I'm gonna talk about abortion again.

RKMBs

Just a warning. ^

I've been reading some pro and con logic arguments regarding abortion (for my Ethics class) and have changed my views regarding abortion.

I will no longer disregard the rights of the mother.
I will no longer blindly plow past valid points in ignorance.
I actually have reasons for my views now.
I still find most abortion morally wrong.
I also want to go over the morality of animal killing for consumption.
I would like some help in formulating these thoughts so I can hav a more complete view, so I especially welcome strong polar views here.

I'm still working on what I want to say, but I wanted to start anyhow, see if anyone else is interested in discussing the issue.

For referance I've read:
Judith Jarvis Thompson's "A Defense of Abortion"
Mary Anne Warren's "On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion"
Don Marquis' "Why Abortion is Immoral"

Good luck! I've hit the internet the last time you brought it up & couldn't even to begin to wade through the claims made by both sides of the issue, & what was actually true or not. If anybody has some solid sources on the net I would be interested in checking them out.

Quote:

I also want to go over the morality of animal killing for consumption.

I'm not a hunter & killing things for sport repulses me buuut we were designed to be predators & it's a survival thing. I do think we need to do a better job caring for our livestock & being more humane. If for no other reason to prevent things like Mad Cow disease & protecting ourselves.

I'm all for it, where do you want to begin?

I'd be currious to hear what areas you think that abortion is justified and not justified.

I'm personally against abortion unless the mother's life is in danger and in cases of rape (although I think adoption should be the first choice if possible). If it's a health issue and abortion's the only option, then a mother should be allowed to do it.

As for why, I'm going to propose an argument that I don't hear very often, and this is just my opinion.

When a mother becomes pregneant, it doesn't matter when the fetus actually becomes a living human. Regardless of when or if the fetus is alive at a certain point, it always has the potential to become alive, and to become a human being. By aborting the fetus, regardless of when you do so, you're denying it the opportunity to one day become a complete human.

Does this make sense to everyone, or do I need to clarify?

Quote:

Darknight613 said:
Does this make sense to everyone, or do I need to clarify?

I can dig it.

Those have been my reasons for over the last decade. I became anti-choice when I became a parent.

Quote:

Matter-eater Man said:
we were designed to be predators & it's a survival thing.

I've actually read that humans share more in common with herbivores than carnivores. For example, we don't have claws on our hands or sharp teeth for tearing meat, among some other things I've forgotten.

Quote:

Disco Steve said:
Quote:

Matter-eater Man said:
we were designed to be predators & it's a survival thing.

I've actually read that humans share more in common with herbivores than carnivores. For example, we don't have claws on our hands or sharp teeth for tearing meat, among some other things I've forgotten.

Good point, I was just thinking of our eyes being comparable to other carnivores. (eyes in front instead of on the sides)

The eyes, eh? Didn't think of that one.

There was also something about animal meat containing lots of hormones and stuff not meant to be inside of humans.

It's been a while since I plugged tihs place here, but around 10 years ago I used to raise money by way of a hike for these guys. They've changed names since then, but from what I've seen on their site, they're still the same.

Here's their

Q&A page and information on abortion.

Quote:

Disco Steve said:
Quote:

Matter-eater Man said:
we were designed to be predators & it's a survival thing.

I've actually read that humans share more in common with herbivores than carnivores. For example, we don't have claws on our hands or sharp teeth for tearing meat, among some other things I've forgotten.

Ah, the catch here is that no matter which perspective you take here, there's room to debate whether or not human beings are 'supposed' to eat meat.

From a Darwinian perspective, fossil evidence shows that human beings evolved as tool users. They didn't need claws to catch prey if they could use spears, clubs, and fire. Similarly, they didn't need an abundance of meat-tearing teeth (although we in fact have eight, our canines and incisors), because they had flint knives to cut the meat they killed.

