The thread where we make enemies out of friends, aka the abortion debate thread — Page 9

Well, I admit that upon my writing that, I wasn't considering genetic abnormalities.  Nevertheless, I don't consider genetic abnormalities to be a reasonable factor as well.  I have a brother with trisomy 21, aka Down's syndrome, so I am aware of them and their commonality.  My brother's case is surprisingly profound, as most with Down's syndrome have higher functioning than he.  We've suspected some autism has contributed to learning delays as well, but that's not really something they could diagnose in a person like him, as it's impossible to determine the etiology.  My brother is 33, but his mentality seems to be perpetually stuck at the level of a 4 year old.  But there is not a day of his life, pre- or post-birth, that I would consider him without the right to live as fulfilling and happy a life as possible.

I do thank you for providing another example, as I requested.  I know that no one's mind will change on this issue simply because of this thread.  But it did kind of irk me that Monolithium came in here and made a bump simply to say that I don't value freedom of will.  That sort of oversimplification of the opposite point of view is far too common.

And to preemptively defend myself, yes, I made an oversimplification, but I do not think mine was as drastic, and I think that the majority of abortions still relate to "convenience."  Perhaps it would be wise of me to seek out a poll to back that up.

Well, a quick Google search shows me this:

http://www.abortionfacts.com/reardon/statistics.asp

Here, the largest groups fall in the 15-19 year-olds, unmarried, lower educated (high school or associate's levels), low income, and without any other children.  A superficial viewing indicates to me that most are based on the inconvenience of the child at the time.  Lower down we see that most made the choice for reasons that could be lumped under the "convenience" category.  Most felt pressured to have the abortion by others, and many had doubts about their decision.  I encourage one and all to look at the link.

And that reminds me of President Obama's first week in office, taking over this country during it's "greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression."  What did he do with our already short funds?  He sent it to other countries to fund their abortions.

I am not opposed to educating people to be smart when having sex, but if Curiosity found microscopic life on Mars today, abortion advocates would likely value that life more and do everything to protect it more than they would a single fetus.  I certainly would not.

darth_ender said:

Well, I admit that upon my writing that, I wasn't considering genetic abnormalities.  Nevertheless, I don't consider genetic abnormalities to be a reasonable factor as well.  I have a brother with trisomy 21, aka Down's syndrome, so I am aware of them and their commonality.  My brother's case is surprisingly profound, as most with Down's syndrome have higher functioning than he.  We've suspected some autism has contributed to learning delays as well, but that's not really something they could diagnose in a person like him, as it's impossible to determine the etiology.  My brother is 33, but his mentality seems to be perpetually stuck at the level of a 4 year old.  But there is not a day of his life, pre- or post-birth, that I would consider him without the right to live as fulfilling and happy a life as possible.

I'm sorry to hear about your brother's situation, and of course I'm not trying to imply he would have been better off aborted.  However, Trisomy 13 is generally much more deadly.

More than 80% of children with trisomy 13 die in the first year.

I have seen other statistics as high as 90-95%.  And while a five minute google search failed me, I know the percentage of babies that don't even survive the birth is very high.

Trisomy 13 babies have extremely severe birth defects, assuming they survive to birth.  I would never blame a parent for wanting to let nature take its course, but I would also never consider this reason to abort "unreasonable."

Incidentally, I'm pretty sure pregnancy due to rape is much more common than birth defects.  Why exactly is that not "reasonable" abortion?  What about health of the mother, isn't that reasonable?

TV's Frink said:

darth_ender said:

Well, I admit that upon my writing that, I wasn't considering genetic abnormalities.  Nevertheless, I don't consider genetic abnormalities to be a reasonable factor as well.  I have a brother with trisomy 21, aka Down's syndrome, so I am aware of them and their commonality.  My brother's case is surprisingly profound, as most with Down's syndrome have higher functioning than he.  We've suspected some autism has contributed to learning delays as well, but that's not really something they could diagnose in a person like him, as it's impossible to determine the etiology.  My brother is 33, but his mentality seems to be perpetually stuck at the level of a 4 year old.  But there is not a day of his life, pre- or post-birth, that I would consider him without the right to live as fulfilling and happy a life as possible.

