2 of 7
2
Does the ability to feel pain determine whether abortion is ok or not?
Posted: 05 August 2012 09:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  65
Joined  2012-07-04

Bryan:

Thank you for the correction on limited legal post birth starvation.

Would it seem more humane to legalize post birth abortion?

macgyver:

You mentioned abortion’s societal affect. Does it seem some kids would deserve abortion? Would society not be better off aborting some kids?

student

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 August 2012 11:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4400
Joined  2010-08-15
Bryan - 03 August 2012 01:53 PM

So let’s suppose that the fetus’ ability to feel pain does not make abortion wrong.  Does anything at all make abortion wrong?  No need to answer if you’re not a moral realist.  I’m asking moral realists what they think.  If nothing makes abortion wrong, of course, there’s no reason to think that it would be different if a fetus felt pain.

it can’t be defined like that.

It is a personal family crisis and each has it’s unique circumstances.

Besides just because it has it’s tinges of “wrong” about it doesn’t make it any less a real sometimes necessary self-defense decision on the part of the woman!

Jeez, we allow every loon to own as many guns as they want in the name of “self-protection”

But a woman is denied her personal rights to self-protection… self-defense!?
Men are such bastards sometimes….  the hubris and arrogance to think this matter can be legislated or moralized is astounding    angry

Abortion, Right and Wrong
By Rachel Richardson Smith

 Signature 

We need each other, to keep ourselves honest

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 August 2012 02:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2715
Joined  2011-04-24
Bryan - 03 August 2012 01:53 PM
student - 03 August 2012 08:14 AM

There is no legal post birth abortion (with similar justification) in the U.S. If I am wrong, please feel free to correct.

It’s okay in some cases (depending on location and circumstances) to allow a newborn to starve to death.


This thread is very interesting.  One almost has to assume that the question and responses reflect a belief in moral realism.

So let’s suppose that the fetus’ ability to feel pain does not make abortion wrong.  Does anything at all make abortion wrong?  No need to answer if you’re not a moral realist.  I’m asking moral realists what they think.  If nothing makes abortion wrong, of course, there’s no reason to think that it would be different if a fetus felt pain.

Awesome question.

Even though I understand your term of moral realist to mean moral “spiritual objectivist”, I still think it’s very valid to ask.

 Signature 

Raise your glass if you’re wrong…. in all the right ways.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 August 2012 05:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3256
Joined  2011-08-15

If you’re talking specifically about preventing abortion on the basis that the fetus actually feels pain, according to the current studies a fetus doesn’t have the ability to “feel” anything until around 30 weeks of mental development. As most abortions are performed well before then the argument is moot. Pro-lifers used this as a cause célèbre to push their anti-abortion agenda. As to moral realism, I believe you’re aiming that at a particular situation? FI is cannibalism ok in extreme life threatening instances as an example? Case in point the rugby team in the Andes. Would it be ok to abort a child to save the mother’s life? Yes. That’s a pragmatic reason not based on religious philosophy. But we don’t face these challenges every day; they’re extreme cases that most of us here would never have to face IMO.


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


Cap’t Jack

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 August 2012 07:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  65
Joined  2012-07-04

citizenschallenge.pm:

You mentioned that abortion cannot be defined by morality. What debate rule prohibits morality to define a political or social issue? Is it not morality that points the finger at the initial aggressor in a self defense claim?

Staying with self defense, you mentioned abortion as a self defense decision. Is the pre born the perpetrator here?

student

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 August 2012 01:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
citizenschallenge.pm - 05 August 2012 11:45 PM
Bryan - 03 August 2012 01:53 PM

So let’s suppose that the fetus’ ability to feel pain does not make abortion wrong.  Does anything at all make abortion wrong?  No need to answer if you’re not a moral realist.  I’m asking moral realists what they think.  If nothing makes abortion wrong, of course, there’s no reason to think that it would be different if a fetus felt pain.

it can’t be defined like that.

What is it you think I’m defining?  So far as I can tell, I’m just asking a question and leaving the defining to others.

It is a personal family crisis and each has it’s unique circumstances.

That could almost pass for “Whether abortion is right or wrong is subjective.”  Otherwise you might give me an example where one family’s choice to abort was wrong in the moral realist sense of the word.

Besides just because it has it’s tinges of “wrong” about it doesn’t make it any less a real sometimes necessary self-defense decision on the part of the woman!

