10 FALLACIES IN THE ABORTION DEBATE

Conservative Commentary ^ | 8 November 2002 | Peter Cuthbertson

[MHGinTN]

Ka Bump

[Tired of Taxes]

See #396... I welcome a libertarian perspective - - I am advancing a libertarian resolution...

I read your post #396, and it appears that you are proposing that the courts decide whether or not an abortion will be permitted on a case-by-case basis. Here are a few problems with that position:

(1) The government (via the court system) would be making life-and-death decisions for the "unborn" based on a woman's age or sexual behavior. Was she willing or not? Has she reached the age of legal consent or not? But, the "unborn" have no control over the age or sexual behavior of the mother.

(2) That system would give the incentive to women to lie and claim that they were raped. And that could lead to unfair punishment of the men involved.

(3) While the pregnant woman is awaiting the trial or hearing, the "unborn" is continuing to develop. Thus, an abortion of a pregnancy at (for example) just 5 weeks could be delayed until a later time when the "unborn" has developed into a much more viable human being.

Above are just a few of the complications that I would predict if the courts made the decision for each woman individually.

As a side note, I'd like to point out that a court making decisions based on a woman's sexual behavior is basing the system on "morals".

[palmer]

Are you seriously comparing the threat of someone with 0.00001% blood alcohol level with sucking an unborn child's brains out with a vacuum? The threat from people with 0.00001% blood alcohol level can be studied with statistics and we can definitely state that the threat is virtually nonexistant. You don't have any kind of certainty about when life begins or what the odds are of abortion being a murder. You're willing to put a child's life at risk without ANY evidence or information. That's what I call reckless.

No, I was comparing someone driving with 0.00001% blood alcohol level with someone taking life of a fertilized egg. Both cases are almost certainly not moral issues although 100% certainty is impossible in either case. You were advocating 100% moral certainty so you would also have to support outlawing driving with 0.000001% blood alcohol level in order to be consistent. On the other hand we can all agree that someone driving with 20% blood alcohol could be compared with the partial birth abortion you described. You are correct that there can be no certainty, but to maintain that killing a fertized egg is murder is a religious argument.

I am certain that embryos made up of small numbers of cells deserve no protection. Beyond that I become less certain, but my reading of descriptions of development indicates that 6 weeks of development is enough to have recognizable human features and the beginnings of human thought (perhaps the ability to feel pain). If that's true, then that fetus should start to have a proportional amount of legal protection. On the other extreme, a baby about to be born deserves full legal protection.

At 3.5 weeks, we know human brain cells are present in the unborn child. I'm not talking about a single cell, I'm talking about a living human organism with functional human brain cells. Is that worthy of protection?

Probably not. Your own reference states those brain cells are not yet functioning.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

(1) The government (via the court system) would be making life-and-death decisions for the "unborn" based on a woman's age or sexual behavior.

A jury would make a decision based upon evidence in the case of a crime committed. If Roe v. Wade says society cannot intervene in private reproductive choices, the public funding thereof violates Roe v. Wade. Many courts are already unlawfully deciding that blanket permission is granted for public involvement through public funding. (This also raises the issue, as I stated earlier, of judicial complicity in the destruction of evidence in a felony.)

Rape, incest, or molestation are not sexual behaviors. They are felonies. The age of consent in most states is 18. You did not consider the entirety of what I said. Straw man arguments.

-

(2) That system would give the incentive to women to lie and claim that they were raped. And that could lead to unfair punishment of the men involved.

The "men" and the women should both be accountable. I am not making morality calls. I think it is time "men" start treating women with respect. I'm a man and I like women just as much as any other. But because some other guy is a whoremonger and hooks up with some skank, it is not my problem if he makes poor choices in his sexual partner(s). I care not to share responsibility for another man's penis, I have enough responsibility dealing with my own. The idea that hooking up with some untrustworthy slut (who can be jailed for false accusations) is somehow an incentive, is not addressing the issues I raised. Red herrings.

If a woman were to falsely accuse, this also is a felony and should be investigated. I don't think it is unfair to ask "men" to be accountable. I also don't think it is unfair to ask women to be accountable.

-

(3) While the pregnant woman is awaiting the trial or hearing, the "unborn" is continuing to develop.

I did use the words immediate trial. I'm not willing to accept the lazy judiciary syndrome. These folks make a lot of money, you and I pay them taxes. What I am talking about is an immediate decision. These two and three hour lawyer lunches are costing me a lot of money.

