Begging the question and how it relates to views on abortion

[Tilted]

I've been meaning to try to get into this particular conversation for a while; I've just never gotten around to it. But with all the comments I've seen in the wake of the Planned Parenthood baby parts brouhaha, I'm reminded to do so. So...

Abortion is one of very few ideological issues regarding which the correct answer isn't really clear for me. I've gone back and forth on the issue and I'm still not sure where I stand. But I think that's because, at its core, it isn't a political or ideological question so much as an existential philosophical one.

Abortion remains highly controversial, even decades after Roe V Wade, because there isn't much that can be reasoned out about it - there isn't much in the way of position-supporting argument that can be offered from either side of the debate. For both sides, their respective positions amount to little more than begging the question. The underlying question, the only one that really matters, is whether the fetus or the embryo or the unborn baby is a separate living human being. Or rather, at what point in a pregnancy is it such.

On one side of the issue many people think - of course abortion should be illegal, it's the murder of a human being. They're killing babies. But that is, of course, just begging the question. On the other side of the issue many people think - that's not a separate human life, it's wrong to claim it's the murder of a human being, no one is killing babies. And if it isn't a separate human life, then of course the woman gets to decide what to do with her body. But that is, of course, also just begging the question.

I believe that almost everyone would agree that, if that isn't a human life we're talking about - if its just part of the woman's body - then the mother should get to do what she wants with her body. Her right to control her body supersedes the rights of a person that doesn't exist. On the other hand, I believe that almost everyone would agree that, if that is a human life we're talking about then the mother can't decide she wants to kill it. That separate human's right to live supersedes her right to do what she wants with her body. It's primacy of the nature of the right versus the primacy of the right holder. If we're talking about a conflict between the rights of two equal entities - two separate human beings - then the right to live (of one of those rights holders) is more important, it wins out so to speak, over the right to do something with your body (of the other of those rights holders). But if we aren't talking about a conflict between the rights of two equal parties - if the one is something other than a separate human being itself, e.g., just the potential of life as the Supreme Court described it - then the woman's rights take precedence.

But abortion remains very controversial, and I suspect will for a very long time, precisely because people are deeply divided on that one central point. Many on one side won't even consider that the embryo or fetus isn't a separate human being already. Many on the other side won't even consider that it is. Both sides just beg the question, so there is very little in the way of meaningful debate to be had on the issue.

Even when it comes to the decision in Roe v Wade, most all of the assessment of the propriety of that decision is based on having begged that question. The truly legal considerations of that case are fairly easy. Of course a mother has a constitutional right to decide what to do with her body, if it is only her body we're talking about. Of course she doesn't have the right to kill another human, if it is another human that we're talking about. The case remains highly controversial because the Court wasn't really making a legal decision; it was making a philosophical one, a philosophical one that was essential to the legal one that it had to make. Having made the philosophical decision, the legal decision followed naturally - it was pretty straight-forward and (should be) without controversy. It is the Court's essentially philosophical decision (that, at least in early stages, a pregnancy doesn't involve a separate human life - just the potential of human life) that is, for good reason, controversial. Like I've suggested, the truly legal aspects of the case are hard to argue with. The problem with the decision is, the Court isn't particularly suited to decide such philosophical questions - it's no better suited to decide them than many others. But it had to decide this one in order to decide the legal question, and someone had to make the decision one way or the other. In our system, when it comes to questions of constitutional application, it is ultimately the Supreme Court that must decide. So it was left with little choice but to decide a question the nature of which was considerably outside its realm.

So, anyway, my basic point is this: When it comes to abortion, almost all of the debate and almost all of the rhetoric amounts to little more than begging the question. One side believes and assumes through its rhetoric that we're dealing with a separate human being, the other side believes and assumes through its rhetoric that we aren't. And, the truth is, there isn't really a correct answer to the question. It's about as existential a question as there is, at least within the realm of questions that aren't just floated for their own sake, among questions for which there's considerable non-theoretical, non-contemplative, importance. We can make up bases on which the distinction - separate human being or not - depends, in order to support our question begging or otherwise. But those chosen bases themselves represent more question begging.

