Asymmetrical Information

Ronald Reagan's comment on the subject:

"I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born."
~Quoted in the New York Times, 22 September 1980

Sometimes, I think, abortion is the least bad option - but I can't think of a case where it is a good option.

I think one thing is clear. And that is that we feel the need to label ourselves.

There are people I know that call themselves pro-choice but on every vote that comes up in the Congress would've voted with the pro-lifers but would never call themselves a pro-lifer because of the stigma attached to it.

There are also people that call themselves pro-lifers because they don't want any "slack" from their circle of friends who are all pro-lifers.

Whatever the label we call ourselves, I think Jane's message is probably agreed to by 95% of the people. Dying of natural causes (cancer, heart disease, old age) and dying because someone actively snuffed you out is the analogy between miscarriage and abortion. Miscarriage is not abortion. Abortion isn't miscarriage.

And now for my position. I believe that government shouldn't be in the business of deciding on abortion (other than it's legality). Meaning, right now it's legal but I don't believe the government should take taxpayer dollars and PAY for abortions. If it's needed their can be other sources of funding including your own.

Could a miscarriage be murder (assuming abortion is murder, which I don't) if the woman acted with a reckless disregard for the safety of the fetus and that conduct resulted in its death? Let's say a woman knew that using drugs, alcohol or engaging in some form of phyical activity could result in a miscarriage and went ahead and engaged in behavior which did in fact cause a miscarriage. Arguably, that could be murder, if you hold the belief that abortion is murder. By and large, though, I think Jane is correct and that abortion rights advocates who raise arguments mentioned in Jane's post do nothing to advance their cause, and in fact end up looking like extremists.

I think the question is not so much whether there is a moral equivalent between dying of natural causes and being killed, but the question of whether there was life there to lose, and mourn. A better comparison would have been between a miscarriage at two weeks, and a miscarriage at four months. Both are tragedies, but not equivalently so. As such, it becomes difficult to argue that a fetus at Week X constitutes life if more than half of all pregnancies are miscarried by this time. Similarly, what if 90% of premature babies born at Week Y can be successfully raised with minimal complications? If the baby can live outside the womb, does an abortion at Week Y constitute murder? What if the survival rate is 5%?

I think his larger point is true - that what we really need to do is frame the in scientific terms. I don't mean dividing the stages of a pregnancy with an actuarial table, but making an informed moral judgement using all the scientific information available to us. It won't settle the issue, but at least we'll have a better idea of where we stand.

Eamon:

In many states women CAN be charged with a crime for causing harm to the fetus. I've heard of several cases in PA where women have been charged with child abuse for using drugs and alcohol while pregnant. Also, anyone causing harm or death to the mother of an unborn child can be charhed in the subsequent death of the unborn child, Isn't Scott Peterson being chargedin the murders of both his wife and his unborn child? Also, I have been following a case on the local news from Philadelphia where a woman was hit by a car and survived with a few broken bones, but the accident caused her to have a miscarriage; the driver is being charged with vehicular homicide in the death of the unborn child.

It seems to me women's rights' advocates want to have it both ways. I too am reluctantly pro-choice. Nevertheless, I have a hard time reconciling how a man has no right to force a woman to bear their child or to become a mother if she chooses not to, even if he agrees to raise that child without her, yet women have the right to force at least the financial portion of fatherhood on a man. I understand it is her body that must endure the pregnancy, but it is two adults performing a mutually consentual act that has placed them BOTH in this position (obviously excluding acts of rape which is a whole other discussion). Women are allowed to opt out of the long-term responsibility or accept it as they choose, men are not. Women are allowed to make that decision for them. It just seems a little one-sided when both parties were(ostensibly) happy to participate in the act that resulted in conception.

CHesse, you are correct that woman can be charged with harm to the fetus under certain circumstances, but can they be chared with MURDER? I am unaware of a jurisdiction that allows this. The Peterson case is somewhat off point, since if he's guilty, it appears that he did more than merely cause a miscarriage. He allegedly outright killed the fetus. We shall see what is proven in court, if anything.

"Similarly, I think it's pretty silly to argue that what takes place at conception is so trivial that there is no difference between an unfertilised egg and an implanted embryo."

And I think that statement is remarkably silly. Jane, sweetie, I tend to agree with you on this, but I find very little difference between conception and an implanted embryo. Then again, I don't believe in the concept of a "soul" and therefore the little fetus is no more than a conglomeration of cells in my mind until further on in the process. You know who makes the determination of how far along in the process? Me. My Fetus, my judgment.

I think part of the problem is that there is no scientific quantity that we can all agree on. I would say abortion is okay until the quickening, (barring other complecations) others would say until the third trimester, others would say never. Since we can't make a determination, because we can't agree, we have to let people decide for themselves, otherwise you're imposing your own moral belief stucture on other people.

Why is abortion any different then removing someone from life support? Is that murder or mercy?

I am not reluctantly pro-choice. I am wholeheartedly pro-choice. I know a few women who have had abortions, and I know that the emotional toll was enormous (and not remotely aided by the anti-choice activists running around). However, I would seriously fear for them had the choice been unavailable to them. In some cases, they would have been relegated to a hasty, bad marriage or single motherhood, w/o the ability to complete their educations. Others may have sought to end the pregnancy themselves. In that case, they would likely have suffered lasting damage, if not death.

Many folks can't imagine what it was like before abortion was legal. But back then, women did die. A present day example is Portugal, where abortion is illegal. I am not an expert on everything that might happen to a woman who has an abortion over there, but it is my understanding that they are often jailed. Not sure that is the direction we want to head.

The folks who consider themselves "reluctantly" pro-choice are copping out, or haven't thought of the consequences of being anti-choice.

As to the viability question, there will likely come a time (in 50 years, or 100) when we can take a fetus in the 1st trimester and incubate it elsewhere, then subsequently raise it with little likelihood of defects. At that point, if we wanted to ban abortion, perhaps it would make sense. However, I must imagine that such medical care would require enormous resources, and someone would have to actually raise the child. I up for paying a few more taxes to help - and that is the route we want to go. Is everyone else?

A. Sullivan is slowly become more unhinged as he attempts to manufacture excuses for his inevitable endorsement of Kerry (my bet is it will show up the last week of September). He's ranking opposition to gay marriage as more important than oppositions to gays being stoned, and potential restrictions on abortion more important that permanent second-class status for women. The cognitive dissonance of this position after being such a strong supporter of Bush early in the WoT is probably enough to make his brain explode, and it shows.

I've heard a lot of variations on this theme, most of which boil down to either "your body discards an egg every month--is that murder? Do you have an affirmative duty to get pregnant?" or "But half of all pregnancies end in miscarriage!"* The latter, in particular, seems bizarre to me -- are these people really unable to make any moral distinction between, say, dying of cancer and being hacked to death? I'm not arguing that abortion is murder, mind you; only `that this argument is a ludicrous refutation of the idea. The fact that people die of natural causes does not make homicide all right.

Exactly, it is a stupid argument but no more so than others from the pro-abortion side such as “if you’re against abortion, don’t have one” or “my body, my choice” or “if you’re against abortion, then you should pay to raise the child.” Just as there is a moral distinction between someone dying of natural causes and being killed by another, there is a distinction between stopping one person from harming another and having a duty to support the person in danger of being harmed.

Actually, my favorite part of Sullivan's post was his rhetorical question:

"is nature murderous?"

Andrew obviously needs to catch a few more nature documentaries.

There is a solution, and it must be right because no one likes it.

I describe it here.

First thing one has to notice is that Mr. Sullivan is discussing the views of the Roman Catholic Church on the subject involved and is trying to reason like a Catholic Thomist. Whatever one might say, 'Christianity, Andrew Sullivan gets it', isn't one of them and when he puts on his public catechist hat, no matter what the specific topic, is when one should skip the post, unless one would read something by Jerry Falwell on Shintoism for edification on Shintoism.

j mct,

If I’m not mistaken isn’t Andrew Sullivan Catholic or at least he claims to be?

In which case, he ought to have some knowledge of Catholic teachings, although that does not mean he is portraying them accurately.

Death penalty, war..abortion. We allow killing in special circumstances. We don't like it but we do it. We do it to save ourselves....

Actually, I think you are correct that Mr. Sullivan is a 'cradle Catholic' as the saying goes, and that as you say he "In which case, he ought to have some knowledge of Catholic teachings,", but he is not portraying them correctly, though I think that's from his ignorance rather than any malice.

Lot's of cradle Catholic's don't know about Thomistic philosophy, but those that don't generally don't attempt to explain it. Sullivan's different, and he's generally much worse than that that in that he botches up things far less obscure and technical than Thomism. I don't think I've ever read a post that had something to do with Catholicism/Christianity that he hasn't screwed something obvious up, and I'm not a professor either, it has to be pretty blatant for me to notice it.

It is obvious that there is a difference between an unfertilized egg and a fertilized egg. However it is also obvious that there is a difference between a fertilized egg and an adult human (and that there are many steps in between). So this argument cuts two ways.

And as for Parker's question as to whether abortion is ever a good option, I consider abortion a good option when it is known the fetus is seriously defective.

Scott:

In the cases you describe, was adoption not an option? Was there some reason that abortion was preferable to adoption?

