Abortion Debate

[smoothmoniker]

Abortion is one of the few, maybe the only, raging debates that truly hinges on a single point of contention: the definition of a personhood. I think we can all agree that there are certain, hmmm, what’s the word, “inalienable” rights attached to personhood that trump the rights contended against it. Certainly the right to live is the most fundamental of those rights.

This makes several frequently fielded arguments in the debate completely meaningless. If a fetus is NOT a person prior to a certain point, then no real argument for abortion is needed – the fetus has no legal or moral standing, the mother’s rights trump the rights of the congealed cells sitting in her womb. If the fetus IS a person after a certain point, then any argument fielded for abortion has to extend from that point forward, to born persons, to adults, to the elderly.

“Abortion lowers crime” fails that test. If the fetus is not a person, then this is a weaker argument than mother’s rights. If the fetus is a person, we can see the absurdity of extending this argument to other persons – if we kill all 2 year old children who have no stable, healthy family environment to grow up in, we would drastically reduce the crime rate, but no one would think of fielding this “modest proposal”, because the right of persons to live clearly trumps the benefit of lowered crime.

“Rape and Incest” fails that test, again because we would never extend the argument to born persons. A 2 year old child who was the product of a rape would have no less right to live than a 2 year old who was the product of a loving and committed marriage relationship. Personhood again trumps the argument.

“Viability” even fails the test, unless viability is your prime condition for personhood. We don’t abjure the personhood of someone who needs kidney dialysis, a feeding tube, and a pacemaker, but who is otherwise capable of thought, response, communication. The rights of the family to their finances and their time are not strong enough to trump the ill persons right to live. The same is true of a mother and an unborn person – if personhood exists, then the means necessary to sustain life are the obligation of the person capable of providing it. If personhood does not exists, then no argument for viability is needed.

Here’s the nutshell, for those of you who skip all the good stuff and just read the 1st and last paragraph in every post. The delineation of personhood is the prime question in the abortion debate. Before personhood exists, no argument for abortion is even needed. After it exists, no argument trumps the fundamental right of a person to live.

Now, let’s get this thing cranked up. How do you define personhood?

-sm

[Kitsune]

Immediately after the abortion debate stops.

Wow, UT just doesn't get into these debates, anymore. Never, for the life of me, will I understand why.

I'm a guy, so is it okay if I don't care?

[jinx]

Originally Posted by smoothmoniker

Now, let’s get this thing cranked up. How do you define personhood?

-sm

Legally, I would define it as one who has been born. One who is no longer a parasite to another person. Morally, I'd define it a bit differently but I don't think that's relevant to the legality of abortion.
The bottom line for me is that I trust women to make the right decision regarding their body and their ability to become a parent (as opposed to just giving birth). My morals are my own and my ego is not so large as to think I should have a say in the reproduction of others.

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by jinx

One who is no longer a parasite to another person.

should i be able to get away with terminating the welfare recipient dependent on tax money for their survival?

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by lookout123

should i be able to get away with terminating the welfare recipient dependent on tax money for their survival?

Maybe only certain ones.

[jinx]

Originally Posted by lookout123

should i be able to get away with terminating the welfare recipient dependent on tax money for their survival?

You mean lifestyle, not survival, right?

[lookout123]

the argument is always that the benefits they receive are for survival, not to maintain a "lifestyle".

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by lookout123

the argument is always that the benefits they receive are for survival, not to maintain a "lifestyle".

A rather thin argument, depending on who you are talking to.

[jinx]

Originally Posted by lookout123

the argument is always that the benefits they receive are for survival, not to maintain a "lifestyle".

The argument? Not my argument...

[Cyber Wolf]

Originally Posted by lookout123

should i be able to get away with terminating the welfare recipient dependent on tax money for their survival?

There's a bit of a difference. The welfare recipient is already a born and likely fully grown person who is surviving outside of the womb. A fetus generally cannot.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by jinx

my ego is not so large as to think I should have a say in the reproduction of others.

And that is why you'll never rule the world.

[glatt]

A legal definition is very hard to do. You need a clear cut-off point like conception or birth. Even something like first trimester, second trimester is a little too vague in my opinion. Laws have to be black and white.

I would never dream of killing actual newborn children, but with my own, I didn't think that they were "people" until they were around four to six months old or so. That's when I noticed a spark in the eye. Some sort of reaction to the world around them that was more than just simple reflex. Before that, they were just blobs of flesh. Eating, pooping and crying. The mice I killed in traps in my crawlspace were more conscious and aware than they were.

[garnet]

Originally Posted by jinx

Legally, I would define it as one who has been born. One who is no longer a parasite to another person. Morally, I'd define it a bit differently but I don't think that's relevant to the legality of abortion.

The bottom line for me is that I trust women to make the right decision regarding their body and their ability to become a parent (as opposed to just giving birth).

I agree 100%. While I am rabidly pro-choice, I personally think around 5 months after conception there's a bit of a line that shouldn't be crossed. I don't think abortion should be illegal after that point, but there's something unsettling to me about performing an abortion at that point. I personally wouldn't do it, but that's just me. Every woman should be able to make the decision for herself.