How many abortions is too many?
Obamanism
Join Date: 2009-11-20 Member: 69442Banned
Join Date: 2009-11-20 Member: 69442Banned
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">One, two, or how about fifteen?</div>Read about a woman who had 15 abortions in 17 years.
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_Motherhood" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_Motherhood</a>
"Impossible Motherhood generated controversy on publication for the revelation that the author had had 15 abortions in 17 years[2] between the ages of 16 and 33. Vilar confesses to an "abortion addiction" and argues that the abortions were an act of rebellion against her controlling husband who did not want any children.[3] In the memoir she described how between the ninth abortion and tenth pregnancy she "needed another self-injury to get the high."[4] Vilar also blamed American society for her actions, stating that women were expected to be perfect mothers but to achieve professionally.[5] She states that she still holds pro-choice views but admits abusing the lawful procedure.[6] The cycle of abortions began during a relationship with literary critic Pedro Cuperman. Vilar remarried in 2003 and now has two children.[6]"
Your thoughts?
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_Motherhood" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_Motherhood</a>
"Impossible Motherhood generated controversy on publication for the revelation that the author had had 15 abortions in 17 years[2] between the ages of 16 and 33. Vilar confesses to an "abortion addiction" and argues that the abortions were an act of rebellion against her controlling husband who did not want any children.[3] In the memoir she described how between the ninth abortion and tenth pregnancy she "needed another self-injury to get the high."[4] Vilar also blamed American society for her actions, stating that women were expected to be perfect mothers but to achieve professionally.[5] She states that she still holds pro-choice views but admits abusing the lawful procedure.[6] The cycle of abortions began during a relationship with literary critic Pedro Cuperman. Vilar remarried in 2003 and now has two children.[6]"
Your thoughts?
Comments
You might say that the unborn child or fetus would suffer. However, I should think that she never wanted the child anyway and the child would never materialize. Furthermore, there is no duty of care that can be owed to an unborn child, especially if the child is not intended in the first place. It would be saying that a person would be in the wrong if that person uses contraceptives since every time she has sex, she is "killing" the opportunity of a child. To say that aborting the child is murder, and multiple abortions is mass murder in a sense, then abortion should be banned in the first place. Yet, abortion is legal so I see no problem in having it multiple times, in the eyes of the law.
On a moral viewpoint, one would obviously feel disgust and revolt towards such vile behaviour. This woman is basically killing fetuses for no apparent reason except for self gratification and to go against the system. While there is no legal action against her, one has to consider the moral implications. I would think that in her case, even one is too many since there is no justification behind it but because of the individual rights one has over ones body, we cannot touch her.
To address the question separately, without taking that woman into account, I have no qualms allowing women to go for as many abortions as they wish, provided that there is a valid reasoning behind it. If a woman is so unlucky that she is raped twenty times and all twenty times she gets pregnant unwillingly, and she has no wish to have a child, I should think that she should be allowed abortions for twenty times and that would not be too many. Or if a couple does not intend to have a child but do not use contraceptives for whatever reason they have, they should be allowed to go for as many abortions as they like. In this case, it would seem that the couple could have reasonably prevented the pregnancy if they had bothered to properly use contraceptives but I must respect their right to choose not to use it, be it for reasons of principle, religious beliefs, or simply because they feel that contraceptives inhibit their sex life. This would differ from that woman since they would have been happy if they had sex without contraceptives and never gotten pregnant. But that woman discussed wanted to get pregnant, so that she could have abortions. There is a difference.
So my stand is, in normal circumstances, there is no such thing as too many abortions.
An abortion is either not bad at all, and thus how many of them someone has is irrelevant (1 x 0 and 1000 x 0 are the same) or they're at least partially bad and shouldn't be allowed in the first place.
The abortion debate is back due to the national healthcare issue and whether abortion should be covered by the government for those that end up getting their healthcare paid by the government. Do you think the government should never fund abortions? If pro-choice Democrats want to push for the government funding abortions, do you think they are silly and stupid because in fighting for abortion rights, they may cause the national healthcare bill to be unsuccessful in Senate voting?
Your use of exagerrated terms highlights your bias.
Your use of exagerrated terms highlights your bias.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I thought an abortion terminates a "fetus"?
This idea that an abortion takes a fully formed, albeit tiny, baby and kills it is an idea that is wrong and one that annoys me. It's an unconscious (having never reached consciousness) bundle of half formed flesh.
