Columbus

[QUOTE]It's a little disingenuous of you to claim you value the great apes, but then develop an ignorance of scientific nomenclature. How can you define them? LWF has given the definition for human that satisfies the worlds top scientists. I use the same one.

Sometimes women are forced into behaviour that results in pregnancy. It's called rape and is also subject to harsh sanctions.
The rest of the time it is the well understood result of clearly defined behaviour. Pregnancy is a short-term burden that is the result of choices made, not some punishment delivered by law or random affliction. The results of choices you make is categorically different from something imposed from without. Freedom of Choice includes the freedom to choose contraception, or that fail-safe birth control method abstinence. Irresponsible sex causes unwanted pregnancies, not fetuses.

[QUOTE]Nobody is talking about a life of utter misery here, although I would tend to agree with you as far as it goes. We are talking about valuing things more highly than human life. Whether it's sex or money or great apes, it puts everybodies happiness at risk and degrades everybodies life.

Tom

Yggdrasill

Your quote tags are a bit confusing, but I'll try to answer what I think you're asking.If you are referring to the definition "A human is an organism that is a member of the family Hominidae and of the genus homo.", I'd be surprised if it satisfied any scientists or linguists, a good definition does not merely list a synonym, it actually explains what it is. But if that is your preferred definition, I'm not looking for a definition, I'm looking for the requirements for judging an organism a human. What specifically makes a human a human? Was this aimed at me? I'll answer it anyway. When you end up in a bad position, it's too late to change the past. Even if mistakes were made in the past, it's still important to pick the best option for the future, even if choices made in the past could have avoided the situation. What's more important than the life of the fetus is to avoid the misery of the mother.I thought you said you valued "life", not specifically "human life". Anyway, it's hard to judge the subjective experience of the mother, so by proving it in the hyperbole, I show that it's possible that abortion would be justified, and who is better to judge their subjective experience than the mothers themselves?

Anne Fidel

Tom, I can sympathize with your view a bit, but I can't agree. I am married with two children, and my second child (who is now 6 months old) was a result of direct birth control failure. Not misuse of birth control, but a true failure of birth control. I know tons of people claim that falsely, but I'm one of the 1% it wasn't effective for. It happens in rare cases, but it really does happen. I was taking precautions, so I wasn't being irresponsible. I could not afford a second child, so I grappled with the idea of abortion for a few weeks. Although I had a 'legitimate' reason for one, I couldn't bring myself to go through with it, because this was a potential child of mine. I'm thrilled that I didn't, and I love my little girl with all of my heart.

However, it doesn't always go that way. If abortion wasn't even an option, and a woman had to carry on with an unwanted pregnancy, she might not be in my position of being married to a loving man who, while understandably upset about the pregnancy, was very supportive and is a great dad now that she's here. My circumstances in life enabled me to take responsibility for an unwanted pregnancy and still be a good mother to the child. Some women have no ability to care for a newborn, and no desire to do so. If you force a woman to have a child that she doesn't want, some of these unwanted kids are going to be killed at birth, abandoned, or horribly abused. Sure, some will turn out like my situation and be with loving stable parents, but that is far from the norm. Although my personal morals would not allow me to have an abortion, I am very grateful for the option. Life is not always a beautiful choice.

long winded fool

The only difference I see is in particulars. Pregnant women enjoy a privilege that I can never have: The privilege to destroy a certain kind of human if she find saids human an inconvenience or a barrier to her own ability to enjoy life. I would hate to be in such a woman's shoes. My heart goes out to all the women who must endure unwanted pregnancies. But what logical reason is there to grant them the legal right to destroy another human for the sake of preserving their happiness and current way of life if no other human has that right? I cannot kill my neighbor if he is hampering my ability to enjoy my life. No matter how loud his music gets, I am forced by law to endure his presence, to sacrifice my own happiness, until I can safely remove myself from the noise. No one would ever entertain the possibility that I ought to have the right to choose not to make the sacrifice of putting up with his loud music by tossing a stick of dynamite into his bedroom window. Everyone would force me to sacrifice my happiness and right of self determination for as long as it takes me to remove myself from the source of the sound. I have the right to move. I have the right to call the police. I even have the right to scream at him to turn it down. I should never have the right to kill him. What basis is there for this right?