I still don't know where I stand on that central point - at what point does an embryo or fetus become a separate human being, entitled to the rights and protections that all humans are entitled to. If someone would like to try to convince me one way or the other, please do.

 

[kwillia]

I still don't know where I stand on that central point - at what point does an embryo or fetus become a separate human being, entitled to the rights and protections that all humans are entitled to. If someone would like to try to convince me one way or the other, please do.

To me this right here is the true line in the sand that separates people. I don't know that we'll ever come to an agreement as it is a personal perspective as to when it stops being a potential person and becomes it's own person. Can we truly and scientifically define "self-awareness" vs. "reactionary reflex"?

 

[Hijinx]

To me this right here is the true line in the sand that separates people. I don't know that we'll ever come to an agreement as it is a personal perspective as to when it stops being a potential person and becomes it's own person. Can we truly and scientifically define "self-awareness" vs. "reactionary reflex"?

To me any fetus that could survive in in a premature birth is a separate and individual human.
That is about the 5th. month or a little after.

 

[This_person]

I still don't know where I stand on that central point - at what point does an embryo or fetus become a separate human being, entitled to the rights and protections that all humans are entitled to. If someone would like to try to convince me one way or the other, please do.

Vrai has recently said that she understands the child to be a separate life, but is ok with the killing anyway for fiscal/social reasons. So, not everyone can agree that when it is a separate life means the life has its own rights.

That said, the life has its own DNA before the end of the first day. At the outside, it takes around 9 days for the separate life to reach a point where it will no longer be possible to split into twins. In my opinion, this is the point the life is established as a separate, independent life. It takes around 8 weeks for all of the parts to form that are recognizable as a human. However, the heart is beating around the end of the second week (takes up to the beginning of the third week).

However, abortion is about more than that. Abortion is about personal responsibility. When you speak of primacy, of course there is the question of the health of the mother. If the mother will die because of the pregnancy, isn't it now the primacy of the mother that wins? In my opinion, the physical health of the mother wins there.

And, what about "forcing" a woman to have a child? This is a common canard. It is my opinion that if a woman is raped, she should not be "forced" by law to suffer the consequences of that on her physical person through childbirth. Similarly, if we are talking statutory rape via incest, I have the same feeling.

That said, the Guttmacher Institute shows that only 4% of abortions are due to the health of the mother. Less than 0.5% of abortions are primarily due to the mother being a rape victim. Incest, as a separate primary cause, doesn't even register as "<0.5%". It's not even mentioned as a primary cause on the list at all. The primary reason for an abortion given 76% of the time has to do with the child being inconvenient ("I'm too young to be a mother," "This child would interfere with my career plans," "this baby would harm my relationship", "I'm too old/done with childrearing", and the like). There is a 6% "other" category, which is probably where incest lies and simply didn't want to be reported. Up to 3% is due to the life of the fetus - as in the pregnancy is not a healthy one. I don't really consider that abortion, personally, because the end result is likely to be a stillborn or end up with a drastic physical threat to the health of the mother.

So, the personal responsibility factor in my opinion is also a concern. If the mother is in mortal danger, she wins. If the mother did nothing to ask for pregnancy (rape/incest), in my opinion she wins. If the mother willingly (non-rape situation) chose to engage in an activity in which she could have become pregnant (even if she is on birth control, used creams and jellies, he used a condom, etc., there is a percentage of probability >0.0% that she can become pregnant), the she has (in my opinion) willingly given tacit approval that pregnancy may happen. Thus, she has implicitly accepted responsibility for the resultant child, just like the father has. We don't say, "well, he wore a condom so he doesn't have to pay child support", do we? No, we understand that there was a >0.0% chance she could become pregnant, so the dad is financially responsible. Isn't the life of the child even more a responsibility than the financial support? I believe it is.