I don’t know what you mean by “tinges of wrong,” and I hesitate to define it for you.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 August 2012 07:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4400
Joined  2010-08-15
student - 06 August 2012 07:47 AM

citizenschallenge.pm:

You mentioned that abortion cannot be defined by morality. What debate rule prohibits morality to define a political or social issue? Is it not morality that points the finger at the initial aggressor in a self defense claim?

Staying with self defense, you mentioned abortion as a self defense decision. Is the pre born the perpetrator here?

student

OK, some of these thing I don’t word too well.

What I believe is totally off the wall is that abortion has become this major political football - that every prick legislator believes they have the right to dictate to a woman how to behave.  The hypocracy is astounding.  If they actually cared about the sanctity of humans or life -> in any genuine sense - they would be worried about real issues that impact society - in which case they would have been addressing the Global Warming issue since the seventies/eighties rather than filling the airwaves and people’s emotional/attention bandwidth with abortion-political distractions.  OH and yes, there is plenty here beside AGW I could have plugged in {national health care} - such the mania for building prisons and crowding them, to say nothing of privatizing them into for profit business plans - or waging insane self-destructive wars and embracing mass destruction of cities and torture - or allowing companies, to conglomerate into mega-corporations more powerful… profit driven and egomaniacal than any governments.  OK enough of the rant.

I have nothing against wrestling with the morality of abortion - but that debate belongs among spiritual, psychological, medical folks -  it has no place in the political arena of a nation.  And most assuredly NOT to a bunch of hateful religious fanatics, such as though you’ll run into trying to visit a Planned Parenthood center - and the equally deranged religious politicians intent of distracting from important societal issues. 
And excuse me, but the personal tragedy of abortion is NOT a nationally important issue.

So that’s my little rant… if you want something nuances and sensitive I’ve linked this essay many times - because it presents the most thoughtful sensitive evaluation of the abortion issue I have yet to read.
Though I admit I haven’t read extensively, so there may be something better out there.  If there is I’d like to see it, if not, it’s a shame that it hasn’t been topped in like three decades.
Obviously I feel it best describes my attitude and argument

Abortion, Right and Wrong
By Rachel Richardson Smith
http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2008/10/abortion-right-and-wrong-and-colorados.html

http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2008/09/colorados-proposition-48.html

[ Edited: 08 August 2012 07:34 AM by citizenschallenge.pm ]
 Signature 

We need each other, to keep ourselves honest

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 August 2012 07:30 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4400
Joined  2010-08-15
Bryan - 08 August 2012 01:10 AM

It is a personal family crisis and each has it’s unique circumstances.

That could almost pass for “Whether abortion is right or wrong is subjective.” 

Otherwise you might give me an example where one family’s choice to abort was wrong in the moral realist sense of the word.

A) Of course it’s subjective.

B) Serial abortions, lacking any appreciation for the miracle of conception and young life.

Bryan - 08 August 2012 01:10 AM

Besides just because it has it’s tinges of “wrong” about it doesn’t make it any less a real sometimes necessary self-defense decision on the part of the woman!

I don’t know what you mean by “tinges of wrong,” and I hesitate to define it for you.

Well, to use that self-defense notion, if someone is coming at me with intent to inflict major bodily harm - yes I will act and I imagine I’m capable of acting quite decisively and if need be kill - on one level that would be wrong {since I do have an abiding love of life and even people wink} so on one level it would be something that bothered me for the rest of my life, but that feeling would be overwhelmed by that self-righteous feeling of having a right to protect myself from harm, at being alive and possibly even glazed with a certain satisfaction at having succeeded in the face of something that wanted to destroy me.
{It’s all part of the sauce.}
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Again my main point is that the abortion dilemma has no business being a political issue or weapon.

 Signature 

We need each other, to keep ourselves honest

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 August 2012 08:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  65
Joined  2012-07-04

citizenschallenge.pm:

You said abortion has become this major political football. No argument there.

You questioned if pro life actually cared about the sanctity of humans or life. You ask a good question. Is pro life actually a non coercion non aggression issue or a pro life agenda?

You said abortion has no place in the political arena. Assuming the political arena should shape the legislative’s control of state police powers, should the police powers not step in to protect society general well being?

The two prior paragraphs are irrelevant if pre birth is not part of society. The US High court decided pre life is not a person. But you said that the abortion debate belongs among spiritual, psychological, and medical folks. What has the medical folks said about pre birth life?

student

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 August 2012 10:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
citizenschallenge.pm - 08 August 2012 07:30 AM
Bryan - 08 August 2012 01:10 AM

It is a personal family crisis and each has it’s unique circumstances.