No human should be legally required to sacrifice their emotional or financial security or their own happiness to keep another human alive. All humans should be prosecuted if they deliberately destroy another human for reasons other than self-defense. Refusal to donate is not a crime. Forcibly taking back a donation, when said donation is being used by someone to survive, is. Refusing to donate your uterus to another human should never be illegal. Sex should always be voluntary, and contraception should always be a legal option. Taking back an already donated uterus, whether the donation was made voluntarily or involuntarily, should be a crime.

Stephen_BostonMA

Yes, but luckily for you, you will never be burdened with something as particularly intrusive as an unwanted pregnancy. Suffer the same burden, and then you get the same "privilege."
Yes, but if you are troubled by a noisy neighbor, you have numerous options available to change your situation without killing him. To relieve herself of an unwanted pregnancy, a pregnant woman really has just one option.Your two sentences here contradict each other.Rarely does a woman abort simply because she wants to "take back" her uterus.

long winded fool

I understand. But the same goes for slavery. The question is not whether anyone in a particular situation would have the privilege, it's whether anyone ought to ever have such a privilege.

Correct. Her only option to rid herself of an unwanted pregnancy without killing a human is to give birth to it. Or is this simply an unacceptable option? Limited options and the subjective opinion of those faced with them don't make homicide a reasonable legal alternative unless the life of another human is at risk.

That's a common misconception. Refusing to take action to keep a human alive (not throwing yourself in front of a bullet) and deliberately taking action with the intent to destroy a human (pulling the trigger) are not the same thing. By implying so, you are putting a spin on the motive so that the woman appears to be the victim even though she is the murderer:

Say that I kill my neighbor because he is playing his music too loud. My saying that I should not be legally forced to make the sacrifice of limiting my options to only those that do not result in the death of my neighbor doesn't change the reality of the situation. Don't you feel sorry for me that all these bleeding heart conservatives are forcing me to sacrifice my freedom just because they have some silly notion of human rights? Or am I simply refusing to look at the situation as it is? Isn't it the case that the religious, conservative, white male majority is forcing their own beliefs down my throat without ever having been in my particular situation? Don't tell me that there are other options! Those options are not acceptable to me, and you can't tell me what is acceptable until you are in my shoes! The only options I see are to kill my neighbor right now, or continue to endure loud music for an unspecified amount of time. I do not want to do the latter, and you do not have the right to take away my former option. So, if you ever have a neighbor who plays his music too loud, and you do not wish to make the sacrifice of going through the trouble to solve this problem without resorting to violence, then you can decide for yourself what to do, but don't think for a moment about taking away my freedom to choose.

It doesn't matter why she wants to abort. Women's motives are not in question. The opinions of pregnant women are irrelevant to the question of homicide, and serve the discussion only as a red herring. Homicide is only legal in self-defense. No matter how thoughtful and gut-wrenching a racists reasons are for hating a particular race and killing them when he comes across them, murder is simply murder. Unless the racist's, or the pregnant woman's, life was in danger, the homicide they commited is murder. The legality of homicide is the only relevant point in the discussion. Either homicide is illegal unless it is in self-defense or defense of another, or there is some other criteria that makes homicide legal, i.e. the class, race, age, I.Q. etc. of the victim.

long winded fool

Family is a taxonomic category of related organisms ranking below an order and above a genus usually consisting of several genera.

A genus is a taxonomic category ranking below a family and above a species and generally consisting of a group of species exhibiting similar characteristics.

Keep in mind that it is irrational to use these definitions to discriminate against animals of a given species if, due to level of development, sex, disease, deformity, or injury, they do not exhibit identical characteristics to other animals of the same species. A kangaroo without hind legs and a pouch is still a kangaroo. A chimpanzee without a penis is still a chimpanzee. A coyote without fur is still a coyote. A cat with two tails is still a cat. A dog with three legs is still a dog.

Everyone, regardless of political views, knows that there is no question that the offspring of two humans is a human. To imply there is is to dishonestly grasp at the longest of straws for the sake of one's argument.

