Abortion and 19th Century Science

[AdamA]

You compare legal abortion to the behavior of a war criminal and add insult to injury with an "apology" wrapped up in twisted logic.

I don't agree with him either, Dualstow, but isn't this (the idea that abortion is never acceptable) the logical conclusion of the "abortion is murder" mentality?

I suspect there are a lot of people who share Mountaineer's opinion.

My reasoning:  I believe God is in charge.  Thus, if God allows that sperm and egg to produce a human, who am I to say that the resulting person will not grow up to be the person who invents the way to the next medical innovation, the next energy saving mechanism, the next theologian of world renown, the next .......

How about in cases where the mother's life is in danger for medical reasons (i.e., a heart condition that may kill her if she carries the pregnancy to term)?

[Gosso]

In the case of rape it is not so black and white.  This is because the act of conception was a purely evil act.  If I was aware that I was conceived via rape then I would contemplate suicide, and would not fault my mother for ending my life early on.  If I could sacrifice my life so that she wouldn't have to relive that moment every time she looked at me, then I would do it (although put a knife in my hands and I might have second thoughts).  I doubt the emotional pain from rape ever truly disappears.  Also, could there ever be any love between the mother and child?  I doubt it.

A mother and father can get over their gross negligence and provide for the child, but I doubt a woman could overcome the rape.

There are quite a few people with first-hand experience who would disagree: http://www.rebeccakiessling.com/Othersc ... nrape.html

Hmmm, perhaps I underestimated the love between a mother and her baby, where the mother can see through the ugly past.  But I'd still be pro-choice in these circumstances, since she did not consent to the act.  If the baby is aborted then the rapist should be charged with murder, since he was the only willing participant in the creation of that life.  The woman is a victim and should bear zero responsibility.  So the rapist is responsible for the creation and eventual death of the life.  But then we get into the fuzzy world of what is and isn't rape, which is something I don't want to think about right now.

[Mountaineer]

.

My reasoning:  I believe God is in charge.  Thus, if God allows that sperm and egg to produce a human, who am I to say that the resulting person will not grow up to be the person who invents the way to the next medical innovation, the next energy saving mechanism, the next theologian of world renown, the next .......

How about in cases where the mother's life is in danger for medical reasons (i.e., a heart condition that may kill her if she carries the pregnancy to term)?

I believe I mentioned this in an earlier post somewhere along the line.  My answer is that I believe the doctors should do everything possible to save both the mother and the baby.  Doctors, in my opinion, should never ethically force a distraught mother/father to choose.

That is a great question however that comes from those of us who are looking for some tiny bit of wiggle room.  In all honesty, I have never been in that situation; I imagine it would be horrible and I hope I would stick with my belief in God as firmly as I do now.  It would be so very difficult, my heart would cry for them.

... Mountaineer

[dualstow]

You compare legal abortion to the behavior of a war criminal and add insult to injury with an "apology" wrapped up in twisted logic.

I don't agree with him either, Dualstow, but isn't this (the idea that abortion is never acceptable) the logical conclusion of the "abortion is murder" mentality?

That's a fair question and one I anticipated. My answer is that if I link "abortion" and "murder' in the same breath, it is only in the context of a kind of sanctioned, acceptable murder. What does *that* mean? First, I should say that I have pro-life friends who come at this from a different angle, and we understand each other. Just because a political organization doesn't prohibit abortion, that doesn't make it acceptable to them. I get that, absolutely, and I respect it. And maybe someday it *will* be outlawed and looked upon the way we view infanticide today.

If it's legal, then why call it murder?  As with the case of vegans referring to the eating of meat as murder, I'm saying, Ok, let's call it murder. If cows could speak, they would call beef production murder and I would understand. And maybe it is. If Christians or other groups share the idea that an unborn fetus of, say, the age of 2 weeks, is still a human life, I also understand how they could call that murder. And maybe it is. Just the same, I think that allowing people to choose abortion is the lesser evil and the world is a better place with legal abortions.

Now let's take the Jewish part of the whole Mengele affair and put it aside, lest anyone think I'm focused on that. I only mean to say that Mengele did what he did to satisfy his sadism. He derived pleasure from it. One could argue that some people derive pleasure from bacon, too, but meat-eating is primarily for sustenance and survival, and hunting or slaughtering livestock has nothing to do with a psychotic Nazi. (There are sadists working in slaughterhouses, but they are not representative of the average person who chooses to eat meat).

