Are we talking past each other on abortion? What is your understanding of the issues?

Simply state what you think are the underlying arguments in the abortion debate.

Views: 647

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

And still awaiting your defense of your statement:

Oct 18; Simon Sez: "A baby cannot care for itself and is dependent on caregivers, the only difference that care is internally for one but external for ther other.

You've made this point time and time again and you seem to imply it in the title of this whole thread. The point that you are asserting is that abortion and infanticide are exactly the same on the grounds that an infant is no less dependent on the mother than the fetus.
There is no difference between the two based on state of dependency.
If one is not a person, neither is the other.
If one is a person, so must be the other.

I and many more here have pointed out the glaring flaw in this reasoning:
State of dependency of a fetus does not equal state of dependency of an infant.

X) I can give up a 3 month old baby with zero medical risk to myself or the baby.

Y) I can not give up a 3 month old fetus without medical risk to myself and death of the fetus.

X does not equal Y.
I have run out of ways to dumb this down any further.

- Changing the topic is not a defense of your point.

- Asserting that some other argument A=B does not defend this particular argument that X=Y.

- Rolling eyes and complaining because we aren't as rote-memory versed in the works of Philosopher Phil as you are does not defend this particular argument.

- Simply restating your argument does not defend your argument. (Think Creationists continually asserting that God made the world without ever providing a hint of empirical evidence to back it up. Saying the same wrong fact over and over again doesn't make that fact true).

- Free Thinker pointed out that with such a hot topic it's unlikely any of us is going to change the others' opinion. However, I'm not talking about moral opinion here, I'm talking about physical, biological, medical fact: X does not equal Y.

Can you or can you not defend this particular statement?
And with all due respect, can you or can you not do so with a modicum of correct grammar and spelling so the rest of us can be clear on what you are trying to communicate?
Oops, I meant you implied this point in the title of your other thread: "Is the life of the mother or father more important than a baby?"

Underscores my point about the importance of proofreading our posts. ;-)
I wonder if this is something for which two extremes are just pushing around what ultimately is a very complex answer. You cant easily argue for an arbitrary solution either way, that is, the simple "fundamentalists" would claim any abortion, any reason, any time before birth, and on the other side, no way, the pill is evil, sperm is sacred. Both of which, honestly, seem dogmatic and unfounded in reason.

I tend to support abortion rights, but only absolutely so where it is obvious such as:

1. where it endangers the health of the mother
2. a case where adoption is impossible.
3. for any reason in the first trimester (earlier the better-morning after pill is best)

But that is just MY opinion and any number of circumstances or arguments could easily sway me either way. Plus, it seems, the "right thing" becomes complex as the baby's capacity begins to develop exponentially past the first trimester and the question of whether it is capable of independent thought becomes more "up for debate". Should a mother who has been pregnant for 8 months be able to change her mind because she just feels like it, or is bored with the idea? And in the case of Rape, why make 2 victims of one crime? These are not conclusions, they are not rhetorical, they are genuine questions that probably have varying answers with incalculable numbers of mitigating circumstances.

To me the rational thing is to respond to complex questions with thoughtful, complex answers, not simple rhymes and dogma like the religious do. Religion is black/white no gray. Rational thinkers realize everything is gray, don't they?


I consider a foetus as a parasite of the woman's body until it can be kept alive outside the womb.   Then it is a human person with own rights to live.   An unwanted pregnancy is not very different from cancer:  Unwanted growth of tissue in the body.

The rational look at the question of abortion is based on comparing the consequences and avoiding the bigger mistake.  

- An omitted abortion of an unwanted child causes a lot of suffering for the child, for the parents and also for the victims, if the child becomes a criminal, not to mention the costs for society on child care institutions and the jails.

- A superfluous abortion deletes only a pregnancy, that can be replaced by a new pregnancy in a short act, if this is wanted.  

Logically, when in doubt, better an abortion than an unwanted child.

AN is a good place to be rational and blunt without being at risk to be attacked by religious beliefs about an alleged god as the donor of life.   

To live up to Epicurus' principle of not harming and not to be harmed one needs to have a very rational awareness of who suffers and how much, and who does not.   And even if a fetus would suffer some pain during an abortion, this is still less than what the child would probably suffer when beaten and abused by unwilling parents.  

Therefore rational decisions based upon an non-religious morality are to be based upon the probability of the least sufferings.

To me it boils town to the issue of sentience.  At what point is a fetus aware of its existence (no way to know) and aware of suffering and pleasure (those seem to come early).

Interesting to note, some people think that dogs are as intelligent as toddlers.  So can we extend abortion past birth to the age at which it's OK to kill a dog?  That would be about 2 years old. 

My observation is that a dog is well aware of suffering and pleasure, but I don't know about existential awareness.  In other words, do dogs know that there is death, and that they might die?  If that doesn't matter, or if it does, is an infant aware that there is death, and that it might die?  Other than DNA, how do we give more rights to a fetal human, than to a sentient, intelligent dog?

I'm not proposing, in any way, shape, or form, that we can practice infanticide.  Or that a dog should have all of the rights of a human.  But it's interesting to make a comparison.

I think abortion should be OK to the point of birth.  What matters most to me is whether there is suffering, how much, and for how long.  Whatever sentience there is in a fetus, up to birth, seems limited.  I don't think we are obligated to keep it alive if there is conflict with the rights of the parent, if life would cause suffering (severe anatomic or metabolic birth defects), or if the parents are unable to rear it for a reasonably good life.

It's worth thinking about this from time to time.  My thoughts have evolved with time, so what I thought was right 20 years ago, or 10 years ago,  isn't that same as now.

I remember a conversation with a white supremacist years ago.  She was barking against abortion.  So I was visiting my mother at work and this idiot went on and on and on about abortion.  So I asked her this question very loud in the lunchroom.


She turned beet red and started gnashing her teeth, she got up and ran out of the lunchroom.  After that she never preached the sins of abortion around work again.




Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

© 2020   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service