The thread where we make enemies out of friends, aka the abortion debate thread — Page 27

twister111 said:

RicOlie_2 said:

 Twister, let me be the first to point out that darth_ender's analogy is far better than yours. A woman does not have a high risk of death when she is pregnant, and an abortion is more harmful than giving birth (repeated abortions can result in a damaged uterus, preventing the woman from ever having children again).

The risk of death is determined on an individual basis as is the risk of abortion. Besides in my scenario I said that she could theoretically handle it.

But there is only a very tiny risk of death for a woman in pregnancy. Very tiny, unless there are complications, in which case, it may be OK to abort. If the mother's life is in danger, the Catholic Church, and most other Christians, including ender, agree that abortion is justified.

RicOlie_2 said:

She can also walk around and perform many activities that someone hooked up to another person would not be able to do. In fact, for the first two/three months of pregnancy, most women have no trouble performing activities they could do before they were pregnant.

Well I said my analogy's not perfect either but it's a better representation than just needing to give money to doctors. If that's all that was required for pregnancy I really don't think abortion would even be a thing to exist at all. There is an undeniable physical toll on the woman while pregnant that the previous scenario is entirely absent of. Lowering that to only his and her's bank accounts is flawed.

His analogy wasn't perfect, that's true, but let's say that instead of just having to cover his bills, they were required to donate blood for a blood transfusion (a small crossover between both of your analogies). Would they then have the right to just end this man's life?

RicOlie_2 said:

It is also usually the woman's fault if she is pregnant, since she (in just about every case) consented to sex with a man. In ender's scenario, the man and woman made a choice to drink enough to get drunk, and then drive, causing an accident. In your scenario, there was no choice involved, and it is analogous of a pregnancy that was caused by the woman hugging her boyfriend, immobilized her for all nine months, and had the possibility of killing her.

I presented two scenarios. The first is modifying ender's with the inclusion of the heart condition. So the car crash still happened. That choice was still there. The second is absent the car crash and it's their choice to be a part of a genetic study. Both presents choice. Without that choice the guy's condition would've never come to light and he would've died anyway. Similar to if a couple never has sex/donates their egg and/or sperm that fetus wouldn't exist anyway. In ender's scenario if the car crash didn't happen that guy would've theoretically lived a long time just fine. It's completely faulty compared to mine. Ender's scenario could only represent some weird scenario where their kid could just come into existence with absolute zero interaction with the parents. Not even needing to donate the sperm and egg.

But here's the serious flaw with your analogy:

They had no idea, when they signed up for the study, that the man's condition would come to light and they would be needed. Pregnancy is, on the other hand, a well-known consequence of sex. Accidents are a well-known consequence of drunk driving. In both latter cases, both people knew what could happen. Both involve acts of pleasure that can have life-changing consequences. If anyone decides to drink a lot, or engage in sex, they are accepting the possible consequences. 

The stranger needs to rely on her somehow for his life in order to be relevant to abortion. That reliance needs to be there car crash or not because there are plenty of non-drunk occurrences leading to a kid. Further that reliance needs to be something that could potentially kill her because pregnancy still carries a risk of death. Maybe lowered risk today but it's still there and it shouldn't be denied.

There is a very low risk of death in pregnancy compared to the risk of death in abortion, which is 100% (the victim of course being the fetus/baby/whatever you want to call it/him/her). The reliance in your analogy is a bit exaggerated. The woman in your analogy did not make a choice that caused the man's condition. In the case of a pregnancy, the woman makes a choice that directly leads to it. If she is impregnated and didn't plan on it, she obviously wasn't thinking things through very well and should be prepared to carry the child to term.

RicOlie_2 said:

Try again, Twister. I fail to see how your analogy corresponds whatsoever to the realities of pregnancy, and the choice made that begins it.

Well I hope I've clarified my scenario to you.

 Somewhat, but your analogy is still more flawed than ender's.

DuracellEnergizer said:

darth_ender said:

This world is overpopulated anyway
This world sucks and I don't want a child to be subject to the evils therein
...

Wow, those all sound like they boil down to convenience.

How do those "boil down to convenience"?

 Those too don't quite boil down to convenience, but I don't think either of those reasons provides a valid excuse for abortion.

Since criminals are detrimental to society, why are we not killing them and not unborn babies who could grow up to be productive members of society? I'm not saying there aren't reasons, but why are their lives so much more valuable than those of innocent babies who haven't had a chance to live their lives yet?