You could also argue that Mengele was conducting experiments purely to obtain scientific knowledge. I don't buy that, but if you compared it with modern companies that perform vivisection and experimentation on animals and produce real results, like medicine which saves both humans and animals, that would be a slippery slope and I'd have a tougher time defending my point. (I'm not talking about rubbing toothpaste in rabbits' eyes to see if it irritates them, but the production of real medicine). In any case, while this is trickier, this latter branch is outside the scope of an abortion debate.

[Pointedstick]

If it's legal, then why call it murder?

Maybe it's like how some people think Trayvon Martin was murdered. What the law actually says is secondary to what they feel the law should say.

[Xan]

If it's legal, then why call it murder?

Maybe it's like how some people think Trayvon Martin was murdered. What the law actually says is secondary to what they feel the law should say.

The law certainly said that abortion was murder.  I believe there were 50 state laws against it when the dreadful Roe v Wade decision wrongly threw them all out.

[Pointedstick]

If it's legal, then why call it murder?

Maybe it's like how some people think Trayvon Martin was murdered. What the law actually says is secondary to what they feel the law should say.

The law certainly said that abortion was murder.  I believe there were 50 state laws against it when the dreadful Roe v Wade decision wrongly threw them all out.

Actually, at the time it was legal in four states: Hawaii, Alaska, New York and Washington. Abortion was also legal in certain circumstances. In Texas, for instance, it was legal in cases of rape and incest. It's also noteworthy that the first law criminalizing abortion in the United States was only passed in 1821, and it wasn't until 1900 before all 50 states had outlawed it.

It's actually interesting to me how old this debate is. It's not like abortion is some new moral outrage. It's been done in various (far more barbaric ways) for centuries and people have been fighting over it since forever. Pope Gregory XIV didn't condemn abortion before about 16 weeks (116 days, in fact). But Pope Pius IX declared that anyone who got an abortion had excommunicated themselves. Thomas Aquinas taught that the developing baby received its soul between 40 and 80 days, but taught that it was always wrong even before the baby lacked a soul. The history isn't so black and white.

[dualstow]

How does legal abortion make the world a better place?  And better for whom?

I'm sorry Desert, but I'm trying to extricate myself from this. No offense. I couldn't resist answering AdamA's question, but that's it. My guess is that you're already well-informed about the other side of the debate. Economics, crime, health, etc.

[Mountaineer]

Maybe it's like how some people think Trayvon Martin was murdered. What the law actually says is secondary to what they feel the law should say.

The law certainly said that abortion was murder.  I believe there were 50 state laws against it when the dreadful Roe v Wade decision wrongly threw them all out.

Actually, at the time it was legal in four states: Hawaii, Alaska, New York and Washington. Abortion was also legal in certain circumstances. In Texas, for instance, it was legal in cases of rape and incest. It's also noteworthy that the first law criminalizing abortion in the United States was only passed in 1821, and it wasn't until 1900 before all 50 states had outlawed it.

It's actually interesting to me how old this debate is. It's not like abortion is some new moral outrage. It's been done in various (far more barbaric ways) for centuries and people have been fighting over it since forever. Pope Gregory XIV didn't condemn abortion before about 16 weeks (116 days, in fact). But Pope Pius IX declared that anyone who got an abortion had excommunicated themselves. Thomas Aquinas taught that the developing baby received its soul between 40 and 80 days, but taught that it was always wrong even before the baby lacked a soul. The history isn't so black and white.

It is ironic that as birth control (prevention) measures became more effective, the thirst for birth elimination (abortion) became more prevalent.

... Mountaineer

[Gosso]

I had this thought in my mind when I woke up this morning:

Abortion is primarily a male problem.  Turn off your X-Box and marry that woman and provide for her and your baby.  But I suppose this isn’t fashionable anymore, we are more sophisticated than that. 

Maybe this is why women are acting more like men, because men refuse to do so.

We have taken a wrong turn somewhere along the road.

I think the experiment with the worship of sex has failed, we need to return to a worship of the family.  But don't mind me, I'm just the crazy guy in the corner muttering to himself.

[Kshartle]

I had this thought in my mind when I woke up this morning:

Abortion is primarily a male problem.  Turn off your X-Box and marry that woman and provide for her and your baby.  But I suppose this isn’t fashionable anymore, we are more sophisticated than that. 

Maybe this is why women are acting more like men, because men refuse to do so.

We have taken a wrong turn somewhere along the road.

I think the experiment with the worship of sex has failed, we need to return to a worship of the family.  But don't mind me, I'm just the crazy guy in the corner muttering to himself.

