What should the penalty be for illegal abortions?

Sam Vimes · 27-01-2009 5:24pm

my point of view is that it should and the point of view of people who are for abortion seems to be that it should have rights when they want it to have rights (eg the double homicide law for killing a pregnant woman or disapproving of a pregnant smoker) but not when it having rights is inconvenient for them

nacho libre · 27-01-2009 6:17pm

Edit: nacho libre, I've changed my opinion insofar as I cannot argue that a foetus is not a living thing but I am still opposed to making abortion illegal.[/QUOTE]

just a few questions on this reponse:

you recognise the foetus is "a living thing" so in your view the foetus, while living, is not distinct(not worthy of special status) from other forms of life i presume. therefore this means you are able to justify abortion being llegal. or, are you saying it is, in fact, human but you think killing humans in some cases should be legal?
if it's a case of the former,
what if a man punched a pregnant woman in the stomach and as result she loses her foetus. would you object to that man being charged with anything other than assault against the woman?

or should the charges he faces depend on whether the individual woman views the unborn as a clump of cells or a developing human?

also, is it not inconsistent, for those who argue "personhood" in defense of abortion, to view a mother who drowns her six month old child as a murderer?
since that child is not aware of itself- merely a ball of instincts, who is dependent on another human being to survive. it seems to me based on the logic of this argument the drowned child is really no more a "person" than the aborted child.

Macha · 27-01-2009 6:22pm

The short answer is I don't know nacho libre. Ill put Singer's argument up because it's a better explanation of my view than any other I can find:

Abortion, euthanasia and infanticide

Consistent with his general ethical theory, Singer holds that the right to life is intrinsically tied to a being's capacity to hold preferences, which in turn is intrinsically tied to a being's capacity to feel pain and pleasure. In his view, the central argument against abortion is equivalent to the following logical syllogism:

First premise: It is wrong to take innocent human life.
Second premise: From conception onwards, the embryo or fetus is innocent, human and alive.
Conclusion: It is wrong to take the life of the embryo or fetus.[25]

In his book Rethinking Life and Death Singer asserts that, if we take the premises at face value, the argument is deductively valid. Singer comments that those who do not generally think abortion is wrong attack the second premise, suggesting that the fetus becomes a 'human' or 'alive' at some point after conception; however, Singer remarks that human development is a gradual process, that it is nearly impossible to mark a particular moment in time as the moment at which human life begins.
Singer lecturing on medical ethics.

Singer's argument for abortion differs from many other proponents of abortion; rather than attacking the second premise of the anti-abortion argument, Singer attacks the first premise, denying that it is wrong to take innocent human life:

[The argument that a fetus is not alive] is a resort to a convenient fiction that turns an evidently living being into one that legally is not alive. Instead of accepting such fictions, we should recognise that the fact that a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being's life. (Rethinking Life and Death 105)

Singer states that arguments for or against abortion should be based on utilitarian calculation which weighs the preferences of a mother against the preferences of the fetus. A preference is anything sought to be obtained or avoided; all forms of benefit or harm caused to a being correspond directly with the satisfaction or frustration of one or more of its preferences. Since a capacity to experience suffering or satisfaction is a prerequisite to having any preferences at all, and a fetus (up to around 18 weeks) has no capacity to suffer or feel satisfaction, it is not possible for fetuses to hold any preferences at all. In a utilitarian calculation, there is nothing to weigh against a mother's preferences to have an abortion, therefore abortion is morally permissible.

Similar to his argument for abortion, Singer argues that infants similarly lack essential characteristics of personhood - "rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness" [26]- and therefore "imply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person."[27].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer

Macha · 27-01-2009 6:31pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

in all honestly taconnol, i think you do know. deep down you know that abortion is wrong and that it shouldn't be done but bringing a child to term is difficult and dangerous so you're having difficulty accepting it

In all honesty, Sam Vimes, I would ask you not to presume to know my mind. I find this part of your post quite condescending. That's not what I think at all.

