Can We have a Civil Discussion about Abortion?

[Chuck Naill]

We're way off topic here.

oh well.

Not really. I'll bring it back.

Abortion is about intentionally ending human life. It's an ethical question with legal implications, and there are many approaches. Some are rational and some are rhetorical.

Semantic arguments about "it's just a clump of cells", for example, seem disingenuous. That clump of cells has its own DNA and can be identified as a distinct human if the examiner had no other information. Rhetorical arguments abound. False analogies of spontaneous abortions and miscarriages, some inherent right to choose, only women get a say and other (frankly) disingenuous arguments that serve to avoid the issue and demand a conclusion.

Intentionally ending human life (homicide) is part of humanity, for better or worse. War, self-defense and capital punishment are generally considered ethical homicide. Manslaughter and the varieties of murder aren't. We simply haven't come to a conclusion on this type of homicide.

One can make the religious argument, which means nothing to another who doesn't hold the same religious view. It's ultimately grounded in the irrational, the many rhetorical arguments justifying it notwithstanding.

There are no clear ethical (in the philosophic sense) arguments. Kant's categorical imperative is flawed. It holds that "make no law which can't be made universal". Where does that leave us? Never abort? Always abort? What about the life of the mother? What about congenital and fatal defects? Utilitarians and their greatest happiness principle maintains the problem of measuring "greatest happiness". Whose is measured? How is it given "weight"? A focus on intrinsic value (more Kant) creates the problem of having to choose between two entities with intrinsic value. Furthermore, what are the implications? Bold points out the problem of fertilized eggs in storage.

Being able to discuss this sort of thing rationally (or not), recognizing that it is laden with emotion and individual perception and personal stories; is precisely an example of (and sort of case-study for) the problems with the forum.

Chuck, I meant this post. You might respond to this one.

Most of his post is word salad or a feeble attempt to be relevant. He is a troll first and foremost to me.

Abortion remains a biologic and moral question for me. I do agree that it is ending human life. Please understand, If I am an apprentice of Jesus, it affects everything. If an unborn is a human, I respect them at whatever stage of development in the same way a first grader is relevant to a college grad. I can't say one is more valuable than the other, even if the grad is Bill Gates.

[TSherbs]

okie dokie

it's a lost opportunity

[Chuck Naill]

okie dokie

it's a lost opportunity

No, it is an opportunity to not repeat what I have already said, Ted.

[TSherbs]

okie dokie

it's a lost opportunity

No, it is an opportunity to not repeat what I have already said, Ted.

I don't recall that you have ever addressed the specific topics that he brings up here.

Perhaps I can prompt you a different way:

If you acknowledge that society and religion and government and many churches have justified *some* killing of humans (even children) as ethical (even as a duty), then what makes selective abortion of prenatal persons *not* one of those situations?

Perhaps you oppose ALL killing of humans no matter the situation (that would be the absolute position, which some people do take). I do not take that position, but perhaps you do.

[Chuck Naill]

okie dokie

it's a lost opportunity

No, it is an opportunity to not repeat what I have already said, Ted.

I don't recall that you have ever addressed the specific topics that he brings up here.

Perhaps I can prompt you a different way:

If you acknowledge that society and religion and government and many churches have justified *some* killing of humans (even children) as ethical (even as a duty), then what makes selective abortion of prenatal persons *not* one of those situations?

Perhaps you oppose ALL killing of humans no matter the situation (that would be the absolute position, which some people do take). I do not take that position, but perhaps you do.

I'm considering Americas' killing of Japanese children as a justification, on your behalf, with the dropping of bombs in WW2. Or killing, on your behalf, of children during the Vietnan war.

Did all Americans agree?

I have never justified or attempted to justify anything that I am aware.

[TSherbs]

okie dokie

it's a lost opportunity

No, it is an opportunity to not repeat what I have already said, Ted.

I don't recall that you have ever addressed the specific topics that he brings up here.

Perhaps I can prompt you a different way:

If you acknowledge that society and religion and government and many churches have justified *some* killing of humans (even children) as ethical (even as a duty), then what makes selective abortion of prenatal persons *not* one of those situations?