We don't say, "Well, your odds of being killed in a plane crash, if you're on one of the top 39 airlines in the world, is only 1 in 20 million, so therefore the airline is not responsible for your death (your estate gets no fiscal compensation) if you happen to die in an airline crash." No, we don't accept death as an acceptable outcome even if the odds are really, really low that something will occur. Why do we accept death as an acceptable outcome from sex?

I can see absolutely no viable argument to allow elective (not for physical health of the mother/rape/incest/lack of viability of the child) abortion after 8 weeks, when the full human body is formed (all the pieces/parts). Personally, I see no good reason to allow elective abortion after about a week, when the person is established (won't become twins).

We can talk religion all you want, God knowing the number of hairs on your head and all. However, when it comes to law, I'm not a big believer that individual religious beliefs should rule the day.

Thoughts?

 

[vraiblonde]

Vrai has recently said that she understands the child to be a separate life, but is ok with the killing anyway for fiscal/social reasons.

It's an ugly old world and it took me awhile to come to grips with my opinion and become comfortable with it. I am against abortion on a personal level - both of my grandchildren were unplanned and I was openly thrilled that abortion wasn't on the table with either of them. Nor was it on the table when I was an unmarried teenage pregnant person. It's just not what we do in my family or part of our value system.

But I also knew that neither I nor either of my kids was going to produce a Future Felon and drain on society. My cousin, on the other hand, has produced two POS that the world would be better off without; now they are reproducing and it's not looking good for any of those children. So... :shrug:

At some point the good of society has to come into play. THAT is why I'm pro-abortion. There are simply some people that the world would be better off without, and we can definitely do without them reproducing exponentially.

Harsh, but true.

 

[This_person]

It's an ugly old world and it took me awhile to come to grips with my opinion and become comfortable with it. I am against abortion on a personal level - both of my grandchildren were unplanned and I was openly thrilled that abortion wasn't on the table with either of them. Nor was it on the table when I was an unmarried teenage pregnant person. It's just not what we do in my family or part of our value system.

But I also knew that neither I nor either of my kids was going to produce a Future Felon and drain on society. My cousin, on the other hand, has produced two POS that the world would be better off without; now they are reproducing and it's not looking good for any of those children. So... :shrug:

At some point the good of society has to come into play. THAT is why I'm pro-abortion. There are simply some people that the world would be better off without, and we can definitely do without them reproducing exponentially.

Harsh, but true.

I appreciate your honesty, your candor, and respect your position. I disagree with it, but I have no argument with you because your honesty spells out your position.

I disagree because, in my view, your position prejudges and punishes the unborn. I do not believe in evil people. I believe that people are a consequence first of their circumstance, and second of their personal choices. I know a woman who had to wait to get married while pregnant because her baby-daddy hadn't told his wife yet that his girlfriend was pregnant. That first unplanned child is a large load on society. His brother is not. The first boy knocked up a teenager, never wed her, and she refused to get a job because it might affect her ability to draw welfare. The resultant child from that union seems to be a great kid. Neither mom nor dad of that child does much to raise that child which makes that child's life much better.

With adoption and extended family, I agree with you that abortion is just plain wrong. I just can't agree with you that it's ok to kill the kid in the interest of society. But, you have reasons for your opinion, and you're open and honest about them. I respect that.

 

[Tilted]

To me any fetus that could survive in in a premature birth is a separate and individual human.
That is about the 5th. month or a little after.

That's more of less where I default to, but I'll admit it's just that - more a default position than one adopted after great consideration. Even if a woman should have the right to terminate a pregnancy during its early stages, I don't think she should have the right to do so once the fetus or baby becomes viable - meaning, that it could survive outside of her womb. At that point, if she no longer wants to continue carrying it - okay, fine (not really fine, but whatever). But then she should have to let it be removed (or delivered) and it should get the chance to live. The law should be able to require that, the burden on her decision making authority over her own body being sufficiently justified by the right of the state to protect the life of the baby. She doesn't want it and can't be required to keep it, she doesn't have to keep carrying it. All that is required of her is that she let it be taken from her.