Sam Vimes · 27-01-2009 6:34pm

taconnol wrote: »

In all honesty, Sam Vimes, I would ask you not to presume to know my mind. I find this part of your post quite condescending. That's not what I think at all.

you seem to be wrestling with your thoughts on the matter. you don't seem to be able to give any justification of why the foetus shouldn't have rights, your arguments are all that it's traumatic for the mother, which could very likely end up being you. it just seems to me that you're wrestling with what you would like to be true and what the evidence is saying is true. if i'm wrong i apologise

also, that singer just seems to have his own definition what he considers to be "valuable" that allows him to dismiss the life of another human being without guilt, the same as any other person who's for abortion, or misogynist or slave owner. i could just as easily say:
Sam Vimes argues that black guys similarly lack essential characteristics of personhood - "whiteness" [26]- and therefore "imply killing a black guy is never equivalent to killing a person."[27].

Macha · 27-01-2009 6:45pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

you seem to be wrestling with your thoughts on the matter. you don't seem to be able to give any justification of why the foetus shouldn't have rights, your arguments are all that it's traumatic for the mother, which could very likely end up being you. it just seems to me that you're wrestling with what you would like to be true and what the evidence is saying is true. if i'm wrong i apologise

Sorry, that was a bit too harsh. My arguments are based on the rights of the baby/child/foetus being balanced with those of the mother/parents.

In all honesty, though, I would never have an abortion myself but then again, I have access to contraception, live in a wealthy country, am in a loving, stable relationship, am in my mid-20s, am well off and would be able to provide for my child very well. Plus I don't live in a society that "punished" women for becoming mothers (well, not very much anyway..) BUT, I don't feel comfortable forcing my own view on this onto other people.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

also, that singer just seems to have his own definition what he considers to be "valuable" that allows him to dismiss the life of another human being without guilt, the same as any other person who's for abortion, or misogynist or slave owner. i could just as easily say:
Sam Vimes argues that black guys similarly lack essential characteristics of personhood - "whiteness" [26]- and therefore "imply killing a black guy is never equivalent to killing a person."[27].

LOL, so I ask you: are you a vegetarian??

Sam Vimes · 27-01-2009 6:53pm

taconnol wrote: »

Sorry, that was a bit too harsh. My arguments are based on the rights of the baby/child/foetus being balanced with those of the mother/parents.

In all honesty, though, I would never have an abortion myself but then again, I have access to contraception, live in a wealthy country, am in a loving, stable relationship, am in my mid-20s, am well off and would be able to provide for my child very well. Plus I don't live in a society that "punished" women for becoming mothers (well, not very much anyway..) BUT, I don't feel comfortable forcing my own view on this onto other people.

but this isn't a situation of a personal preference or a religion or something like that, it's reminding them that murder is wrong. hardly a "view", no?

taconnol wrote: »

LOL, so I ask you: are you a vegetarian??

singer uses arbitrary parameters that are valid to no one but himself to decide if a being is valuable or not. he is grading human beings the same way slave owners did

i simply use the criteria: "it is a human being"

an animal is not a human being which can be verified by either looking at it or doing a dna test. therefore i look on them in much the same way as a pro-abortionist looks on a foetus. and no i'm not a vegetarian

Macha · 27-01-2009 7:01pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

but this isn't a situation of a personal preference or a religion or something like that, it's reminding them that murder is wrong. hardly a "view", no?

What can I say? I'm a social liberalist. I find it a bit too easy to dictate to others when I'm not in that position myself. It's a lot harder when it's happening to you.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

i simply use the criteria: "it is a human being"

Why? Can animals not suffer? You're arguing that the foetus should not be aborted because that would cause it suffering (in the general sense of the word).

Using that logic, you should not eat meat because you are causing suffering on a living thing.

Sam Vimes · 27-01-2009 7:10pm

taconnol wrote: »

Why? Can animals not suffer? You're arguing that the foetus should not be aborted because that would cause it suffering (in the general sense of the word).

