Girl, 11, PREGNANT

[d&q]

Most people I know view prevention(condoms, birth control) as a morally correction option, compared to intervention(abortion). If you say prevention has the same 'potentialness' as intervention, that means you could argue that since I have definitely have the potential of killing, let's say, Gamesnake, you could accuse me of murder right now. Also, I believe a main reason why people are against abortion, is because quite a few of them are religious, and therefore believe that the unborn child/human fetus has a soul. With that argument in mind, for us to completely resolve the argument of wether abortion is right or wrong, we would have to collectively decide wether souls exist or not, which, imho, is impossible.

...

I think I might've misinterpreted something, but oh well. 

[Rule]

Most people I know view prevention(condoms, birth control) as a morally correction option, compared to intervention(abortion). If you say prevention has the same 'potentialness' as intervention, that means you could argue that since I have definitely have the potential of killing, let's say, Gamesnake, you could accuse me of murder right now. Also, I believe a main reason why people are against abortion, is because quite a few of them are religious, and therefore believe that the unborn child/human fetus has a soul. With that argument in mind, for us to completely resolve the argument of wether abortion is right or wrong, we would have to collectively decide wether souls exist or not, which, imho, is impossible.

...

I think I might've misinterpreted something, but oh well. 

To decide on whether anything is morally 'right' or 'wrong', we just need to come up with some axiom that is agreed upon.  In general, should we legislate on people's moral beliefs?  In my opinion we should so long as an overwhelming majority of people hold these beliefs.  Is this the case with abortion?  I don't think so....
 

[Sidoh]

You started with using the word "stupid".  I'm not going to respond when somebody calls what I say "stupid". 

QQ

I didn't think it was a good point, so I called it stupid.  I'm pretty sure that you've done the same exact thing in other arguments.

So if I lose an ear, and it's laying on the ground, you're asserting that the ear is human, and should be protected the same way a human is?  What if I cut myself and bleed?  What about the skin cells that I'm constantly shedding?  Having human gene data is necessary to be human, but not sufficient. 

Let me make what I was implying explicit: if a clump of matter is a functioning organism and has gene data indicating that its a human, it's a human.  A fetus (in later stages of development -- especially after where I said abortion becomes imoral earlier) is definitely human. 

I still think conscious is a much better word for this argument.  Most religious people will argue that a human is given a soul at the moment of conception.  Since a soul is obviously a non-physical existence, I think it would have to be tied to another universally non-physical existence: conscious.  So especially when countering points made by someone religious, I think 'conscious' is a much better word for this argument than 'human.'  Some people don't really care at which point a chunk of cells should be considered "human," they care when it gains a soul.

Also, since you think that conscious is what separates humans from animals, isn't that a much better indication of when abortion becomes immoral? :p

I don't think it's human.  I think that it's becoming human.  I also think that consciousness is an essential part to being human, and it is largely what separates us from animals.  Of course, the same as what you're saying, that's only a personal belief, and I'm not going to try to pass that off as fact. 

Okay.  I'd type more for this, but I'm already late for work, so later.

[d&q]

Most people I know view prevention(condoms, birth control) as a morally correction option, compared to intervention(abortion). If you say prevention has the same 'potentialness' as intervention, that means you could argue that since I have definitely have the potential of killing, let's say, Gamesnake, you could accuse me of murder right now. Also, I believe a main reason why people are against abortion, is because quite a few of them are religious, and therefore believe that the unborn child/human fetus has a soul. With that argument in mind, for us to completely resolve the argument of wether abortion is right or wrong, we would have to collectively decide wether souls exist or not, which, imho, is impossible.

...

I think I might've misinterpreted something, but oh well. 

To decide on whether anything is morally 'right' or 'wrong', we just need to come up with some axiom that is agreed upon.  In general, should we legislate on people's moral beliefs?  In my opinion we should so long as an overwhelming majority of people hold these beliefs.  Is this the case with abortion?  I don't think so....
 