That's also more or less what the law of the land is (absent the required to let someone take it part), it's based on viability to some extent. When the fetus or baby is considered to be viable - could survive outside the mother's womb - the state's interest in protecting it as a separate life becomes sufficient to allow the state to prohibit abortions, even though in doing so it limits the liberty of the mother to decide what to do with her own body.

 

[Tilted]

That said, the life has its own DNA before the end of the first day. At the outside, it takes around 9 days for the separate life to reach a point where it will no longer be possible to split into twins. In my opinion, this is the point the life is established as a separate, independent life. It takes around 8 weeks for all of the parts to form that are recognizable as a human. However, the heart is beating around the end of the second week (takes up to the beginning of the third week)

Fair enough. I don't think that settles the matter though, it's just the way you would consider the question of whether an embryo or fetus represents a separate human life yet. One could easily suggest different ways of considering the question though, ways that are just as reasonable or defensible.

However, abortion is about more than that. Abortion is about personal responsibility. When you speak of primacy, of course there is the question of the health of the mother. If the mother will die because of the pregnancy, isn't it now the primacy of the mother that wins? In my opinion, the physical health of the mother wins there.

And, what about "forcing" a woman to have a child? This is a common canard. It is my opinion that if a woman is raped, she should not be "forced" by law to suffer the consequences of that on her physical person through childbirth. Similarly, if we are talking statutory rape via incest, I have the same feeling.

That said, the Guttmacher Institute shows that only 4% of abortions are due to the health of the mother. Less than 0.5% of abortions are primarily due to the mother being a rape victim. Incest, as a separate primary cause, doesn't even register as "<0.5%". It's not even mentioned as a primary cause on the list at all. The primary reason for an abortion given 76% of the time has to do with the child being inconvenient ("I'm too young to be a mother," "This child would interfere with my career plans," "this baby would harm my relationship", "I'm too old/done with childrearing", and the like). There is a 6% "other" category, which is probably where incest lies and simply didn't want to be reported. Up to 3% is due to the life of the fetus - as in the pregnancy is not a healthy one. I don't really consider that abortion, personally, because the end result is likely to be a stillborn or end up with a drastic physical threat to the health of the mother.

So, the personal responsibility factor in my opinion is also a concern. If the mother is in mortal danger, she wins. If the mother did nothing to ask for pregnancy (rape/incest), in my opinion she wins. If the mother willingly (non-rape situation) chose to engage in an activity in which she could have become pregnant (even if she is on birth control, used creams and jellies, he used a condom, etc., there is a percentage of probability >0.0% that she can become pregnant), the she has (in my opinion) willingly given tacit approval that pregnancy may happen. Thus, she has implicitly accepted responsibility for the resultant child, just like the father has. We don't say, "well, he wore a condom so he doesn't have to pay child support", do we? No, we understand that there was a >0.0% chance she could become pregnant, so the dad is financially responsible. Isn't the life of the child even more a responsibility than the financial support? I believe it is.

We don't say, "Well, your odds of being killed in a plane crash, if you're on one of the top 39 airlines in the world, is only 1 in 20 million, so therefore the airline is not responsible for your death (your estate gets no fiscal compensation) if you happen to die in an airline crash." No, we don't accept death as an acceptable outcome even if the odds are really, really low that something will occur. Why do we accept death as an acceptable outcome from sex?

I can see absolutely no viable argument to allow elective (not for physical health of the mother/rape/incest/lack of viability of the child) abortion after 8 weeks, when the full human body is formed (all the pieces/parts). Personally, I see no good reason to allow elective abortion after about a week, when the person is established (won't become twins).