Using that logic, you should not eat meat because you are causing suffering on a living thing.

that would be poor logic, good thing i'm not arguing that :P

i'm arguing that it's a human being and it's not ok to kill human beings

pts · 27-01-2009 7:24pm

Just read the proceeding pages. Some stimulating arguments on both sides so far.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

i'm arguing that it's a human being and it's not ok to kill human beings

I'm curious to if you believe it is always wrong to kill humans, or if it is justified under certain circumstances.

Sam Vimes · 27-01-2009 7:27pm

pts wrote: »

Just read the proceeding pages. Some stimulating arguments on both sides so far.

I'm curious to if you believe it is always wrong to kill humans, or if it is justified under certain circumstances.

the circumstances for me would be that that person is currently in the process of attempting to kill you or a loved one and the only way to stop them is to kill them. do you think there are any different circumstances

Macha · 27-01-2009 7:31pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

that would be poor logic, good thing i'm not arguing that :P

i'm arguing that it's a human being and it's not ok to kill human beings

But what is so special about human beings? This is a very humanist outlook - that we are totally separate from nature. We suffer, we have families, we have attachments, we are self-aware. All of these characteristics can be applied to animals.

I don't think it's poor logic at all.

pts · 27-01-2009 7:37pm

I don't think there are absolute truths when it comes to morality (not to be confused with maths or science where I think you can get very close to absolute truths)
Instead I believe that morality, right and wrong, etc. are subjective.

However there is a distinction between what an individual may do and what a society may do. In my ideal society an individual should not be allowed to enforce their morality on others directly. However this kind of society would probably be very hard to live in as different peoples values are incompatible. So I think that after a bit of trial and error humanity found a model that worked reasonably well, namely democracy. The ideals of a majority are forced on the whole.

The only way to change what is morally acceptable is to change what the majority of our society thinks is acceptable. Which I guess is what threads like this are perfect for.

Sam Vimes · 27-01-2009 7:38pm

taconnol wrote: »

But what is so special about human beings? This is a very humanist outlook - that we are totally separate from nature. We suffer, we have families, we have attachments, we are self-aware. All of these characteristics can be applied to animals.

I don't think it's poor logic at all.

if you want to have a discussion about why humans should have rights and not animals you should start a new thread. we're talking about why some humans should have rights and not others

Macha · 27-01-2009 7:40pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

if you want to have a discussion about why humans should have rights and not animals you should start a new thread. we're talking about why some humans should have rights and not others

I was just bringing your logic along to its conclusion - sorry "morals" and "just so" thinking got in the way.

I'm done.

metrovelvet · 27-01-2009 7:41pm

"and a fetus (up to around 18 weeks) has no capacity to suffer or feel satisfaction, it is not possible for fetuses to hold any preferences at all"

How does singer know this? You know they save babies three weeks older?

"Similar to his argument for abortion, Singer argues that infants similarly lack essential characteristics of personhood - "rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness" [26]- and therefore "imply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person."[27]."

So if I take a knife to my 18 month old son, that's ok? He's technically an infant up to 24 months.Its ok if anyone does it or just the mother?

And sorry, but Ive seen toddlers including my own son with much more "rationality, autonomy and self-conciousness" then some fully grown adults I know.

Sam Vimes · 27-01-2009 8:22pm

taconnol wrote: »

I was just bringing your logic along to its conclusion - sorry "morals" and "just so" thinking got in the way.

I'm done.

It's actually not a logical conclusion though, it's an illogical one :P

I don't care about animals, animals don't have human rights. What i consider to be valuable life is human life. So that's why i'm not a vegetarian

K4t · 30-01-2009 10:38pm

Why not just give the woman a choice.

"Would you like an abortion Mrs?" "Yes."
"Would you like an abortion Mrs?" "No."

Jaysus, that was easy. And they all live happily ever after.

philologos · 30-01-2009 10:55pm

Why not let the child live?

"Would you like an abortion Mrs?" "Yes."
"Would you like an abortion Mrs?" "No."

