My views on abortion

Ok, I can agree with that assessment. What is different about a sperm and a fertilized egg that you think makes its potential so much greater? And once we've established that, does a potential life weigh more than an actual life (ie the mother)?

I think my point is superior because law can be written about it. If we take your point, where law cannot be written, and it is decided by a woman "and her doctor", then it is possible for a doctor to use his influence to force his personal beliefs upon the woman in a situation where perhaps he should not be doing so.With my definition, there is a clear, objective line where (if made law) a doctor would be unable to refuse terminating the pregnancy if the woman so wishes.It seems like my defintion respects the woman's right over her own body more than yours does? Given that doctors are human, and they can be just as corrupt as anyone else.Given an unrealistic assumption that "all doctors are good people who respect both woman and baby", I would agree that your defintion would be superior. But I do not see how you can think such a situation actually exists within reality.

I disagree because as I pointed out, the woman can be "absolved" by virture of the inherant biological inequality. The fact that she is ALSO absolved of responsibility (financial, etc) is a side effect based on that biological inequality. You can't say that she has an "extra" right that a man does not, its just a side effect of her primary right derived from her biology. His rights stop where they intrude upon hers. What say would you propose that he would have concerning to keep or abort? Certainly he can express his desires, but you seem to be thinking about some kind of binding right that he is somehow lacking.If your thinking about the whole responsibility thing, again I will repeat that we decide to do that in our society not based on the issue of equality. We do it to make society stable by mitigating the consequences that arise from single parent families. THAT has nothing to do with taking away men's rights. Its about public interest. Even if I do feel personally that abortion is wrong in certain circumstances, I don't think you could make a law robust enough to both produce a well-defined public interest in restricting abortions that has enough exceptions for it to avoid being draconian. At the point you resolve all the if-then-its-ok-but-except-when-circumstance-blah-blah-blah the law either becomes too restrictive or essentially worthless to actually prevent any abortions. Rather than working toward restricting abortions, I believe we need to work toward eliminating unwanted pregnancy.

---

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

sorry, duplicate postEdited by Peepul, : No reason given.

It's a good question and not one I've thought through deeply up to now. I don't think I can give a very clear answer. I would say that the difference is in the different probabilities that a human will result from these two. Obviously, the probability for an individual fertilised egg is higher than that for a sperm, though it gets pretty close for a sperm in the act of penetrating an egg cell. It depends how you mean this. If the mother's life is the balance with her embryo, then no, the potential life does not weigh more.

I never said anything about a doctor being able to refuse. That is a whole seperate moral/ethical argument. I believe that abortion should be legal at any point during pregnancy.I like RAZD's definition of personhood but again I don't agree that you can write law around it because like the point I made to Hyro, all the exceptions you would need in there for any case that you would want to restrict abortions would essentially make the law a spiderweb of unenforceable nonsense. Without those exceptions the law would be draconian and eliminate a woman's right to body sovereignty.That is even if you could define an unambiguous public interest in restricting abortion in the first place. This issue is not built for lawmaking. Not every behavior we would like to eliminate in society lends itself well to a law enforcement solution. (drugs for another example)

---

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

Good enough. There are a lot of beliefs people hold without examining them. Even if, after examination, you end up holding the exact same belief as before, I think the examination is worth it. It keeps us honest with ourselves. I could get pedantic and ask you what you mean by human.
Feel free to answer the above, but I think a more fruitful direction is, how do you calculate that probability? If you want to count the sheer number of sperm cells that have ever been produced versus the number that have led to an actual birth and compare that to the sheer number of fertilized eggs that have ever been produced versus the number that have led to an actual birth, then you may be able to say that the probability is higher, but for both, the number is exceedingly small.If, however, you mean the probability that, left to its own devices, it will lead to a functioning baby, then neither of them will do so. Both entities require further external actions for a viable baby to result. The only difference is that the sperm requires one more action than the fertilized egg, which doesn't seem like a huge difference to me. Since this debate often circles around rights, what I mean is, does the right of the potential baby to be allowed to try and become an actual baby supercede the rights of an actual person to make choices about themselves, their body, their life, and their potential danger?Under general terms, when we have two people, the rights of one person end at the rights of another, or at least the body of another. I keep going to this example, but no one has the right to require you to share a bodily function that is deficient in themselves, however temporarily. Why would we grant a fetus that right, even assuming the fetus has the entire suite of human rights?

The point of my orignial post, which Rahvin gave a great respond to in his Message 16 still remains an issue, at least in my opinion.If we find it crucial to label certain biological organisms as fully conscious entities warranting "rights to life," then why doesn't this extend beyond just human beings?Rahvins reply:

quote:

---

We make the subjective value assessment in our own favor. That's all. It's arbitrary, but hardly unpredictable.

​

adding...

​

Personally, my arbitrary point of decision is the point at which the fetus develops significant brain function. My understanding is that this happens sometime during the second trimester. Since I personally value sentience as the divisor between what does and does not have rights, this makes sense to me.