The taking of a human life is a most serious matter and should be carefully considered, especially if it involves negligence and/or crimminality (i.e., rape, incest, statutory rape, parental neglect, or juvenile delinquency).

-

Above are just a few of the complications that I would predict if the courts made the decision for each woman individually.

The courts are already involved. Being a woman is not an excuse for making poor choices, neither is being a man. When public money or crime is involved, this becomes a public matter. It is also a public matter when we talk about taking a human life.

-

As a side note, I'd like to point out that a court making decisions based on a woman's sexual behavior is basing the system on "morals".

No, I am talking about both women and men, logic and the law. The ethereal emotional ideals, esotric hobgoblins, and man made morals...

"are the images which are originally and most properly called ideas and idols, and derived from the language of the Grecians, with whom the word eido signifieth to see. They are also called phantasms, which is in the same language, apparitions. And from these images it is that one of the faculties of man's nature is called the imagination. And from hence it is manifest that there neither is, nor can be, any image made of a thing invisible." (Hobbes)

Aristotle's pathos in Poetics, Plato's eternal forms, Hobbes' phantastical images, Kierkegaard's despair, and numerous other concepts are directly related to the topic of "morals" as an ethereal creation of man, a practice of idolatry or an esoteric quantity.

[palmer]

Why clone something that is going to age at an accelerated rate and die, when you can build the DNA from scratch? Robo-sapiens?

I hope you are right and scientists do not choose to grow humans in vats. But I think they are already headed in that direction. Here's just one example: http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,648024,00.html

   Sunday February 10, 2002
   The Observer

   Doctors are developing artificial wombs in which embryos can grow outside a woman's
   body. The work has been hailed as a breakthrough in treating the childless.
   ...

Of course, what you seem to be unwilling to admit is that a societal practice of abortion has blown the doors down to openly practice eugenics.

I admit that. I think the debate over when life ends is just as important as the debate over when it begins.

[palmer]

This is the earliest form of a miscarriage and there are devices as well as pills which can cause this process to prevent an ongoing pregnancy. This 'natural' miscarriage process does throw some kink in the argument for life protection from conception onward, but consider this: acknowledging that nature does sometimes fail to support nascent life, does that give we humans the right to force such an action, circumventing nature? And as this issue impacts our manipulations of embryos, should we be messing with individual human life, to manipulate it for exploitative purposes then discard that exploited individual human life?

MHG, I would not want to be the judge who has to decide whether a woman had a "natural" miscarriage or it was induced by a pill or some other "non-natural" process. If forced into that situation I would say "did you realize you were killing a cell that would develop into a full human being?", and then drop the case. I don't think there's much point in making moral distinctions over humans with no human features other than DNA without compromising the more important debate over what level of human features and thoughts is worthy of protection.

As for manipulation of embryos, I find no overriding medical justification for doing that. Are there other ways to treat disease? Almost certainly. Are there any instances where killing an embryo could save a life? Probably not. My overriding concern is that science and scientists have no basis for making a moral decision whereas a mother carrying a child has an increasing emotional bond with her baby that can be used to help make a moral decision.

[Tired of Taxes]

A jury would make a decision based upon evidence in the case of a crime committed.

But, Sir Francis, juries do not make decisions based on popular opinion; rather, their decisions are based on the law. Thus, under your proposed system, the government (state or federal) would have to establish and enforce laws permitting pregnant women to obtain abortions based only on certain circumstances. (I'm sure you wouldn't want a jury making arbitrary moral decisions without consideration of law).

the public funding thereof violates Roe v. Wade.

I agree. We should stop public funding.

Rape, incest, or molestation are not sexual behaviors. They are felonies. The age of consent in most states is 18. You did not consider the entirety of what I said. Straw man arguments.

I never suggested that rape or incest were "sexual behaviors". Yes, rape and incest are felonies but are not crimes committed by the "unborn". So, if you believe that human life should be protected from the point of mitosis, why punish a baby who is the innocent victim of a crime? The baby conceived through the crime of rape or incest will develop at the same pace as the baby conceived through willing sexual intercourse. So, why the special exceptions granted to women who are victims of rape or incest? The only reason I can see is to punish the other women, the ones who conceive through willing sexual relations. That, essentially, is what the government would be doing under your proposal.

