Abortion

[Illyricum]

What are you thoughts/opinions on abortion?

[tcay584]

Rats...only said that because I'm a smoker and my Dad's always telling me how dumb I am to be hooked on that. I agree with the second hand smoke thing though. Crack cocaine, perhaps?

[Corvus]

Corvus Wrote:

My concern is what would happen if abortion was made illegal. This did not work well in the past. The result was that we had women drinking gin with metal shavings, inserting knitting kneedles into themselves and doing heavy lifting in an effort to bring about an abortion. Unsafe illegal abortion was the second greatest cause of death for women, right after suicide. Modern education would prevent some of those deaths, but in a place like America, with such a vast population and large number of abortions performed from day to day, I think, in the event of its prohibition, many women would resort to similar measures.

Well this shouldn't be a factor. Life would be a lot easier if things could be rationalized in this way:
Q: What would happen if the world didn't do everything that a group of terrorists demanded?
A: They would involve themselves in grusom murders, suicide bombings, and other acts of terrorism.

Except abortion can't be equated to terrorism, and laws against terrorism are enforceable, while laws against abortion have never been enforceable in the past. The "intent to abort", as the legal lingo might go, is always hidden, normally known only to wife and husband. After the deed, if successful, no one is usually the wiser, since abortions are normally carried out very early. If unsuccessful, the woman is normally hospitalised, and because of that, they usually aren't convicted.

Regardless of this, the statement was not supposed to be an argument for the "rectitude" of abortion, but for the ramifications of not allowing it. I thought my argument for its "rectitude" was stated quite clearly in that post and elswehere.

I doubt the number of women that would resort to these methods would be incredibly large and at all sound-minded.

And yet in Portugal at least 1,000 women have been hospitalised last year for unsafe illegal abortions. As we all know, abortion is predominantly utilised by the poor, who are not nearly as educated as the middle class in these matters, so yes, in a nation of some 290 million, I expect, perhaps not an incredible amount, but a sizeable proportion of women. Using a rough calculation, 29,000 women hospitalised annually in the US would not be a liberal figure. In fact, U.S trends being what they are, with such an outstanding abortion rate, I would expect it to be far worse. Perhaps they would not be utilising exactly those methods, but they will certainly be inventive in duplicating the same results.

Hi Again,
Just went and double checked my dictionary, because maybe all the years I've spent in college and grad school did me wrong. The actual definition of "parasite" includes the caveat that the parasitic organism is of another species from the host. Your parasite argument is misusing the term.

Which dictionary? My English Oxford states otherwise, but looking at the very American www.dictionary.com , I see the definitions don't include your caveat. Many of the definitions here fit, all from reputable American dictionary sources:

par-a-site ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-st)
n.

• Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
• One who habitually takes advantage of the generosity of others without making any useful return.
• One who lives off and flatters the rich; a sycophant.
• A professional dinner guest, especially in ancient Greece.

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved



par-a-site (pr-st)
n.

• An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
• In conjoined twins, the usually incomplete twin that derives its support from the more nearly normal fetus.

Source: The American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary
Copyright 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.



Main Entry: par-a-site
Pronunciation: 'par-&-"sIt
Function: noun
: an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism

Source: Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary, 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.


parasite

Par"a*site, n. [F., fr. L. parasitus, Gr. ?, lit., eating beside, or at the table of, another; ? beside + ? to feed, from ? wheat, grain, food.]

• 1. One who frequents the tables of the rich, or who lives at another's expense, and earns his welcome by flattery; a hanger-on; a toady; a sycophant.
  
  Thou, with trembling fear, Or like a fawning parasite, obey'st. --Milton.
  
  Parasites were called such smell-feasts as would seek to be free guests at rich men's tables. --Udall.
• 2. (Bot.) (a) A plant obtaining nourishment immediately from other plants to which it attaches itself, and whose juices it absorbs; -- sometimes, but erroneously, called epiphyte. (b) A plant living on or within an animal, and supported at its expense, as many species of fungi of the genus Torrubia.
• 3. (Zo["o]l.) (a) An animal which lives during the whole or part of its existence on or in the body of some other animal, feeding upon its food, blood, or tissues, as lice, tapeworms, etc. (b) An animal which steals the food of another, as the parasitic jager. (c) An animal which habitually uses the nest of another, as the cowbird and the European cuckoo.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.


parasite

n

• 1: an animal or plant that lives in or on a host (another animal or plant); the parasite obtains nourishment from the host without benefiting or killing the host [ant: host]
• 2: a follower who hangs around a host (without benefit to the host) in hope of gain or advantage [syn: leech, sponge, sponger]

Source: WordNet 2.0, 2003 Princeton University

Even if this wasn't the case, I don't think this is misusing the term any more than calling someone a social butterfly implies they should be fuzzy-bodied insects with bright wings, or calling someone a leech when they "mooch" off you is in any way meant to represent your friend as a slimey slug-like creature that sucks one's blood and retracts at the touch of salt. Or, to use religious examples, it is like claiming that "dead in Christ", "dead in sin", and "born again" are misapplications of words.