I'm sorry to hear about your brother's situation, and of course I'm not trying to imply he would have been better off aborted.  However, Trisomy 13 is generally much more deadly.

 

More than 80% of children with trisomy 13 die in the first year.

 

I have seen other statistics as high as 90-95%.  And while a five minute google search failed me, I know the percentage of babies that don't even survive the birth is very high.

Trisomy 13 babies have extremely severe birth defects, assuming they survive to birth.  I would never blame a parent for wanting to let nature take its course, but I would also never consider this reason to abort "unreasonable."

 

I am a believer in letting nature take its course.  Now in nursing school, we have several people in the hospital who have signed advanced directives stating that they are DNRs--"do not resuscitate" patients.  In other words, a patient may be suffering, but we don't kill them.  A term which is starting to replace DNR is AND--"allow natural death."  I like this better, and I feel the same should generally apply to a child as well.  While I do see the reasoning of trisomy 13 and other genetic defect-related abortions, I personally feel that every effort should be put forth to try to save the child, and simply "allow natural death," should it come to that.  There still are at least 5-10% of children who could live.  I wanted to say more, but I've not got the time.  I'll reply to other stuff later.

darth_ender said:

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems that ultimately it all boils down to.  Excluding rape/incest/mother's health, which inevitably only account for a relatively small portion of all abortions, they all seem to fall under the categories I described.  Even a young pregnant teen has an abortion because of convenience...a child would interfere with her life, would be expensive, would be unloved and unwanted, would not have a father, or something else along those lines.  In other words, inconvenient.  If I'm wrong, I'd love some enlightenment.

I take it you include mental health under the health bracket?

Not that some women who go through an abortion aren't traumatised by it but similarly some pregnant women are not emotionally mature enough to cope with trauma of child birth and the dilemma and the emotional fall out of letting go of the baby.

And besides it's not as if it's a human being when it's a just a bunch of cells.

If it's no more able to feel suffering than a prawn in a salad (which most of you guys would eat) why get so romantically attached to it that you intrude onto the rights of others?

Don't get me wrong, when people who want children miscarry at that stage it's physically and emotionally traumatic for the parents and their family who have had their hopes dashed. But in that instance it's the parents who have suffered not the fetus because it can only be compared to a human baby with any degree of success quite a distance down the journey.

In an ideal world people would use successful contraception in the event of engaging in sex without intending to have children.

If they never intend on having children they should use surgical contraception.

Activities do have consequences and all options should presented as soon as possible but to demonise early abortions is daft.

The later the abortion the more difficult the decision and the worrying a moral maze it becomes.

Ultimately it should be scientists which draw up where the demarcation line is.

TV's Frink said:

I'm sorry to hear about your brother's situation, and of course I'm not trying to imply he would have been better off aborted.

 

I wanted to respond to this sentence more specifically.  I of course did not construe anything you said as an inference that he'd have been better off aborted.  However, many do feel that those whith genetic defects would indeed be better off aborted.  And thank you for worrying about my brother :)

That said, I can honestly tell you that I believe him to be one of the biggest blessings in my family's lives.  All my siblings are close and have made good decisions with their lives (8 of us in total; typical Mormon family, eh?).  All of us are blessed with a healthy dose of compassion, as evidenced by my career choices (which I have revealed here on multiple occasions) and the choices of my family members.  I believe my brother is in fact one of the best things that ever happened to any of us.  If only more people were willing to accept the challenges of a developmentally disabled child, trusting that many blessings will also come by continuing with such a pregnancy.

EDIT: Trying to respond to Bingo, but it will have to wait.