That was easy (let's not underestimate the reality). And the rights of the unborn are defended

This is just to make an example, that it isn't as easy ethically as just suddenly letting everyone choose. Theres more at stake than that. If it was just the mother involved, then I could perfectly understand, however the unborn are still a big factor in this, as should the biological fathers be.

ntlbell · 31-01-2009 12:48am

K4t wrote: »

Why not just give the woman a choice.

"Would you like an abortion Mrs?" "Yes."
"Would you like an abortion Mrs?" "No."

Jaysus, that was easy. And they all live happily ever after.

Why can't i get the same choice for you?

ntlbell do you want k4t to live? "yes"
ntlbell do want k42 to live "no"

i can make my choice and we can live happlily ever after?

because i would be taking another human life and i'd get a life sentence.

Sam Vimes · 31-01-2009 1:06am

K4t wrote: »

Why not just give the woman a choice.

"Would you like an abortion Mrs?" "Yes."
"Would you like an abortion Mrs?" "No."

Jaysus, that was easy. And they all live happily ever after.

and what exactly gives her the right to kill another human being? Anyone else who does that goes to jail for a long time. Why shouldn't she?

madser · 05-02-2009 9:19pm

ntlbell wrote: »

Yup.

She could have the baby and give it up for adoption etc, the baby didn't rape her and beat her to an inch of her life why should the unborn be murdered?

The only situation I'd consider no jail time is where the mother's life is at risk if she has the baby

What a load of bull, who are you or anyone else to pass judgement on anyone who wants an abortion because of rape, why should a woman who has suffered the indignity of rape be forced into carrying and giving birth to a baby she doesn't want. Abortion isn't murder is the termination of a pregnancy, your language shows your immaturity:mad:

The Corinthian · 05-02-2009 11:20pm

madser wrote: »

What a load of bull, who are you or anyone else to pass judgement on anyone who wants an abortion because of rape, why should a woman who has suffered the indignity of rape be forced into carrying and giving birth to a baby she doesn't want. Abortion isn't murder is the termination of a pregnancy, your language shows your immaturity:mad:

Aren't you kind of passing judgement too, except in the opposite direction?

Abortion is such a wonderfully ironic topic.

madser · 06-02-2009 11:43am

The Corinthian wrote: »

Aren't you kind of passing judgement too, except in the opposite direction?

Abortion is such a wonderfully ironic topic.

I think theres a fundemential difference between passing judgment on a immature moron posting on a board than passing judgement on a woman in crisis after being raped and I find your flipent comment about irony offensive:eek:

The Corinthian · 06-02-2009 12:10pm

madser wrote: »

I think theres a fundemential difference between passing judgment on a immature moron posting on a board than passing judgement on a woman in crisis after being raped and I find your flipent comment about irony offensive:eek:

Diddums.

There are two principle moral perspectives to the question of abortion. In most debates, people will try to argue these points logically, however over a small number of issues, such as abortion, you are left with two entrenched positions, each religiously fervent in their view and behaving in exactly the the same way against each other.

From a pro-choice perspective, pro-lifers are attempting to impose a morality upon women, thus affecting their rights. From a From a pro-life perspective, pro-choicers are attempting to impose a morality upon unborn children, thus affecting their rights. And so both get very upset and accuse each other of passing judgement, when in reality both sides are doing so.

For you, they are passing judgement, but you are not because you're 'in the right'. And oddly enough, a pro-lifer will think exactly the same thing of a pro-choicer when they claim that a foetus is just a ball of cells, because they too are 'in the right'.

So, without taking sides, it is ironic. This may offend you, but in this debate any divergence from orthodoxy is guaranteed to offend and given that choice I'd rather offend than graze with the herds.

madser · 06-02-2009 5:23pm

Fair enough, I admire someone who doesn't sit on the fence and I take your point, as far as 'baby' v 'bunch of cells', I think science has answered that one given that a baby is not a baby until its born.......its immotive and insulting to victims of rape to expect them to carry a child to full term and give it up for adoption which is what I was passing judgement on.........I don't think pro choicers judge pro lifers either.......just disagree with their stance.:)

The Corinthian · 06-02-2009 5:39pm

madser wrote: »

Fair enough, I admire someone who doesn't sit on the fence and I take your point, as far as 'baby' v 'bunch of cells', I think science has answered that one given that a baby is not a baby until its born.......