We can talk religion all you want, God knowing the number of hairs on your head and all. However, when it comes to law, I'm not a big believer that individual religious beliefs should rule the day.

Thoughts?

Sure, there's lots more to the discussion of abortion. There are lots of aspects of the debate and reasons why it's a good or bad thing for it to be allowed, reasons why we might oppose abortion in most all cases or often accept it as the best of bad options.

But I'm talking about whether it should be legal or not, and whether there rightfully is a constitutional right to it (under the PoI Clause in reality, though under the DP Clause in name). On that front, the core consideration is whether the fetus represents a separate human life. With that determination made, the legal issue becomes easy. Without it having been made, the legal issue is quite difficult. It is on that point that the greatest controversy exists. Of course the state has the authority to forbid one person from killing another (except when certain circumstances, such as self-defense, apply). On the other hand, the state of course does not have the right - or should not - to tell someone what they can do with a part of their body. If someone wants to cut off their finger, they should have that right - especially if there is some rational reason why they might want to do so, meaning it isn't just delusion or other psychological disconnect that causes them to want to. So the question remains, are we just talking about part of the woman's body or are we talking about a separate human life. To many the answer to that question is obvious, but for those many what that obvious answer is differs greatly - some are certain the answer is more the former, some are certain the answer is more the latter. That IS what the controversy is and that is, acknowledgedly or not, the point of contention when it comes to the Roe decision.

 

[digitallest]

I am pro choice, but would not choose to abort, because I believe the fetus is a human being in its own right, dependent upon me by virtue of my choices. I guess, this is where religion comes in, for me. My religion taught me that free will is a divine gift, and what other people choose to do, or believe, is not my business.

 

[This_person]

the state's interest in protecting it as a separate life becomes sufficient to allow the state to prohibit abortions, even though in doing so it limits the liberty of the mother to decide what to do with her own body.

What about her responsibility to it before medical science can help it live? Didn't she assume responsibility by taking the act, willingly, to risk pregnancy?

Does this mean that a child that needs care (say, an infant who needs fed and changed and cleaned) may simply be killed by the mother because it is inconvenient for her to care for it (if she is the only one around)? Or the father? Or the babysitter? They can simply choose to not take care of the child like before the 23rd week or so when an infant becomes "viable" in the womb?

The only reason the infant in the womb prior to the 23rd week would be lack of care by the mother. She willingly put the child there, then wants to kill it for her own actions (nothing the child has done except exist). How is it not in the state's interest to look out for that child in the face of a criminally negligent mother?

 

[Tilted]

Vrai has recently said that she understands the child to be a separate life, but is ok with the killing anyway for fiscal/social reasons. So, not everyone can agree that when it is a separate life means the life has its own rights.

I hope and suspect she'll take this in the good natured way it's intended: Vrai can, it seems to me, be a bit of an odd duck in how she thinks about certain things.

I saw where she expressed the position you're alluding to. It was a bit of a wow thing for me, not because I think it's necessarily wrong but because she was the first person I'd ever heard express that view of the situation. I've talked to quite a few people on this specific point, and of course heard people's abortion views expressed more generally, and I've never encountered anyone that thinks both that a a fetus is a separate living human being and that a woman should, even in light of that view, be allowed to abort it. I suspect there are others that feel more or less the same way, but I don't think they're all that common.

It's an ugly old world and it took me awhile to come to grips with my opinion and become comfortable with it. I am against abortion on a personal level - both of my grandchildren were unplanned and I was openly thrilled that abortion wasn't on the table with either of them. Nor was it on the table when I was an unmarried teenage pregnant person. It's just not what we do in my family or part of our value system.

But I also knew that neither I nor either of my kids was going to produce a Future Felon and drain on society. My cousin, on the other hand, has produced two POS that the world would be better off without; now they are reproducing and it's not looking good for any of those children. So... :shrug:

At some point the good of society has to come into play. THAT is why I'm pro-abortion. There are simply some people that the world would be better off without, and we can definitely do without them reproducing exponentially.