Perhaps you oppose ALL killing of humans no matter the situation (that would be the absolute position, which some people do take). I do not take that position, but perhaps you do.

I'm considering Americas' killing of Japanese children as a justification, on your behalf, with the dropping of bombs in WW2. Or killing, on your behalf, of children during the Vietnan war.

Did all Americans agree?

I have never justified or attempted to justify anything that I am aware.

I don't understand this post. What are you saying? I am asking why prenatal persons are not justifiable homicides while, say, enemies in war are justifiable? Why can we shoot an intruder in our home, but not terminate an early pregnancy? Why can a family pull the plug on a terminally ill family member but not on an early term fetus that is also terminally ill or that might cause the death of the mother?

This is what I am asking: why are early stage pregnancies different from these other cases?

[Chuck Naill]

okie dokie

it's a lost opportunity

No, it is an opportunity to not repeat what I have already said, Ted.

I don't recall that you have ever addressed the specific topics that he brings up here.

Perhaps I can prompt you a different way:

If you acknowledge that society and religion and government and many churches have justified *some* killing of humans (even children) as ethical (even as a duty), then what makes selective abortion of prenatal persons *not* one of those situations?

Perhaps you oppose ALL killing of humans no matter the situation (that would be the absolute position, which some people do take). I do not take that position, but perhaps you do.

I'm considering Americas' killing of Japanese children as a justification, on your behalf, with the dropping of bombs in WW2. Or killing, on your behalf, of children during the Vietnan war.

Did all Americans agree?

I have never justified or attempted to justify anything that I am aware.

I don't understand this post. What are you saying? I am asking why prenatal persons are not justifiable homicides while, say, enemies in war are justifiable? Why can we shoot an intruder in our home, but not terminate an early pregnancy? Why can a family pull the plug on a terminally ill family member but not on an early term fetus that is also terminally ill or that might cause the death of the mother?

This is what I am asking: why are early stage pregnancies different from these other cases?

And I am saying they are, just like you were in the 50's or 60's, or whenever you were conceived.

So stupid to have to repeat myself, synthetic surfactant is what allows children to survive.

[Chuck Naill]

Came across this quote, “Perhaps the most civilized idea ever developed in the West -- and one no tyrant can abide -- is that the individual has rights which limit the power of the state. But no individual could be more important than the Communist Party; it is the engine of history. ”

All that’s needed is to take away the definition of what constitutes an individual.

[kazoolaw]

I am asking why prenatal persons are not justifiable homicides while, say, enemies in war are justifiable? Why can we shoot an intruder in our home, but not terminate an early pregnancy? Why can a family pull the plug on a terminally ill family member but not on an early term fetus that is also terminally ill or that might cause the death of the mother?

This is what I am asking: why are early stage pregnancies different from these other cases?

"Enemies in war?" What hostile act has the child in the uterus taken against the mother? Can a child in the womb declare war, or win a war, against its mother?

"Intruder in our home?" What illegal act has the child committed? Does the child intend to steal? Or harm its mother?

Does characterizing ending life support as "pulling the plug," as one would a coffee maker, reflect a specific attitude toward the value of human life?

[Chuck Naill]

From 1972:

"QUESTION: Well, if — if — it were established
that an unborn fetus is a person within the protection
of the Fourteenth Amendment, you would have almost an
impossible case here, would you not?
MRS. WEDDINGTON: I would have a very difficult case.

They were discussing the same as we are, is the unborn a person.

Further exchanges between Justic Stewart and Mrs. Weddington,

"QUESTION: I'm sure you would. So if you had the
same kind of thing, you'd have to say that this would be the
equivalent after the child was born if the mother thought it
bothered her health any having the child around, she could
have it killed. Isn’t that correct?
MRS. «EDDINGTON: That's correct. That"

That the unborn is not a person is an "idea", not a fact in any sense. The 1973 decision rested on the idea that the unborn, not being a person, was not entitled to Constitutional protections.