---

Ok then. Lets say that's the standard, an arbitrary, yet favorable, line is draw for sentience. But then comes this question, What is considered sentient and what isn't? And who are we, as non-descript biological organisms, to place a standard for a minimum and maximum?According to Wiki: Sentience is the ability to feel or perceive subjectively.IF a fetus, at whatever trimester, is deemed capable to "perceive or feel subjectively," then a fetus is equal to many organisms, if not all (we don't know the level of awareness of all animals).IF we don't feel any sympathy toward these animals, why do we feel sympathetic toward a random fetus that has no biological connection to anyone but the 2 potential parents?This seems very hypocritical.In my opinion, human beings have claimed some sort of arbitrary hierarchy amongst the animal kingdom that has no evidence to support it. And lucky for us, also cannot be judged above the human opinion.Scientifically speaking, if sentience is the unofficial line, then it should apply across the board for all species that have this attribute...but it doesn't. It only applies to humans, and it is very unfair.However, and this is why I simply don't care what anyone does, even 3rd trimester abortions, if humans show no concern for the right to life of other organisms, why show any concern for the right to life of one specific species?If the species survives to child birth, and if it survives the developmental stages to reach adulthood, then the species has done its part in deserving a right to life. BUT, just as a calf is slaughtered for the benefit of food, a fetus should be allowed to be terminated at any point if the individual sees a benefit for it. (Note: I draw a distinction once it is born. Simply because sentience is equal to that of any other organism until that point).PS. To Rahvin: Sorry for not responding directly to your post, it seems that over night the thread got further into the debate so I just made a general reply.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
~George Carlin

I think you're wrong here. "Making a law around it" doesn't necessarily have to be about disallowing abortion. In fact, not making a law about it (as my previous post shows) is what causes more unwanted pregnancies and eliminates more of a woman's right to body sovereignty.Let's say we have the system exactly like how it is now. Yet I add the following law:"It is against the law for any doctor to refuse the termination of a pregnancy before the point of Legal Life as defined by Stile within the boundaries of EvC forum. In cases where the unborn baby is beyond the point of Legal Life, the point of Legal Life shall not be used as a reason to refuse any necessary terminations; such termination will be decided upon between the woman and her doctor."(Perhaps "Legal Life" isn't a great term because I can see how it could be easily corrupted. Perhaps it should be called something like the Non-Judgemental Point... or something)I don't see how you can possibly argue any of these points:
-this is somehow draconian
-this somehow eliminates a woman's right to body sovereignty
-this is somehow about restricting abortions
-this is somehow a spiderweb of unenforceable nonsenseI also think it's blatently obvious that this law would ONLY add MORE weight to a woman's right to body sovereignty. That is, currently doctors CAN refuse abortions before this point for reasons as ridiculous as "it's against my faith"... this law would remove such assaults upon a woman's right to body sovereignty.So what, specifically, do you actually have against such a law that would only serve to help protect more women's rights to body sovereignty?Or, maybe, did you just not understand what I was getting at by using such a definition? I understand that the name could have been misleading... perhaps it was a poor choice of words.

Some would say it does. Me among them. However, in nature, the right of one animal to life often comes at the expense of another animal, which also has that right. The difference here is that, the slaughtering of a calf is to allow the life of another organism. At some point, one organism has to die, either the predator for lack fo food or the prey as food. When the only option is death, then the taking of a life to preserve a life is a fair trade. This is why we have self-defense clauses in murder laws. This is also why the life of the mother is a huge point in favor of keeping abortions legal. However, asserting any old benefit as a reason for killing something is not a strong enough reason.It is against the law to kill a dog because you see a benefit in not having to buy dog food any more. OUr laws regarding non-human life is spotty and arbitrary at best, but that's to be expected when multiple people with differing levels of empathy all have a say in the law. This comes down to evolution. We have evolved to care for a child because, in the environment in which we largely evolved, a child in our vicinity was more than likely related to us. It is in our genes' best interest to save and care for a related individual rather than let it die. Other species are quite definitely not related to us except in the very broadest terms. We have had no evolutionary reason to worry about the continued existence of a random animal. It's only now, when we have such a large community of unrelated people combined with a technologically enhanced ability to wipeout or preserve an entire species of non-human that this disconnect in our evolutionary heritage comes into play, and quite often it's more emotional than rational in its application. This is how a sign proclaiming that a fetus has a heart at X weeks, or fingernails, or a smile, etc works to sway some people. It's an emotional response fueled by our evolutionary heritage. It should, but measuring the sentience of a species with which we cannot communicate effectively is difficult at best. There are some we can be pretty sure of, dolphins, great apes, a few others, but how do we know whether a dog can experience things subjectively or whether it has a sense of self. Chimps can recognize themselves in a mirror, the dog we had growing up could not, is that an indication? Do different breeds of dog get different rights depending on their intelligence? It's a difficult question to answer, and we're only at the beginning stages of trying to answer it, unfortunately.Sorry for jumping around your post, but I wanted to reply in an order that made logical sense to me.