Harsh, but true.

I get the good of society argument. Though in my conception of the point, and acceptability, of society, the rights of individuals take precedence over the good of society except in fairly limited regards. We all of course have to draw the lines somewhere, but I'd draw them much closer to the protecting individuals rather than society at large side. And in this context, if we're accepting the fetus as a separate living human, then that means protecting their right to live over the good of society.

But I don't get - and I don't see you here making - the good of the unborn argument that I've heard some make. Except in the most extreme circumstances, which don't include the general condition of likely being born to generically bad parents, life is to me always preferable to the alternative. I think, even with bad circumstances or the deck stacked heavily against you, having a chance to live - to experience life with all its possibilities - is a net plus. I feel this way, for the most part, about all life; I certainly do when it comes to humans.

 

[This_person]

Fair enough. I don't think that settles the matter though, it's just the way you would consider the question of whether an embryo or fetus represents a separate human life yet. One could easily suggest different ways of considering the question though, ways that are just as reasonable or defensible.



Sure, there's lots more to the discussion of abortion. There are lots of aspects of the debate and reasons why it's a good or bad thing for it to be allowed, reasons why we might oppose abortion in most all cases or often accept it as the best of bad options.

But I'm talking about whether it should be legal or not, and whether there rightfully is a constitutional right to it (under the PoI Clause in reality, though under the DP Clause in name). On that front, the core consideration is whether the fetus represents a separate human life. With that determination made, the legal issue becomes easy. Without it having been made, the legal issue is quite difficult. It is on that point that the greatest controversy exists. Of course the state has the authority to forbid one person from killing another (except when certain circumstances, such as self-defense, apply). On the other hand, the state of course does not have the right - or should not - to tell someone what they can do with a part of their body. If someone wants to cut off their finger, they should have that right - especially if there is some rational reason why they might want to do so, meaning it isn't just delusion or other psychological disconnect that causes them to want to. So the question remains, are we just talking about part of the woman's body or are we talking about a separate human life. To many the answer to that question is obvious, but for those many what that obvious answer is differs greatly - some are certain the answer is more the former, some are certain the answer is more the latter. That IS what the controversy is and that is, acknowledgedly or not, the point of contention when it comes to the Roe decision.

What's more defensible than it is alive with its own separate DNA?

 

[Tilted]

What about her responsibility to it before medical science can help it live? Didn't she assume responsibility by taking the act, willingly, to risk pregnancy?

Does this mean that a child that needs care (say, an infant who needs fed and changed and cleaned) may simply be killed by the mother because it is inconvenient for her to care for it (if she is the only one around)? Or the father? Or the babysitter? They can simply choose to not take care of the child like before the 23rd week or so when an infant becomes "viable" in the womb?

The only reason the infant in the womb prior to the 23rd week would be lack of care by the mother. She willingly put the child there, then wants to kill it for her own actions (nothing the child has done except exist). How is it not in the state's interest to look out for that child in the face of a criminally negligent mother?

Of course she assumed some responsibility by the act of having sex. People do all sorts of things that, rightfully, burden them with responsibilities. But they also have freedom to change their minds or to shirk their responsibilities. One question becomes, given the context and the circumstances, should their doing so be legal. In some cases (probably more often than not) yes, it is accepted that they have the legal right to change their minds or shirk certain responsibilities; in some cases, no, they don't have the legal right to. Legality isn't based on the amorphous concept of responsibility. There are details that matter and principles that apply when it comes to what responsibilities are legal ones - as opposed to just, e.g., ethical ones. As it is, no, it is not a legal responsibility for a pregnant mother to carry a baby to term - at least, that responsibility doesn't exist during the early stages of pregnancy. And that legal reality hinges on the notion that the baby or fetus or embryo isn't a separate human life to which the mother owes a responsibility, it is part of her which she has a primary right to make decisions regarding. That's the point, the point I'm making - the issue is, whether that is or isn't a separate human life. That is the determinative consideration. If it is not, then the mother doesn't owe it that legal responsibility.