Of course the world sucks in many ways, but the mother should think about whether it sucks enough that they would rather have been aborted. In some cases, the answer may be yes, but does the mother really have the authority to decide that the baby's life will be too rough to let it live? How come it isn't legal to kill children who have lived terrible lives? Why aren't babies in Africa being killed to prevent their future starvation? We have it good in North America, so that logic doesn't really work here.

The truth is that there are times when I feel that criminals and children in third world countries should be put out of their misery. As someone who sees this life as a prison and death as a potential release into a greater existence, it's hard for me not to. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to force anyone to pull the proverbial trigger and my conscience wouldn't allow me to pull it myself.

I suppose darth_ender was right after all; it is easier -- or in his words, more convienent -- to take the life of an unformed being that has never developed a mind than it is to take the life of someone with a defined personality/human face.

It's true, my analogy wasn't perfect, but no analogy is.  Frankly, yours is awful and clearly suited to meet your own ends.  Mine showed how the irresponsibility of a couple led to a potential human being.  That is my point.  I could refine it with blood donations and such, but that is hardly the point of the analogy.  The point is that we are talking about someone who, according to definitions made by those justifying abortion (rather than the natural definition), are not people.  Just potential people.  The primary purpose of the analogy is to point out that killing a potential person is really killing a person.  The only further justification that can be offered is further refinement to the definition of a person: a person has a history, even if at present he has no self-awareness.  But in reality this is not true either.  If we were guaranteed that Terri Schiavo would make a full recovery, would not the termination of her life been immoral?  But nevertheless, she was not a person, according to the "pro-choice" crowd, at the time of her death.  She would one day become such, but was not at the time.  Does the inconvenience of her existence now justify killing off what she will be later before she gets to that point?  No.

A popular abortion analogy is that of the Famous Violinist.  If you want to call an analogy "horribly flawed," this one is far more deserving than mine.  But let's improve it by combining it with mine but using it in the way you interpreted mine.  The famous violinist is hooked up to the other individual because of the drunk driving scenario I put forth.  If I am the only person who has the proper blood type to keep that violinist alive, and I am the reason he is in his predicament, then I am indeed obliged to devote my resources to his survival.  It was my choice.  I was pro-choice to get into that situation by drinking and driving.  With that form of pro-choice, I am also pro-consequence.

DuracellEnergizer said:

darth_ender said:

This world is overpopulated anyway
This world sucks and I don't want a child to be subject to the evils therein
...

Wow, those all sound like they boil down to convenience.

How do those "boil down to convenience"?

 Yeah, these probably weren't the best to include in my list.  But still, the first at least is about the inconvenience to the whole of humanity through a false argument (Japan, which has far fewer natural resources, is still quite capable of supporting its far denser population).  The second probably doesn't fit well at all, but it's a stupid argument in favor of abortion.  It's not bad for those who smother their children because the world is evil, but it doesn't fly if you really believe that humans are worth preserving, even in a crappy world.

I don't understand how you can think the way you do, Twister, but I'm afraid I'm far too tired to give you a proper reply right now. Maybe tomorrow. I doubt I'll convince you that your analogy has so many serious flaws, though.

First I'll admit that I don't fully understand your scenarios, as I find your phrasing confusing.  But I also find your analogy over the top.  Donating your heart and blood?  Come on!  Loaning your body for a finite time is far different than giving up organs indefinitely.  My analogy is definitely closer to the real thing.  And as consuming as pregnancy is (as I lie next to my pregnant wife, typing this, and not revealing the difficulties she has had lately), generally the difficulties are not nearly as bad as you convey in your analogy.

Money issues were not my intent either, though I can see how one might interpret it that way.  My intent was to simply draw in the fact that it is draining on the couple, but the drain does not justify the euthanasia.  See my post with the statistics to see my view on the inconvenience of pregnancy, that it is not always about money, but that it is nearly always about convenience of some sort.

By the way, I fully support a woman's right to choose abortion for any reason (including convenience of any sort) early in the pregnancy.  But I admit the issue gets more thorny the later the pregnancy, and I don't have a good answer for when it's too late to support.

twister111 said:

darth_ender said:

First I'll admit that I don't fully understand your scenarios, as I find your phrasing confusing.  