Kate -

I think you have hit on the primary fulcrum of this issue. It all comes down to the soul. If you don't believe in an immortal, immaterial soul (and/or that it attaches itself to the fetus sometime before birth), it a question of esthetics, not morality. You are esthetically displeased by the thought of killing a fetus after the quickening, while others may have no problem with infanticide in the 3rd week, or for that matter the 5th year... De gustabus non est desputandum.

As if things could get just a tad bit more complicated, y'all might what to take a look at this. Last I looked, BBC is no where near the "right" of the political spectrum.

A new type of ultrasound scan has produced the vivid pictures of a 12 week-old foetus "walking" in the womb.

And I think that statement is remarkably silly. Jane, sweetie, I tend to agree with you on this, but I find very little difference between conception and an implanted embryo.

Say what, Kate? She didn't exactly make that argument. Frankly I see no difference between conception and an implanted embryo either (but to different conclusions than yourself).

However I *do* see a notable difference between the unfertilized egg, or a free-swimming sperm for that matter, and what occurs once they meet -- which was the critical part of her comparison AFAICT.

Pardon Anony-mouse, let me rephrase...

"I see no difference between a free swimming sperm next to a free floating egg and an implated embryo."

Happy now?

Jane Galt:

The latter, in particular, seems bizarre to me -- are these people really unable to make any moral distinction between, say, dying of cancer and being hacked to death?

Oh please. If anti-abortionists believe that induced abortion is morally akin to "being hacked to death" why aren't they calling for the prosecution of women who have abortions, or who destroy embryos produced by IVF or other fertility technologies, for the crime of murder? If they really believe that a fertilized egg is a person, and that spontaneous abortion is thus a form of natural infant mortality, why are aren't they demanding a massive investment of resources to reduce it? The answer is obvious: they don't really believe that abortion is murder. They don't really believe that a fertilized egg is a person.

I'm not arguing that abortion is murder, mind you; only that this argument is a ludicrous refutation of the idea.

What the phenomenon of spontaneous abortion helps to illustrate is that anti-abortionists themselves don't really believe that abortion is murder. They just pretend to believe it, in the context of induced abortions, for propaganda purposes. That's the big fat lie at the heart of the "pro-life" movement.

Similarly, I think it's pretty silly to argue that what takes place at conception is so trivial that there is no difference between an unfertilised egg and an implanted embryo.

Obviously, there is a physical difference. The abortion debate is in part a question of the moral significance of that physical difference. I think that difference is fairly small. The vast majority of people agree with me, which is why methods of birth control such as the IUD and the "morning after" pill, which may work by triggering the expulsion of the fertilized egg from the woman's uterus rather than by preventing fertilization from occurring in the first place, aren't much more controversial than ordinary contraception.

There may be a difference, but neither one has a brain.

Without a brain, there cannot be a person present. That happens some time after implantation but well before birth.

Thorley Winston:

Exactly, it is a stupid argument but no more so than others from the pro-abortion side such as “if you’re against abortion, don’t have one” or “my body, my choice” or “if you’re against abortion, then you should pay to raise the child.”

Um, what is "stupid" about the "my body, my choice" argument? The argument is that the choice of whether or not to act as a physical life-support system for a developing fetus belongs to the individual who is faced with that situation, not to the government. Why is that "stupid?"

Sometimes, I think, abortion is the least bad option - but I can't think of a case where it is a good option.

Good and bad are relative. The least bad option is the good option.

I think Andrew's point was that a first trimester spontainous miscarry is not usually treated as a life ended, ie. no funeral, etc.

aml:

In the cases you describe, was adoption not an option? Was there some reason that abortion was preferable to adoption?

Abortion may obviously be preferable to adoption in any case in which the pregnancy is unwanted. Going through the nine months of an unwanted pregnancy, childbirth, and giving the baby up for adoption may impose an enormous physical, emotional and social burden on a woman. It may threaten her life, her health, her career, her marriage, her ability to care for her dependents, and so on. It may change the whole course of her life. That is why so many women choose abortion, and why there will always be a demand for abortion, even if a perfect method of contraception is invented (which itself seems unlikely).

Nevertheless, I have a hard time reconciling how a man has no right to force a woman to bear their child or to become a mother if she chooses not to, even if he agrees to raise that child without her, yet women have the right to force at least the financial portion of fatherhood on a man. I understand it is her body that must endure the pregnancy, but it is two adults performing a mutually consentual act that has placed them BOTH in this position (obviously excluding acts of rape which is a whole other discussion). Women are allowed to opt out of the long-term responsibility or accept it as they choose, men are not.

The difference in the rights of the man and woman flow from the biological fact that it is the woman alone who bears the physical burden of pregnancy and childbirth. If she chooses to complete the pregnancy and the child is not given up to the authorities or for private adoption then she is legally responsible for it just as the father is. He assumed that responsibility by choosing to have sex.

Ronald Reagan's comment on the subject:
"I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born."
~Quoted in the New York Times, 22 September 1980

A comment of such vacuity that it lends credence to the claim that Reagan's Alzheimer's set in much earlier than is commonly supposed. Yes, "everybody that is for abortion has already been born".....meaning what, exactly? It is also trivially true that everybody that is for contraception has also already been born. Everybody that is for anything has already been born, in fact.

Don

Wow, where do I begin? Ah...first, the Carnack Award to

anti-abortionists themselves don't really believe that abortion is murder. They just pretend to believe it

So nice of you to know exactly how the pro-life side thinks. I'm sure the "oh my, we've been found out, time to disband" memo will soon be on its way to all members of the cabal.

Um, what is "stupid" about the "my body, my choice" argument?

Because, it doesn't work as an argument in any other arena of law. Think of laws pertaining to prostitution, incest, or illicit drugs.

Abortion may obviously be preferable to adoption in any case in which the pregnancy is unwanted

Obviously? In any case merely because pregnancy is inconvenient? And spare me the histrionics, for the majority of women, pregnancy is not a big deal, indeed it can be one of those healthy times of a woman's life. So promoting the idea of abortion being obviously preferable to adoption is highly suspect.

A comment of such vacuity that it lends credence to the claim that Reagan's Alzheimer's set in much earlier than is commonly supposed.

Another highly compassionate statement, right up there with the "dead is better than adopted" one. Yes, Reagan's statement is flip ... on purpose. Many of the pro-abortion (as distinguished from the pro-choice) activists are so fixated on politics of their position they fail to consider one is talking about another human life. Yes, nascent life, but human life, and abortion is, at best, a tragedy. Did you know there are survivors of abortion? A small group, and only from those times when late-term abortions were done by saline injection and before partial-birth abortion (which was developed in part to save the doctor the embarrassment of delivering a live baby during an abortion). This group of survivors tried to testify before Congress and was greeted with hostility. What is so threatening about human beings that survived abortions?

To use the cliche, abortions should be safe, legal and rare. To go further, an adult woman of sound mind within the first trimester has the right of first refusal to continue a pregnancy. It is tragic, but it is necessary. Outside those parameters, other factors necessitate government supervision, and even sanctions, of this procedure.

A fetus is not an ingrown toenail, and one rightfully wonders about the basic character of those that promote such a view.

Scott,

In some cases, they would have been relegated to a hasty, bad marriage or single motherhood, w/o the ability to complete their educations.

Definitely fates worse than death, which is why it's justifiable to blow somebody else away in order to avoid them, right? Sheesh, talk about enthusiastic!

"Since we can't make a determination, because we can't agree, we have to let people decide for themselves, otherwise you're imposing your own moral belief stucture on other people."

Imposing your own moral belief structure on other people is exactly what law is all about. You don't think people smoke outside in New York city because they like the weather year-round do you?

Oh but smoking hurts someone who doesn't want to smoke.....not like abortion at all.

Or if you don't like that, how about taxing someone who doesn't think that the government should provide homeless shelters? Such a person may be a heartless bastard, but you are still imposing your own moral structure on them by forcing them to pay money to support something they don't believe in.

The point is that the assumption of virtually all pro-lifers that "god doesn't like abortion" is just strange when you throw in the fact that half of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. "That's god's decision, not ours" doesn't help much either; what possible moral reason could god have for designing humanity to kill half of our children?

This is one of those areas where the "god says it's so" and "moral theory without reference to diety referree" are incommensurable.

Basically, people *say* they're pro-life because they believe a blastula has equivalent moral weight to a 35 year old, but people's consistency on this measure when it comes to miscarriage is spotty, to say the least.

Throw in that pro-lifers invariably are shocked that you say they should logically want abortion-having women to be thrown in jail, and the non-religious assessment starts to move over to "it's about sex regulation, nothing more."

CHILDBIRTH IS MURDER!!!
Scientists have shown that 100% eventually die. Abortion is the only way to prevent this.

Jason and DonP seem to be a little confused about what happens in miscarriage.

Miscarriages generally occur for one of two reasons:

1) There is something terminally wrong with the fetus, such that it will never develop into a human being, because its genes aren't right

2) There is something wrong with the woman, so that her womb won't support a normal pregnancy.

Type II miscarriages do have an incredible amount of resources thrown at them -- have you seen what a woman will do to avoid having one? Spend nine months in bed, if necessary. (This is not, whatever you might think, any fun).

Type I miscarriages aren't going to be fixed no matter what -- if a fetus doesn't have the right number or kind of chromosomes, we aren't going to be in a position to fix this for quite a while.

