The abortion-capital punishment debate

[Adron]

One would think, but by Adron's logic it's okay as long as that 17-y/o was not intended to be born, because the parents didn't intend to conceive.

Indeed. Picture multiple timelines - which one do we want to be on? If you could go back in time and kill Hitler before he came to power, save all those jews from their deaths, but preventing the state of Israel and a lot of people there from being created...

[MyndFyre]

One would think, but by Adron's logic it's okay as long as that 17-y/o was not intended to be born, because the parents didn't intend to conceive.

Indeed. Picture multiple timelines - which one do we want to be on? If you could go back in time and kill Hitler before he came to power, save all those jews from their deaths, but preventing the state of Israel and a lot of people there from being created...

So then, by extension of your logic, you're a hypocrite unless you kill yourself to prevent you from skewing the timeline any further.  By your logic, since nothing ever intended the human race to be borne (at least, I'm operating under your evolutionist assumptions -- if you believe in a creator, then this is not the case), because there is no conscious or necessary thought to the development of species through evolution; it is simply a random process.

[Arta]

I used to be opposed to abortion, but I'm not anymore. The simple reason is this: it's none of my business.

I think there are good arguments for and against abortion. I also think that there is no clear consensus, and no obvious possibility for compromise. For that reason, I don't think it's the government's place to get involved - other than to set appropriate limits based on what we understand about foetal development.

Whether or not to have an abortion should be a personal choice, and I oppose any legislation that restricts that choice unnecessarily.

[Adron]

So then, by extension of your logic, you're a hypocrite unless you kill yourself to prevent you from skewing the timeline any further.  By your logic, since nothing ever intended the human race to be borne (at least, I'm operating under your evolutionist assumptions -- if you believe in a creator, then this is not the case), because there is no conscious or necessary thought to the development of species through evolution; it is simply a random process.

I am absolutely not a hypocrite. Skewing the timeline is not necessarily bad. It just has consequences. Just as having or not having an abortion has consequences.

Now for your hypocrite test, MyndFyre: By using a contraceptive when having sex with a girl at the right time, you effectively prevent a human from being born. The normal, uninterrupted outcome of sex at that time is the creation of a human being. One particular egg and one particular sperm who would otherwise naturally have become a rational, reasonable, thinking being are instead destroyed, murdered. You must be against all forms of contraceptives.

[Grok]

I don't know if this has been linked yet, so here it is (again):

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/01/03/execution.dna.ap/index.html

[MyndFyre]

I don't know if this has been linked yet, so here it is (again):

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/01/03/execution.dna.ap/index.html

Hard to believe that guy could rape anyone.  He looks like a nerd.  You'd think he wouldn't know how.

Now for your hypocrite test, MyndFyre: By using a contraceptive when having sex with a girl at the right time, you effectively prevent a human from being born. The normal, uninterrupted outcome of sex at that time is the creation of a human being.

Except that I am preventing two pieces of organic tissue that can not develop into anything independently from merging.  You are killing something that will independently develop into a rational being.

We know that abortion is not a natural process (the natural process is called "miscarriage").  No other animals abort their young; some might eat others' young, and perhaps the Maddox argument simply follows this chain of logic (against abortion, but for killing babies).

Once you have conception, you have a being that will develop and grow on its own; it simply needs to rent space in the mother's body for a while.  We're talking about taking the life of that being -- which was actually the result of the mother's choice -- simply for the convenience of the mother.

So, my argument against abortion falls entirely under the realm of expectant mothers who have consensual sex, protected or not, whose life (note I said "life," not "livelihood" -- we have a right to life and to pursue happiness) is not threatened by the pregnancy.  I believe that this is the overwhelming majority of cases.

I would also just like to say that if a young, teenage girl gets pregnant when having protected sex or on the pill, she should sue the condom or drug manufacturer for the cost of providing for the child.  That would be an interesting trial -- I mean, with all the warning labels and common knowledge that these treatments aren't risk-free.  You'd think someone would have done that and won by now, and you know it would be a high-profile case.  *shrug*

[Adron]

Except that I am preventing two pieces of organic tissue that can not develop into anything independently from merging.  You are killing something that will independently develop into a rational being.