Interesting that a parasite can be applied to a conjoined twin that derives its sustenance off the other. That was one definition of the term I never knew.

[Spongemom]

Spongemom wrote:

I didn't say it was logical.

If your argument does not follow logical reasoning, than am I permitted to refute it with illogical reasoning? In that case...

Your argument is underpants. So that makes it invalid.

Oh jeez...I was referring to the way women who want the child will call it a baby from the time they conceive. It is not logical, but it's the way those women think, and there's nothing wrong with it.

[chrispalasz]

Corvus wrote:

And yet in Portugal at least 1,000 women have been hospitalised last year for unsafe illegal abortions. As we all know, abortion is predominantly utilised by the poor, who are not nearly as educated as the middle class in these matters, so yes, in a nation of some 290 million, I expect, perhaps not an incredible amount, but a sizeable proportion of women. Using a rough calculation, 29,000 women hospitalised annually in the US would not be a liberal figure. In fact, U.S trends being what they are, with such an outstanding abortion rate, I would expect it to be far worse. Perhaps they would not be utilising exactly those methods, but they will certainly be inventive in duplicating the same results.

Alright, but on the other hand there is the argument that no one life is better than another. I'm sure the number of mothers willing to harm themselves in order to have an abortion is far inferior to the number of babies that would be aborted due to it being legal. Do you disagree?

It would still be the lesser of two evils.

[Corvus]

Corvus wrote:

And yet in Portugal at least 1,000 women have been hospitalised last year for unsafe illegal abortions. As we all know, abortion is predominantly utilised by the poor, who are not nearly as educated as the middle class in these matters, so yes, in a nation of some 290 million, I expect, perhaps not an incredible amount, but a sizeable proportion of women. Using a rough calculation, 29,000 women hospitalised annually in the US would not be a liberal figure. In fact, U.S trends being what they are, with such an outstanding abortion rate, I would expect it to be far worse. Perhaps they would not be utilising exactly those methods, but they will certainly be inventive in duplicating the same results.

Alright, but on the other hand there is the argument that no one life is better than another. I'm sure the number of mothers willing to harm themselves in order to have an abortion is far inferior to the number of babies that would be aborted due to it being legal. Do you disagree?

It would still be the lesser of two evils.

If I was willing to concede that the value of life begins at conception, and we divorce my statement from the rest of my argument, then, yes, it might be true. Though I think the value of a mother's life being more than that of an unborn child is already quite well established and in both Portugal and Ireland, abortions can be performed if the mother's life is in jeopardy. Both camps have in the past recognised the mother has the priority to survive if any birth complications arise. Anyway, factored in with the number of successful, better-informed, clandestine abortions that do not result in hospitalisation, yes, the loss of life might still be reduced due to the penalties of an anti-abortion system, but not by much, especially if the penalties are insituted over what has been a relatively culturally acceptable act. It will be like prohibition all over again.

Geez, this topic is huuuge!

[Jose]

Alright, but on the other hand there is the argument that no one life is better than another. I'm sure the number of mothers willing to harm themselves in order to have an abortion is far inferior to the number of babies that would be aborted due to it being legal. Do you disagree?

It would still be the lesser of two evils.

Of course, we don't follow the argument that "no one life is better than another." We don't even mention the thousands of Iraqis killed in the Invasion and Occupation, and seem to consider the "collateral damage" to be a minor irritation in "the cost" of our "just" war. There are many other examples we could bring up, but you see the point. You have also omitted the immoraility inherent in the law that would make abortion illegal: forcing everyone to follow the rules of a religion that they do not accept. What makes this one religion so important that it can call the shots? What gives members of this religion the hubris to think that they know what's right for everyone else? It seems to me that Corvus's message is that a very large number of people do not accept the authority of this particular worldview, and are even willing to risk their lives in opposition to it. They are risking their lives for something that has no effect on the religious rulemakers, so why ignore them when developing the rules?

[chrispalasz]

Of course, we don't follow the argument that "no one life is better than another." We don't even mention the thousands of Iraqis killed in the Invasion and Occupation, and seem to consider the "collateral damage" to be a minor irritation in "the cost" of our "just" war. There are many other examples we could bring up, but you see the point.

