Wait a moment... so abortion really does = murder....

[Avatar]

But the fact that it is a personal choice, to be made or not as suits each individual, means that the law should provide the framework in which they can make that choice, one way or the other.

As Skyweir says, regardless of the choice, there are always consequences attached. They may be different consequences, but they are still there. Either decision must be lived with, by the perosn who made it.

As I said before, it doesn't matter to me whether people choose to do it or not. What I care about is that they have the right to make that choice. The option must be available. Using it is always up to the individual.

--Avatar

[Skyweir]

thats true .. but there would probably need to be a risk assessment study taken.

There would be "public" interest factors to consider .. to evaluate the social impact of global abortion.

(by global I mean abortion used widely - couldnt think of another term but if I do I will replace this one later)

If society was just about the individual then I am in wholehearted agreement .. but our societies function on the basis of philosophical thought such as Mills. Whether we like to admit it or not.

So there inveitably is a "greater good" arguement that needs to be addressed.

I am not proferring any personal stance re: this yet .. as usual it takes me time to work my stance through ..

so this is just a thought to add into the pot!

[Avatar]

I've never really been a fan of Utilitarianism. The needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few and all that.

I certainly agree that the social impact needs to be considered, but then, you yourself said that "there are circumstances where abortion is not only right but ethically and socially preferable."

In that sense, perhaps it is for the "greater good" to allow it?

Keep adding your thoughts, here and everywhere. New perspectives, as I often say, are always good.

--Avatar

[dennisrwood]

our laws are set for the needs of the many outwaying the needs of the few. and when a women talks about control of her body? pre conception i'm all for it. but when she chooses to do something that results in life, then who speaks for that life? since the mother wants to destroy that life it seems that some sort of ombudsman is needed for the life.

[Avatar]

Right, and I'm of the opinion that the needs of every individual should recieve equal weight, not just those of the "majority".

Perhaps something like an ombudsman is not a bad idea, but the we're back to the problem of society having to have sufficient services in place that they can deal with taking responsibility for the child.

Which raises another issue in my mind. If, as has been argued, abortion should be forbidden because people should take responsibility, the surely giving that child up, for adoption, or for the state to take care of, is equally and abdication of responsibility.

To make it a means of forcing responsiblity for their actions on people, we would have to insist that each person who wanted an abortion raise and care for that unwanted child. With potentially disasterous consequences for the child itself.

--A

[dennisrwood]

but in adoption the child survives. of course adoption is wretched in this country. cps, foster parents and such. but a broken system can be fixed. death is a one way solution that allows no "do-overs".

[Avatar]

So you'd rather consign a child to a life which you yourself agree could be wretched, because simply being alive should be adequate compensation?

Thats why the old points about the country having to fix those problems before having to rely on a system that is inadequate to begin with are so valid.

--A

[Skyweir]

ooh this is getting interesting .. I too am not sold on Utilitarianism

I think Mill had a lot of good to say but I am not so sure about the greater good theory!

First let me say .. from the outset .. that .. I LOVE THAT AV Dennis!!!! awesome!! is ralphie your fav or is that someone else??

Now back to business! You yourself have acknowledged the relationship between CHOICE AND CONSEQUENCE .. this is indeed the REPONSIBILIY EQUASION ..

Its no good accepting CHOICE=CONSEQUENCE .. and side stepping what that in fact means.

I agree adotpion is another means of moving responsibilty from the responsible to another .. but re: adoption it is always a willing other!

So I guess that makes the arrangement slightly different.

As for fostering .. foster parents arent all bad .. Some foster parents are brilliant parents. Some are not .. not unlike the proportion of less effective parents in existence anyway.

If the needs of each individual receive equal weight .. and I am not suggesting that is wrong by any means .. how do you arrive at social policy?

Individuals are rarely ever going to have the same needs .. and a cross section of society .. or even a small community like the Watch .. demonstrates that individuals as communites are not homogenous .. they rarely agree .. or act in concert!

tricky!