Jason, the "if God hates abortion, why does he cause so many miscarriages" is exactly the silliness I described in the post. Let's rephrase: "If God hates homicide, why does he kill everyone eventually?" Yet none of you, I think, would attempt to argue with the conviction of most religious people that God hates homicide.

Jane, I actually would argue with the premise that God hates homicide. If the Bible is to be believed (and it probably is not)he himself has engaged in the killing of many, many people. In Genesis, he wiped out the entire human race with the exception of a handful of amateur boat builders. Later, he obliterated two cities from the face of the earth. He also struck down poor Onan with a bolt of of the blue for failing to impregnate his brother's wife. And let's not forget how he helped the Israelites slay many of their foes in battle. Oh no, the God of the Bible does not hate homicide.

anti-abortionists themselves don't really believe that abortion is murder. They just pretend to believe it
Umm, I disagree rather strongly with that statement. Having worked with some pro-lifers who were so outspoken they had billboards on their cubes, houses and cars, and protested every saturday (unless the servers were down and they had to stay at the office), I think you must not have met some of the more foam-at-the-mouth bomb throwers. At least one of the ones I worked with would gladly imprison pregnant women until they delivered.

Unfortunately, the point of the post, that more than half of all "natural" conceptions end in miscarriages is totally lost on the really rabid crowd. The point that:
1) if life begins at conception, combined with
2) more than half of all conceptions never thrive to term (it is closer to 60% for in vivo, vs about 80% for in vitro)
implies
3) there is some conflict with a deity that kills more than half of its followers before they are born.
or possibly
4) life really doesn't begin at conception.

I think it is some form of selective amnesia, or a fervent desire to avoid the logical conclusions of the issue. And Jason's point is not out of line. And no less trite than the reagan quote. Contradictions happen when one or more of your axioms are incorrect. Which axioms are the ones that the pro-life/pro-choice crowds consider inviolate?

As for the type 1 and type 2 miscarriages, I agree. There are lots of resources thrown into creating a "keep the baby in" pill. While not marketed publically for that purpose, Thalidomide was hinted to do exactly that. Many of the "flipper" kids probably would have been a type 1 miscarriage. It is hard not to cry when you see one.

Watching a neighbor spend several hundred grand trying to have children when they were unable (repeated miscarriages and stillbirths) was also heartbreaking. The depression they both went through each time there was a failure was very intense.

When I was younger, I tried to adopt, but the hurdles preventing adoption were, and are, quite high. Even for older, black children. Do you want (or need) an abortion? I wish you didn't. But I cannot and will not stop you.

Don't pay attention to mindless trolls like Don P. He isn't saying anything that he hasn't said a thousand times before, regardless of the context. Pro-lifers are hypocrites, abortion is wonderful, blah, blah, blah. Anywhere someone uses the word "abortion" on the internet, he inevitably shows up to spout the exact same talking points. Whatever.

* * *

This was particularly silly:

1) if life begins at conception, combined with
2) more than half of all conceptions never thrive to term (it is closer to 60% for in vivo, vs about 80% for in vitro)
implies
3) there is some conflict with a deity that kills more than half of its followers before they are born.
or possibly
4) life really doesn't begin at conception.

No, neither 3 nor 4 follow. Some conceptions end in miscarriage. This proves absolutely nothing about whether abortion is ok. Every human life ends in death, because we all die of something eventually. That neither proves nor implies ANYTHING about whether murder is ok.

'Jason, the "if God hates abortion, why does he cause so many miscarriages" is exactly the silliness I described in the post. Let's rephrase: "If God hates homicide, why does he kill everyone eventually?" Yet none of you, I think, would attempt to argue with the conviction of most religious people that God hates homicide.'

So it's ok for god to spontaneously abort, but not humans? You can assert that life begins at conception, but that's one fucked up definition of life.

Jason, take it up with God, not me. I'm merely pointing out that your argument can equally well be used to defend the idea that since people die of natural causes all the time, it is therefore okay for me to kill them. Unless you're willing to endorse that statement, I don't think you can honestly employ it in favour of abortion.

Jason, your philosophy shatters because you appear to be creating God in your own image, as though God were some finite, "average joe in a white suit" sorta being or else a merry prankster-in-the-sky, roles into which He so inevitably seems to be cast for motion picture purposes. (I apologize in advance if any of the following seems irritable, but I just saw my cousin's beautiful one-week-old son, whom she refused to abort even though he was conceived under un-ideal circumstances and she was offered full compensation for the procedure costs, so the miracle of unmolested life is a bit real ATM.)

Now, I don't know what your views are on God, although since you like the lower-case 'g' render I'm guessing you don't place much stock. That's your choice of course, but how does that leave you an understanding by which to comment on His attributes? Anyway, since God is essential to your argument, let's accept His existence and begin with first principles. God is a higher-order being who exists outside of human time, knows all possible ends before the beginning takes place, and can make decisions that are absolutely just because there is nothing He doesn't know (unlike human justice, which has to do the best job it can with whatever knowledge it can aquire, and without omniscient foresight).

Furthermore, everyone reports back to God when they die because God creates in each person a unique spirit. From God it came and to God alone it is accountable in death. Thus God can justly call a human out of the mortal coil just like you can justly prune your rose bushes on your own property, but if someone else targets your flora for destruction, it's tresspassing and theft UNLESS you gave permission first.

Now, you may not acknowledge the validity of that perspective, but since you wish to criticize it, exactly HOW is that the same as a fallible human making fallible decisions about the value of life? As the classic email anecdote points out, by human medical reckoning, Beethoven was a prime abortion candidate.

Darleen:

Because, it doesn't work as an argument in any other arena of law.

Nonsense. Of course it does. As Laurence Tribe has pointed out, in no other context does the law require one person to make a sacrifice even remotely as great as unwanted pregnancy and childbirth in order to save the life of another person (let alone to save the life of something that has a much lower moral status than a person). We do not compel a parent to donate organs or tissue to save the life of his child, even if he is the only match and the child will certainly die without it.

Think of laws pertaining to prostitution, incest, or illicit drugs.

What about those laws? The argument isn't that people have an unlimited, absolute right to do whatever they like with their bodies; the argument is that people have a right to refuse to use their bodies as a physical life-support system for a developing fetus. Again, what is "stupid" about that argument?

Obviously?

Yes, obviously.

In any case merely because pregnancy is inconvenient?

An unwanted pregnancy is not a mere "inconvience." As I said, it may threaten a woman's life, health, career, marriage, family, and so on. It may change the course of her life. Even healthy pregnancies pose significant risks. So spare me this "it's only an inconvenience" nonsense.

And spare me the histrionics, for the majority of women, pregnancy is not a big deal,

Spare me the nonsense. Given that over a million women a year have an abortion, and that over 40% of American women will have at least one abortion by the time they are 45, unwanted pregnancy is obviously a very big deal to a great many women. It may not be a big deal to you, but fortunately you don't speak for other women.

Darleen:

Yes, Reagan's statement is flip ... on purpose.

It's not "flip," it's just dumb.

Many of the pro-abortion (as distinguished from the pro-choice) activists are so fixated on politics of their position they fail to consider one is talking about another human life.

Whether an embryo or fetus qualifies as a "human life" in a morally significant sense is one of the very issues in dispute.

Yes, nascent life, but human life, and abortion is, at best, a tragedy.

It depends on the nature of the abortion. For example, I don't consider the expulsion of a fertilized egg from a woman's uterus via an IUD or the "morning after" pill to be a "tragedy" in any meaningful sense at all. Most Americans seem to agree with me. Even most anti-abortionists seem to agree with me, which is why they are largely indifferent to such methods of birth control.

Did you know there are survivors of abortion?

Yes, almost all women who have an abortion survive the procedure, because it's extremely safe. Completing a pregnancy, by contrast, is much more dangerous to a woman's life and health. The chances of dying from taking a pregnancy to term and giving birth are about ten times greater than the chances of dying from an induced abortion.

Jane Galt:

Jason and DonP seem to be a little confused about what happens in miscarriage.

It's rather hard to respond to this claim unless you identify the statements of mine you believe to be "confused" and why you think that.

Miscarriages generally occur for one of two reasons:1) There is something terminally wrong with the fetus, such that it will never develop into a human being, because its genes aren't right
2) There is something wrong with the woman, so that her womb won't support a normal pregnancy.

Yes.

Type II miscarriages do have an incredible amount of resources thrown at them

This claim is nonsense. The resources we spend to reduce the rate of infant mortality utterly dwarf the resources we spend to reduce female infertility. A hospital may spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to save the life of a single premature baby. We spend billions of dollars on public health initiatives, vaccination programs, child health and nutitrtion programs, and the whole apparatus of modern pediatric medicine, in order to prevent children from dying. As a result, we have reduced the natural rate of infant mortality (something like 20-40% of all children born) to a tiny fraction of that figure. In contrast, we spend virtually nothing to prevent spontaneous abortion. It may be that with an investment of a few hundred million dollars--a tiny fraction of what we spend to prevent infant mortality--we could produce a drug that women could take that would reduce the rate of spontaneous abortion dramatically. In fact, since the rate of spontaneous abortion is so high, even a modest decrease in that rate would save as many or more "unborn babies" than are destroyed through induced abortion. And there would be virtually no opposition to it. Many women who are trying to get pregnant would be eager to take a drug that would significantly reduce their chances of miscarrying. So why isn't the anti-abortion movement pushing for such an investment? Answer: because they don't care much about all the "unborn babies" who die from spontaneous abortion. Their primary motive is not to save fetal life but to prevent women from making reproductive choices for themselves.