That is incorrect. It will not independently develop into a rational being. It requires the mother to provide all of the building materials. Take it, put it in a box, and see if it independently develops into a rational being?

Under favorable circumstances, yes, it might develop into a rational being. Human bodies have evolved to offer such favorable circumstances. They have also evolved to offer favorable circumstances for two particular living cells, ensuring that egg and sperm will meet and develop into a rational being. Unless there is a condom...

We know that abortion is not a natural process (the natural process is called "miscarriage").  No other animals abort their young; some might eat others' young, and perhaps the Maddox argument simply follows this chain of logic (against abortion, but for killing babies).

Some animals naturally eat their own young. Miscarriage vs abortion is a difference of intents only. You speak about "natural"... I am not sure what kind of "natural" you are talking about - is it a claim of pregnancy never naturally spontaneously aborting (incorrect, see miscarriage!) or a claim of mother never naturally not wanting a baby (incorrect, or we wouldn't see abortions!). Perhaps the most common sequence of events? Uncommon is bad?

Once you have conception, you have a being that will develop and grow on its own; it simply needs to rent space in the mother's body for a while.  We're talking about taking the life of that being -- which was actually the result of the mother's choice -- simply for the convenience of the mother.

And as above, this is wrong. You do not have a being that will develop and grow on its own. Require a specific environment, specific treatment, specific nurturing, and any cell that you could clone a new being is equally worth preserving.

And the reasoning for why this is is an entirely different matter to discuss. All that is certain is that the abortion is for the better, where "better" could mean that the fetus has a defect that would cause unlimited suffering. Saying that it happens only for the convenience of the mother is incorrect.

And then finally, the phrases "taking the life of that being", "a being that will develop and grow on its own", could be applied to a lot of other things. Mosquitos? Bacteria? Flower seeds? Pretty phrases though.

[Grok]

Adding to what Adron said, the mother's body aborts a signficant number of pregnancies on their own, and we shrug these off as natural miscarriages.  Nobody calls them murder, but the mother's body is responsible.  She did not choose the miscarriage, but was responsible for it.  So under our laws, miscarriages should be manslaughter.  Is that what you want?

[CrAz3D]

Adding to what Adron said, the mother's body aborts a signficant number of pregnancies on their own, and we shrug these off as natural miscarriages.  Nobody calls them murder, but the mother's body is responsible.  She did not choose the miscarriage, but was responsible for it.  So under our laws, miscarriages should be manslaughter.  Is that what you want?

Maybe involuntary manslaughter.
Isn't that possible now even?  i.e. you hit your pregnant wife & she miscarries & you get charged?

[MyndFyre]

And the reasoning for why this is is an entirely different matter to discuss. All that is certain is that the abortion is for the better, where "better" could mean that the fetus has a defect that would cause unlimited suffering. Saying that it happens only for the convenience of the mother is incorrect.

So should we kill off children who are born with mental defects?  What about if we determine a child is autistic around the age of 40 months (the typical time of determining this)?  What about mental retardation discovered at 60 months?  Clearly, you believe we should slaughter these people for their own good and for the good of society, and so we have a difference of opinion.

Adding to what Adron said, the mother's body aborts a signficant number of pregnancies on their own, and we shrug these off as natural miscarriages.  Nobody calls them murder, but the mother's body is responsible.  She did not choose the miscarriage, but was responsible for it.  So under our laws, miscarriages should be manslaughter.  Is that what you want?

The mother's body was responsible for it; the mother was not. 

That is incorrect. It will not independently develop into a rational being. It requires the mother to provide all of the building materials. Take it, put it in a box, and see if it independently develops into a rational being?

Well, I don't think that this experiment is one we would condone as ethical.  However, despite this, there is some evidence that even children raised completely in the wild can survive and be rational.  Putting a child in a box would be an unnatural exercise; rational action is seen throughout animals and is the foundation for the operant conditioning method of learning.

Miscarriage vs abortion is a difference of intents only.

Preciesly correct.  Miscarriage vs. abortion is similar to the difference between someone having a heart attack and being shot in the head -- the former is done without intent to kill a person, while the latter is done with the intent to do so.  We don't like heart attacks, but they're a fact of life, and we try to prevent them; we don't like people being shot in the head, and there is a punishment that goes along with doing that.