I think what Dennis is saying .. is that terminating a pregnancy doesn t allow for .. you know .. oops ..alternatives!

Once a life is terminated .. its terminated! There are no second chances to do it another way.

As much as we cant control how people parent .. we also cant control how abortion could be used ..

when i spoke of the bigger picture I was referring to the social context .. if abortion were legalised how would that act affect social compact as a whole?

Could abortion be abused? What implications could abuse of abortion have on society as a whole?

There are impacts beyond what is deemed moral rights and wrongs .. that may effect society

[Avatar]

Hmm, of course, I could say that one of the advantages of it being a final solution is that it's...well...final.

Afterwards, everything is second guessing.

As for the implications of abortion for society as a whole, what do you perceive them to be? Afterall, abortion is legal in many places, and any abuses that are possible, we are already being faced with.

The only one that I can think of off the top of my head is the fact of abortion being used as an easy alternative to birth control. And the only impact that could have is on the people who choose to use it in such a way.

Today, society can never suffer for having less people.

And the argument that we may be aborting the next Einstein, or the next Ceaser, is meaningless. If we never have it, we never even know that we missed something. We may also be aborting the next Manson, or the next Pohl Pot, for which we should be grateful.

What other possible effects on society can abortion have?

--A

[ZefaLefeLaH]

Today, society can never suffer for having less people.

I am in total agreement. Let's terminate people when they get to 30. That way we can have more people enjoy life & not abuse so much of the world along the way. We can call it the "Logan's Abortion Law".

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

Just to give a little bit of back up to my man Mill, remember he wasn't talking about the greatest good in terms of only material/physical consequences. People accused him of having an ethics of a pig, that there was no human good involved, but he said not the greatest good in terms of quantity alone, but the greatest good in comparison to other goods also. The very quality of the good mattered, and for him to be happy, he needed to be spiritually and mentally fulfilled. If the negative effects of abortion on the human mind and soul outweighed the good it did in terms of say, population and food supply or something, then regardless of the population and food supply problems, he would have opposed abortion. That's a big IF, by the way.

[dennisrwood]

Skyweir: Ralphie is my favorite, i love his world view!
"i'm floating to Africa! where's my baby?"

i'm all for an anouncement by the Republicans that in order to stop abortion, they are putting a cap on personal earnings at some millions and all money after that will be used to provide children with safe homes. that cps will be overhauled and that orphanages will be built will qualified, compassionate caretakers. that more prisons will be built and that anyone guilty of rape will be spending the rest of their lives in prison.

i'll be here my fellow conservatives...

[Skyweir]

Hmm, of course, I could say that one of the advantages of it being a final solution is that it's...well...final.

Afterwards, everything is second guessing.

As for the implications of abortion for society as a whole, what do you perceive them to be? Afterall, abortion is legal in many places, and any abuses that are possible, we are already being faced with.

The only one that I can think of off the top of my head is the fact of abortion being used as an easy alternative to birth control. And the only impact that could have is on the people who choose to use it in such a way.

Today, society can never suffer for having less people.

And the argument that we may be aborting the next Einstein, or the next Ceaser, is meaningless. If we never have it, we never even know that we missed something. We may also be aborting the next Manson, or the next Pohl Pot, for which we should be grateful.

What other possible effects on society can abortion have?

--A

Well I have to inform you that this is a myth .. globally there is a population crisis ..

Australia is experiencing negative population growth .. as many other developed nations.

So an abuse of this nature would severely affect this nations growth! There is more to the social impact than population growth or not however.

You yourself have mentioned the most obvious negative impact on .. say .. my society.

Its pointless postulating re: a more egalitarian global redistribution (wealth & population) theories .. cos it isnt going to happen .. not in the short term .. and I very much doubt it even in the long term.

Abortion as contraceptive has other impacts on society .. in terns of its affect on social values. Abortion as contraception devalues human life .. devalues existence.