Type I miscarriages aren't going to be fixed no matter what -- if a fetus doesn't have the right number or kind of chromosomes, we aren't going to be in a position to fix this for quite a while.

Another claim that betrays the fact that you don't know what you're talking about. Scientists don't really know what causes the kinds of genetic abnormalities that may lead to spontaneous abortion. There are likely to be many causes, at least some of which are amenable to therapy through drugs or other medical intervention. We don't really know because there just hasn't been enough research into the question. And there isn't much research because there just isn't much public pressure for it.

Jason, the "if God hates abortion, why does he cause so many miscarriages" is exactly the silliness I described in the post. Let's rephrase: "If God hates homicide, why does he kill everyone eventually?"

That's easy: Perhaps God doesn't hate homicide (how would you know?). Or perhaps he doesn't hate homicide of people who are close to natural death anyway. As a society, we seem to view the death of an old person as much less of a tragedy than the death of young one. Often, we view the death of an old person as not really a tragedy at all, in some cases as a blessing, in fact. Similarly, we tend to view miscarriage as much less of a tragedy than the death of a child. These facts further undermine your equating of induced abortion with murder.

Joe M:

Some conceptions end in miscarriage.

No, it's not merely "some." On current estimates, at least half and perhaps as many as three-quarters of all conceptions end in miscarriage. The obvious implication of this fact is that your God doesn't care very much about the "lives" of embryos and fetuses. If he does care about them, why did he design a reproductive system in which 50-75% of them die, usually before the woman even knows she is pregnant? And if your God doesn't care very much about the lives of "unborn babies," why should you? The God you worship is the biggest abortionist of all.

DonP:

It's obvious you and the late Ronald Reagan are poles apart politically - but politics and common courtesy are not mutually exclusive. Implying the (late) Ronald Reagan was "dumb" was unnecessary - and completely classless. It takes a truly petty and insecure individual to attack the dead; they can't respond.

However, based what I've read in your posts here, such conduct really doesn't surprise me. From what I can tell, your mind seems much like the door on a Volkswagon I used to own: small, and permanently closed.

Jane Galt:

Jason, take it up with God, not me.

"Take it up with God." Brilliant.

Alrighty, then: I just called God up on the phone, and he says you're wrong.

I'm merely pointing out that your argument can equally well be used to defend the idea that since people die of natural causes all the time, it is therefore okay for me to kill them.

No, you're not "pointing out" that, because it doesn't follow. Killing a born person is likely to significantly shorten what would otherwise be his natural lifespan. Killing a zygote/embryo/fetus that does not have the mental or physical capacities of a born person and that has a good chance of dying soon anyway obviously does not involve a deprivation of even remotely similar magnitude. And again, this is obvious even from the behavior of anti-abortionists, most of whom do not treat the killing of a fetus as even remotely as bad as the killing of a born person.

Honda:

It's obvious you and the late Ronald Reagan are poles apart politically - but politics and common courtesy are not mutually exclusive. Implying the (late) Ronald Reagan was "dumb" was unnecessary - and completely classless.

I don't think I implied that he was dumb. I said his statement was dumb. I do think Ronald Reagan was a fool.

It takes a truly petty and insecure individual to attack the dead; they can't respond.

I guess you have nothing bad to say about Adolph Hitler, then. Or Stalin. Or Timothy McVeigh. Or any dead person, no matter how bad they were. After all, if you did say something bad about Hitler that would--according to you--reveal how petty, insecure and completely classless you are.

Sebastian H:

Imposing your own moral belief structure on other people is exactly what law is all about.

Maybe in your country it is, but in America, what the law is all about is securing rights. Since there is a broad consensus that a woman has a right to abortion, at least in some circumstances, and no consensus about a supposed "right to life" of fertilized eggs, embryos or fetuses, the law reflects that. The law does not, and is not supposed to, reflect beliefs about what is "moral." Just because something is immoral doesn't mean it should be illegal. I suspect even you would accept that.

DonP, yes, you are confused. All those very premature babies you're talking about saving the lives of would have been miscarriages fifty years ago. Moreover, the chance of miscarriage at the point where a woman knows that she's pregnant are much, much lower than 50%; the odds are only 50% at point of conception. The rest of your ranting is just inconsistent and silly

I believe Galt's description of type I miscarriages above is misleading. In many such cases the fetus is not completely incapable of developing into a human being. Instead evolution has "decided" that the fetus is a bad bet and it is better to throw it away and start over. Note in some cases this is adapative for the fetus as well as for the mother so a fetus might "want" to be aborted.

It seems likely that, with research, ways could be found to defeat the mechanisms evolution has developed to throw away damaged fetuses. (Contrary to a post above I don't believe that Thalidomide acts in this way.) Some of the more extreme anti-abortion rhetoric might suggest society is morally obligated to try to save these fetuses. I don't agree.

Jane Galt:

DonP, yes, you are confused.

No, I'm not. You don't know what you're talking about.

All those very premature babies you're talking about saving the lives of would have been miscarriages fifty years ago.

No, some of them would have been miscarriages and some of them would have been infant mortalities. I have no idea what point, if any, you're trying to make anyway. The fact is that we spend vastly, vastly, vastly more on preventing the deaths of children than we do on preventing the deaths of zygotes, embryos and fetuses. And the reason we do that is because we properly value the lives of children vastly, vastly, vastly more than the lives of zygotes, embryos and fetuses. If anti-abortionists truly believed that a zygote is as valuable as a baby, they would be protesting this as a massive misallocation of health care resources. If they truly believed that a zygote is as valuable as a baby, they'd be calling for the prosecution of women who take the "morning after" pill. If they truly believed that a zygote is as valuable as a baby, they would refuse to allow zygotes to be killed even if they were conceived through rape. But they don't do any of those things because they don't believe their own demented rhetoric.

Moreover, the chance of miscarriage at the point where a woman knows that she's pregnant are much, much lower than 50%; the odds are only 50% at point of conception.

Yes, the 50% estimate applies from fertilization. And the point is....what? Do you have an actual argument to make, or are you just going to keep dangling these nonsequiturs out there?

Don P:

Wow, you talk to God on the phone? Can you post His number? I have a few questions I'd love to ask . . . .

Pardon me if I don't hold my breath waiting.

You very obviously have a problem with understanding simple logic. Both arguments - the one you advance, and the counter-example Jane proposed - have precisely the same logical structure, to wit:
a. Premise 1: Many X die all the time.
b. Premise 2: Y causes X to die.
c. Premise 3: It is right for Y to cause X to die.
d. Conclusion: It is right for Z to cause X to die.

In the examples, X is either a zygote/fetus or a "born person" (to use your words); Y is “God”; Z is "any human". Unless Z and Y are equivalent, the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises. In the examples under discussion, this is only true if "any human" and "God" are equivalent (technically, from the same equivalence class); that is, if God and Man are equals. I frankly doubt that any of us communicating on this blog are God's equal.

"Killing a born person is likely to significantly shorten what would otherwise be his natural lifespan. Killing a zygote/embryo/fetus that does not have the mental or physical capacities of a born person and that has a good chance of dying soon anyway obviously does not involve a deprivation of even remotely similar magnitude."

A few other, practical problems with your above statement:

a. Define "born person". Are we talking a newborn? A 1 year old? A 5 year old? A 30 year old, but severely retarded, person? A normal adult male/female? An Alzheimer's victim who can no longer communciate? You?
b. Define "good chance" and "soon"? Are we talking 80% and 5 minutes? 50% and 6 months? 20% and 30 years? 5% in a century?
c. If killing a fetus "does not involve a deprivation of even remotely similar magnitude" than killing a "born person", how does killing a fetus that is nearly at term (and viable) rank?
d. If the "magnitude of deprivation" is key, then is killing a terminally ill person without their consent OK? How about a mentally ill person who cannot give consent? How about a physically defective person who can no longer care for themselves (e.g., a quadriplegic or someone who is bedridden with MS or ALS)?
e. Who makes these decisions?

God I trust to make these kinds of decisions. The rest of us making them as we see fit - well, I'm not so sure I like that idea.

You also seem to have a problem with the distinction between criticism of a person's actions and a personal attack on an individual. The two are not the same. The former is, IMO, fair game at any time. Personal attacks on the dead, on the other hand, ARE classless.

Hitler, Stalin, and McVeigh all committed crimes against humanity. These crimes are documented historical facts. Crimes against humanity are generally regarded as wrong; the perpetrators are generally regarded as "evil". To state this is not a personal attack; it is merely restating facts. To critcize the conduct of persons such as Hitler, Stalin, or McVeigh is not a personal attack on them.

A personal attack on any of these individuals - for example, publicly deeming them to be of subnormal intellect while simultaneously stating that they engaged in incestuous conduct with their maternal parent - would IMO be tasteless and classless EVEN IF TRUE. Why? Let me put it in simple terms for you: they are dead and can not respond - either in defense, or in kind.

Apparently, the concepts of "good taste" and "showing some class" are not concepts to which you subscribe.

You also might want to clean your glasses (or remove the log from your eye). “Honda” is a Japanese manufacturing firm. As far as I know, they do not have a representative posting here.

Honda:

Wow, you talk to God on the phone? Can you post His number?

He told me not to give it to you.