Anne Fidel

Okay, since you don't think that the woman's opinion on whether or not she should grow, give birth to, and likely spend 18-22 years of her life raising this person matters, how about thinking of the baby who will be born to a woman who doesn't want her child? Sure, you can say 'adoption', but all kids don't get placed with loving families right from birth.

What if the mother is a drug addict, and has used crack during the beginning of her pregnancy? Should she be allowed an abortion? The fact that she doesn't want the child is going to ensure that pregnancy would not be enough motivation to stop smoking crack. Kid is born with health problems, is unlikely to be adopted, and will probably be shunted from one foster home to another without ever being properly treated for his/her birth defects or being loved and cared-for by his/her natural parents.

What about the precious babies born to mothers or fathers who will kill them at birth? Were those few months in the womb valuable enough to force her to stay pregnant? No one should ever do such a horrible thing, but you know that it happens quite often, usually by frightened teenagers who don't really understand what they're doing, and whom would have benefitted hugely from an abortion. Imagine how often it would happen if abortion was illegal.

I personally do not agree with abortion for myself, but I will always support the right to choose, both for the sake of women and for the sake of their potential children.

Yggdrasill

What you are implying is that there is some inherent quality that makes humans human. If that were the case, it would be completely impossible to make a human from scratch in a lab. I'll say to you what I said to Columbus, I'm looking for the requirements for judging an organism a human. What specifically makes a human a human?

If you can't come up with objective universal requirements, that just goes to show that "humans" are too diverse to be defined. And it shows that judging one thing as human and another not is arbitrary, because there isn't any boundary to base it on.I know it is a "human", but I also know the "human" is not the same as me, as every organism is biologically unique, I am my own species in myself. If you exaggerate the differences you can look at it this way, every human is one particular species (or breed, if you will) of dog, there are differences, but they are not so great that two different species can't produce an offspring that would be considered "dog". When you look at the differences, you can see the same differences between horses and donkeys, it's just that the differences are greater, and when you look further than that, the differences are what seperate all species, only to different extents.

So, why the hell should I value a human based on it's "humanity"?

Spanky

You are the spinner here LWFool. Your statement did contradict itself. But that is beyond the point.
I believe the woman is the victim here. Let's see, an unwanted pregnancy equals an unwanted organism sucking and feeding off your very vitals, organs, blood, nutrients, etc. What is your most prized posession LWFool? Is it your house? Your computer? Or is it your body? I would say it is your body. If you were invaded by an organism (I don't care from what "taxonomic category of related organisms ranking below an order and above a genus usually consisting of several genera" it was from it still is unwanted and invaded you against your will. You are now the victim.
Now, this brings up another good point you mentioned in this sentence I quoted you from that "Refusing to take action to keep a human alive (not throwing yourself in front of a bullet) and deliberately taking action with the intent to destroy a human (pulling the trigger) are not the same thing."
When women abort are they:
1. deliberately taking action with the intent to destroy?
or
2. refusing to take action to keep a human alive?

My answer is #2 and your right, they are different. Thank you for clearing this up for us!
First of all abortion is not homicide but we'll have a stab at this anyways.
Self-defense was brought up as the only justifiable (legal) means of homicide. I would say that if a parasytical organism invaded my body (regardless of what it was, human, cacerous, etc.) and I did not want it there and I did not ask it to be there; that if I took action to refuse to give it my own body and my own resources than this is a form of self-defense. Is it not? Spin that, I know you will. But thank you for bringing up that point also.

BTW, are red herrings good to eat?

I appreciate your passion on the subject as I am also passionate. However, I feel you are an uniformed person to call an abortion homicide or murder. As is the OP was angered by abortion being compared to the inquisition. You like philosophy, right. Try this on and see if it fits http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/~massimo/...ersonhood.html

Abortion is not pleasant. Nor is it evil. The woman IS the victim. And usually the organism being aborted doesn't even have the faculties of a worm. The woman creates and gives life. . .all life. If they decide to abort they are not "deliberately taking action with the intent to destroy a human (pulling the trigger." They are simply "Refusing to take action to keep a human alive (not throwing yourself in front of a bullet)."