The Supreme Court didn't dodge the matter. They said it's legal to kill a fetus. That's what abortion does, and abortion is legal according to the Supreme Court. It can be regulated as long as the regulation does not impose a substantial burden on the right to have an abortion, and the state also has an interest in regulating abortion to protect the fetus as pregnancy reaches its later stages, but the right to an abortion/the right to kill a fetus is a fundamental right. It is grounded in the right to privacy, as you said, but this isn't a loophole to avoid the question of whether terminating a pregnancy is legal. It is legal.
42
--Scythe--
Abortion is usally a bit tied up in the murder/not murder thing.
Either it's not murder, in which case it's as inconsequential as disinfecting your kitchen, or it is, in which case it's as heinous as burning down an orphanage.
Unless you can quantify the precise value of a life, it's hard to have partially bad things involving killing people.
.
Personally I'm with the former group, collections of cells without any visible intelligence, while alive, do not constitute anything approaching sentience and thus you can kill as many of them as you like.
And burning down an orphanage isn't even comparable with abortion at all. The biggest issues that the abortion debate faces are the constant attempts <b>by both sides</b> to turn it into an either/or thing.
And burning down an orphanage isn't even comparable with abortion at all. The biggest issues that the abortion debate faces are the constant attempts <b>by both sides</b> to turn it into an either/or thing.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok burning down an orphan, singular. If you believe that fetuses are alive and posessed of the same divine value that all other life posesses the two would be analogous, although the latter would be more funny.
As to late abortions, I still have no trouble with them, I think sentient life is important but not non-sentient life, babies don't really seem very sentient to me, although I admittedly have little experience with them.
Until it's more intelligent than an animal I still don't object to killing it, if I did I would have to object to killing animals as well and I don't.
Of course as it's difficult to precisely determine intelligence I would suggest erring on the side of caution, and babies do exhibit basic animalistic instincts and very soon learn to talk (and arguably, can communicate to their mothers even earlier) so this suggests they are at least as intelligent as an animal, therefore it would perhaps be prudent not to go around axe murdering babies.
However until they 'wake up', that is to say go from sitting still and occasionally booting their mother in the innards, to screaming the place down, I would suggest that they are as intelligent as a comatose patient in a hospital, and whether they live or die is entirely the decision of their mothers.
As to late abortions, I still have no trouble with them, I think sentient life is important but not non-sentient life, babies don't really seem very sentient to me, although I admittedly have little experience with them.
Until it's more intelligent than an animal I still don't object to killing it, if I did I would have to object to killing animals as well and I don't.
Of course as it's difficult to precisely determine intelligence I would suggest erring on the side of caution, and babies do exhibit basic animalistic instincts and very soon learn to talk (and arguably, can communicate to their mothers even earlier) so this suggests they are at least as intelligent as an animal, therefore it would perhaps be prudent not to go around axe murdering babies.
However until they 'wake up', that is to say go from sitting still and occasionally booting their mother in the innards, to screaming the place down, I would suggest that they are as intelligent as a comatose patient in a hospital, and whether they live or die is entirely the decision of their mothers.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is a slipery argument, Chris. Would your same flawed argument also be used to advocate the mass slaughter of the mentally challenged or the elderly when they grow old and no longer have as sharp a mind? Those that can not defend themselves, are defended in a true democracy. Popular support for crimes or such, should have no place in dictating laws.
Actually in a 'true democracy' popular support should have everything to do with dictating laws, laws exist to serve the people, not to control them. And what the people want to be legal should be, and what they want to be illegal should be.
Or at least, that's the democratic idea anyway.
And yes, you can use that argument to rationalise culling large portions of the population, I just don't because that would get me lynched and also because I don't really see any reason to. Just because I don't see anything wrong with doing something does not mean I demand it be done, old people and the mentally disabled are hardly causing me problems so I don't see why I'd want to kill them all. Besides there are other arguments to support old people being allowed to live, such as an obligation for the years of work they put into society, or because a lot of people might want to be old one day. And arguably mental disability still usually means you're sentient, it just means you're not very coherent sometimes.
Or at least, that's the democratic idea anyway.
And yes, you can use that argument to rationalise culling large portions of the population, I just don't because that would get me lynched and also because I don't really see any reason to. Just because I don't see anything wrong with doing something does not mean I demand it be done, old people and the mentally disabled are hardly causing me problems so I don't see why I'd want to kill them all. Besides there are other arguments to support old people being allowed to live, such as an obligation for the years of work they put into society, or because a lot of people might want to be old one day. And arguably mental disability still usually means you're sentient, it just means you're not very coherent sometimes.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hitler had the support of the German population at the time to go ahead with his war. In a true democracy, there are failsafes against mob rule. The founding fathers chose the Electorial College instead of having each vote count in order to protect the common man against himself as they did not have complete trust in the average man.