In the examples, X is either a zygote/fetus or a "born person" (to use your words); Y is “God”; Z is "any human". Unless Z and Y are equivalent, the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises. In the examples under discussion, this is only true if "any human" and "God" are equivalent (technically, from the same equivalence class); that is, if God and Man are equals. I frankly doubt that any of us communicating on this blog are God's equal.

You're not listening. If your God cares so little about the lives of fetuses, why should you? If your God does care about the lives of fetuses, why does he kill so many of them?

a. Define "born person".

A human being who has been born and satisfies the legal criterion for personhood. That would include everyone within a broad range of coginitive function. It obviously does not include fetuses.

b. Define "good chance"

50-75% chance.

and "soon"?

Certainly within 9 months, and most likely within days or weeks.

c. If killing a fetus "does not involve a deprivation of even remotely similar magnitude" than killing a "born person", how does killing a fetus that is nearly at term (and viable) rank?

Higher than, say, a 3-month-old fetus but much lower than a born person.

d. If the "magnitude of deprivation" is key, then is killing a terminally ill person without their consent OK?

Probably not, no.

How about a mentally ill person who cannot give consent?

Also probably not.

How about a physically defective person who can no longer care for themselves (e.g., a quadriplegic or someone who is bedridden with MS or ALS)?

Probably not.

e. Who makes these decisions?

If by "OK" you mean "legal," the government. If you mean "OK" in the sense of "morally licit," each of us individually.

God I trust to make these kinds of decisions. The rest of us making them as we see fit - well, I'm not so sure I like that idea.

We cannot help but make them. We certainly can and do choose to act in ways that cause people to die.

You also seem to have a problem with the distinction between criticism of a person's actions and a personal attack on an individual. The two are not the same.

I know they're not the same. I first criticized Reagan's statement. I then criticized Reagan himself. I understand that these are not the same thing.

Personal attacks on the dead, on the other hand, ARE classless.

So, again, you have nothing bad to say about the person Adolph Hitler, right? In fact, you believe that anyone who says anything bad about Adolph Hitler himself--a Jewish concentration camp survivor, for example--is "classless," in addition to being "petty" and "insecure."

You really believe that, do you?

Hitler, Stalin, and McVeigh all committed crimes against humanity.

So what? They are also dead. And you just said that anyone who makes personal attacks on dead people is classless, petty and insecure. Or are personal attacks on the dead okay as long the dead person was a bad person? Or what? Make up your mind.

To critcize the conduct of persons such as Hitler, Stalin, or McVeigh is not a personal attack on them.

I see. So a Jew who was freed from Dachau may legitimately say "Hitler's actions were bad," but if he says "Hitler was a bad man," then he is classless, petty and insecure, in your view, right?

It seems likely that, with research, ways could be found to defeat the mechanisms evolution has developed to throw away damaged fetuses.

Yes. There is no reason to think that if we devoted greater resources to infertility research and treatment we could not lower the rate of spontaneous abortion dramatically, just as we have lowered the rate of infant mortality dramatically.

Using the more conservative scientific estimate of the rate of spontaneous abortion (around 50%), and given the fact that births outnumber induced abortions by about 4-to-1, we would only have to reduce the spontaneous abortion rate by about 20% in order to "save" as many "unborn babies" as are "killed" through induced abortion. Yet the anti-abortion movement virtually ignores the issue of spontaneous abortion. If they really are motivated by a desire to protect "unborn babies," as they claim to be, this indifference makes no sense.

Which is why it's safe to conclude that their primary motive for opposing induced abortion is considerably less noble than the desire to save babies.

Guys -- seriously, don't pay attention to stupid trolls. Don P. does nothing but taunt pro-lifers, no matter what the discussion is actually about. Nothing that you say will penetrate his skull (which is so thick that it couldn't have been crushed in utero).

Seriously folks, pay no attention to fanatical morons like Joe M.

Don P, actually in the US the ratio of live births to abortions is more like 3. In 1999 there were 3.959 million births and 1.315 million abortions for a ratio of 3.01.

"Jason, take it up with God, not me. I'm merely pointing out that your argument can equally well be used to defend the idea that since people die of natural causes all the time, it is therefore okay for me to kill them."

Oh, I see the confusion now

I'm not stating that "abortion is ok because humans naturally miscarry 50% of the time"; I don't think it has anything to do with why abortion should be legal.

I'm stating that I don't understand how anyone can simlatenously hold the opinion "god is against abortion" with "50% of all pregnancies result in miscarriage, weighted heavily towards the extremely early end of the term." I know, I know, it's religion, but the benevolent god vs. bizarrely-enamored-of-random-suffering god conflict there is pretty large.

James Shearer:

It doesn't really matter whether it's 3 or 4. The point is that even a modest reduction in the rate of spontaneous abortion would "save" as many "unborn babies" as reducing the rate of induced abortion to zero.

Having said that, I don't know where you get your figures from, but as reported by the CDC, in its publication Abortion Surveillance -- United States 2000, the ratio of live births to abortions was 3.9 in 1999, and 4.1 in 2000.

I know, I know, it's religion, but the benevolent god vs. bizarrely-enamored-of-random-suffering god conflict there is pretty large.

Yes, but the fact that it's religion means we're supposed to give it a pass, indulge its adherents' irrationalities, and not ask any awkward questions or make any observations that suggest it's a crock of shit.

Because that would be offensive and disrespectful towards the religious, and we just can't have that.

Don P, my source is the statistical abstract of the United States. See tables 102 and 103 in the 2003 edition which is on the web. Table 103 defines abortion ratio as the ratio to live births plus abortions while your source defines it as the ratio to live births. Looks to me like someone has made a rather large blunder but I don't know who.

Don P:

Oh, I see now. You have a clear channel to talk to God, so anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. Moreover, you're His gatekeeper, chosen to determine who can and cannot speak with Him.

Give me a f***ing break! Get down off your high horse, go find a dime - and then go buy yourself a clue. Neither you, nor I (nor anyone else on this planet) is infallible. From what I have read here, that applies to you far more than most.

You really are a piece of work. You reply to criticism selectively and incompletely. When you have a half-baked answer, you give it. If you have no answer for criticism, you ignore arguments. Your answers would be better, of course, if you read and actually thought about criticisms. But, of course, you are RIGHT - so anyone one who disagrees with you is WRONG. This saves you time via eliminating the need to actually read and think about what your critics are saying.

Your reply above to "Honda" is, for the most part, not worth comment - with three exceptions.

1. What God chooses to do (or not do) is irrelevant. So is my belief (or lack of belief) in Him - which I have never clearly stated in this forum one way or another. If one believes the traditional Judeo-Christian-Islamic theory of God, He is omnipotent, omniscient, and infallible. In short, God is God and can do what He wants; His rules are different than those for Man.

However here, we are discussing human conduct. In contrast, Man lives by socially accepted rules - Divinely inspired or not - called "custom" or "law" (the alternative is called "anarchy"). The matter originally posted for discussion was the logical inconsistency (some would say absurdity) of certain pro-choice arguments.

IMO, all you have done is consistently reiterate these same inconsistent arguments without adding anything in the way of justification or clarification. Instead, you have (perhaps deliberately) added non-sequiturs and obfuscated to distract from this discussion. But of course, you are right and everyone else is wrong.

2. Your use of the concentration camp survivor image in your reply above is simultaneously both pathetic and reprehensible. It also shows, very clearly, that you either did not bother to read what I previously wrote or are deliberately dissembling.

I have not in ANY way defended the conduct of Hitler, Stalin, or any other historical mass murderer. Moreover, I resent your rather clumsy attempt to insinuate that I would defend them. These individuals can be validly criticized as evil based solely on their documented conduct - and have been virtually universally.

However, even evil persons deserve certain basic respect as human beings. Personal attacks against the dead (as opposed to criticism of their conduct) IMO are simply not justified.

Let me once again state as clearly as I can: publicly denouncing someone as evil or a "bad person" (your words) is NOT a personal attack IF THEIR DOCUMENTED CONDUCT PROVES THAT THEY WERE IN FACT EVIL. A concentration-camp survivor (or anyone else, for that matter) is fully justified in publicly stating that Hitler was an evil person; the Holocaust itself documents that to be indisputable fact. This is NOT a personal attack on Hitler; it is merely the restatment of accepted fact regarding his conduct. However, IMO it WOULD be classless and tasteless of anyone - even a concentration camp survivor - to publicly call him a "stupid one-b*lled mother-f**king sonofabitch", even if it was the absolute and indisputable truth. Understandable, yes - but classless and tasteless nonetheless.

I personally think you are fully capable of understanding the distinction here. I also think you will never acknowledge this fact, as it would require you to admit you were previously wrong. I don't think you are capable of doing that.

3. Lastly, your answer to "Honda" demonstrates that you either (a) cannot (or will not) read; (b) are as careless in your posting as you are illogical; or (b) are trying (and failing) to be deliberately insulting. "Honda" has never posted in this blog 'thread'.

In general, I do not ascribe to malice that which can be explained by error, ignorance, or incompetence. In your case, however, I am close to making an exception to this general rule - or perhaps concluding that all of the above are equally applicable.

PS: In the "for what it's worth" department: the best evidence is that the majority of those killed in Nazi genocide were NOT Jewish; roughly 2/3 were non-Jewish Slavs from Eastern Europe (see http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NAZIS.CHAP1.HTM ).

