A tricky question.

[HaakonKL]

First of all, hello everyone, I'm new here. Please be patient with me, as I try as hard as I can not to be a stupid n00b. Although I'm largely asbestos...


Now, onto the question.

Let's make the assumption that abortion is wrong, and that a child starts after the intercourse (I cannot remember the Englishword, sorry )*

Let's say that a woman got raped, and she got pregnant.

Would it be right to support abortion then?
Since according to our assumption, we would kill a baby, because the mother wouldn't feel like having it. OTOH, think about how the mother would be feeling, and how loved the baby would be..

I'm not really sure about this, but so far, I would say that if a human life is killed to make someone else less miserable, it would be wrong.

Any toughts?

*= (I don't think so, this is a hypothetical what if situation)

PS: I got the idea from an attack on John Ashcroft IIRC, where he was critizised[sp?] for not supporting abortion, even in the case of rape. And it got me thinking.

[Surlethe]

Well, if you assume that abortion is wrong under any circumstance (as you seem to be doing), then of course it's wrong in any given circumstance, including the one you proposed. So, here's the question to you: why should we assume that a child's life begins immediately at conception?

[HaakonKL]

For the sake of the debate?
Otherwise I don't see why we should.

[Pick]

If we do take the massive assumption that a "child" begins at conception, then abortion in the case of rape would be wrong, as it would be killing one person for the sake of the happiness of another. However, it is ridiculous to consider a zygote interchangeable with an actual baby.

[Marko Dash]

i think true justice in this case would be to have the rapist (if caught) be forced to raise the child after its born

[Surlethe]

i think true justice in this case would be to have the rapist (if caught) be forced to raise the child after its born

Are you kidding me? The rapist would be a terrible father, not the least because he wouldn't want the child. What kind of rapist would be a good father?

[Surlethe]

For the sake of the debate?
Otherwise I don't see why we should.

Well, there you have it. The first thing in a debate is to see if your assumptions match reality, since the purpose of a debate is to discover the truth. If your assumptions don't match reality, then how can you be assured of discovering the truth?

[Rye]

If you assume abortion is wrong, then yes, it will be wrong in any given circumstance. What you have to ask yourself now is, will it be more wrong than abstinence from abortion? For instance, what if aborting the zygote then allowed 100 more zygotes to come to term? What if aborting the zygote stopped another hitler rising to power somehow? Etc.

[HaakonKL]

It was simply something I thought about after hearing someone being attacked for not wanting to allowabortion, even in case of rape.
Now, according to that person's beliefs, that would be wrong. Which he got hammered for. So I asked you guys what you thought.

I do agree that a zygote is not a baby though.

[Pick]

Makes me wonder what that guy you're talking about thought of pregnancies that end in natural miscarriage. Manslaughter?

[Surlethe]

It was simply something I thought about after hearing someone being attacked for not wanting to allowabortion, even in case of rape.
Now, according to that person's beliefs, that would be wrong. Which he got hammered for. So I asked you guys what you thought.

I do agree that a zygote is not a baby though.

The thing is, his logic is good if you accept his premises. If someone's wrong (even in the case of degenerate arguments -- i.e., assertions with no implications following them), the reason why falls into one of two cases: either (a) his premises are false, or (b) his logic is fallacious. He can have perfectly fine logic, as in this case, and still be wrong because he accepts unjustifiable premises.

[Magus]

So, here's the question to you: why should we assume that a child's life begins immediately at conception?

Because it is far better to unnecessarily inconvenience pregnant women than it is to be a murderer of infants.

[Darth Wong]

i think true justice in this case would be to have the rapist (if caught) be forced to raise the child after its born

Yeah, that would totally compensate the rape victim for being forced to carry a baby to term, suffer the agony of childbirth, experience permanent physiological changes and risk to her health, etc.

As for the basic thread question, the current political climate (where most people believe that a fetus is a baby, but also believe that rape victims should not be forced to carry fetuses to term) highlights the lack of logical thinking among so-called "moderates". The average moderate has never really thought his positions through; he simply holds them because they're moderate. If he thought it through, he would realize that it's logically inconsistent. Either you support abortion rights equally for rape victims and drunken sluts, or you don't.

[Surlethe]

So, here's the question to you: why should we assume that a child's life begins immediately at conception?

Because it is far better to unnecessarily inconvenience pregnant women than it is to be a murderer of infants.

And, praytell, how does that answer my question? Here's a hint for your reply: don't use circular logic.

[Ghost Rider]

As Surlethe stated in the beginning this thing starts out with me assuming abortion is wrong, thus why the fuck should my answer be somehow different because of circumstance?

It's forcing the reader to either agree with the principle or make a hypocritical answer, thus rending the whole exercise rather illogical.