Or, if you want to follow a strictly Biblical perspective, there's also plenty here to justify human beings eating animals. At the end of the flood narrative in Genesis 6 and 7, God specifically gives animals to human beings for food.

But that's not quite the topic we're on here.

I would have to say Darknight summed up how I feel about the abortion issue pretty well. I shared this in an abortion thread a long time ago, but I am an adopted child. My birth mother (who I had what you could call the 'privilege' of meeting two summers ago) was (and still is) a seemingly incurable alcoholic, and was at the time a drug user. She admitted to abusing prescription drugs while she was carrying me, and tests confirmed the presence of some decidedly non-prescription substances as well.

I was born with a mild incidence of cerebral palsy and some behavioral aberrations, but eventually my other biological relatives convinced my birth mother to do something for someone else just once and give me up for adoption. And here I am today. Yeah, I'm kinda clumsy, but you have to watch me really carefully to see why that is. Yeah, I do dumb stuff every now and then, but not that much more than anyone else, thanks to medication and therapy back in junior high and high school.

My point is that I believe I'm here for a reason, even though I was what many would call an accident, and by their logic I should have been written off, since I would surely never be a healthy, productive member of society. I am convinced that God has a purpose for every single human being alive, even though most of the time neither that person nor anyone around them knows what that purpose is.

I wouldn't expect any of you to see it from my perspective if you haven't been where I've been and gone through what I've gone through. But you'd better not expect me to go against all of that just because you believe one person's choice is more important than another person's (even potential person's, if you want) life. I can understand circumstances where the life of the mother is threatened. But from the perspective of my beliefs and experiences, it strikes me as a bit presumptuous to say that some human beings/potential human beings should have their lives granted or taken away on a trial basis depending on how convenient their existence may be, or how that particular person came to be conceived, or whatever.

Just my thoughts.

Quote:

Uschi said:
I also want to go over the morality of animal killing for consumption.

The main argument against animal killing for consumption is that we're more civilized. But I find that this, at the same time, is contradicted by the fact that the people who make the argument carry the belief that we are on the same field of evolutionary stances with them (i.e. animals and humans alike are equal). So it is in this that I find the argument paradoxal. If we're equal, that means we go off of the same instinct, "the strong survive". And until we remove the innards of all human society, that motto isn't going to change for us either. By principle and circumstance, we are justified to eat meat.

Again, I'm only addressing this commonly used tune.

I'm amazed that this topic was derailed so quickly.

I have to read over my points. I'm really fuckin' busy and will get to a little online discussion this weekend.

fuck, I'm becoming Dave. Hell, poo even sounds kinda tasty...

gimme 'till next weekend.

Wait a tic!

........Is Disco Steve a vegetarian???

It would certainly explain a few things, but, you know, its just kinda surprising for no reason I can think of.

How the hell did the vegan issue outlive the abortion issue on this thread?!?

Hell with it. I posted my position on abortion again; if any of you wanna agree or disagree with it I'd love to hear from you.

Quote:

Disco Steve said:
The eyes, eh? Didn't think of that one.

There was also something about animal meat containing lots of hormones and stuff not meant to be inside of humans.

exactly part of the reason i can't eat cow anymore. that and anytime i have a burger it moo's at me.

Rabbits are herbivores.....

I hear she wasn't against a bit of meat in her mou...

God, I'm so bored I'm resorting to the real basics now.

So I've been giving a lot of thought to the morality of abortions. This is majorly influanced by readings and discussions in my Ethics course this last semester. I think I've pinpointed exactly what it is that I can and cannot accept as moral.

I forget the name of the author of the first reading I was assigned. She's incredibly famous for it though. I could look it up in a second when I'm through. She wrote an essay prescribing parables, that is comparable situations (in all relevant respects) in which we might easier be able to decide the morality of a situation, paralleling abortion situations. In these situations I was able to determine what sort of circumstances are requisite for a morally superior abortion.