I do see the point, but it does not apply to me. I am against the war in Iraq. I am a pacifist. I don't believe in killing anyone on purpose for any reason. I agree that the death of Iraqis is considered "collateral damage" and I think it is an atrosity. I can't stand it the way the news makes it seem like 10-15 dead Iraqis are equal to one dead American. It's sick. But this discussion is not for this thread, so I'll stop there.

You have also omitted the immoraility inherent in the law that would make abortion illegal: forcing everyone to follow the rules of a religion that they do not accept. What makes this one religion so important that it can call the shots? What gives members of this religion the hubris to think that they know what's right for everyone else? It seems to me that Corvus's message is that a very large number of people do not accept the authority of this particular worldview, and are even willing to risk their lives in opposition to it. They are risking their lives for something that has no effect on the religious rulemakers, so why ignore them when developing the rules?

I have not used a religious argument yet. 8)
There are many people that believe abortion is wrong who aren't religious. It's about defining when a human child becomes a human child and when it is not. So, let's set the Christian worldview aside. I still have all of my arguments intact for you and/or Corvus to respond to.

[Gaunt]

no one life is better than another.

If this is true, then why should the fetus be given preference over the mother?

It's about defining when a human child becomes a human child and when it is not.

No it is not. Earlier in the thread (top of page 9 as I recall) I posted two arguments that presuppose that the fetus is a person and argue for abortion based on the rights that most western nations support. The only side that relies on the personhood of the unborn is the anti abortion side.

[Jose]

I find it interesting that the view of True Christians is usually to desire that abortion be outlawed, when doing so will have no effect on themselves, but will increase the numbers of non-Christians. True Christians, of course, would never think of an abortion for themselves (unless, of course, they change their minds when they are actually faced with an unplanned pregnacy). Usually, religions seek to increase their own numbers, rather than increase the numbers of the opposition.

I find that to be a rather pessemistic vision of True Christianity (I would like to comment on how sad the times have become, that we have to differentiate between "Christianity" and "True Christianity" ). It is true that Christians try to take extra special care when deciding such matters. Christians seek to increase their own numbers by representing Christ, not out-breeding non-believers. (sounds funny to say it like that). Aside from that, it is not really up to us, but up to God. We try to live the way God has led as an example. Also, it is not up to us who becomes a Christian. Our own children are also born sinners, and while they most certainly do undergo influence, it is ultimately up to God and then it is up to them.

It is a rather pessimistic view, isn't it? Only a short time ago, I wouldn't have considered it possible. Since then, though, I've met many Christians, in forums like this, who have said that XXX Christians are not true Christians (so their views don't count). I find this remarkable. I'd never been able to tell one Christian from another before--or for that matter, tell the doctrines apart.

Hmmm...so it's really up to God. That's fine. Let's allow God to guide us, and not force everyone to follow our own view of "morality." If some people choose abortion, they may discuss it with their God, if they have one. If everything is up to God, then it's awfully presumptuous of us to claim we speak for him.

There are many people that believe abortion is wrong who aren't religious. It's about defining when a human child becomes a human child and when it is not. So, let's set the Christian worldview aside.

It's about defining when a human child becomes a human child and when it is not.

No it is not. Earlier in the thread (top of page 9 as I recall) I posted two arguments that presuppose that the fetus is a person and argue for abortion based on the rights that most western nations support. The only side that relies on the personhood of the unborn is the anti abortion side.

It's apparently hard to set the Christian worldview aside, since it's that particular worldview that wants to define the conceptus as a "person." I define it biologically, based on the complexity of the embryo and its degree of sentience. You misrepresent this argument (which has been made by a number of us) by extrapolating the "blob of cells" concept to the near-term fetus, as if to make us seem unreasonable. Perhaps, in your view, we are unreasonable. But that's not a good reason to enforce your particular view of morality on everyone. [Note that I say "force." I support your efforts to use logic and persuasion to bring people around to your viewpoint. I even agree with the viewpoint that we should dissuade people from choosing abortion--but it is their choice, not mine. What I don't support is passing laws that are based on religious morality in a country that represents itself as being a champion of religious freedom. Sometimes religious freedom requires simple tolerance. Sometimes it requires forbidding certain actions (like posting the 10 commandments in public buildings). Sometimes it requires forbidding certain laws (like requiring the teaching of creationism (ID), or, in this case, forbidding abortion).]

[Corvus]

It's about defining when a human child becomes a human child and when it is not.

No it is not. Earlier in the thread (top of page 9 as I recall) I posted two arguments that presuppose that the fetus is a person and argue for abortion based on the rights that most western nations support. The only side that relies on the personhood of the unborn is the anti abortion side.

Psst. Actually, Gaunt wrote that, not me. Credit where credit is due and all that.