Until it's born??!! I'm not exactly certain that science has actually answered quite like that. The other thing you need to bare in mind is science has tended to change its mind over time.

TBH, I think it's as much a philosophical as scientific question, especially as criteria such as sentience are often dragged into the debate.

its immotive and insulting to victims of rape to expect them to carry a child to full term and give it up for adoption which is what I was passing judgement on.........I don't think pro choicers judge pro lifers either.......just disagree with their stance.:)

Not every day you see someone contradict themselves in the same sentience.

madser · 06-02-2009 6:18pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Until it's born??!! I'm not exactly certain that science has actually answered quite like that. The other thing you need to bare in mind is science has tended to change its mind over time.

TBH, I think it's as much a philosophical as scientific question, especially as criteria such as sentience are often dragged into the debate.

Not every day you see someone contradict themselves in the same sentience.

Science is crytal clear about when a foetus becomes a baby, I don't think its ever changed its mind on that one..........:rolleyes:

Why don't you address my substantive issue rather than chase around the edges of my point which is the issue of a rape victim being expected to proceed with a pregancy to full term and give it up for adoption to apese pro lifers..........and if you read my post correctly it doesn't contradict itself

The Corinthian · 06-02-2009 6:53pm

madser wrote: »

Science is crytal clear about when a foetus becomes a baby, I don't think its ever changed its mind on that one..........:rolleyes:

Science is anything but crystal clear on these things and especailly due to the abortion debate even the scientific community is in disagreement. For example, a quick Google will bring this page up, with regards to human life. No doubt another search would find contradictory opinion from other scientific and medical professionals.

This isn't unusual, as 'scientific' definitions change all the time - homosexuality was a mental disorder only a few decades ago for example. So science does change its mind.

I would however raise an eyebrow on your use of birth as a dividing line, as this is even almost universally rejected by even pro-choice groups.

By birth, do you mean the water breaking or fully popping out? If the latter you could actually carry out an abortion on your own half way through with a good hammer - as long as it's not a breach birth, of course.

Why don't you address my substantive issue rather than chase around the edges of my point which is the issue of a rape victim being expected to proceed with a pregancy to full term and give it up for adoption to apese pro lifers..........and if you read my post correctly it doesn't contradict itself

Come on... you admit to passing judgement then you deny that pro-choicers pass judgement in the same sentience. So either you're not a pro-choicer or you contradicted yourself.

As for your point on rape, I'm not going to pretend to give an answer on it. From a pro-choice position, it's clear, however from a pro-life standpoint, it would be immoral to kill someone for a crime it is innocent of to appease another individual. Me, I hold neither view in absolute terms.

If you read back in this thread, you'll see that I've given numerous pro-life and choice arguments, but honestly do not have an answer. My only opinion on the subject is that it gets too bogged down in the debate on whether it is human or not, and that this is a bit of a cop out on both sides and of the same ilk to how both sides will use extreme examples to push their agendas.

No one likes the idea of killing babies, so one side will emphasize this, while the other will dismiss this.

Extreme premature (pre-24 weeks) births will routinely be used as an example of how it is a person, even though these are by far the exception.

Rape and incest will routinely be used to the opposite effect - emphasising the woman as the victim - even though these too are by far the exception where it comes to abortion.

Either way, it's an emotionally charged debate where both sides are as bad as each other, as far as I'm concerned.

madser · 06-02-2009 7:25pm

BleedTheF!FtH wrote: »

Unfortnately i cant watch the vid but i dont agree that it should be illegal.

The video is not up to much really, just asking people on a pro life rally if women who have abortions should be punished under the law, none of they had and answer just spouted out the usual crap about been sent by God to protest.

What should the penalty be for illegal abortions?

Comments