One side of my family originally hails from Poland and Lithuania (then part of the former USSR). Roughly one out of every 6 Poles and former Soviet citizens under Nazi rule during World War II were apparently murdered in cold blood by the Nazi regime. I don't know with certaintly one way or the other - but it's damn well possible that I have a family "blood stake" regarding the Holocaust. Perhaps this is why I (along with many others) find the cavalier use of Holocaust imagery disturbing.

Jason:

I'm stating that I don't understand how anyone can simlatenously hold the opinion "god is against abortion" with "50% of all pregnancies result in miscarriage, weighted heavily towards the extremely early end of the term." I know, I know, it's religion, but the benevolent god vs. bizarrely-enamored-of-random-suffering god conflict there is pretty large.

How so? Another premise of Judeo-Christian theology is that God is good and instituted good, but gave man a choice: and man chose evil because it freed him (so he thought) from accountability. Thus, suffering. By rights, man is entitled to as much suffering as he can aquire since all mankind, left strictly to its own devices, chooses to defect; but God in benevolence sometimes stops or limits suffering so that it will not go beyond any good that He chooses to work out in the end. A miscarriage is an event permitted or directed by God according to omniscient knowledge, but man with fallible knowledge and limited foresight is tresspassing if he decides to arbitrate the same.

As I stated before, you may not agree with that perspective if you don't place any stock in God; but what logical inconsistency are you actually claiming to criticize here?

Honda:

What God chooses to do (or not do) is irrelevant.

Huh? Why is what God chooses to do irrelevant?

So is my belief (or lack of belief) in Him

Why is your belief or lack of belief in God irrelevant?

In short, God is God and can do what He wants; His rules are different than those for Man.

How do you know what his rules are? If God cares so little about "unborn babies" that he kills between half and three-quarters of them days or weeks after they come into existence, why should you care about them?

However here, we are discussing human conduct. In contrast, Man lives by socially accepted rules - Divinely inspired or not - called "custom" or "law" (the alternative is called "anarchy").

The point is that the claim by anti-abortionists that their position is a reflection of their God's will seems rather implausible in light of the fact that their God is the biggest abortionist of all.

Your use of the concentration camp survivor image in your reply above is simultaneously both pathetic and reprehensible.

Nonsense. YOU SAID that making a personal attack on a dead person is "classless, petty and insecure." Therefore, according to you, for a Jewish concentration camp survivor to make a personal attack on Adolph Hitler is "classless, petty and insecure."

If you now wish to retract or modify your claim about personal attacks on the dead, then do so.

anony:

How so? Another premise of Judeo-Christian theology is that God is good and instituted good, but gave man a choice: and man chose evil because it freed him (so he thought) from accountability. Thus, suffering.

Then why does God so often inflict suffering on those who are innocent of evil, rather than on those who are guilty of it? What evil have fetuses committed that justifies killing half or more of them? What evil have all the millions of children who die every year from disasters and diseases committed to justify their suffering and death?

If God is just, your explanation makes no sense, because there isn't the slightest shred of evidence that God inflicts suffering on the evil and withholds it from the innocent or righteous.

A miscarriage is an event permitted or directed by God according to omniscient knowledge, but man with fallible knowledge and limited foresight is tresspassing if he decides to arbitrate the same.

Then why isn't "man with fallible knowledge and limited foresight" also "trespassing" when he tries to prevent death? If the deaths caused by disasters and diseases are all part of God's plan that we mere mortals cannot possibly understand, what business do we have trying to thwart that plan by preventing those deaths? You can't have it both ways: Either man can legitimately interfere with God's life-and-death decisions, or he can't. So which is it?

what logical inconsistency are you actually claiming to criticize here?

I just described the logical inconsistency in your position.

As further evidence of Don P.'s stupidity, he's still making the same bizarre claim:

If God cares so little about "unborn babies" that he kills between half and three-quarters of them days or weeks after they come into existence, why should you care about them?

This is EXACTLY like saying, "If God cares so little about human beings that he kills us all (i.e., because we all die eventually), why should anyone care to ban murder?" This argument is unbelievable asinine. The fact that human beings die naturally is NOT an argument for allowing them to be KILLED.

'I don't understand how anyone can simlatenously hold the opinion "god is against abortion" with "50% of all pregnancies result in miscarriage, weighted heavily towards the extremely early end of the term."'

Read a bit of the Old Testament and it will become clear. God can kill. He doesn't want YOU to - except on his direct instructions, in which case you may slaughter indiscrimately.

Joe M:

This is EXACTLY like saying, "If God cares so little about human beings that he kills us all (i.e., because we all die eventually), why should anyone care to ban murder?"

No, it's not exactly the same. It's not even similar. As I already pointed out, one big difference is that murder typically deprives the victim of many years or decades of natural life, a life that, in your theology, is supposed to be some kind of test or rehearsal that determines one's fate in the supposed afterlife. In contrast, there is a good chance (50-75% or so) that God will kill a fetus even if it isn't aborted. If God cares so much about fetuses, why does he do this? Why doesn't the fact that your God kills so many fetuses suggest that he doesn't care about them very much, and therefore that you shouldn't either?

Read a bit of the Old Testament and it will become clear. God can kill. He doesn't want YOU to - except on his direct instructions, in which case you may slaughter indiscrimately.

If God is just, why does he instruct people to slaughter other people indiscriminately? Why does he instruct people to slaughter others at all?

Don P:

It has become obvious that you cannot discuss these issues objectively and logically. Whether it is because you simply cannot read clear English prose, cannot think logically, or are deliberately engaging in obfuscation or provocation is unclear. It also doesn't matter.

You ask me if i'd like to "reconsider my position". I have already answered that question with abundant clarity. Re-read my last post - if you are capable of doing so without assistance - and you will see that I have no desire to do so. As I have previously very clearly stated: IMO, PERSONAL attacks on the dead are simply not justified. Depending on the circumstances, such a personal attack might be understandable - but still unjustified.

I've also made abundantly clear the distinction between attacking a person's words or conduct and attacking them personally. They are not the same. The former is fair game for anyone, indluding the dead. The latter, IMO, is not.

Regarding further discourse with you: there are two old sayings that are appropriate. The first is old proverb that, in French, is something along the lines of "Ne perdre pas les temps en barvardant d'un idiot." It's appropriate here. I'll waste no more of my time on you. I simply do not have an unlimited amount of time to waste on futile attempts to engage a willfully closeminded individual in productive discourse.

The second appropriate quote? There are are none so blind as those who will not see.

I think Don needs to get laid, or at least a very long vacay in a nice quiet place. Come to think of it, all that time he spends a postin' probaly means he's takin' a vacation now, so scratch that thought. Just somebody get him or her laid, please.

Honda:

You ask me if i'd like to "reconsider my position". I have already answered that question with abundant clarity. Re-read my last post - if you are capable of doing so without assistance - and you will see that I have no desire to do so.

Fine. Then I will remind you again that your statement that it is "classless, petty and insecure" to attack the dead applies to personal attacks on Adolph Hitler as well as personal attacks on Ronald Reagan, since both of those men are dead.

I think the utter absurdity of the claim that a concentration camp survivor is "classless, petty and insecure" for saying that Hitler was a bad man is abundantly clear. But that's the corner you've painted yourself into.

concerned:

What are you wearing?

one big difference is that murder typically deprives the victim of many years or decades of natural life,

That has nothing to do with the question, which is whether it's OK to kill something just because that thing might die anyway. Only an utter idiot would think so, once it has been pointed out that deliberate killing is never alright just because the thing might have died of natural causes.

But even so, if what makes murder wrong is that it deprives a victim of years of life, so does abortion. In fact, abortion deprives the victim of even more years of natural life than the typical murder of an adult. (Even if you think that the fetus isn't a "person" or hasn't achieved some mystical theological status yet, the point still holds true: Absent abortion, there would have been a human being with a full life ahead of him or her.) Conclusion: If murder is wrong because of lost years of future experience, then abortion is that much more wrong.

Joe M:

That has nothing to do with the question, which is whether it's OK to kill something just because that thing might die anyway.

No, the question I am asking is why does your God kill so many fetuses if he cares so much about them? And if he doesn't care much about them, why should you? You haven't answered either question, you've just claimed, falsely, that the question applies in an exactly equal way to the deaths of born persons (and you haven't answered the question with respect to born persons, either).

The reason you continue to evade the question, of course, is that you have no plausible answer for it.

Only an utter idiot would think so, once it has been pointed out that deliberate killing is never alright just because the thing might have died of natural causes.

Why not?

But even so, if what makes murder wrong is that it deprives a victim of years of life, so does abortion.

No that is not true in half or more cases, as I keep pointing out. In 50% or more cases induced abortion doesn't deprive the fetus of years of life. It only deprives it of days or weeks of life. If God cares so much about fetuses, why does he create them only to destroy them days or weeks later?

You really think it might be ok to murder an adult just because that adult is guaranteed to die eventually? Good grief, what a Nazi. Would it kill you to admit that there is at least one argument in favor of abortion that is stupid and illogical? Does everything said by any moronic pro-choicer anywhere on the planet have to be defended?

No, the question I am asking is why does your God kill so many fetuses if he cares so much about them?

Why does God kill (your word) every human being who has ever lived if he cares so much about them? Well, I don't know. Maybe that's a useful argument if the discussion was about WHETHER GOD EXISTS OR CARES ABOUT HUMANS. But only a Nazi-type would even ask that question when the discussion is whether it's OK for us to KILL something.

