no particular reason to believe Jacob.

If jacob is adam's neighbour and adam knew him well?

He is guilty of reckless homicide regarding the son, but not regarding Jacob's death. He had no way of knowing that depression would kill Jacob, and it is still probably Jacob's fault for letting his depression kill him rather than seeking psychological help.

If adam knew Jacob will die by depression what then?If jacob shows medical proof for a severe depression,what then?If the medic says this is uncurable except giving the baby what then?

Also, the baby isn't an example of "Adam's bodily resources".

I would say giving the baby is far less painful than the mental pain that comes from an unwanted pregnancy,teenage pregnancy etc.

That is why many teen age mothers give away their babies for adoption.

[jerickson314]

Reckless homicide. The "accidentally" also produces a weak parallel as compared to abortion, since having sex isn't an accident.

Almost all teenage sex and teenage pregnancy is accidental.Nobody plans to have sex and then implements the plan.

Right...

Further what if Adam wasnt reckless and exercised necessary caution and the accident was mistake of nobody?

This would eliminate the reckless homicide charge, but doesn't suddenly create an arbitrary responsibility to give away a baby.

Similiar to having sex with condoms,but condoms were of bad quality which wasnt visible to eye and baby was conceived accidentally ?

Having sex creates a risk for pregnancy. Period. Steen reminded me of this on the other thread. If Adam was involved in any direct parallel involved in the death, we are back to reckless homicide.

If jacob is adam's neighbour and adam knew him well?

This still fails to provide any reason to believe that Jacob will die without the baby. Depression doesn't normally cause death, barring suicide. But suicide would be Jacob's fault, not Adam's.

He is guilty of reckless homicide regarding the son, but not regarding Jacob's death. He had no way of knowing that depression would kill Jacob, and it is still probably Jacob's fault for letting his depression kill him rather than seeking psychological help.

If adam knew Jacob will die by depression what then?

I do not see how this knowledge would be even hypothetically possible.

If jacob shows medical proof for a severe depression,what then?

This wouldn't mean that his condition would be deadly unless the baby was given.

If the medic says this is uncurable except giving the baby what then?

They should find a medic who isn't a quack.

Also, the baby isn't an example of "Adam's bodily resources".

I would say giving the baby is far less painful than the mental pain that comes from an unwanted pregnancy,teenage pregnancy etc.

You didn't address the point.

That is why many teen age mothers give away their babies for adoption.

I don't think you can support this. Teenage mothers give up babies after going through the entire pregnancy. Also, you are ignoring potential causes such as concern for the welfare of the baby.

[sin_is_fun]

This would eliminate the reckless homicide charge, but doesn't suddenly create an arbitrary responsibility to give away a baby.

It was you who said

"I do something to someone else that causes them to need my blood in order to survive. If I don't give him or her blood, I will be guilty of murder on account of the original action, if nothing else"

If I modify this rule to this situation it will look like "I do something to someone else that causes them to need my baby in order to survive. If I don't give him or her my baby, I will be guilty of murder on account of the original action, if nothing else"

"Having sex creates a risk for pregnancy. Period. Steen reminded me of this on the other thread. If Adam was involved in any direct parallel involved in the death, we are back to reckless homicide.

Driving a car creates a risk for creating an accident.

T

"his still fails to provide any reason to believe that Jacob will die without the baby. Depression doesn't normally cause death, barring suicide. But suicide would be Jacob's fault, not Adam's.

What if jacob puts a gun to his head and says "If you dont give the baby I will shoot myself?" and you believe sincerely that he will do it?

He is guilty of reckless homicide regarding the son, but not regarding Jacob's death. He had no way of knowing that depression would kill Jacob, and it is still probably Jacob's fault for letting his depression kill him rather than seeking psychological help.

But if adam knows fully well that jacob in depression can commit suicide,what then?what if the depression is a major depression which has high riosk of suicides?what if adam killing jacob's son caused the depression?

I do not see how this knowledge would be even hypothetically possible.

You can find out by a person's words and behaviors.It easy.

If jacob shows medical proof for a severe depression,what then?

This wouldn't mean that his condition would be deadly unless the baby was given.

If a reputable phychiatrist vouches for it????

]If the medic says this is uncurable except giving the baby what then?

They should find a medic who isn't a quack.

ya,shoot the messenger...

]
I would say giving the baby is far less painful than the mental pain that comes from an unwanted pregnancy,teenage pregnancy etc.

You didn't address the point.

giving the baby causes mental pain
unwanted pregnancy causes mental pain.
simple.

[
I don't think you can support this. Teenage mothers give up babies after going through the entire pregnancy. Also, you are ignoring potential causes such as concern for the welfare of the baby.