Bingowings said:

darth_ender said:

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems that ultimately it all boils down to.  Excluding rape/incest/mother's health, which inevitably only account for a relatively small portion of all abortions, they all seem to fall under the categories I described.  Even a young pregnant teen has an abortion because of convenience...a child would interfere with her life, would be expensive, would be unloved and unwanted, would not have a father, or something else along those lines.  In other words, inconvenient.  If I'm wrong, I'd love some enlightenment.

I take it you include mental health under the health bracket?

Indeed I do, though I think such an argument is overused.  Having a child is mentally and physically stressful on any parent.  If mental health were enough of a reason to abort a child, then perhaps we should actually set our limit after birth.  I mean, children are extremely stressful.  Besides, they don't gain self-awareness for several months, and their deaths can be made utterly painless.  Of course I don't believe any of this, but my point is that mental health should be limited in interpretation, otherwise it can be argued for any case.  I make rape/incest my point of willing flexibility.

Not that some women who go through an abortion aren't traumatised by it but similarly some pregnant women are not emotionally mature enough to cope with trauma of child birth and the dilemma and the emotional fall out of letting go of the baby.

Perhaps not.  But may I also state that few people are emotionally mature enough to have children.  They just make do.  It's physically and emotionally traumatic.  It changes lives.  People can and should seek mental health assistance liberally if necessary.

And besides it's not as if it's a human being when it's a just a bunch of cells.

If it's no more able to feel suffering than a prawn in a salad (which most of you guys would eat) why get so romantically attached to it that you intrude onto the rights of others?

While I understand your point, I respectfully disagree.  Especially considering your respect of all animal life and not just humans, I would think you'd understand the value of preserving such life.

From a religious standpoint, I of course see it as a human with a spirit.  But understanding that not everyone is religious, I appeal to a different argument, that of potential.  If a human is in a coma with little brain activity, he/she too is little more than a bunch of cells.  But if the doctors do believe there is any chance of recovery, it would certainly be unethical to "pull the plug" under any circumstances.  Again I'm going to look at Mars.  What if we found microscopic life there?  What if we endangered that life?  To what lengths would humanity go to preserve it?  I imagine they'd do whatever possible.  And why?  For some sort of bacteria?  It's not human.  But it has potential!  What could teach us?  What could it evolve into?  We would save it because of its potential.  We'd have no other rationale.  But it's a reasonable reason.  But if we are willing to save a primitive life because of its potential, then we should be willing to save a bunch of cells termed a human embryo or fetus, because it has the potential to be a thinking, sentient human.

Don't get me wrong, when people who want children miscarry at that stage it's physically and emotionally traumatic for the parents and their family who have had their hopes dashed. But in that instance it's the parents who have suffered not the fetus because it can only be compared to a human baby with any degree of success quite a distance down the journey.

Clearly.

In an ideal world people would use successful contraception in the event of engaging in sex without intending to have children.

If they never intend on having children they should use surgical contraception.

Won't disagree.

Activities do have consequences and all options should presented as soon as possible but to demonise early abortions is daft.

The later the abortion the more difficult the decision and the worrying a moral maze it becomes.

Ultimately it should be scientists which draw up where the demarcation line is.

Not spiritual leaders?  Not representative politicians?  Not the general populace?  Not that I agree with the general populace or the majority of our elected officials, but it's simply not so cut and dry.  It is a moral maze, but only to those who do not see the extent of the loss of an unborn child, the loss of a human life, even if that life has only barely begun.  If we truly value human life, then that value should not only begin when human life is capable of self-awareness or feeling pain or whatever.  A human life is a human life, and in general we should do everything to protect it.

darth_ender said:

Not spiritual leaders?  Not representative politicians?  Not the general populace?  Not that I agree with the general populace or the majority of our elected officials, but it's simply not so cut and dry.

If the spiritual leaders, politicians and general populace are scientifically qualified enough to understand neurological development sure, otherwise no way.

Faith is by definition beyond the proven or provable.