Do you think maybe there is more promiscuity on the part of women because of the so-called "safety nets" available to them? 100 years ago a pregnant unmarried woman would have a really really tough time. Due in part to the negative consequences......fewer woman slept around before marriage and they tried to consider mostly put-together....older men with promising careers who were responsible and could be providers.

Now they don't have to worry too much about that and can just sleep around with whoever they like.

Men like to sleep with women. If they don't have to marry them for it or get a good job/career then so much the better. Doing that stuff might hamper you because you're not as available since you're busy studying and working.

Appealing to men to man up......this is totally inconsistent with human behavior. Unmarried women need to close up shop to "motivate" men to be responsible. They won't do that as long as they have the saftey hammock to lay in imo.

[Libertarian666]

I had this thought in my mind when I woke up this morning:

Abortion is primarily a male problem.  Turn off your X-Box and marry that woman and provide for her and your baby.  But I suppose this isn’t fashionable anymore, we are more sophisticated than that. 

Maybe this is why women are acting more like men, because men refuse to do so.

We have taken a wrong turn somewhere along the road.

I think the experiment with the worship of sex has failed, we need to return to a worship of the family.  But don't mind me, I'm just the crazy guy in the corner muttering to himself.

Do you think maybe there is more promiscuity on the part of women because of the so-called "safety nets" available to them? 100 years ago a pregnant unmarried woman would have a really really tough time. Due in part to the negative consequences......fewer woman slept around before marriage and they tried to consider mostly put-together....older men with promising careers who were responsible and could be providers.

Now they don't have to worry too much about that and can just sleep around with whoever they like.

Men like to sleep with women. If they don't have to marry them for it or get a good job/career then so much the better. Doing that stuff might hamper you because you're not as available since you're busy studying and working.

Appealing to men to man up......this is totally inconsistent with human behavior. Unmarried women need to close up shop to "motivate" men to be responsible. They won't do that as long as they have the saftey hammock to lay in imo.

Given the extreme prejudice against men in the current US legal system with respect to divorce and allegations of domestic violence, and the availability of sex outside marriage, I seriously doubt I would marry, at least in this country, if I were a young man.

[Kshartle]

Given the extreme prejudice against men in the current US legal system with respect to divorce and allegations of domestic violence, and the availability of sex outside marriage, I seriously doubt I would marry, at least in this country, if I were a young man.

Another good point....the prospect of having a 3-way with the government where I take 100% of the risk for zero upside, along with the aforementioned availability of wiling partners has contributed to my un-married status. Reading "how I found Freedom" really cemeted my thoughts on the subject.

It's not an attractive prospect for guys and women can always choose to marry the state rather than a guy so....party time.

Moral hazards and regulations contribute to the destruction of the family and many unwanted pregnancies. Of course breeding poverty is a time-tested path to control the population.

It's the growth of poverty and dissencentive for guys to stick around that I think has brought about the major increase in abortion. There is no way it's going to get turned over via legislation. The only way to stem the tide is to support the end of the distortions imo.

[Gosso]

I had this thought in my mind when I woke up this morning:

Abortion is primarily a male problem.  Turn off your X-Box and marry that woman and provide for her and your baby.  But I suppose this isn’t fashionable anymore, we are more sophisticated than that. 

Maybe this is why women are acting more like men, because men refuse to do so.

We have taken a wrong turn somewhere along the road.

I think the experiment with the worship of sex has failed, we need to return to a worship of the family.  But don't mind me, I'm just the crazy guy in the corner muttering to himself.

Do you think maybe there is more promiscuity on the part of women because of the so-called "safety nets" available to them? 100 years ago a pregnant unmarried woman would have a really really tough time. Due in part to the negative consequences......fewer woman slept around before marriage and they tried to consider mostly put-together....older men with promising careers who were responsible and could be providers.

Now they don't have to worry too much about that and can just sleep around with whoever they like.

Men like to sleep with women. If they don't have to marry them for it or get a good job/career then so much the better. Doing that stuff might hamper you because you're not as available since you're busy studying and working.

Appealing to men to man up......this is totally inconsistent with human behavior. Unmarried women need to close up shop to "motivate" men to be responsible. They won't do that as long as they have the saftey hammock to lay in imo.

Given the extreme prejudice against men in the current US legal system with respect to divorce and allegations of domestic violence, and the availability of sex outside marriage, I seriously doubt I would marry, at least in this country, if I were a young man.