Here:
Scenario #1: Happy couple, drunk driving. Hit stranger. Stranger comatose after accident. Diagnosis finds virus. Cure heart transplant and blood donation(constant 9 months) from woman involved with drunk driving.

Scenario #2: Happy couple, genetic tests. Stranger part of genetic tests. Stranger falls ill and comatose. Good news thanks to testing their blood at the same time they find the cure as described in scenario #1.

Your initial scenario: Happy couple, drunk driving. Hit stranger. Stranger comatose after accident. Solution throw money at the doctors and they can make it better. Stranger would've been just fine had accident not occurred.

Your violinist alteration: Happy couple, drunk driving. Violinist hit. Violinist comatose after accident. Somehow you(ender) become one of the individuals involved in the drunk driving. Your blood is needed* to keep the voilinist alive. You agree to the situation.

*(To keep things clear I'm assuming that " If I am not only the only person who has the proper blood type to keep that violinist alive, and I am the reason he is in his predicament, then I am indeed obliged to devote my resources to his survival." the emphasized portion was a typo/error and you meant to convey that your blood actually was the only blood that could save the violinist.)

Thanks for the summaries and for catching my poor phrasing.  I'd meant originally to say, If I am not only the only....but I am also the reason," but clearly forgot how I was originally writing my sentence by the time I got to that point.  I edited it, but as "If I am the only...and I am the reason," as it's probably less likely to get confused that way by future readers.  Thanks for pointing that out :)

darth_ender said:

But I also find your analogy over the top. Donating your heart and blood? Come on! Loaning your body for a finite time is far different than giving up organs indefinitely. My analogy is definitely closer to the real thing. And as consuming as pregnancy is (as I lie next to my pregnant wife, typing this, and not revealing the difficulties she has had lately), generally the difficulties are not nearly as bad as you convey in your analogy.

Well I was thinking of a way that the stranger would somehow need the woman specifically to survive as a fetus does. I also thought about how a fetus basically occupies an organ. So in a way simply donating blood isn't enough, nor is some temporary line through a person's kidney's sufficient. It'd have to be something more considering the uterus does expand and c-section is a possibility too. A lung may have been better up to this point but you'd have to include the possibility of her death too. So I went with the heart.

I see.  It seems still over the top.  Maybe to improve it, the organ loaned would not be so critical as the heart (which unlike the uterus [which is designed exclusively for pregnancy, btw, and therefore is fulfilling its design, while a heart transplant does not], is absolutely essential for human life to continue).  Perhaps a kidney would be best.  A person can live without it, but the potential for death from the surgery or future loss of the other kidney probably better matches the risk.  And in a finite period of time, the person would get the kidney back.

I know, it seems like splitting hairs, but while we're on the topic of refining analogies, let's get them right ;)

darth_ender said:

Money issues were not my intent either, though I can see how one might interpret it that way. My intent was to simply draw in the fact that it is draining on the couple, but the drain does not justify the euthanasia. See my post with the statistics to see my view on the inconvenience of pregnancy, that it is not always about money, but that it is nearly always about convenience of some sort.

Well my main beef with your scenario is that it seemed to undermine the physical drain of pregnancy. Now that you've admitted that wasn't your intent, it's alright .
Now we could go on debating "what makes a person" but I don't really want to do that. Just gets nowhere and it conveniently never allows for the possibility of considering the sperm a person(or potential person as you see a fetus) too or to be treated the same as pro-lifers want a combined sperm and egg.

 I can see the argument to be made for an embryo not being a child (though I don't agree), but I don't see the sperm comparison as valid.  Left to its own devices, a sperm will never develop, never survive independently, never make it past a single cell, is not even genetically human as it is lacking half its chromosomes.  Once fused with an ovum, suddenly it multiplies, has the potential to grow into a 100 year-old man or woman, as long as health or the influence of others don't hinder it.  It requires life-saving reliance on another human for a time, but it is still genetically a unique human, growing, ultimately with the likelihood of survival on its own.

Remember that even post-birth children still require the physical, emotional, and monetary resources of their caregivers for survival.  My children take a toll on my health and billfold.  But I don't think I'd get away with aborting them at this point it their lives.  As unique individuals of my creation, I am now responsible for their survival, regardless of the fact that I am less healthy than I would be if I didn't have them.

gets nowhere and it conveniently never allows for the possibility of considering the sperm a person(or potential person as you see a fetus) too or to be treated the same as pro-lifers want a combined sperm and egg.

 cake batter isn't cake batter until the ingredients are mixed together. 