If a woman's rights are violaed in her becoming pregnant, such as in a rape case, I believe it is wholly acceptable (although not required) that said woman recieves an abortion. The example given in the aformentioned essay was of 'the violinist.' Suppose you are stolen away in the night and hooked up to a world renound vioinist. Apparently it has been determined that you are the only match so if you are disconnected from the ailing violinist he will most certainly die. Supposing you need only to remain connected to the violinist for nine months, it would definately be a grandly benevolant thing for you to remain connected to the violinist, but since you have had your rights trampled on you have no moral requirement to stay in the bed next to the violinist feeding his life for most of the next year. (such an argument is explored in further depth in the essay) This example is similar enough to rape as to help me identify that although there is a baby there, the mother does not have to support it to term.

Another case I find abortion to be morally on the up-and-up are those -rare though they be- times in which a woman's health and possibly life are threatened by carrying the baby to full term. This would fall under the umbrella of self defense. If a person is harming or killing you, there is no reason you should not be allowed to retaliate - regardless of the pepetrator's awareness of the situation. Take, for example, Lenny in Of Mice and Men. He didn't really know he was harming things, but the pretty girl's neck was still broken and Lenny's friend (his name escapes me) does the just thing and kills Lenny. It would be the same if a woman's pregnancy was detrimental to her health and livelyhood. Again, there is no requirement that the woman recieve an abortion, just my deduction that it would be morally acceptable.

There are perhaps more times when abortion would be morally decent, however I'll stop for any discussion here because my dog is getting antsy to go play.

Judith Jarvis Thompson, "A Defense of Abortion"

I tried to post a link to the essay but I can't find anything but reviews and analysis' and responses. Sorry.

For years I kind of stuck with the cop-out answer that being a gay guy this was the type of situation I would never be faced with. But life is life & there just has to be better solutions available than terminating a pregnancy in most cases. However, if the pregnancy is high risk the mother should have the option of choice & if it's really high risk I would say she has a moral obligation to have an abortion.

I don't think I could tell somebody who was raped that they had to carry the baby to term either. Although I would think in most of those cases an abortion would be performed very early on. The morning after pill type of thing.

If the only two times when an abortion would be legal were in cases of rape or the life of the mother, I would be one happy camper, but we've come to the point where in the 1st 2 trimesters are performed as matters of convenience and abortion advocates rail against a ban on partial birth abortion even with a provision for the life of the mother.

I'll take these provisions one at a time, because while I would be content with abortion being legal in the case of rape, I wouldn't go as far as to say it would be morraly acceptable. I do not think the woman's parrallel is exactly annalogous to the case of rape because what you have is someone commiting a crime against a woman for the bennifit of the violinist. You could almost assume from the story that they could be doing it on his behest. To truly parralel you would have to create a scenareo where one becomes dependant on another, both being a victim of the same crime. Off the top of my head I would say something along the lines of two people being thrown off a bridge, while one is able to secure themselves safely the other is forced to be held in the air by the other. Say the "woman" has caught herself and has a shure footing and has the "violinist" by one hand. The woman in this case isn't in jepordy of losing her life, but will definately be inconvenianced, put in grave discomfort and even have her freedoms limited for what ever period she decides to hold the hand of the violinist. While this is unfortunate for her I would say that it wouldn't be the "right" thing to do to let go and allow him to fall to his death and I think few people in that situation would do so.

As far as the health and the life of the mother, I will say that i agree with the case of the mothers life and on the same basis (self defence), but not the health of the mother, because as I've mentioned before the simple fact is that a mothers health is alwayse effected by having a child and in choosing to get pregnant you choose to face these health issues in fact what makes this an even more problematic argument is the fact that one of the leading unreported stories is that it's a far greater risk to interupt the body's natural order in producing than to allow it to go to term. Planned Parrenthood has even been exposed in attemting to hide the cancer risk and other health risks of an abortion from prospective patiants.

I do hope that some of our local proponants for legalised abortion will attemt to tell me why I'm wrong here.