If abortion is allowed they wont go through the pain,shame and humiliation of tenage pregnancy.Potential cause for giving up a baby is not baby's welfare but shame to the family,girl and her mental agony.

[jerickson314]

This would eliminate the reckless homicide charge, but doesn't suddenly create an arbitrary responsibility to give away a baby.

It was you who said

"I do something to someone else that causes them to need my blood in order to survive. If I don't give him or her blood, I will be guilty of murder on account of the original action, if nothing else"

If I modify this rule to this situation it will look like "I do something to someone else that causes them to need my baby in order to survive. If I don't give him or her my baby, I will be guilty of murder on account of the original action, if nothing else"

The problem is that you have yet to establish that anyone could ever need a baby in order to survive. Simple biology is enough to tell that your proposition is impossible.

There is also the issue of responsibility. You postulated that no one would be responsible. If this is indeed truly the case, then no action taken by Adam would create the obligation to give up the baby, even assuming the biological impossibility that the baby was needed.

Driving a car creates a risk for creating an accident.

Killing someone in a car is always reckless homicide, AFAIK.

What if jacob puts a gun to his head and says "If you dont give the baby I will shoot myself?" and you believe sincerely that he will do it?

In that case, it would be Jacob's decision to kill himself. Simple.

But if adam knows fully well that jacob in depression can commit suicide,what then?what if the depression is a major depression which has high riosk of suicides?what if adam killing jacob's son caused the depression?

Suicide would be the responsibility of Jacob, not Adam. People are responsible for their own actions, as I have said all along.

You can find out by a person's words and behaviors.It easy.

Regarding suicide, maybe. Not regarding other factors.

If a reputable phychiatrist vouches for it????

That would be like a "reputable" physicist telling me that gravity will stop existing tomorrow. It would prove that the expert is no longer "reputable".

ya,shoot the messenger...

No, just to take care of the situtation.

You didn't address the point.

giving the baby causes mental pain
unwanted pregnancy causes mental pain.
simple.

You still didn't address my point. A baby isn't Adam's "bodily resources".

If abortion is allowed they wont go through the pain,shame and humiliation of tenage pregnancy.

But instead, the fetus will die. Not any better. Plus, it's the mother's own fault, for performing the physical actions that resulted in the particular physical consequences.

Potential cause for giving up a baby is not baby's welfare but shame to the family,girl and her mental agony.

Both are potential causes.

[sin_is_fun]

The problem is that you have yet to establish that anyone could ever need a baby in order to survive. Simple biology is enough to tell that your proposition is impossible.

Is love a biological phenomena?It is psychology.Love will mkae people go mad,to murder,to engage in anything.Parental love is so powerful.People can and have sacrificed their life for the cause of their children.Its not biology but psychology.

But forgetting all this answer this question by assuming 'jacob will indeed die if he doesnt get adams child".

In that case, it would be Jacob's decision to kill himself. Simple.

Suicide would be the responsibility of Jacob, not Adam. People are responsible for their own actions, as I have said all along.

So is not adam responsible for causing death of jacobs son and jacobs death?He knew very well that if he does not give the child jacob will die.Yet he chose to kill jacob.

Its was you who gave the following commandment.Now you yourself argue against this.i will again reproduce what you wrote.

"I do something to someone else that causes them to need my blood in order to survive. If I don't give him or her blood, I will be guilty of murder on account of the original action, if nothing else"

well,according to your commandment

1.Adam's son is his blood.
2.Adam did something which caused jacob to need adams blood to survive
3.If adam doesnt give his son,he will be guilty of murder
4.Adam will be guilty of murder on account of the original sin


Your current logic goes against your argument in favor of pro-life.

"You still didn't address my point. A baby isn't Adam's "bodily resources".

so a murderer is required only to give up his 'bodily resource?'can he keep all other resources safely?Does a murderer even gets such a choice?A life is under threat and we are discussing about choices to murderer.

Its jacobs life which is hanging in thin air.Life is more important than any resources.

But instead, the fetus will die. Not any better. Plus, it's the mother's own fault, for performing the physical actions that resulted in the particular physical consequences.

Here jacob will die.Plus, its adams own fault,for performing the physical actions that resulted in the particular physical consequences.

]quote="sin_is_fun"]Potential cause for giving up a baby is not baby's welfare but shame to the family,girl and her mental agony.

Both are potential causes.[/quote]

So what?

Shame and humiliation are more powerful reasons.

[jerickson314]

The problem is that you have yet to establish that anyone could ever need a baby in order to survive. Simple biology is enough to tell that your proposition is impossible.