You speak about "natural"... I am not sure what kind of "natural" you are talking about - is it a claim of pregnancy never naturally spontaneously aborting (incorrect, see miscarriage!) or a claim of mother never naturally not wanting a baby (incorrect, or we wouldn't see abortions!). Perhaps the most common sequence of events? Uncommon is bad?

Maybe you need to re-read what I said.  I said natural abortions are not abortions, they're miscarriages.  But let me clarify my intent further for you.

In animals, we never see a pregnant animal abort its own child.  There may be instances where the pregnant animal is killed, thus killing the unborn child animal as well.  There may also be miscarriages.  However, the mother animal does not go to a clinic three months after being impregnated to find a doctor and decide that she does not want to have her child.  That is the distinction I make between a "natural" phenomenon -- miscarriages -- and an unnatural abortion.

And the reasoning for why this is is an entirely different matter to discuss. All that is certain is that the abortion is for the better, where "better" could mean that the fetus has a defect that would cause unlimited suffering. Saying that it happens only for the convenience of the mother is incorrect.

So you're saying it's more convenient for the child, too?  I think that this statement is incorrect.  And, furthermore, it should be up to the child to decide.  And that's why government must enact a law against abortion: because the child cannot speak for himself or herself, it is the government's responsibility to protect the child until he or she can.

[Arta]

That is incorrect. It will not independently develop into a rational being. It requires the mother to provide all of the building materials. Take it, put it in a box, and see if it independently develops into a rational being?

Well, I don't think that this experiment is one we would condone as ethical.  However, despite this, there is some evidence that even children raised completely in the wild can survive and be rational.  Putting a child in a box would be an unnatural exercise; rational action is seen throughout animals and is the foundation for the operant conditioning method of learning.

I think he was referring to a foetus, rather than a child.

[Grok]

Adding to what Adron said, the mother's body aborts a signficant number of pregnancies on their own, and we shrug these off as natural miscarriages.  Nobody calls them murder, but the mother's body is responsible.  She did not choose the miscarriage, but was responsible for it.  So under our laws, miscarriages should be manslaughter.  Is that what you want?

The mother's body was responsible for it; the mother was not. 

Since involuntary manslaughter does not require that a thought process be invoked in order for someone's death to result in an indictment, I don't see the difference here.  People are occasionally charged with involuntary manslaughter for failure to act in such a way that a life may be saved.

[MyndFyre]

Adding to what Adron said, the mother's body aborts a signficant number of pregnancies on their own, and we shrug these off as natural miscarriages.  Nobody calls them murder, but the mother's body is responsible.  She did not choose the miscarriage, but was responsible for it.  So under our laws, miscarriages should be manslaughter.  Is that what you want?

The mother's body was responsible for it; the mother was not. 

Since involuntary manslaughter does not require that a thought process be invoked in order for someone's death to result in an indictment, I don't see the difference here.  People are occasionally charged with involuntary manslaughter for failure to act in such a way that a life may be saved.

I suggest you read the definition of involuntary manslaughter -- it includes recklessness or criminal negligence.  That's why a drunk driver who kills someone can be branded "reckless" and charged with involuntary or voluntary manslaughter, where a woman who has a miscarriage cannot.

Not eating to a point that it aborts the child would be criminal negligence (this was suggested earlier as a means by which an unwanting parent can abort the child "naturally"):

While the specifics of negligence may vary from one jurisdiction to another, it is generally defined as failure to exercise a reasonable level of precaution given the circumstances and so may include both acts and omissions.

[Adron]

I think he was referring to a foetus, rather than a child.

Yes, this was indeed what I was referring to. The foetus, which stuck in a condom and thrown away has no more chance of turning into a rational being than the sperm merging with the egg had. A fetus actually has less ability to move around independently than the poor sperm.

And no, I did not indicate anything about autistic children in my post. I said that if no abortion would cause unlimited suffering, and abortion would spare that suffering, then surely abortion would be the better option. Unlimited suffering is a lot of suffering.

Pregnant wild animals do not go to a doctor to abort their children when it would be for the better. Neither do they go to the doctor to be treated for diseases or have surgery to fix injuries. If unnatural is that bad, I guess we should just forbid medicine