Statesboro, GA, USA
And an attachment of labels can sometimes be an attempt to pigeon-hole issues which can't be usefully pigeon-holed.
How is using the term "abortion-rights" an attempt to pigeonhole? It generally describes the position of most who want women to have the legal right of abortion. Why constantly object to the use of terminology (which is unavoidable when talking about most anything), since I am willing to talk about nuances and diversity within those groups as well. Its almost like protesting the term "musician" since, after all, not all musicians are alike.
No Stephen, you are using a Ron technique, writing the question you want me to answer for me!
For the most part, I'll take that as a compliment. Ron's a pretty bright bulb on the tree, in my opinion.
But actually, I was asking a question in response to your statement that those who argue against abortion based on the 6th Commandment are extreme. Perhaps you meant something different than I thought you did. I thought you meant their position was extreme. Perhaps, instead, you mean only that their methods are? Anyway their position seems little different than the moral assumptions of most abortion-rights defenders I've read or spoken to ... namely that innocent human life should not be killed. The argument is not usually that it should, but that it is really somehow less-than-human.
The fact is that, however unsavoury it might sound to say it, there are different degrees of killing. People, for example, might broadly agree that murdering a 2 year old is rather more worthy of condemnation that shooting a murderer who is about to kill your daughter. Your attempt to simplify this down to a kill or not kill moral position, just as the attempt to simplify it to a pro or anti position, is not helpful to finding practical compassionate solutions to the problem.
Actually I have never over-simplified the issue to the point of saying that all killing of human life is always wrong. Capital punishment (whether you agree or not) is based upon the guilt of the executed. Abortion to save the mother's life is based upon the fact that it would be better to save one life than none. No abortions involve the killing of a guilty human. And most abortions do not involve a life-saving measure for the mother. What you are not admitting is that, in our legal system, the right to life always takes priority over the personal rights of others, excepting the extreme situations you just mentioned.
So in this case, with "extreme" meaning at one end of a spectrum, we have a guy sitting there saying: "this is a raped 14 year old girl, the foetus is only 6 weeks old, the girl is already descending into mental illness and on physically harmful drugs, but nevertheless she's still gonna have that baby because my god says that killing is wrong and I KNOW that that is a living breathing human being in there so it's gonna live whatever".
What you haven't established, is how or even if an abortion will ease the mental trauma of rape. It won't. It will however end the life of someone who didn't rape anyone. And you keep bringing the religious aspect in, but as long as you already agree that innocent human life should be protected, that can remain a different discussion. There are a significant amount of pro-life people who are not religious.
That statement implies certainty about the status of the foetus which imo the guy cannot possibly have, and certainty about the existence of his god, and certainty about the existence of the decree and certainty about the meaning of the decree implying an absolute which imo the guy also cannot possibly have.
That position is imo at one end of a spectrum, ergo "extreme".
It's not uncertain as you say. But since science has made the question and doubt much more acute for those who deny the humanity of the fetus ... how would legalized abortion be justified in the light of uncertainty?
A position which says, "You can terminate the life, but were not sure that it's not human", would be far more extreme.
If it helps at all I also have a problem with a view that says a woman should be able to do whatever she likes, whenever she likes.
I do appreciate our common ground. But I don't think you are providing any criteria for not allowing just that. For if the fetus is not human, she should be able to whatever she likes whenever she likes.
You see Stephen, you an I differ on the meaning of "life", there are plainly circumstances when a person might feel death is preferable to biological life and those circumstances can last for many years. I've already demonstrated to Denise that even she would be prepared to kill another human, thereby attaching value to life, there are no absolutes in this.
The existence of moral priorities does not show that "there are no absolutes". You are describing suicidal tendencies. I am against Euthanasia as well, since the medical community should not be hijacked to take up the cause of suicide "rights". In the case of Denise, she (like me) already admitted that sometimes life may be taken for the protection of another.
Again, we are talking about a majority of abortion cases which have nothing to do with such life-saving measures.
My own person opinion (supported by UK law) is that emotional response is a very important part of decision making in abortion issues and that's part of the reason why I believe development does have a bearing here.
You reiterated your view, but you didn't answer my question. I pointed out that many mothers are not emotionally attached to their newborns, and have no desire to be mothers. Why does protection of the newborn (from either infanticide or abandonment) overrule "emotion" in this case, and not in abortion?
Me: My question is ... In other situations, would a woman's "right" to cope with the personal pain of rape, trump the right to life for another human being?
Moonbeam: And my answer is that there is no simple answer to that, as there is no simple answer to most of your questions.
I'm not necessarily asking for a simple answer. Our present laws protect human life overriding many rights to personal ease (which otherwise would be legitimate). I'm asking why this is always the case (excepting for the protection of another life). But you are proposing that it should be different with abortion.
As Bob has said, the practical position is that a woman has a choice, period. The entity inside her is part of her body for a while and she can go off and do what she likes with her body and nobody can really stop her.
That is no argument. Current laws do not stop murder either, nor do they take away choice. Murderers may still go off and do what they like to someone else's body, and nobody can really stop them. The sheer philosophical reality of having "choice" has little bearing in law or ethics, or else everything should be legal.
Besides, there are two bodies in pregancy, not one, though one of them is dependent.
I couldn't agree more. Everything about this issue is "questionable", that's what makes it so difficult.
I didn't mean "questionable" in the sense that it is debatable. For a moral relativist everything is debatable except moral relativism. What I meant was, there is little evidence that aborting the child will improve the mental distress of a rape victim. It's really a moot question though, unless we should be able to put other people to death because of mental distress.
The idea of a woman using abortion as a form of casual contraception is abhorrent to me, and here, at least, abortions are illegal after 24 weeks (too long imo).
Under current laws with the hopelessly wide definition of a woman's health, (to quote Francis Beckwith) women may get an abortion before "viability" for no reason, and afterward for any reason.
Not that everything is so simple...but choice has always been, and always will be.
No, Karen. Everything is that simple. Legality never takes away choice, though it limits it to some degree.
I don't believe there would be as many abortions if the abortion industry were not given the freedom to promote the propaganda that the fetus is nothing more than a spare appendix. With education and more understanding of what the expansive lens of science has shown, I think more women may consider different choices.