I agree. And I don't see an honourable way out of the situation. I like eating meat If I ever get called on such an issue in an afterlife, I will have no recourse but to hang my head in shame and take what punishment comes. Um... I don't see how sentience is equal to that of any other organism "until the point of birth." What magical thing happens as a baby is exiting through the uterus that imparts upon it "human intelligence?"What about a premie-cesarian birth? The magical "human intelligence" gets plugged in as soon as a doctor's hands pull the baby from the womb? Or is it something that's added when the umbilical cord is cut?Seems to me like it's the same problem again.I think that human intelligence would come from having a human brain. If so, then the "magical point" differentiating animals/humans would again be the Legal Life defintion I've been spraying all about... when the human brain and required support systems become active.

Could you define "higher brain function?"

---

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

If were not talking about laws to restrict abortions then I have no bone to pick. I don't disagree with you. I believe that any doctor, by virtue of requiring a licence for their field, should not be allowed to refuse a service related to their field. That should be regulated regardless of the procedure.I think the danger of a law that is proactive in preserving abortion up to a point is therefore irrelevant and only invites the argument of why we can't restrict AFTER that point.Plain and simple, abortion should be legal at any time of pregnancy from very easy and unambiguous first principles.

Hi Stile, I'm jumping on a plane so I won't be able to fully respond till later tonight, to you and Perdition.But I just wanted to address this point which I was in a rush when posting and kinda knew I would get called on it. I simply that at the point of birth the baby has now come in contact with our world, and it is at this point, for sake of getting into a deeper discussion, that I feel sentience begins to develop properly.If we place our level of sentience above most other species, we make a few exceptions for some, a born humans' sentience seems equal to the level of sentience that most other species posses.Obviously the "level" of sentience, since it hasn't been determined, gets foggy when compared to each individual animal. But I just meant overall.Talk to you guys later,- Oni

---

If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
~George Carlin

This leads us away from the topic of abortion (clearly a human being cannot be pregnant with a dolphin, or a sentient general AI), but it's certainly worth discussing.It all comes back down to making arbitrary value assessments. Some animals are sentient or near-sentient (some birds, dolphins, and non-human apes for example). Consistency would dictate that we should grant these animals, if not the same rights we grant human beings, at least more rights than we give compeltely nonsentient creatures like insects or bacteria. But subjective value assessments do not demand consistency. One may prefer red over blue, but not necessarily that shade of red, for example.Look at the differences in the value of dogs and cats in different societies. In the US, cats and dogs are considered to be companion animals. Suggesting we could eat them is regarded as abhorrent. Yet, in other cultures the mere idea of a companion animal is anathema - animals are dirty. In yet other cultures, dogs and cats are considered a perfectly normal food source. There's no consistency.When it comes down to it, there is little rhyme or reason to the subjective values we attach to different organisms. Sometimes we prefer a species and will give it special protection because it's "cute," or because the species generally behaves in a friendly manner towards humans.I won't even claim consistency for myself. I value my cat alost as much as I would value a child. Sure it is. Again, we arbitrarily tend to value our own species above any others (with the notable exception of PETA). The only instance I could see us potentially extending full human rights to something not human would be if we were to meet an alien or an artificual intelligence that is capable of communicating with us at a high level of abstraction (not gorilla sign language, but full comprehension). We tend to more highly value that which we can relate to more strongly on an emotional level. This is why those of us with pets value them so much, and why we tend to value human children so much, but few of us could feel anything other than apathy at the plight of a termite in Africa.I'd also make a fair wager that this is why we collectively do not care very much about strangers, particularly distant strangers. Intellectually we'll say "yes, I care that this is happening, and it's wrong" with regard to Darfur or the wild spread of HIV in Africa. But none of us have a personal emotional connection to those people - we don't relate to them strongly on an emotional level. And so many of us will spend $300 on our pet's trip to the vet, and won't think twice abotut he fact that the same amount of money could likely feed someone in the third world for months; in some cases it may be more than a family makes in a year. We simply do not have the capacity to feel empathy for those we cannot relate to. Faceless statistics mean nothing to us emotionally. A face on a Christian Children's Fund commercial means significantly more...but not enough. Well, that's the core, isn't it. We're the ones who get to make the determination, and there isn't anyone else to challenge it. Again, fairness doesn;t eneter the picture. We're talking about compeltely irrational subjective value assessments driven primarily by emotion, not objective analysis. I would like to see a shift in social consciousness that values sentience more, and perhaps gives some special rights to those species that demonstrate degrees of that trait. If 20 yeas from now we develop a fully sentient artificial intelligence, I'd like to see us give it the right to exist rather than retaining the ability to just shut it off. But again, that's me - I value self-awareness as the trait deserving of rights. Those who value the non-empirical "soul" would likely place no value at all on a "soulless machine." I don't see distinctive points, really. I see a sliding scale. Immediately after conception, I see very little value in the fetus. By the time it has developed higher brain functions, I see very significant value in the fetus. By the time the child is born, I value it just as much as any other human being.