[Surlethe]

This scenario nicely illustrates the inherent rigidity to a moral code which judges solely based on action instead of outcome. Saying, "X behavior is always wrong", as Ashcroft is wont to do, bifurcates away the gray areas (such as rape victims). It makes decision-making much easier, of course -- any course of action with X behavior in it is automatically off-limits -- but at the expense of flexibility in dealing with "lose-lose" situations and exercising critical thinking skills.

[Magus]

So, here's the question to you: why should we assume that a child's life begins immediately at conception?

Because it is far better to unnecessarily inconvenience pregnant women than it is to be a murderer of infants.

And, pray tell, how does that answer my question? Here's a hint for your reply: don't use circular logic.

We can assume that a fetus is either a "child's life" or not. It's guaranteed to be one or the other, and science has yet to provide a conclusive answer as to when human life begins. This is understandable, as the concept of what defines a "person" is more in the realm of philosophy than science.

But regardless, a fetus is either a human life or it is not, and we have a 50-50 chance of getting it right.

Suppose we assume a fetus is not a human:

Pros: Many women who do not want to carry their fetus to term are spared the trouble.

Cons: We risk killing a whole lot of innocent humans (50% chance)

Suppose we assume a fetus is a human:

Pros: We could possibly be saving many lives (50% chance)

Cons: We inconvenience a lot of women


What it comes down to is acceptable risk. If an individual decides that a 50-50 shot of being a baby killer is an acceptable risk to take to guarantee a better life for women...then logically they should assume a fetus is not a human life. If, however, the 50-50 odds are less than appealing to you, then you should operate under the assumption that a fetus is a child.

The old adage, I believe, is "Better safe than sorry."

[Metatwaddle]

Wait, are you actually saying that the question of whether a fetus is a human being depends on random chance?

[brianeyci]

But regardless, a fetus is either a human life or it is not, and we have a 50-50 chance of getting it right.

What? Since when is it a 50-50 chance? A baby is not a sperm cell.

Cons: We inconvenience a lot of women

Wow that is almost as bad as the guy who said women were just a "vessel." Pregnancy is more than just an inconvenience.

I'm assuming you're not playing devil's advocate here. Are you really an anti-abortionist? Or maybe some new variety of troll.

[Ghost Rider]

Here comes the storm and most deservedly. But I'll give the new guy a slight taste of what to prepare for.

1. Golden Mean fallacy is still just that...a fallacy.

2. A person is something with a brain, not a clump of cells no different then what can be grown in a pietri dish.

In the end, you're an idiot who wants to appease both sides. What the fuck is "It may or may not a life?". If you are going to dance around playing it safe, eventually someone will put you in a corner and demand you give to a side.

[Stark]

It's like, Pascals Wager for abortion! Except, only a retard would think a fertilised cell is a human being. Once you strip away the 'magic soul' element, it's pretty simple.

And HOLY SHIT some people who don't want kids and consider abortion will be bad parents! Maybe it's worth looking at the parenting issue beyond 'zomg kill teh baby to make the woman happy'. Or is dooming a potential human being to a life of crushing poverty and neglect acceptable?

[haard]

But regardless, a fetus is either a human life or it is not, and we have a 50-50 chance of getting it right.

How do you get to 50-50?

If you believe that anything that can/will be a human is human, then a fetus is human (and a sperm half a human?).

If not, it will depend on how long since conception and your definition of 'human', but still no randomness involved.

Cons: We inconvenience a lot of women

This is just fucking disgusting.

[drachefly]

As far as I can tell, the guy should get hammered on that count. His position is inconsistent.

Of course, the choice of which part to remove to make it consistent may upset those who pointed out the inconsistency.

[Magus]

Wait, are you actually saying that the question of whether a fetus is a human being depends on random chance?

Not at all. I'm saying that our chances of being correct in a baseless assumption about whether a fetus is a human being is 50-50.

A baby is not a sperm cell.

This is very true. You'll also note that I never used the term "sperm cell" in my post, so your point doesn't really apply.

A person is something with a brain, not a clump of cells no different then what can be grown in a pietri dish.

Then you'd be of the opinion that the fetus becomes a human life at the 10th week, when the brain and nervous system become responsive?

What the fuck is "It may or may not a life?".

It's an observation that I have yet to hear any scientific consensus one way or the other that does not rely on a personal definition of what it means to be a "human."

Once you strip away the 'magic soul' element, it's pretty simple.

Then could you please explain it?

[brianeyci]

The worst part is he seems to assign equal weight to all possible outcomes. It's like sayinge there's a 50-50 chance of me going out and getting hit by a car, and therefore the proper thing to do is stay indoors. Even if it was true that it was just 50-50, you'd weigh going out far more heavily than staying indoors just because you have to go outside to, oh I don't know, live. A woman "inconvenienced" as he puts it is not simply worth 25% out of a hundred, especially since childbirth can result in death.