Is love a biological phenomena?It is psychology.Love will mkae people go mad,to murder,to engage in anything.Parental love is so powerful.People can and have sacrificed their life for the cause of their children.Its not biology but psychology.

This still doesn't show how this would cause death after the son is already dead, or how a "replacement" would be of any help at all.

But forgetting all this answer this question by assuming 'jacob will indeed die if he doesnt get adams child".

In this hypothetical universe, Adam would probably be obliged to give his son. Unless it was a complete accident, of course. However, in the abortion issue we are not talking about a complete accident. The issue at hand is responsibility.

Also, in the hypothetical universe where gravity did not exist, I might jump off the Grand Canyon for fun. Same sort of thing.

So is not adam responsible for causing death of jacobs son and jacobs death?He knew very well that if he does not give the child jacob will die.Yet he chose to kill jacob.

Adam would be responsible only for the death of Jacob's son. However, suicide would be Jacob's fault. Period. Even if someone else could have prevented him from doing it, it is still Jacob's decision in the end. Adam would not "choose to kill Jacob."

Its was you who gave the following commandment.Now you yourself argue against this.i will again reproduce what you wrote.

"I do something to someone else that causes them to need my blood in order to survive. If I don't give him or her blood, I will be guilty of murder on account of the original action, if nothing else"

OK.

well,according to your commandment

1.Adam's son is his blood.

A little odd, but OK. I did mention that Adam's son doesn't constitute "bodily resources". It is also quite possible that the son is shared with Adam's wife, who was not responsible for anything.

2.Adam did something which caused jacob to need adams blood to survive

Only in an absurd hypothetical universe.

3.If adam doesnt give his son,he will be guilty of murder

Only in an absurd hypothetical universe.

4.Adam will be guilty of murder on account of the original sin

Yes, no matter what.

Your current logic goes against your argument in favor of pro-life.

Not really. You have just painted an absurd picture, and created weak analogies from my attempts to reason through it.

so a murderer is required only to give up his 'bodily resource?'can he keep all other resources safely?Does a murderer even gets such a choice?A life is under threat and we are discussing about choices to murderer.

It is up to the courts to decide these things. However, steen kept insisting on talking about bodily resources...

However, AFAIK, under U.S. law a child may only be forcibly taken away if the parents/guardians are unable to properly care for the child. And in the universe that actually exists, no one can be demonstrated to have a physical need for someone else's child.

Its jacobs life which is hanging in thin air.Life is more important than any resources.

So you are pro-life?

Yes, in your absurd hypothetical universe Adam should be obliged to give the child. This just can't happen in the actual universe.

Here jacob will die.

Only in an absurd hypothetical universe.

Plus, its adams own fault,for performing the physical actions that resulted in the particular physical consequences.

However, these consequences cannot result in the death of Jacob in the actual universe, barring Jacob's free decision.

Shame and humiliation are more powerful reasons.

Now it's time for me to ask you. So what?

[sin_is_fun]

This still doesn't show how this would cause death after the son is already dead, or how a "replacement" would be of any help at all.

Son's death causes manic depression.He sees adam's son and adam's son reminds jacob of his son.

This is improbable,but not impossible.So answer this question assuming it happens.What next?should adam give his son or not?

In this hypothetical universe, Adam would probably be obliged to give his son. Unless it was a complete accident, of course. However, in the abortion issue we are not talking about a complete accident. The issue at hand is responsibility.

complete accident?Am I hearing rightly?It was you who said

"Killing someone in a car is always reckless homicide, AFAIK. "

What if the sex itself is a complete accident?The condom was torn.What then?Or she ate the wrong pill by pure random chance.

If she is responsible for accidental sex,then adam is also responsible for accidental sex.

Also, in the hypothetical universe where gravity did not exist, I might jump off the Grand Canyon for fun. Same sort of thing.

This thread itself is hypothetical.We debate on "what if" feutus is a person?So dont worry about hypothtical world

Adam would be responsible only for the death of Jacob's son. However, suicide would be Jacob's fault. Period. Even if someone else could have prevented him from doing it, it is still Jacob's decision in the end. Adam would not "choose to kill Jacob."

Causing depression which results in death of jacob is adam's crime.He has the power to save a depressed soul,but he doesnt do so.Is he not responsible?


OK.

A little odd, but OK. I did mention that Adam's son doesn't constitute "bodily resources". It is also quite possible that the son is shared with Adam's wife, who was not responsible for anything.

Adams wife is dead.What now?

Only in an absurd hypothetical universe.

this thread itself is hypothetical.We debate assuming feutus is a person.So let us debate hypothetically.