It is indeed a more philosophical harm but it is still a harm.

anyway i cant stay now .. cos i gotsta go ..

but before i do .. yes jem .. Mill was about maximising happiness .. Indeed his "happiness principle" .. and he did value the individual but i think to apply his theories .. the greater good was the only way ..

the majority!

the public interest .. is the same consideration ..

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

I think he would have said that the individual good could weigh out, say, a mere convenience for many... but we're getting away from the point here....

I really don't like the idea that redistribution of wealth is an impossible idea. If no one thought it was impossible, it wouldn't be....

but that's still away from the point...
I don't think you can equate abortion with the literal devaluation of human existence, unless you have friends you can point to, or people you know, who you could accuse of feeling people had less value because abortion was legal. To them, I mean...

[Skyweir]

I think he would have said that the individual good could weigh out, say, a mere convenience for many... but we're getting away from the point here....

I really don't like the idea that redistribution of wealth is an impossible idea. If no one thought it was impossible, it wouldn't be....

but that's still away from the point...
I don't think you can equate abortion with the literal devaluation of human existence, unless you have friends you can point to, or people you know, who you could accuse of feeling people had less value because abortion was legal. To them, I mean...

If only there were more time in a day .. Mill would never have supported the needs of the individual over the public need. He is the father of the "greater good" theory! Maximising happiness for the majority actually.. but enabling individual excercise of that shared happiness.

I agree with you .. I dont like the idea of re-distribution .. but I am playing my less played "REALIST" card here.

As an idealist I look forward to a day when wealth and resources are shared my egalitarianly.

However .. in this current global/economic climate thats not on the cards

I really want to come back to the de-valuing of human life point cos its imo an important one ..

but gotta go

[dennisrwood]

i can't think of a time that the ruling majority did not share in the spoils of a society system set up to keep them in power. even the communist countries are not really into equal sharing. there has always been the poor lower class, because they keep the rich in power. and to tie this in, abortion is provided as a way to keep the poor masses controled. war is another. eugenics by any other name...

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

Explain that abortion as keeping the poor masses controlled, I don't quite understand that line...

Perhaps my understanding of Mill when I read him was flawed, I'll go drag em out and dust em off later. In preperation for your response to the devaluing human existence line, I re-read my bit about it and realized how awfully vague it is. To elaborate, what I'm saying is that I don't think that anyone really feels that human life has less value. Many people may fear that the devaluing of human life will be a result of abortion, but no one actually feels at any time that life has less value.

For example, you personally, do you feel human life has less value? I mean, do you value human life less, because abortion is legal? I've never met the person that did. I mean someone who will say "you know... abortion is legal, so how much are people really worth anyway?" and then allow that attitude to penetrate into their daily lives.
I've never met that person.

[Avatar]

I don't think that negative population growth is ever a crisis. We are not in any danger of running out of people any time soon.

Anything that helps to reduce the worlds population is, in my opinion, not necessarily a bad thing. Unless we strongly encourage negative population growth, the trend will not last any significant amount of time.

And as to whether abortion devalues human life, I sort of agree with JemCheeta here. People on the whole are not going to go around saying that they can kill people now, because abortion is legal. It may be a fine line, but I think the "undermining of societies morality" is a nebulous concept at best.

--Avatar

[dennisrwood]

Avatar: i have to disagree. i believe that abortion has devalued human life. and contributed to making fatherhood easier to escape. and it pits the needs of the mother, father and child against one another. my child would be 10. and no amount of arguing will change the fact that without the abortion that the fetus would have become something that all would agree was life. so we quibble over when that is. i could care less. sorry.

[Avatar]

No need to be sorry. It's a perfectly valid opinion.

I don't deny that it may have made "fatherhood" easier to escape, but has it devalued human life? Are we faced with people claiming that life is no longer valuable? And that is why we are forced to quibble of a "definition" of life itself. If we who believe that the foetus is not "alive" in the sense of being a human are right, then human life is not devalued.

The entire point of the discussion deals with exactly that question. Is the foetus a human? Or will it only become human?

--Avatar