Abortion

[DWill]

I agree, PeterDF's post was excellent. An interesting sidebar to this discussion is the biblical justification for anti-abortionism. Although anti-abortionists, who are most often Christians of the evangelical type, claim authority from the Bible, it is questionable whether the Bible delivers this. There are many resources on the web that delve into the issue. Two that I found to be good ones are http://www.elroy.net/ehr/abortion.html and http://www.doubter.net/id16.html.

[stahrwe]

I have to agree with you Frank. Childhood abuse and neglect is a serious problem in the United States; each year, over three million children are reported abused and/or neglected.

I, myself, would rather not see a child brought into the world to face such atrosities. And don't even get me started about animal cruelty and neglect.
It is a shame and a disgrace to witness Man's inhumanity toward man.

And Frank says that the world is overpopulated as it is.

As you can see I haven't gone away completely.

It sounds so very charitable to say you don't want a child born into an abusive home so your solution is to murder the child before it's born. Great solution!

As far as the world being overpopulated is concerned instead of aborting the baby why doesn't the father commit suicide that way the population won't increase? A bit extreme you say. I guess that depends on whether you are the father or the fetus.

[Kevin]

A bit extreme you say. I guess that depends on whether you are the father or the fetus.

Is it wrong to kill an innocent human being? Why?

You throw around murder and suicide prior to establishing why anyone should care about either happening.

[stahrwe]

You throw around murder and suicide prior to establishing why anyone should care about either happening.

I would suppose, that even sans any moral imperative, one's friends (if one had any) and one's family (again if one had any) would experience some, at least minimal ermotional reaction to suicide.

As for murder, for some reason humans have decided that the killing of one of our species warrants investigation and punishment of the perpetrator. From a purely evolutionary perspective one might make a case for or against such a reaction but the only instance I know of where murder is sanctioned in "civilized" societies is when it is committed against an unborn.

One might also oppose both from a purely selfish perspective, China is experiencing a critical shortage of women due to the government’s policy of one child per family and the preference of families for boys. This has led to the wholesale aborting of female babies. When the government condones the murder of babies in-utero, it is not a big step to the murder of any group based on undesirable traits; gender, ethnicity, hair color, intelligence, genetic predisposition to disease, present value of expected medical expenses. If one has the ability to guarantee that one will not, at some point, evidence one of the above undesirable traits, then one might feel comfortable in a society where murder is condoned. On the other hand, the world might be a much more pleasant place if only good looking women and men were allowed to survive. This would have practical impacts on the environment as well as most super models consume few calories and many are vegan, the pressure on food production would be reduced and the pollution associated with meat production would also decline. We could even combine this with entertainment by creating a show like the one from a few years ago, So You Think Your Hot. During the show, citizens would be brought in to be evaluated by a panel of judges, the beautiful ones are allowed to live, but the others are dispatched, sounds better than murdered. And of course, since the majority of medical expenses are associated with old people the easiest way to cut the cost of health care is to make sure that there are no old people. That one is a bit harder to sell because, even if you make it through the other hazards, if you live long enough, you will hit that one.

It is also had to fathom why, in a society which sees the moral equivalency of roaches and humans why Abby Johnson would quite planned parenthood after watching an abortion. Tearing the arms and legs off the torso of a potential human and suctioning everything out is nothing more than a health procedure.

Anyone for some solyent green?

[Kevin]

I realize you're under no obligation to answer my questions but since you did respond I want to point out that I don't believe you answered the question of why it is wrong to kill an innocent human being.

[stahrwe]

I realize you're under no obligation to answer my questions but since you did respond I want to point out that I don't believe you answered the question of why it is wrong to kill an innocent human being.

I must disagree with your conclusion, in fact, I did explain why it is wrong, but allow me to simplify.

#1 It has a significant, negative emotional impact on the innocent party's family and friends.
#2 If degrades the species homo sapien to the level of other animals.
#3 It has economic impacts, loss of wages, funeral expenses, elimination of 1040 deduction.
#4 It has efficiency impacts, loss of corporate knowledge.
#5 It has a disturbing effect on the psyche of society, is one safe?
#6 It has unknown impacts on the future.
#7 It is contrary to God's unwritten and written law.

[Suzanne]

I had an interesting conversation on this topic a few days ago. It was interesting because of Roe V Wade, states must allow women to receive an abortion before the fetus is "viable". Now, the Roe V Wade desicision was 30 years ago. A lot has changed in medical technology in regard to when a fetus is viable. 30 years ago, a fetus may have been able to live outside the uterus after 6 months, today, the window is smaller. A fetus may be able to live outside the uterus after only 3 months, 4 months. When you look at it this way, abortion rights for women are getting smaller.