Not really. You have just painted an absurd picture, and created weak analogies from my attempts to reason through it.

I am doing so only because you took a highly untenable moralistic outlook.If did paint an absurd picture,but it did so only to show you how untenable your argument is.

It is up to the courts to decide these things. However, steen kept insisting on talking about bodily resources...

I dont know who steen is.I cannot defend what somebody says.I can only defend my arguments.

However, AFAIK, under U.S. law a child may only be forcibly taken away if the parents/guardians are unable to properly care for the child. And in the universe that actually exists, no one can be demonstrated to have a physical need for someone else's child.

Under US law we can do abortions in some states.
we are not talking law,we are talking ethics and morals.
The need for child isnt physical.It is mental.

So you are pro-life?

I defenitly am pro-life.I wont abort if I were a mother.But I wouldnt refuse the right to be pro choice to somebody else.I am pro life,but I wont force others to be pro life.

Yes, in your absurd hypothetical universe Adam should be obliged to give the child. This just can't happen in the actual universe.

similiarly in the absurd hypothetical universe where feutus is a aperson with full human rights,abortions should not happen.But this cannot happen in the real universe.

Only in an absurd hypothetical universe.

replied already.

However, these consequences cannot result in the death of Jacob in the actual universe, barring Jacob's free decision.

In actual universe feutus is also not a person.

Now it's time for me to ask you. So what?

So what?
So abort.

[jerickson314]

Son's death causes manic depression.He sees adam's son and adam's son reminds jacob of his son.

This is improbable,but not impossible.So answer this question assuming it happens.What next?should adam give his son or not?

In that case, Adam should give up his son. Assuming he was actually responsible for the death of Jacob's son, that it was not just a complete accident.

In this hypothetical universe, Adam would probably be obliged to give his son. Unless it was a complete accident, of course. However, in the abortion issue we are not talking about a complete accident. The issue at hand is responsibility.

complete accident?Am I hearing rightly?It was you who said

"Killing someone in a car is always reckless homicide, AFAIK. "

Yeah, I said that. Killing someone in a car is always reckless homicide. Creating babies through sex is always your own responsibility.

What if the sex itself is a complete accident?

Not possible.

The condom was torn.What then?Or she ate the wrong pill by pure random chance.

That would be failed contraception, not "accidental sex". Since it is possible for this to happen, having sex creates a responsibility if there is a pregnancy. Just as driving creates a responsibility if you get yourself into an accident.

When I speak of accident, I refer to doing something where there is no great risk but by some freak accident something happened.

If she is responsible for accidental sex,then adam is also responsible for accidental sex.

Except that "accidental sex" never enters the picture at any point.

Also, in the hypothetical universe where gravity did not exist, I might jump off the Grand Canyon for fun. Same sort of thing.

This thread itself is hypothetical.We debate on "what if" feutus is a person?So dont worry about hypothtical world

The acceptance of one counterfactual does not imply the acceptance of all possible counterfactuals.

In English, that means that just because I am willing to talk based on one proposition that may be hypothetical, this doesn't mean that you can be as hypothetical as you want.

Causing depression which results in death of jacob is adam's crime.He has the power to save a depressed soul,but he doesnt do so.Is he not responsible?

Not in the case of suicide. Jacob is responsible for his own suicide. Depression cannot cause suicide without the assent of the depressed person.

Adams wife is dead.What now?

Then we are back to the original scenario.

this thread itself is hypothetical.We debate assuming feutus is a person.So let us debate hypothetically.

I would say that the fetus is a person, but that's not what this thread is about. And the acceptance of one counterfactual does not imply the acceptance of all possible counterfactuals. I explained this above.

I am doing so only because you took a highly untenable moralistic outlook.If did paint an absurd picture,but it did so only to show you how untenable your argument is.

Except that your argument looks much more absurd than mine, at least to me. If you want to convince me, you're going to have to show me how that is the case.

It is up to the courts to decide these things. However, steen kept insisting on talking about bodily resources...

I dont know who steen is.I cannot defend what somebody says.I can only defend my arguments.

Fair enough.

The need for child isnt physical.It is mental.

The fetus's need for its mother's "resources" isn't mental. It is physical.

I defenitly am pro-life.I wont abort if I were a mother.But I wouldnt refuse the right to be pro choice to somebody else.I am pro life,but I wont force others to be pro life.

So will you force others to not force others to be pro-life?

similiarly in the absurd hypothetical universe where feutus is a aperson with full human rights,abortions should not happen.But this cannot happen in the real universe.

Except that the fetus is a person, I would argue. It doesn't have full human rights, though, just as slaves didn't have full human rights. However, it deserves full human rights, just as slaves always deserved full human rights.