Of course, of course, of course - IF that's a separate human life she has a legal responsibility to it. She helped create it, she made the decision to, it had no say in the matter, she doesn't just get to decide to kill it for her own convenience or whatever. But if it is not, then she can't owe a legal responsibility to it - it isn't something separate from her, it is part of her. Hence the question, hence the controversy, hence the diametrically conflicting views held so passionately by so many.

Saying she wants to kill it, or (in effect) that it's in the state's interest to look out for the child in the face of a criminally negligent mother, is - as I've indicated - begging the question. It's a reasonable position to take, but it isn't necessarily the - the only - right position. It's assuming the argument, assuming that we're talking about a separate human life. Many people reasonably hold a different conception of what pregnancy - particularly in early stages - is. That's true today and has been true traditionally.

 

[Tilted]

What's more defensible than it is alive with its own separate DNA?

That it isn't viable without the pregnancy attachment to the mother? It isn't a separate human life yet? It can't exist on its own (not just meaning without the assistance of others, but without that specific attachment to that specific person)? And, some things have their own unique DNA put aren't regarded as separate human lives.

I'm not going to substantively argue the contrary position, it isn't one that I hold. But there are arguments to be made. How we choose to define what constitutes a separate human life determines whether there is a separate human life. But those definitions are, themselves, begging the question. This is a philosophical question more than anything, there really isn't a correct answer. You can be completely convinced that your answer is the right one, but others can reasonably be convinced that there's is also - they can be just as convinced. That's why the controversy persists and likely will for a long time.


EDIT: I'd add, I said as defensible - not more defensible. I wasn't asserting that you're wrong or that others, who hold contrary views, are right. This is one of a very small number of issues regarding which right and wrong aren't, for me, very clear.

 

[Tilted]

To me this right here is the true line in the sand that separates people. I don't know that we'll ever come to an agreement as it is a personal perspective as to when it stops being a potential person and becomes it's own person. Can we truly and scientifically define "self-awareness" vs. "reactionary reflex"?

Yeah. It's a very existential consideration. It's not quite there with, e.g., what is the meaning of life. But it's a lot closer to that than it is to how long does it take to travel 40 miles at 25 mph.

 

[vraiblonde]

Vrai can, it seems to me, be a bit of an odd duck in how she thinks about certain things.

I take that as a compliment.

I think, even with bad circumstances or the deck stacked heavily against you, having a chance to live - to experience life with all its possibilities - is a net plus.

That's you. Some kid born into extreme abuse might not feel that way. Some, their parents end up torturing and killing them anyway, so what was the purpose of actually having the child in the first place?

Regardless, my opinion on abortion focuses on children who should never have been born who grow up to rape and murder and become a true detriment to society on a personal level. Women who conceive under adverse conditions can certainly put that aside and be loving mothers who raise productive citizens; children who are born severely handicapped, either mentally or physically, can live happy meaningful lives. Happens all the time.

I'm talking about the unwanted children who are raised in poverty, abuse, and neglect who then grow up to prey on the rest of us. Not just live on welfare - that's not really hurting anyone - but actually rob, kill, and rape.

Those are the ones that make me pro-abortion.

 

[This_person]

I take that as a compliment.



That's you. Some kid born into extreme abuse might not feel that way. Some, their parents end up torturing and killing them anyway, so what was the purpose of actually having the child in the first place?

Regardless, my opinion on abortion focuses on children who should never have been born who grow up to rape and murder and become a true detriment to society on a personal level. Women who conceive under adverse conditions can certainly put that aside and be loving mothers who raise productive citizens; children who are born severely handicapped, either mentally or physically, can live happy meaningful lives. Happens all the time.