[MidnightCoder]

I think in that context viable means more or less unassisted. So, no respirators, no incubators, no heroic measures. If that's correct (and I'll admit it's been years since this topic was at the forefront for me) then the window will not have changed that much.

[Kevin]

I must disagree with your conclusion, in fact, I did explain why it is wrong, but allow me to simplify.

Thanks. Honestly. I missed it!

#1 It has a significant, negative emotional impact on the innocent party's family and friends.

Yes, certainly. Still, this is a reason only why we should refrain from killing certain people. It says nothing about those who have neither friends or family. It does not address why a human, simply for being a human, should be regarded as having anything greater than zero intrinsic value.

#2 If degrades the species homo sapien to the level of other animals.

This one is difficult for me to answer. To sort it out... I don't see it as making so much the case for why we shouldn't kill humans as it is for why we shouldn't kill animals in the manner we currently do.

In one sense, and a primary one at that, we are different from the rest of the animal kingdom as a result of degree only rather than kind. There are, certainly, a lot of nonhuman animals who are far more rational, intelligent, and interactive creatures than are many humans. So why not kill mentally retarded humans? Why not kill stupid, uncomprehending babies? - and they're all dumb and uncomprehending. It's for reasons 1,5, and 7. The first two are reasons that do not relate to any specific type of morality other than for a reliance on a sense of enlightened self-awareness. I consider these to be valid reasons in practical terms but not anything to build a philosophy around; ethics does require a universal viewpoint. So I do wonder why the level of nonhuman animal is so degraded. I consider the primary reason for it as being that we consider them to be alien to ourselves. This notion gets to reason 7. Man is said to be created in God's image. We acquire a special significance as a result of our possession of the ability to communicate with God. The imperfect, then, is considered to be for the sake of the perfect, the irrational for the rational, the plants for the animals, and the animals for the humans. I see it as a comprehensive system of bullying best characterized as being a unity of oppression. That's rather harsh but I think the facts back up the contention.

I think Saint Francis had a clearer idea of dominion than did Aquinas, Descartes, or Augustine. What the latter exemplify in this matter, more than anything, is that the chief task to which humanity's ability to rationalize has been applied to has been that of justifying acts of brutality. And this is something that should be contrary to God's written and unwritten laws.

#3 It has economic impacts, loss of wages, funeral expenses, elimination of 1040 deduction.

True. Again though, this is a practical matter rather than a universal reason. It says nothing about why, say, one unemployed unattached shipmate shouldn't throw overboard, and to the bottom of the ocean, a similarly siuated shipmate.

#4 It has efficiency impacts, loss of corporate knowledge.

The same as above. Here though I'm not so sure that it's a negative that's being described. But this is beside the point.

#5 It has a disturbing effect on the psyche of society, is one safe?

True.

#6 It has unknown impacts on the future.

Well, doesn't everything?

#7 It is contrary to God's unwritten and written law.

I asked why you believe it's wrong to kill an innocent human - so yes this is certainly a reasonable and valid answer given the setup. But of course it's one too that will mean very little to someone who doesn't believe there is a God. It is then, despite the assertions to the contrary by believers, a subjective answer.

Here is my subjective answer, and I've been too coy prior to this point, for why I believe it wrong to kill an innocent human. It is because a person has interests. If a human shows the capability of experiencing either pain or pleasure I can no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration. Like I said, I believe ethics requires a universal standpoint. The flip-side is that if a human does not have the capability to experience either pain or pleasure, and hence lacks the capability of all other desires, then that human is of zero intrinsic value.

So to relate this to the question of abortion I will say that until a functioning brain and nervous system develops there is nothing wrong with abortion since the fetus lacks both sentience and interests. The only value it has at this time is purely of an extrinsic nature - that placed in it by others.

[etudiant]

Some very acute observations Kevin, and a good assessment of the debate, IMO.

Diverging slightly, I have often wondered how future generations might view our treatment of animals today. I can remember standing in a farmyard and watching a couple of pigs play around with an old rag doll, in the same manner that a puppy might do. I had a twinge at the time, thinking: is this ok that these animals are the subjects of factory farming? As science progresses and our knowledge of animal behavior increases, I wonder if the future will look back in horror at our meat markets and animal experimentation labs? Perhaps a pig with a well developed sense of its surroundings and fellows rates “higher” in a sense than an unborn human fetus.