That could almost pass for “Whether abortion is right or wrong is subjective.” 

Otherwise you might give me an example where one family’s choice to abort was wrong in the moral realist sense of the word.

A) Of course it’s subjective.

Well, see, this is why I addressed my question to moral realists.  If the morality of abortion is subjective then of course the possibility that the fetus feels pain can serve to make abortion immoral.  And not liking kids could make abortion moral.  There’s no point in that discussion, is there?

B) Serial abortions, lacking any appreciation for the miracle of conception and young life.

If abortion is always wrong under condition B then the morality of abortion isn’t purely subjective.  I’m afraid I don’t understand your answer.

Well, to use that self-defense notion, if someone is coming at me with intent to inflict major bodily harm - yes I will act and I imagine I’m capable of acting quite decisively and if need be kill - on one level that would be wrong {since I do have an abiding love of life and even people wink} so on one level it would be something that bothered me for the rest of my life, but that feeling would be overwhelmed by that self-righteous feeling of having a right to protect myself from harm, at being alive and possibly even glazed with a certain satisfaction at having succeeded in the face of something that wanted to destroy me.
{It’s all part of the sauce.}
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The view you’re expressing is compatible, at least on the surface, with moral realism.  People sometimes forget that ethics is complicated.  Sometimes there are many threads to evaluate in assessing the fabric of a moral decision.  That’s why circumstances matter.  The threads vary according to the situation.

Again my main point is that the abortion dilemma has no business being a political issue or weapon.

I can’t imagine how you’d support your point.  Everything’s political.  And you can’t exclude the issue from politics without a political solution.  You’re stuck.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 August 2012 02:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7684
Joined  2008-04-11

The absolute silence of these self same self righteous sanctimonious pricks show on the care and well being of infants after they are born, show how absolutely hypocritical they are in their so called ‘pro-life’ stance.

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 August 2012 05:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  65
Joined  2012-07-04

asanta:

You said the absolute silence of these self same self righteous sanctimonious pricks show on the care and well being of infants after they are born shows how absolutely hypocritical they are. Should all those favoring laws against wife beating be required to care for abused wives in order to avoid hypocrisy?

Does your hypocrisy accusation indicate that pro life is actually a non coercion non aggression (i.e. responsibility) issue instead of a pro life agenda?

student

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 August 2012 06:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

Sorry Student, but your analogy is inaccurate.  We already have both effective laws and institutions in society to assist abused wives.  children are an entirely different situation.  All of the studies I’ve seen indicate that orphanages are terrible environments for the mental health of a small child and foster care is not much better.  There are a great many children who would have been aborted if their mother had the chance, possibly because she couldn’t care for the child, or the child has severe handicaps, and who are not going to be adopted. 

I haven’t any idea what your final sentence means.  Could you reword it?

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 August 2012 08:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7684
Joined  2008-04-11
Occam. - 08 August 2012 06:02 PM

I haven’t any idea what your final sentence means.  Could you reword it?

Occam

Occam, here is the Translation, “women are naturally irresponsible sluts and are totally responsible for any resultant pregnancy from their sexual activity, whether or not it is consensual.”

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 August 2012 11:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6166
Joined  2009-02-26
student - 08 August 2012 05:20 PM

Does your hypocrisy accusation indicate that pro life is actually a non coercion non aggression (i.e. responsibility) issue instead of a pro life agenda?
student

IMO, it is an Agenda, no matter how you look at it. But especially in Politics. Perhaps a little less so in Religion which specifically instructs on the “sanctity of life”.

However, I wonder if those same moral warriors give any thought to the millions of children who die from starvation, which is a preventable thing. At this point they make a personal moral judgement which negates any credibility of their religious moral obligations; “as long as they die in Africa, it’s none of my business”,  or even “it was God’s will”, or worse “it was God’s punishment”.

When you start moral rationalizing on natural events (since the beginning of life), you can no longer claim moral certainty.  And we are back to the private personal subjective motives of the woman. Men have no standing in this area, this is a woman’s domain.
One thing is indisputable, it is a function of nature. No matter what we do, there must be an ecological balance.

Regardless of “morality”, man’s impact on the earth has already plunged us into global disaster where tens, perhaps hundreds of millions of people may die.
Now if I was a theist I would call that “incurring the wrath of God”, but instead everybody, their pastors and representatives, wanna play doctor.

[ Edited: 08 August 2012 11:49 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 7
2