That was the point I was trying to make. 

[iago]

Let me state again, for the record, that I don't necessarily agree with what I'm saying here, and it's for the sake of argument.  I don't want people taking this personally, when I said several times, in this thread, that I don't lean strongly to either side. 

I'm trying to explore the problem, not solve it.  Since people continually disagree on the problem of abortion there is clearly an issue somewhere.  What everybody else is saying makes it sound very cut-and-dry, but obviously it isn't, otherwise there wouldn't be such a problem.  So I think it's more useful to examine where the argument comes from than to actually try and solve it. 

Let me make what I was implying explicit: if a clump of matter is a functioning organism and has gene data indicating that its a human, it's a human.  A fetus (in later stages of development -- especially after where I said abortion becomes imoral earlier) is definitely human. 

I still think conscious is a much better word for this argument.  Most religious people will argue that a human is given a soul at the moment of conception.  Since a soul is obviously a non-physical existence, I think it would have to be tied to another universally non-physical existence: conscious.  So especially when countering points made by someone religious, I think 'conscious' is a much better word for this argument than 'human.'  Some people don't really care at which point a chunk of cells should be considered "human," they care when it gains a soul.

I think that being human, being conscious, and having a soul are all necessary for each other.  I don't think a person can be considered human without being conscious, having a soul without being human, etc. 

Religious people believe it happens at the point of conception, so they are against abortion.  Doctors believe it happens after the first trimester, so they're for abortion.  Whatever "it" is that's happening is the core issue that has to be dealt with.  And I don't think anybody anywhere is in a position to deal with that. 

[Hitmen]

As long as someone eats the aborted fetus it is not morally objectional, as nothing is going to waste. Duh.

[CrAz3D]

outta curiosity, where do y'all stand on "women's right to choose"

[iago]

outta curiosity, where do y'all stand on "women's right to choose"

On one hand, a person can't choose to commit murder.  A woman doesn't have the right to kill her 10-year-old kid. 

On the other hand, if we don't consider the fetus human, or conscious, or whatever our criteria is, then it's perfectly fine. 

It really leads back to the same problem, in my opinion. 

[leet_muffin]

As long as someone eats the aborted fetus it is not morally objectional, as nothing is going to waste. Duh.

NP: Babygrinder - Born, Cooked, and Served (off the album 'Fetus Dinner')

[MyndFyre]

I think I'm using potential in a different context.  Stupid confusing English!  I meant that, when developed to its maximum extent, both the 'clump of cells' and the 'act of sex' can produce the same thing.  I don't mean in probability, I mean potentialness. 

Maybe I'm just not understanding you correctly.  I suppose that when developed to its maximum extent both have the potential for the same outcome (a child).  However, the probability of that potentiality is significantly different between the two concepts you defined.  There is a significantly high likelihood of a child being produced from that "clump of cells", whereas there is a significantly lesser likelihood that the act of sex will result in that potentiality.  Even without withdrawal or a condom, it's tough to say.

[iago]

I think I'm using potential in a different context.  Stupid confusing English!  I meant that, when developed to its maximum extent, both the 'clump of cells' and the 'act of sex' can produce the same thing.  I don't mean in probability, I mean potentialness. 

Maybe I'm just not understanding you correctly.  I suppose that when developed to its maximum extent both have the potential for the same outcome (a child).  However, the probability of that potentiality is significantly different between the two concepts you defined.  There is a significantly high likelihood of a child being produced from that "clump of cells", whereas there is a significantly lesser likelihood that the act of sex will result in that potentiality.  Even without withdrawal or a condom, it's tough to say.

I'm not talking about probability, though.  2000 years ago, there was a 30% (or so) chance that a child would live past puberty.  If they had had the technology back there, would that change the way people feel about abortions at all?  I doubt it.  I'm talking about the potential end-state, not the probability of reaching the end state.  Another anology is that, if somebody (say, for the sake of argument, a baby, but it applies to anybody) has a 10% chance of surviving the operation, does that make it ok to murder him?  Even though he has a significantly smaller chance of surviving than his peers, that doesn't make it any more right. 