Take the classical example of what side of the road to drive on: We all agree that we MUST have a law about this, because in our fictional state of Democracystan we're currently driving on whatever side we please and that's leading to far too many accidents. Now, 90% of the cars in Democracystan have the controls on the left side of the car and are therefore best suited to driving on the right side of the road. We put the matter up to a public vote and to little surprise, driving on the right side of the road wins with an 87% majority. But what do we do about the cars that are ill-suited to this? If we're using a "tyranny of the majority" system, we tell their owners to ###### off and deal with it. In a real democracy we offer them a hefty discount on getting their cars converted, with the discount covered by the state, i.e. taxes, i.e. everyone.
Whee godwin's law.
The idea of protecting true democracy by preventing every vote from counting is certainly a novel one. Rule by the people, except the people who have opinions we don't like. Truly democracy is safe under such a system.
<!--quoteo(post=1739694:date=Nov 24 2009, 03:46 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Nov 24 2009, 03:46 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1739694"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A true democracy isn't about the tyranny of the majority, but about trying to find a solution that serves everyone.
Take the classical example of what side of the road to drive on: We all agree that we MUST have a law about this, because in our fictional state of Democracystan we're currently driving on whatever side we please and that's leading to far too many accidents. Now, 90% of the cars in Democracystan have the controls on the left side of the car and are therefore best suited to driving on the right side of the road. We put the matter up to a public vote and to little surprise, driving on the right side of the road wins with an 87% majority. But what do we do about the cars that are ill-suited to this? If we're using a "tyranny of the majority" system, we tell their owners to ###### off and deal with it. In a real democracy we offer them a hefty discount on getting their cars converted, with the discount covered by the state, i.e. taxes, i.e. everyone.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is also a valid argument, tyranny of the majority means the people who don't agree get stepped on, however when, in order to avoid tyranny of the majority, you start having tyranny of the system, whereby the democratic process is not very democratic because you stop listening to what everyone is saying when it starts to get too split, or too destructive to the system itself, that is also rather undemocratic.
Democracy is really impossible unless everyone happens to want the same thing.
The idea of protecting true democracy by preventing every vote from counting is certainly a novel one. Rule by the people, except the people who have opinions we don't like. Truly democracy is safe under such a system.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
One can argue that when the population elects a president, they are entrusting him with perhaps deciding things on his own separate from whatever is popular at the time. George W. Bush did what he believed was right. He was not an "American Idol" president.
I would support that idea if we change the office of president to the office of tyrant just for laughs and accuracy.
A system of governance requires a few attributes before it can be considered a democracy: Equality before the law, limitations on government power, freedom of the press and freedom of expression.
Fundamentally, democracies should protect against the 'tyranny of the majority', which isn't to say that the minority should always get their way, but that their needs and wishes should be factored into any decision.
Examples of such are in short supply these days.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Either it's not murder, in which case it's as inconsequential as disinfecting your kitchen, or it is, in which case it's as heinous as burning down an orphanage.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is far too simplistic. Even if you take this dichotomy, there are some basic corner cases that would make such 'muder' acceptable to some - e.g. in the case of rape, in the case of positive id of birth defects.
But the reality is more complex, because when you ask about abortion you have to consider when the abortion is occuring. Post-coital contraception ( the morning after pill ) is a form of abortion, but the aborter is spared the knowledge of knowing if a pregancy would occur, nonetheless a zygote may be terminated due to the treatment. As the zygote develops into an embryo and later a fetus it increases in complexity and capability. We all know that it is typically the fist 12 weeks of pregnancy in which an abortion can be performed and this is not without reason. For example, at 6 weeks the fetus is less than 5mm in length and doesn't provide any higher order functions. The brain at this stage is a cluster of general brain cells with no higher organisation.
In a nutshell the question of whether abortion is murder is very different at 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 6 weeks and 12 weeks.
For those who feel that abortion is a spiritual or emotional issue, they are normally talking about potential life. I wonder how these people sleep at night, because if they honestly think like this they should be humping every chance they can get and raising families if 20-30 kids. All those potential lives wasted by not getting pregnant.
In my opinion, before the 12th week of gestation, and certainly before the 10th, the fetus does not constitute an individual, only a potential one and although I don not trivialise the procedure, and would not want to encourage anyone to have an abortion, I think on the whole, it is best left to the potential mother to decide.