I'm not saying it is easy, or even practical (life ain't easy).  What I am saying is that it is the morally correct action to take by the father.  A life shouldn't be terminated because a man and woman were horny and then don't want to deal with the consequences.

Treating abortion as back-up birth control, does likely lead to more promiscuity.  Sex is great when there are no consequences.  Unfortunately when a man and woman have sex they are signing a social contract that they agree to be responsible for the life they potentially create (at least this is what I think an enlightened society would enforce).  I hope people still know where babies come from.

The worship of sex leads to the worship of abortion.

I agree that the situation is pretty much hopeless.  All we can really do is weep and ask for forgiveness.  We have opened Pandora's Box.

[Kshartle]

I agree that the situation is pretty much hopeless.  All we can really do is weep and ask for forgiveness.  We have opened Pandora's Box.

I think if we're wealthier that would certainly help. People with more resources are more likely to use birth control and less likely to have this situation. They are more likely to marry also.

I don't have the numbers in front of me....but I'm 100% certain that girls who grow up with dad in the home are much much less likely to get pregnant before marriage.

So how does the population get wealthier, have marriage and self responsibility become virtues again?

I think it has to start with the end of the handouts. Does anyone still think the handouts stem the tide of poverty or instead turn it into a tidal wave?

[Pointedstick]

So how does the population get wealthier, have marriage and self responsibility become virtues again?

I think it has to start with the end of the handouts. Does anyone still think the handouts stem the tide of poverty or instead turn it into a tidal wave?

Oh, just more than half the population.

[Mountaineer]

I know that for many of you, I appear to have Christian blinders on and I'm sure that that is true no matter how hard I try to be objective ... however:

It sure seems to me we are reaping on so many fronts the consequences of a culture that has largely abandoned Christian ethics (regardless of whether or not one is a believer).  For example the things that are now being viewed as acceptable, if not outright championed by increasing numbers: sex outside of marriage, sex with the same sex, killing the unborn, living on welfare, celebrity life styles, ridding buildings of religious symbols, belittling those who make a lot of money, not valuing old people, getting ahead of the family next door, and on, and on, and on.  Just look at the threads we have been discussing ... everything from abortion to assisted suicide to white welfare.

... Mountaineer

[Libertarian666]

I know that for many of you, I appear to have Christian blinders on and I'm sure that that is true no matter how hard I try to be objective ... however:

It sure seems to me we are reaping on so many fronts the consequences of a culture that has largely abandoned Christian ethics (regardless of whether or not one is a believer).  For example the things that are now being viewed as acceptable, if not outright championed by increasing numbers: sex outside of marriage, sex with the same sex, killing the unborn, living on welfare, celebrity life styles, ridding buildings of religious symbols, belittling those who make a lot of money, not valuing old people, getting ahead of the family next door, and on, and on, and on.  Just look at the threads we have been discussing ... everything from abortion to assisted suicide to white welfare.

... Mountaineer

Those who aren't believers in Christianity almost by definition don't care about Christian ethics.

As for me, I care a lot about the Golden Rule, which of course predates Christianity by centuries.

[Mountaineer]

I know that for many of you, I appear to have Christian blinders on and I'm sure that that is true no matter how hard I try to be objective ... however:

It sure seems to me we are reaping on so many fronts the consequences of a culture that has largely abandoned Christian ethics (regardless of whether or not one is a believer).  For example the things that are now being viewed as acceptable, if not outright championed by increasing numbers: sex outside of marriage, sex with the same sex, killing the unborn, living on welfare, celebrity life styles, ridding buildings of religious symbols, belittling those who make a lot of money, not valuing old people, getting ahead of the family next door, and on, and on, and on.  Just look at the threads we have been discussing ... everything from abortion to assisted suicide to white welfare.

... Mountaineer

Those who aren't believers in Christianity almost by definition don't care about Christian ethics.

As for me, I care a lot about the Golden Rule, which of course predates Christianity by centuries.

My bad.  I should have said the teachings of Christian ethics, regardless of what one wishes to call them.  As you so adroitly point out, just the word "Christian" is another of those items many in our culture want abolished. 

On a humorous side, the golden rule is:  He who holds the gold makes the rules.

... Mountaineer

[moda0306]

I know that for many of you, I appear to have Christian blinders on and I'm sure that that is true no matter how hard I try to be objective ... however:

It sure seems to me we are reaping on so many fronts the consequences of a culture that has largely abandoned Christian ethics (regardless of whether or not one is a believer).  For example the things that are now being viewed as acceptable, if not outright championed by increasing numbers: sex outside of marriage, sex with the same sex, killing the unborn, living on welfare, celebrity life styles, ridding buildings of religious symbols, belittling those who make a lot of money, not valuing old people, getting ahead of the family next door, and on, and on, and on.  Just look at the threads we have been discussing ... everything from abortion to assisted suicide to white welfare.