I realize that you're talking about much more extreme percentages, not 10% or 1%, but I don't think that makes a difference.  I think that if somebody says that abortion is wrong because the fetus has the potential to make the world a better place (which was an argument used somewhere up above), then the logical conclusion is that anything that has a chance of making the world a better place ought to be pursued. 

[MyndFyre]

the logical conclusion is that anything that has a chance of making the world a better place ought to be pursued. 

Ahh, but here's where the important notion of probability comes into play.  Given that two choices are mutually exclusive, the one with the higher probability should be pursued (this is the central premise of rational choice theory, that decisionmakers tend to choose that which provides the highest gain at the least risk). 

A sperm is a low-risk but low-payoff item.  For a typical given act of sex, roughly 3-5 million sperm are ejaculated, and only one will fertilize the egg.  This assumes that the egg is in a state in which it can attach to the uterine wall and that the act will be successful.  Given 100% success rate (which is NEVER the case), a sperm is a 1 in 3 million payoff.

According to Wikipedia, miscarriage can occur up to 25% in normal situations.  That does, however, give a 75% success rate.  Assuming the payoff is equal, the likelihood of a "clump of cells" making it to the "potential payoff" over the single sperm that was going to fertilize (assuming condom or withdrawal practice) is 2,250,000 times higher [0.75 / (1/3,000,000)].  The sperm then has the 25% chance of miscarriage as well. 

[iago]

the logical conclusion is that anything that has a chance of making the world a better place ought to be pursued. 

Ahh, but here's where the important notion of probability comes into play.  Given that two choices are mutually exclusive, the one with the higher probability should be pursued (this is the central premise of rational choice theory, that decisionmakers tend to choose that which provides the highest gain at the least risk). 

A sperm is a low-risk but low-payoff item.  For a typical given act of sex, roughly 3-5 million sperm are ejaculated, and only one will fertilize the egg.  This assumes that the egg is in a state in which it can attach to the uterine wall and that the act will be successful.  Given 100% success rate (which is NEVER the case), a sperm is a 1 in 3 million payoff.

According to Wikipedia, miscarriage can occur up to 25% in normal situations.  That does, however, give a 75% success rate.  Assuming the payoff is equal, the likelihood of a "clump of cells" making it to the "potential payoff" over the single sperm that was going to fertilize (assuming condom or withdrawal practice) is 2,250,000 times higher [0.75 / (1/3,000,000)].  The sperm then has the 25% chance of miscarriage as well. 

That's an entirely different argument from, "it has potential to save the world" -- everything does. 

When you start bringing probabilities and such into play, it almost sounds like Utilitarianism.  That is, for anybody here who doesn't know it, attempting to make the decision that will have the best outcome for everybody, raising the amount of "good" in the world.

The problem here, and I think it's the same problem all along, is, how do we define a good outcome?  I think that, statistically speaking, the chances of somebody born from an 11-year-old mother has a very small chance of bringing more good to the world than harm.  However, if you consider another human life being created to count as "good", then having the baby would be beneficial. 

Looking at it from utilitarianism seems to favor, I think, having an abortion, because there is, quite likely, at least one less person suffering (whether it's the mother or the child). 

I don't know if that's an accurate portrayal of Utilitarianism, though.  It seems to me that murder is hard to justify as utilitarian, even if it's murdering a bad person (ie, an execution).  But that would being us back to what I was saying earlier about whether or not it would count as murder. 

[dark_drake]

I think that being human, being conscious, and having a soul are all necessary for each other.  I don't think a person can be considered human without being conscious, having a soul without being human, etc. 

Just curious, but what about people in a permanant vegetative state?  Terri Schiavo is a somewhat recent case of this.  She wasn't conscious, so was she not human?

[CrAz3D]

people without souls, hmm, hard to prove, but zombies?...