I'm talking about the unwanted children who are raised in poverty, abuse, and neglect who then grow up to prey on the rest of us. Not just live on welfare - that's not really hurting anyone - but actually rob, kill, and rape.

Those are the ones that make me pro-abortion.

How do you know which ones those will be? How do we pre-judge the quality of life of the child (never mind the question of what represents a "worthy" quality of life)?

 

[Hijinx]

ut I also knew that neither I nor either of my kids was going to produce a Future Felon and drain on society. My cousin, on the other hand, has produced two POS that the world would be better off without; now they are reproducing and it's not looking good for any of those children. So... :shrug:

If we really could guarantee our kids would not be future felons and drains on society, it would be great.
And though you may believe that it simply is not true.

NO ONE knows how their kids will turn out nor dop we know how the kids of a-holes who are drains on society will turn out.

That is where the rubber meets the road. We never know what is being aborted and what is being born, despite what our intentions are.

 

[Larry Gude]

I still don't know where I stand on that central point - at what point does an embryo or fetus become a separate human being, entitled to the rights and protections that all humans are entitled to. If someone would like to try to convince me one way or the other, please do.

I used to be solidly pro life. Over time, I'd like to think through gaining wisdom relative to the meaning and intent of the US of A, it has become obvious to me; we can NOT claim to be a free nation while also claiming control over a woman's body. It's up to her, period. End of story. If someone harms her and kills the baby inside her and she considers it murder, so be it. Try them for murder. If she chooses to abort it, that has to be, must be her choice. Period.

Exclusions for rape and incest only make the point more clear; those babies are NO less innocent so, all we're talking about is some nebulous level and/or degree of control.

I am also anti prohibition believing that, in a free country, freedom is only had with it's other side; responsibility.

I'm also becoming isolationist because I do not trust our leaders to act in the national interest.

I'm becoming pro union because the LAST thing I'd trust to act to promote the general welfare is a board and shareholders.

An adult female, in this country, MUST have the freedom and responsibility to make that choice. It is HER body.

I think there is NOTHING more barbaric than abortion. There is NOTHING worse we can do in my view but that's not the point. I don't like what junkies do to themselves nor alcoholics or people that eat way too much and/or exercise way too little. We must be free and there must be responsibility.

IF, and this is THE question, IF we are a free people, a woman must have authority over her body. If we accept that then, in my view, there may well be less because in that traumatic decision making time for a woman considering abortion, at least she will do so KNOWING it is her decision to make. Maybe that means less of them happen. Maybe not. It's still, in a free nation, a question of personal autonomy and freedom of choice. Nothing is more illustrative of our innate desire to control one another, slavery, limited rights for women, smoking, helmets, food laws, size of soda, than to presume it's OUR business.

 

[Tilted]

I take that as a compliment.



That's you. Some kid born into extreme abuse might not feel that way. Some, their parents end up torturing and killing them anyway, so what was the purpose of actually having the child in the first place?

Regardless, my opinion on abortion focuses on children who should never have been born who grow up to rape and murder and become a true detriment to society on a personal level. Women who conceive under adverse conditions can certainly put that aside and be loving mothers who raise productive citizens; children who are born severely handicapped, either mentally or physically, can live happy meaningful lives. Happens all the time.

I'm talking about the unwanted children who are raised in poverty, abuse, and neglect who then grow up to prey on the rest of us. Not just live on welfare - that's not really hurting anyone - but actually rob, kill, and rape.

Those are the ones that make me pro-abortion.

I was pretty sure you would.

Have you ever watched the Showtime show Shameless? I've been binge watching it the last week or so. For whatever reason this line of discussion makes me think about it. It's about two horrible, horrible, horrible parents with a gaggle of kids, each of which (of those kids) is terribly flawed yet arguably a wonderful person at the same time.

I don't mention that to make any point, we're talking about fiction. I just mention it because I thought of it and I've enjoyed the show.