Will you not force others to be anti-slavery, either?

Only in an absurd hypothetical universe.

replied already.

Reply refuted already.

However, these consequences cannot result in the death of Jacob in the actual universe, barring Jacob's free decision.

In actual universe feutus is also not a person.

It is a homo sapien. In my book, that constitutes a person.

[darthmix]

From the other thread, referring to the right to use bodily resources.

They should have this right whenever that person created the need for his or her own body. This is simply because only in these situations would "murder" be a true claim. In these situations, it would be this person's fault that the person died. Not so in other situations.

I have yet to see a good response from steen on this point.

I will give an example of the point holding up. Say I do something to someone else that causes them to need my blood in order to survive. If I don't give him or her blood, I will be guilty of murder on account of the original action, if nothing else.

Hmmm... that suggests that abortion would be okay in instances of rape. In that case, even if the fetus is a person, it's one to whom the woman has absolutely no responsibility. So, she should have the right to kick it out of her body whenever she wants. Is that, in fact, your opinion?

[sin_is_fun]

In that case, Adam should give up his son. Assuming he was actually responsible for the death of Jacob's son, that it was not just a complete accident.

Do you think any court in the world will give such a judgment?I am interested in knowing why courts will never give such a judgment.What do you think will be the reasons for a court to reject the request of Jacob?

That would be failed contraception, not "accidental sex". Since it is possible for this to happen, having sex creates a responsibility if there is a pregnancy. Just as driving creates a responsibility if you get yourself into an accident.

When I speak of accident, I refer to doing something where there is no great risk but by some freak accident something happened.

Driving and having sex both if they are practiced within the limits se by law ,arent dangerous.If you dont speed,dont break traffic laws and still the accident happens you will not be blamed.

There are no such laws for sex.But I would consider unplanned sex by sudden impulse,sex by rape or coercion,teen age sex,,sex at a date,sex when you were drunk all as accidental sex.

I would support the right to abort for all women irrespective of the nature of sex.But I would consider abortion to be moral and ethical only for teenaged mothers,unmarried women, rape victims,plus abortion for medical reasons.This is my subjective view and I wouldnt support a ban on any type of abortion-even if feutus is a person.Reason is the choice should be made by the mother alone,whether to havea child or not.God and law should have no say in it.Its the mother who is going to decide whether she is going to bear the pain or not.

Isnt she responsible for becoming pregnant?I wouldnt consider it as a reason for her to suffer the consequences for her whole life.Women are doing a great service to humanity.They get illtreated,beaten,burnt as witches for centuries,were humiliated as responsible for the fall of mankind..so let them enjoy this preveilage

Except that "accidental sex" never enters the picture at any point.

depends on how you define an accident.

The acceptance of one counterfactual does not imply the acceptance of all possible counterfactuals.

In English, that means that just because I am willing to talk based on one proposition that may be hypothetical, this doesn't mean that you can be as hypothetical as you want.

Whenever we quote an example to refute a law it is always hypothetical.All the stories jesus gave in NT to explain gods laws were hypothetical.

Not in the case of suicide. Jacob is responsible for his own suicide. Depression cannot cause suicide without the assent of the depressed person.

who caused the depression at the first place?If somebody spoils a womans reputation by lying and if the woman suicides isnt the man responsible for her death?I would bet that he will be held responsible for her suicide by a court of law.

The fetus's need for its mother's "resources" isn't mental. It is physical.

The mothers need for abortion are both mental and physical.Trauma of having a child,society looking down at her family badly,her medical condition etc.

I defenitly am pro-life.I wont abort if I were a mother.But I wouldnt refuse the right to be pro choice to somebody else.I am pro life,but I wont force others to be pro life.

So will you force others to not force others to be pro-life?

I wouldnt force others to be pro life.But if others try to ban abortion by law I will oppose it.people can decide whether they want a child or not.It should not be left to the government to play the role of moral policeman here.Church and state should be seperate.

Except that the fetus is a person, I would argue. It doesn't have full human rights, though, just as slaves didn't have full human rights. However, it deserves full human rights, just as slaves always deserved full human rights.

This analogy comes into picture only if we accept feutus is a person.Without that issue being settled this analogy isnt valid.

Will you not force others to be anti-slavery, either?

explained earlier.If you want we can discuss whether feutus is a person or not in another thread.Only if that issue is solved we can make this analogy.

It is a homo sapien. In my book, that constitutes a person.

So if a neanderthal mother had aborted isnt that a sin?

Just joking.Feutus is a person or homospaiens is beyond the purview of this thread.