Maybe you should hold off with your assumptions? Some people think that history may show that George W. Bush was a good president in the long run.
I wasn't referring to him, I was referring to the idea of someone who goes off and does their own thing regardless of popularity.
When one of those is in charge of a country, the accurate word is usually 'tyrant'.
<!--quoteo(post=1739702:date=Nov 24 2009, 03:55 PM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (puzl @ Nov 24 2009, 03:55 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1739702"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think you are confused about what democracy is. Nobody owns the word, but by any definition going back to ancient greece, fundamental to democracy is the concept of equality before the law. So any 'democracy' that euthanised undesirable genetic traits would not be democratic under any meaningful definition. What you are describing is called mob rule.
A system of governance requires a few attributes before it can be considered a democracy: Equality before the law, limitations on government power, freedom of the press and freedom of expression.
Fundamentally, democracies should protect against the 'tyranny of the majority', which isn't to say that the minority should always get their way, but that their needs and wishes should be factored into any decision.
Examples of such are in short supply these days.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you do that you don't really listen to either the majority or the minority so it would seem to be far less democratic. Perhaps more stable and pleasant to live in, but not very democratic by any meaningful definition of the word, considering the word means rule by the people and you aren't really letting them rule if you subject everything they ask for to a lot of interpretation so that it becomes what you think is best for everyone, it's more like benevolent tyranny.
<!--quoteo(post=1739702:date=Nov 24 2009, 03:55 PM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (puzl @ Nov 24 2009, 03:55 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1739702"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This is far too simplistic. Even if you take this dichotomy, there are some basic corner cases that would make such 'muder' acceptable to some - e.g. in the case of rape, in the case of positive id of birth defects.
But the reality is more complex, because when you ask about abortion you have to consider when the abortion is occuring. Post-coital contraception ( the morning after pill ) is a form of abortion, but the aborter is spared the knowledge of knowing if a pregancy would occur, nonetheless a zygote may be terminated due to the treatment. As the zygote develops into an embryo and later a fetus it increases in complexity and capability. We all know that it is typically the fist 12 weeks of pregnancy in which an abortion can be performed and this is not without reason. For example, at 6 weeks the fetus is less than 5mm in length and doesn't provide any higher order functions. The brain at this stage is a cluster of general brain cells with no higher organisation.
In a nutshell the question of whether abortion is murder is very different at 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 6 weeks and 12 weeks.
For those who feel that abortion is a spiritual or emotional issue, they are normally talking about potential life. I wonder how these people sleep at night, because if they honestly think like this they should be humping every chance they can get and raising families if 20-30 kids. All those potential lives wasted by not getting pregnant.
In my opinion, before the 12th week of gestation, and certainly before the 10th, the fetus does not constitute an individual, only a potential one and although I don not trivialise the procedure, and would not want to encourage anyone to have an abortion, I think on the whole, it is best left to the potential mother to decide.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Murder is murder regardless of why you do it, and justifiability does not affect how good or evil the act itself is, it just means sometimes you have to do evil to avoid evil.
<a href="http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/populace" target="_blank">http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/populace</a>
<a href="http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/demos" target="_blank">http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/demos</a>
Amusingly enough they are both derived from the latin and greek words for 'common people'
So really speaking they should be identical.
And the key thing is 'rule by the people' - majority rule being one way to do it, but many think an inclusive majority is better.
Just because you are with the mob, doesn't mean you have a right to lynch those who stand apart from it. For a start, you probably have a bill of rights, or equivalent, in your country. Secondly, you have a constitutional framework limiting the directions in which government can legislate. If all else fails, your country is probably a signatory of the UDHR and is obliged to provide said rights to its citizens.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Murder is murder regardless of why you do it, and justifiability does not affect how good or evil the act itself is, it just means sometimes you have to do evil to avoid evil.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I couldn't agree more. The question is: Is abortion murder? My opinion: Not during the first trimester.
Perhaps the value of a living organism should be judged as the sum of 1) its "intrinsic value", referring in some sense to the development of its brain (e.g. sentience), and 2) its value to other living organisms. The elderly are valued by the multitude of people on whom they have made an impression during their lives (for example, their descendants). On the other end, parents usually place great value on their offspring even at the early stages, but this is clearly not the case when an abortion is desired.
But let us reverse the question. How can one condemn abortion without applying the same judgment to the slaughter of animals or plants for food, or even to the prior example of disinfecting a kitchen? In my view, such a position requires the belief that humanity is fundamentally "special" among the class of living organisms, and scientifically this belief has no basis.