... Mountaineer

Those who aren't believers in Christianity almost by definition don't care about Christian ethics.

As for me, I care a lot about the Golden Rule, which of course predates Christianity by centuries.

My bad.  I should have said the teachings of Christian ethics, regardless of what one wishes to call them.  As you so adroitly point out, just the word "Christian" is another of those items many in our culture want abolished. 

On a humorous side, the golden rule is:  He who holds the gold makes the rules.

... Mountaineer

The Golden Rule is just too vague.  What if I'm a masochist?  What if I have different values?  What if someone is not deserving of what I expect to be done onto me (does a mass-murderer deserve to be treated by his victims' families as those people would "want" to be treated)?

It's a good place to start, as it attempts to short-circuit crude selfishness, which is the feeling we're most likely to possess in tough situations... but it's just too damn vague in many pressing issues that involve a moral decision to be made.

[Tortoise]

The Golden Rule is just too vague.  What if I'm a masochist?  What if I have different values?  What if someone is not deserving of what I expect to be done onto me (does a mass-murderer deserve to be treated by his victims' families as those people would "want" to be treated)?

It's a good place to start, as it attempts to short-circuit crude selfishness, which is the feeling we're most likely to possess in tough situations... but it's just too damn vague in many pressing issues that involve a moral decision to be made.

I think you're splitting hairs a little bit. The intent of the Golden Rule clearly isn't to treat everyone else like they are identical copies of ourselves. The Golden Rule implores us simply to step outside of ourselves in an honest attempt to see things from the other person's point of view before we act. It asks us to treat other people like other human beings similar to ourselves, not like worthless animals or lower-than-scum outsiders.

The Golden Rule isn't a concrete, step-by-step guide to doing the right thing in every possible situation. Similarly, a compass doesn't give a hiker step-by-step directions for finding his way out of a forest. Think of the Golden Rule as a type of moral compass.

[moda0306]

The Golden Rule is just too vague.  What if I'm a masochist?  What if I have different values?  What if someone is not deserving of what I expect to be done onto me (does a mass-murderer deserve to be treated by his victims' families as those people would "want" to be treated)?

It's a good place to start, as it attempts to short-circuit crude selfishness, which is the feeling we're most likely to possess in tough situations... but it's just too damn vague in many pressing issues that involve a moral decision to be made.

I think you're splitting hairs a little bit. The intent of the Golden Rule clearly isn't to treat everyone else like they are identical copies of ourselves. The Golden Rule implores us simply to step outside of ourselves in an honest attempt to see things from the other person's point of view before we act. It asks us to treat other people like other human beings similar to ourselves, not like worthless animals or lower-than-scum outsiders.

The Golden Rule isn't a concrete, step-by-step guide to doing the right thing in every possible situation. Similarly, a compass doesn't give a hiker step-by-step directions for finding his way out of a forest. Think of the Golden Rule as a type of moral compass.

That's pretty perfectly put.

However, I think there is a ton of moral debate to continue to have after we've established that one guiding principal.  Some here seem to think that this is all we need to guide our actions around individual freedom and property.  It's a good place to start, but at some point we have to move beyond it into areas that beg more questions.

[Gosso]

Louis C.K. - If Murder Was Legal (3:25)

I agree with Louis, it seems a lot of us need help to be able to follow the Golden Rule or Moral Law.  I think the reason is because it is so easy to rationally explain the problem away and only focus on ourselves.  We are extremely self-centered creatures.  Zeus help us.

[Gosso]

More pure gold from Louis CK on Selfishness (10 minutes).

[Xan]

If it's legal, then why call it murder?

Maybe it's like how some people think Trayvon Martin was murdered. What the law actually says is secondary to what they feel the law should say.

I've been thinking about this more, PS.  I think the difference is that folks who say Trayvon Martin was murdered are reacting reflexively without looking at the facts.  Or, they believe something different from what the jury believed, in terms of who feared for his life when, what the motivations were, etc, which would in fact make the situation meet the legal definition of murder.

Folks saying that abortion is murder are arguing for a change in the law.  I don't think anybody in the Trayvon situation is arguing that it shouldn't be legal to defend yourself against deadly force.