No, I am talking about both women and men, logic and the law. The ethereal emotional ideals, esotric hobgoblins, and man made morals...

You claim to base your position on "law and logic" only, but they are based on morals: (1) You are making a moral decision when you propose that all human life should be protected from the point of mitosis; (2) you're making a moral decision when you permit some women to end those "lives" if they are either minors or victims of rape or incest. There are many "emotional ideals" in your proposal. Face up to it, my friend. ;)

[MHGinTN]

You've hit upon the caprice polarization of the abortion debates ... one is not allowed to be a supporter of life, pro-life, if one makes any concession for the protection of the life of the mother or in cases of juvenile rape. The polarization, I agree with you, is hindering rather than assiting in reaching a point of reducing dramatically the abortions done in this nation. [I've compared it to having a life boat that will hold all but three of one thousand swimming passengers; some would allow everyone to drown in order to not lose three. We will have to find a reasonable compromise even though it goes against my own fundamental belief that individual human lifetimes begin at conception!]

[Godel]

Probably not. Your own reference states those brain cells are not yet functioning.

Where are you getting this from, aside from your wishful thinking?

So you see nothing wrong with killing a human organism with human brain cells. I guess we can't really discuss facts anymore then. I think human organisms with functioning human brain cells deserve protection. You're content to arbitrarily murder humans that you don't feel like extending protection to. On the facts we agree, our only disagreement is moral.

[jwalsh07]

Palmer, you're hohum arbitrary choosing of times in the human continuum when it is OK to to kill the baby might come back to bite you in the ass. Perhaps someday they will decide that a minimum number of neurons must be present or else they discorporate you. Since the number of neurons present in the neocortex at birth is high tide, you best be careful out there. A touch of Alzheimers, a dip below low tide and its off to the discorporation warehouse for you.

[MHGinTN]

In the 'brave new world' you've hinted on, the ned will be just as the beginning, the less than whole ones will be for harvesting useful parts for the more whole ... a truly frightening spectre.

[palmer]

Hopefully they'll read my posts here and realize my brain is worth preserving even in a decrepit state. But seriously your point is well taken. I can appeal to empathy or any other emotion I want, but eventually the law could be written to require a minimum number neurons for protection. Nobody would necessarily kill me, but they could legally leave me in out the woods.

It's also true that the most vulnerable, brain damaged infants are worthy of protection even with no chance to live a normal life or no chance to even live. They are just as vulnerable as me with my alzheimers deserving of at least sympathy. Whether the law should require severely brain-damaged infants to be carried to term would be one of the hardest abortion questions to answer. I think we would have to protect all fetuses whether "normal" or "brain damaged" because I think they would have to be at the brain function stage in order to make that determination, and at that stage they should be protected.

[palmer]

I think it's one of the inevitable consequences of socialized medicine; it won't be run by the pro-life Christians represented on this thread. Instead the bureaucrats will determine what human life should be protected by the impact on the budget. Then the "pro-life" leftists can argue for unlimited budgets and taxation.

[Coto]

Whoa !!
Hold on there, just a minute, Blinky......

You missed that boat so bad....it is a shame that you even bought the ticket....

Where on God's little half acre could you salvage the idea that I was pro-abortion ?? ??

You even had the nerve to quote me and you STILL Missed it
"...just how nice the world would probably be....
...if all of those that moan -n- wail for Abortions, were aborted themselves..."

I, in simple terms that I'll hope that don't sail past you, DO NOT FAVOR ABORTIONS !! !!
FOR ANY REASON!! !!

I wanted all of them that cry for them to simply vanish from off the face of this globe.

Get it...this time ??

[Coto]

I simply wanted the idiots that ARE IN FAVOR OF ABORTION TO Disappear from the planet....

You are the one that delights in twisting meanings....

I'll bet you were so mad that algore didn't win - so you would be able to keep your job writing his speeches....

[demosthenes the elder]

I will delve into the attic this saturday, so I will submit what I find in the moldy old books thereafter. In the meantime, however:

...and yet no one would seriously consider murdering a healthy newborn child.

off-the-cuff counterexamples: the modern Chinese. Bosnians, Serbs, and Croats. Nazis. WWII Japanese in China. the Aztecs. the Carthaginians. the Spartans (well, less-than-perfectly-healthy children). the Hebrews under Joshua (8:26, 7:25, 9:24, 10:28, etc...) by the command of God, no less.

[Caleb1411]

PING