And it's baked.

I corrected my post.

Warbler said:

gets nowhere and it conveniently never allows for the possibility of considering the sperm a person(or potential person as you see a fetus) too or to be treated the same as pro-lifers want a combined sperm and egg.

 cake batter isn't cake batter until the ingredients are mixed together. 

 And its still not cake.

Warbler said:

I corrected my post.

 Well thanks for making my post look crazy.

Sorry, but I edited my post before I realized you posted yours. 

Ok.

darth_ender said:

I see.  It seems still over the top.  Maybe to improve it, the organ loaned would not be so critical as the heart (which unlike the uterus [which is designed exclusively for pregnancy, btw, and therefore is fulfilling its design, while a heart transplant does not], is absolutely essential for human life to continue).  Perhaps a kidney would be best.  A person can live without it, but the potential for death from the surgery or future loss of the other kidney probably better matches the risk.  And in a finite period of time, the person would get the kidney back.

Yes, the kidney analogy is far more appropriate.

Twister, you exaggerate the risk involved in pregnancy by a hundredfold, and you are forgetting that both ender and I share the belief that abortion is justified in cases where the mother's life is in danger.

Your concerns about C-Section are exaggerated as well, as the procedure carries less risk than you seem to imply. That's how I was born, and my mother had six kids after me, and I know other women who have had C-Sections.

You also ignore the risk of abortion, and in your analogies, don't portray that option as having side-effects. Some women, who have had abortions are not incapable of having children, because their uterus was damaged in the operation. Not to mention the emotional and psychological effects it can have, and the loss of a life and a person (not that you consider it a person, but it at least has the potential to become a happy, intelligent, and productive human being.

[...]

Remember that even post-birth children still require the physical, emotional, and monetary resources of their caregivers for survival.  My children take a toll on my health and billfold.  But I don't think I'd get away with aborting them at this point it their lives.  As unique individuals of my creation, I am now responsible for their survival, regardless of the fact that I am less healthy than I would be if I didn't have them.

 Exactly. The drain on resources all comes down to convenience in the end. If someone had to kill another person in order to steal that person's money so they could afford to pay the rent, would the murder be justified? Let's say that the murdered person was a quadriplegic, and was mentally impaired so that they were barely aware of their surroundings anymore. One would think that that would be far more forgivable than the deprivation of a human being's life, before it even has a chance to properly start, yet most people would probably protest against the action and press murder charges against him. Our society has a bit of a double standard that way.

RicOlie_2 said:

If someone had to kill another person in order to steal that person's money so they could afford to pay the rent, would the murder be justified? Let's say that the murdered person was a quadriplegic, and was mentally impaired so that they were barely aware of their surroundings anymore. One would think that that would be far more forgivable than the deprivation of a human being's life, before it even has a chance to properly start, yet most people would probably protest against the action and press murder charges against him. Our society has a bit of a double standard that way.

 Um...I don't even have words for this.

?  what RicOlie_2 said made sense to me. 

DuracellEnergizer said:

darth_ender said:

This world is overpopulated anyway
This world sucks and I don't want a child to be subject to the evils therein
...

Wow, those all sound like they boil down to convenience.

How do those "boil down to convenience"?

      Well, it is EXTREMELY convenient that the people who judge "overpopulated" and "too evil world" are the same ones who decide whether the child is too inconvenient for their lifestyle and/or socio-political interests.

      That said, I'll confess to having a great deal of sympathy for the idea that, if the world is most likely hurtling towards chaotic horror, the child is probably better-off escaping quickly and early.

      This doesn't reduce the evil and horror of infanticide by a scintilla, however. It only means that I am weak and culpable in the evils.

      I am also sympathetic to the idea that a 5 day-old clump of cells doesn't rise to the same level of a 4 month-old fetus.

      I look to designed nature and inspired scripture for guidance. 40 is a number associated with trial and developement towards a higher state. 40 days to a being with clearly definable features of a person, 40 weeks of gestation, 40 years of fertility. It is said that "ensoulment" comes at 40 days.

     I have great doubts as to whether God is just. But if the creator has even the barest concept of human justice, we are in UNIMAGINABLE trouble.

Warbler said:

?  what RicOlie_2 said made sense to me. 

 Killing a person to pay rent is more justified than killing a clump of cells?  Oh yeah, makes perfect sense.

And here we go with the double posts again...