I shouldn't have to explain this to anyone, but here it is: It's not OK for us to kill something that is going to die anyway, because otherwise every murder would be alright.

Joe M:

You really think it might be ok to murder an adult just because that adult is guaranteed to die eventually?

Of course. It is possible that any murder is moral. Since moral claims can be neither proved nor disproved, any of them might be incorrect.

Good grief, what a Nazi.

Ah, good one. Right back at ya: What a fascist moron you are, Joe M.

Why does God kill (your word) every human being who has ever lived if he cares so much about them?
Well, I don't know.

Then why doesn't the lack of a plausible answer suggest that, in fact, God doesn't care so much about them, or that he doesn't exist at all? And why isn't that suggestion even stronger in the case of "unborn babies," half or more of which God destroys merely days or weeks after creating them? If God is such an abortionist, why should we think that abortion is so wrong, or wrong at all?

I shouldn't have to explain this to anyone, but here it is: It's not OK for us to kill something that is going to die anyway, because otherwise every murder would be alright.

This doesn't make sense. How do you know that every murder isn't alright? How do you know that murders of people who are going to die shortly anyway aren't alright, or at least much less wrong than murders of people who are likely to have long natural life ahead of them?

Ah, Don P., who suddenly turns into a complete moral skeptic, even about the question of whether murder is wrong. He says that no moral proposition can be "proved." In that case, why the hell does he so often purport to "prove" that we simply MUST allow abortion? Why does he purport to prove that pro-lifers are supposedly being hypocrites? Who cares? If we can't know that murder is wrong, neither can we know that hypocrisy or banning abortion is wrong. In which case, Don P. should just shut up.

Joe M:

Ah, Don P., who suddenly turns into a complete moral skeptic,

There's nothing "sudden" about it. I remember pointing out to you months ago that moral claims are not subject to proof. Maybe you forgot.

even about the question of whether murder is wrong.

Yes, "even" that question. How is "murder is wrong" any more provably true or false than, say, "speeding is wrong."

In that case, why the hell does he so often purport to "prove" that we simply MUST allow abortion?

I have never purported to prove that.

Why does he purport to prove that pro-lifers are supposedly being hypocrites?

Because "pro-lifers are hypocrites" is not a moral claim, it's an empirical one that can be demonstrated through the evidence of their statements and actions.

Who cares?

You, for one.

If we can't know that murder is wrong, neither can we know that hypocrisy or banning abortion is wrong. In which case, Don P. should just shut up.

Huh? Why does the fact that moral claims cannot be proved mean that we should shut up about them?

Joe M:

If God is such an abortionist, why should we think that abortion is so wrong, or wrong at all?

Answer the question.

That is a dumbass question. Some embryos/fetuses die naturally -- just like every human being who has ever lived. This doesn't say ANYTHING about abortion (or murder or any form of killing).

Joe M:

That is a dumbass question.

Claiming that the question is dumb is not an answer to it. It's an evasion, just like all your previous evasions.

Answer the question: If God is such an abortionist, why should we think that abortion is so wrong, or wrong at all?

You can't come up with an answer, can you? That's why you keep flailing around and trying to change the subject.

Talk about stupid. I've explained several times why your question is dumb. Go read Jane's original post, then read it again.

Bottom line: Only someone who is as dumb as a stump would say that "God is an abortionist" unless they also say "God is a murderer" (i.e., because we all die eventually, no matter what). But your question is obviously stupid when one asks, "Gee, if God is a murderer, why can't we murder other people?"

That's not changing the subject. It's called reasoning. You're obviously incapable of it, otherwise you would have seen long before now how utterly mindless your whole argument is. Maybe you can come up with good reasons to allow abortion. But none of those reasons will be, "Gee, it might have died anyway." That isn't a good reason for abortion, any more than it's a good reason to kill grownups (100% of whom are going to die anyway).

I've come to the conclusion that DonP is in fact a woman who has had one or more abortions and is trying not to feel guilty about it.

Joe M:

Talk about stupid. I've explained several times why your question is dumb.

Yes, I know you think it's dumb. You don't need to keep stating that. You do need to answer the question. But you don't have an answer, do you? Hence the endless evasions.

Bottom line: Only someone who is as dumb as a stump would say that "God is an abortionist" unless they also say "God is a murderer" (i.e., because we all die eventually, no matter what).

You believe in God, right? If God is not an abortionist, who or what else do you claim is causing all those spontaneous abortions? Satan?

I did answer the question, about 4 times. You're the one who keeps evading the point, as usual. Or you try to change the subject entirely to whether pro-lifers are hypocrites. Blah, blah, blah. You never have a new thought on this subject; you've said it all before.

If God is an abortionist, then He is also a murderer. If He's the one who decides that certain fetuses die at particular times, then He must also be the one who decides that every human being dies at a particular time. SO FREAKING WHAT? That proves NOTHING about is OK for US to kill something, whether it be fetuses or grown humans.

You've mentioned -- ad nauseam -- the OTHER reasons why you think abortion is a great thing. Fine. You can talk about those reasons whenever they are relevant. But HERE, the issue is different. I know it's difficult, but try to imagine that your shop-worn cliches don't fit in here. Instead, the question is whether pro-choicers are making a valid argument when they say, "Gee, abortion must be OK if some fetuses are miscarried anyway." NO, NO, NO, a thousand times NO. That doesn't follow at all.

Joe M:

I did answer the question, about 4 times.

No, you haven't answered it at all. You just keep claiming that it's a dumb question or saying that it could also be asked about the deaths of born people. That's not an answer, that's an evasion. What is your answer?

If God is an abortionist, then He is also a murderer.

Maybe so, yes. If God is an abortionist, and God is good, why is abortion so bad, or bad at all? If God is not an abortionist, who or what do you claim is killing all those "unborn babies" who die as a result of spontaneous abortion?

Instead, the question is whether pro-choicers are making a valid argument when they say, "Gee, abortion must be OK if some fetuses are miscarried anyway."

No one has made that claim. You are attributing to people statements they have not made. If God is the biggest abortionist of all, why is abortion so bad, or bad at all?

If God is not an abortionist, who or what do you claim is killing all those "unborn babies" who die as a result of spontaneous abortion?

Gee, maybe they die OF NATURAL CAUSES, just like EVERY OTHER HUMAN BEING IS 100% SURE TO DO? Has it entered your thick uncrushable skull that all human beings die eventually? Every single one. If it's ok to KILL things that might die naturally someday, then we can't have any laws against murder, period.

Think before you keep posting the same thing.

Joe M.:

He's trolling - or is incapable of understanding and using logic.

Recommend you ignore him.

Joe M:

Gee, maybe they die OF NATURAL CAUSES,

And who or what created those natural causes, in your view, Joe? Connect the dots. You're almost there.

If it's ok to KILL things that might die naturally someday, then we can't have any laws against murder, period.

No one has said that it's necessarily okay to kill things that might die naturally someday. You're responding to a claim that no one has made. Now answer the question: If God is such an abortionist, why should we think that abortion is so wrong, or wrong at all?

Sorry everyone; I should have taken my own advice about not trying to have a discussion with lying, stupid trolls.

Then why does God so often inflict suffering on those who are innocent of evil, rather than on those who are guilty of it?

Didn't you go to Sunday School? According to biblical teaching nobody is innocent. All are born with a nature that is under a sin-curse.

What evil have fetuses committed that justifies killing half or more of them?

Born, or not, with the same nature as the rest of us. However it is inferred from a couple scriptural passages that the unborn and extremely young are not held accountable for possessing that nature until they are of such an age (state of cognitive development) to bea ble to give account. Also, by dying that way, very few if any suffer (as compared to, say, a saline abortion. Let's see how many of your buttons THAT example pushes.)

What evil have all the millions of children who die every year from disasters and diseases committed to justify their suffering and death?

See above.

If God is just, your explanation makes no sense, because there isn't the slightest shred of evidence that God inflicts suffering on the evil and withholds it from the innocent or righteous.

Who said God inflicts suffering? I didn't. As far as I know, the Bible doesn't say that, either. It is a inevitably consequence of man's wrongdoing. However, God may limit or stop suffering when it goes beyond what He, having omniscient knowledge and foresight, can ultimately work to some greater good. The ultimate "greater good," then, was the Son of God suffering the penalty for all of man's wrongdoing, a free gift made available to any who will trust in Him.

There is no inconsistency in that. If you don't believe in God then you may view that as nonsense, but it is not inconsistent.

Then why isn't "man with fallible knowledge and limited foresight" also "trespassing" when he tries to prevent death? If the deaths caused by disasters and diseases are all part of God's plan that we mere mortals cannot possibly understand, what business do we have trying to thwart that plan by preventing those deaths?

Is this deliberately dense? I think we both know that when a person's time has come, no amount of medical knowledge can save him/her. This is demonstrated regularly, even daily, in any hospital or at any type of emergency response scene you care to name. God giving man abilities by which he may work to preserve life is a separate issue entirely, because the underlying philosophy is that human life is intrinsically valuable.

You can't have it both ways: Either man can legitimately interfere with God's life-and-death decisions, or he can't. So which is it?

Logical fallacy: False dillemma.

I just described the logical inconsistency in your position.