Without proof of a soul inserted at conception those other people will be legislating on a tummy feel rather than on hard data translated by experts.

Often against people with other tummy feels.

Pain is an electrical reaction to stimulus, it's measurable and an expert can form an informed impression based on that measurable data.

Does that change after the child is born?  I've yet to see an infant survive without someone providing parenting, usually the mother if no one else.  Why does it get its rights then?  This sounds very arbitrary and convenient to me.  You'll have to do better than that.

Abortion frees the spirit from the prison that is flesh.

DuracellEnergizer said:

Abortion frees the spirit from the prison that is flesh.

So, by the same logic, killing of any kind is acceptable, right?

BTW, great post, Ferris! :)

So when does the fetus begin to feel pain, exactly?

This blanket "abortion is evil in all cases" mentality is truly annoying.

I'm sorry, but the "abortion should be legal in all cases" mentality is equally pervasive and annoying.  But neither you nor I completely hold to those arguments (as mentioned before, I personally allow for some, albeit few and limited, exceptions--and I doubt you feel that abortion should have no restrictions).  Still, I'd always rather err on the side of caution, even in my giving way to the other side.

ferris209 said:

What really boggles my mind though, are people who are perfectly fine with the murder of an innocent baby, but rally and spends millions of taxpayers dollars getting death penalty cases tied up in court. 

 

ferris209 said:

Also, many are all concerned about the suffering of those who are put to death, it's to the point now that being put to death is just as easy as peacefully going to sleep. A far cry from the horror and terror their victims often experienced in their last moments on earth.

Yet, these very same people do not consider, or have concern for, any potential suffering or pain a baby may go through when he/she is aborted.

Ferris, I am curious what is your stance on frozen embryos and stem cells?  I am curious about every body else opinions on this as well. 

darth_ender said: If a human is in a coma with little brain activity, he/she too is little more than a bunch of cells.  But if the doctors do believe there is any chance of recovery, it would certainly be unethical to "pull the plug" under any circumstances. 

under any circumstances?  what if the patient signed a living will stating that under those circumstances, he/she would like the plug pulled?  

darth_ender said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

Abortion frees the spirit from the prison that is flesh.

So, by the same logic, killing of any kind is acceptable, right?

Warbler said:

darth_ender said: If a human is in a coma with little brain activity, he/she too is little more than a bunch of cells.  But if the doctors do believe there is any chance of recovery, it would certainly be unethical to "pull the plug" under any circumstances. 

under any circumstances?  what if the patient signed a living will stating that under those circumstances, he/she would like the plug pulled?  

Again, I wasn't taking something into consideration, not because I was aware of it, but more because I meant that the doctors would not make that decision on their own.  A living will is a person's own wishes.  The infant has no ability to make any decision on its own and deserves to have its rights protected by those with power of him or her.

DuracellEnergizer said:

 

darth_ender said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

Abortion frees the spirit from the prison that is flesh.

So, by the same logic, killing of any kind is acceptable, right?

The entity goes with a minimum of fuss, feeling no pain or awareness as the deed is done. Working someone to death in a concentration camp, however, and similar scenarios, belong to another hand altogether.

 

But at least they're freed from their prison of suffering flesh when they die!

Of course I find such things horrible, but to me, the value of human life does not depend on the person's ability to recognize that his/her life is in any danger or the suffering that precedes that death.

darth_ender said:

I'm sorry, but the "abortion should be legal in all cases" mentality is equally pervasive and annoying.  But neither you nor I completely hold to those arguments (as mentioned before, I personally allow for some, albeit few and limited, exceptions--and I doubt you feel that abortion should have no restrictions).  Still, I'd always rather err on the side of caution, even in my giving way to the other side.

I was referring more to Ferris' post, although you did complement it.

The "abortion should always be legal" side is much smaller, btw.  There are very few people who think it's fine to abort a fetus at 39-1/2 weeks just for the hell of it.