Uh...since when are YOU in a philosophical position to judge absolutes? Let's restate that more accurately: You criticized what you perceived to be a logical inconsistency in my position.

"'But half of all pregnancies end in miscarriage!'* The latter, in particular, seems bizarre to me -- are these people really unable to make any moral distinction between, say, dying of cancer and being hacked to death?...The fact that people die of natural causes does not make homicide all right."

True enough, deaths by natural causes do not excuse homicide. However, I'm not so sure that is the point of that argument. Many different natural causes of deaths are treated as massive public health crises(e.g. Aids, Cancers, etc...). If one were to take the position that this treatment is justified as all human life is sacred and should be maintained if at all possible, and that life begins at conception, then, in order to maintain consistency, failed pregnancies should be given the same treatment.

anony:

Born, or not, with the same nature as the rest of us.

I see. So we're all evil by nature, even fetuses and little children, and suffering is our just desserts for our evil natures.

Then why doesn't God make us all suffer equally? Why does he inflict so much suffering and death on fetuses and little children, and relatively little suffering on others who may behave very immorally? Your claim makes no sense in light of the massively random and unequal pattern of suffering that we observe in the world.

By the way, I'd love to see you go up to the parents of a young child who has just died from cystic fibrosis or tay-sachs or one of those other terrible diseases that your God inflicts on so many children and tell them that the reason their child suffered and died in that way is because of its evil nature.

However it is inferred from a couple scriptural passages that the unborn and extremely young are not held accountable for possessing that nature until they are of such an age (state of cognitive development) to bea ble to give account. Also, by dying that way, very few if any suffer (as compared to, say, a saline abortion. Let's see how many of your buttons THAT example pushes.)

But many children who die from natural diseases or disasters, and probably many mature fetuses who die through miscarriage, suffer greatly. Your claim that these children are not accountable for their supposedly evil natures makes your explanation even more absurd. If they're not responsible, why does God make them suffer? How is that the act of a just and loving God?

Who said God inflicts suffering? I didn't.

Then who or what do you claim inflicts suffering on people through disasters and diseases, if not God? The diseases and disasters that cause so much suffering are part of the natural world that you claim God created, right? Why did God do that, if he is just and loving? Why did God create diseases and disasters that cause so many little children to suffer, if those children are not even responsible for their supposedly evil natures?

It is a inevitably consequence of man's wrongdoing.

Huh? What wrongdoing has a baby committed that justifies making him suffer and die from AIDS or cholera or malaria or dysentery or an earthquake or a flood or...etc., etc. (the list is VERY long)? Or are you saying that babies suffer and die because of other people's wrongdoing? If so, how is that consistent with justice? How is it consistent with love? Why don't people suffer in proportion to the magnitude of their own wrongdoing, rather than because of other people's wrongdoing, if God is just?

anony:

I think we both know that when a person's time has come, no amount of medical knowledge can save him/her. This is demonstrated regularly, even daily, in any hospital or at any type of emergency response scene you care to name. God giving man abilities by which he may work to preserve life is a separate issue entirely, because the underlying philosophy is that human life is intrinsically valuable.

But if God doesn't want or need a person to die, why does he inflict life-threatening or life-terminating diseases or illnesses on him? If natural sickness and death are part of God's plan, what business do we have interfering with that plan? If God wants a sick person to recover, why doesn't he just make that person recover naturally?

noone:

Many different natural causes of deaths are treated as massive public health crises(e.g. Aids, Cancers, etc...). If one were to take the position that this treatment is justified as all human life is sacred and should be maintained if at all possible, and that life begins at conception, then, in order to maintain consistency, failed pregnancies should be given the same treatment.

Exactly. If a fertilized egg is a person, with the same rights and moral status as a born person, then spontaneous abortion is the worst public health crisis ever, because it kills at least 50% and perhaps as many as 75% of all people. Worse than AIDS. Worse than cholera and dysentery. Worse than polio. Worse than smallpox. Worse than the black death. Worse than any public health problem in history. So why aren't fetus=person anti-abortionists up in arms about this appalling crisis? Why aren't they clamoring for the government and drug companies to do more to stem this appalling loss of life?

Because they don't believe that a fetus is a person, that's why. They don't believe that the miscarriage of an embryo is even remotely as great a tragedy as the death of a child. They just lack the honesty and integrity to admit it. That's the dirty little secret of the "pro-life" movement.

Don:

I am ashamed that you have taken what I wrote to perpetuate your unreasonable vitriol. You're disparaging of any in the pro-life movement as "dishonest" is dishonest in itself. There is a difference between taking a positive action to end a life and taking a positive action to save a life. You should acknowledge that.

noone:

I am ashamed that you have taken what I wrote to perpetuate your unreasonable vitriol.

What "unreasonable vitriol?"

You're disparaging of any in the pro-life movement as "dishonest" is dishonest in itself.

No it isn't.

There is a difference between taking a positive action to end a life and taking a positive action to save a life. You should acknowledge that.

Of course there's a difference. But that difference does not justify the refusal to take a positive action to save a life. We are not justified in doing nothing to try and save the lives of sick children simply because there's a moral difference between failing to act to save life and acting positively to end life. You acknowleged this yourself when you said that, given their premises, anti-abortionists ought to treat spontaneous abortion as a massive public health crisis.

If anti-abortionists believe that we have a moral responsibility to prevent infant mortality, and they believe that a fetus is a baby, then they should believe that we have an equal responsibility to prevent spontaneous abortion. They obviously do not believe the latter.

Sorry Don P., but I think, once again, we are at an impasse. I can't compete with you physically, and you're no match for my br--ah, never mind. (Good book and good movie though.)

Point being, so long as you refuse to accept what God is by definition (your choice of course), you will never come to an end of nitpicking questions -- because, once you have reduced God to your level of thinking, He (like you, and your form of debate-framing, really) no longer knows enough to make more informed decisions than you.

That may be convenient, because it gives you the right to be your own god, since nobody has more knowledge about your future than yourself. So be it.

And I hope it gives you a sense of satisfaction and peace about these issues, because your desperate and aggravated defenses of your moral positions would suggest that you don't have much certainty about them.

anony:

Point being, so long as you refuse to accept what God is by definition (your choice of course), you will never come to an end of nitpicking questions

The Problem of Evil is not a nitpicking question, it's a fundamental and unresolvable problem of Christianity. It's a problem for all religions that posit a benevolent and omnipotent God. The problem has been known since at least the time of the ancient Greeks. Plato described it.

The reason you evade my questions is because you have no answers to them. There are no answers to them. You just refuse to confront the implications of that fact for your religious beliefs.

Me: "You're disparaging of any in the pro-life movement as "dishonest" is dishonest in itself."

Don P: "No it isn't."

Touche. I am vanquished.

The Problem of Evil is not a nitpicking question, it's a fundamental and unresolvable problem of Christianity.

Actually, evil is a concept that is explained much more satisfactorily by the religions of the world than by science. To the atheist, Auschwitz is biology gone "bad" (ultimately it's physics gone bad if we get right down to it). Of course "bad" is probaby not a very precise word to use in this instance, because there are no moral phenomena. And indeed, the atheist must accept the "reality" (in his world view) that free will is an illusion. In such a world view Auschwitz had to happen, for it was merely caused by the interplay (ultimately) of the forces of the physical universe, and was not (as the religious person would hold) the result of the actions and inactions of human beings with free will using that free will to cooperate with evil. The purely materialistic view of the cosmos strongly suggests that the interplay of physical forces that can serve up a Hollocaust can, and will, do so again. The religious viewpoint suggests it could have been prevented had human beings made different choices, and gives hope that in the future humans might be persuaded to cooperate against evil.

P.B.:

Yes, on the account of science, the world unfolds according to a set of natural laws operating over time. Human beings are made of matter and are subject to these laws just like everything else.

I have no idea why you consider this account "unsatisfactory." I mean, you may not like what science tells us, just as the Catholic Church didn't like what science discovered about the structure of the solar system, just as conservative Christians don't like what Charles Darwin discovered about the origin of species, but, hey, the world wasn't, as far as we know, designed for your emotional comfort. The world works the way the world works, and if you don't like the way it works, too bad.

And by the way, why does your God kill all those little children through diseases and disasters?

Do you agree with anony-mouse that the suffering of little children is God's just punishment of them for their evil natures?

Oh, please, can we refrain from turning this thread into the standard "why does God let bad things happen?" debate?

Returning to the original topic:

Let's say that tomorrow we somehow lost all of our medical technology, and the infant mortality rate skyrocketed. Let's say one in three babies dies -- that's a plausible estimate for how things were during the Middle Ages, at least in some places. Would anyone seriously suggest that the infant mortality rate implied that it was okay to intentionally kill unwanted newborns?

Of course not. Look, people die for lots of sad reasons. They get struck by lightening, they get hit by cars. Miscarriage is in the same category. None of it implies that it's okay to go around killing people.

It always amazes me to see how many intelligent people seem to enjoy arguing with a lamppost.

Don P is acting as an

agent provacateur

He has succeeded in showing the world that he is a completly unreasonable and illogical fool. Unfortunately, he is also wasting everyone else's time.

Maybe if we ALL ignore him, he will go back to "closeminded land" and be happy arguing with himself.

Only my respect for free speech prevents me from asking Jane to ban him permanently from her site. As distasteful as free speech can be at times, Voltaire was right.

Comments are Closed.