I think it should be considered the same as an infant in terms of the abortion argument.
Do you not see how that's circular?
The statement "I think it should be considered the same as an infant in terms of the abortion argument" accurately reflects the reality of the situation. But you started this with:
The difference between killing and murder doesn't matter in the context I used. I was simply stressing there clearly being no difference between killing something in the womb and out of the womb if both are similarly viable. And you're right, the issue isn't just killing, it's killing a human infant.
This is precisely the equivocation I've been accusing you of making. You forgo an accurate statement ("The issue isn't just killing, it's whether killing a fetus is murder.") in favor of an emotionally loaded one that assumes the results you want ("The issue isn't just killing, it's killing a human infant.")
I'm not trying to lump you into anything. You are actually doing what I'm accusing you of doing.
Now, whether you did it intentionally or accidentally as a result of faulty rhetoric on the part of others is a separate issue. But you're now aware of the issue and if you continue to do it, I'm justified in assuming you're doing it intentionally.
You mention it obviously wouldn't be healthier for a woman to undergo an abortion "late-term," but where do they draw the line? In other words, at what point does science say it's less risky for a woman to have an abortion rather than to carry the baby to term and give birth?
The available procedures for performing an abortion change during the third trimester. The early-stage techniques that induce a miscarriage lose effectiveness as the fetus gets closer to "viability", and you're left with things like IDX. The procedures shift from "medical" procedures to "surgical" procedures, which increase the risk.
But the risks are pretty well quantifiable, and they're part of what go into the scientific testimony on the subject.
And by the way - carrying the baby to term has its own set of risks. No delivery is risk free. But these risks are also quantifiable.
On infant mortality, are you saying if women have the option of aborting high-risk fetuses, then less infants would die after birth?
That's one aspect of it. But the way you phrase it suggests you're missing at least part of the picture. If the "gravida" (the pregnant woman) doesn't want the baby, she's much less likely to refrain from risky behavior - smoking, drinking, etc - that lead to medical complications for the infant after birth (low birth weight, and whatnot).
There's also the mortality rates for the gravida to consider. When abortion is legal, they tend to happen earlier in the pregnancy than when it's not. Earlier abortions are safer for the mother. A woman is something like ten times more likely to die giving birth than having an abortion.
As for the societal issues (e.g., crime, etc.), I'm sure there are other Orwellian things which could produce the same result. Rampant capital punishment, perhaps?
It's possible - but making abortion available isn't particularly "Orwellian", in my opinion. And most people seem to agree with me - more than two thirds of Americans are in favor of legalized abortion as late as the end of the first trimester.
I'm not really trying to change your mind about abortion - only about the abortion debate. The issues are much more nuanced than the anti-abortion people are willing to admit. I frankly doubt that that you've heard any significant arguments opposing abortion that I haven't. I just hope to show you that there may be quite a few pro-choice arguments you haven't considered.
Along these lines, I don't know that I'm completely against the idea of a morning-after pill, which some seem to think is a form of abortion. What would you think if abortion was outlawed as a surgical procedure in favor of something like that?
I don't think it would be enough.
Forgetting about all the many circumstances in which a woman might become pregnant as a result of "inappropriate" sexual liasons. Let's just consider a case of a married couple who regularly uses contraception, knows how to use it properly, and just happens to get "lucky" in the contraceptive failure sweepstakes.
The "morning after" pill won't help - they won't find out about the pregnancy until it's too late, it's not something that you can take after every sexual encounter, and it has its own failure rate. You can't condemn them for being "irresponsible", or "immoral" or any of the usual excuses. They made an affirmative decision that they don't want children (yet).
Let's even ignore the patently false notion that "abstinence is 100% effective". I doubt you can convincingly argue that they should abstain from sex.
And is it really reasonable to deny them access to a safe abortion, at least for a short period after they learn about the pregnancy?
Add a Comment
Email This
RSS
RE: Wording choice and when life begins
I think it should be considered the same as an infant in terms of the abortion argument.
Do you not see how that's circular?
The statement "I think it should be considered the same as an infant in terms of the abortion argument" accurately reflects the reality of the situation. But you started this with:
This is precisely the equivocation I've been accusing you of making. You forgo an accurate statement ("The issue isn't just killing, it's whether killing a fetus is murder.") in favor of an emotionally loaded one that assumes the results you want ("The issue isn't just killing, it's killing a human infant.")
I'm not trying to lump you into anything. You are actually doing what I'm accusing you of doing.
Now, whether you did it intentionally or accidentally as a result of faulty rhetoric on the part of others is a separate issue. But you're now aware of the issue and if you continue to do it, I'm justified in assuming you're doing it intentionally.
You mention it obviously wouldn't be healthier for a woman to undergo an abortion "late-term," but where do they draw the line? In other words, at what point does science say it's less risky for a woman to have an abortion rather than to carry the baby to term and give birth?
The available procedures for performing an abortion change during the third trimester. The early-stage techniques that induce a miscarriage lose effectiveness as the fetus gets closer to "viability", and you're left with things like IDX. The procedures shift from "medical" procedures to "surgical" procedures, which increase the risk.
But the risks are pretty well quantifiable, and they're part of what go into the scientific testimony on the subject.
And by the way - carrying the baby to term has its own set of risks. No delivery is risk free. But these risks are also quantifiable.
On infant mortality, are you saying if women have the option of aborting high-risk fetuses, then less infants would die after birth?
That's one aspect of it. But the way you phrase it suggests you're missing at least part of the picture. If the "gravida" (the pregnant woman) doesn't want the baby, she's much less likely to refrain from risky behavior - smoking, drinking, etc - that lead to medical complications for the infant after birth (low birth weight, and whatnot).
There's also the mortality rates for the gravida to consider. When abortion is legal, they tend to happen earlier in the pregnancy than when it's not. Earlier abortions are safer for the mother. A woman is something like ten times more likely to die giving birth than having an abortion.
As for the societal issues (e.g., crime, etc.), I'm sure there are other Orwellian things which could produce the same result. Rampant capital punishment, perhaps?
It's possible - but making abortion available isn't particularly "Orwellian", in my opinion. And most people seem to agree with me - more than two thirds of Americans are in favor of legalized abortion as late as the end of the first trimester.
I'm not really trying to change your mind about abortion - only about the abortion debate. The issues are much more nuanced than the anti-abortion people are willing to admit. I frankly doubt that that you've heard any significant arguments opposing abortion that I haven't. I just hope to show you that there may be quite a few pro-choice arguments you haven't considered.
Along these lines, I don't know that I'm completely against the idea of a morning-after pill, which some seem to think is a form of abortion. What would you think if abortion was outlawed as a surgical procedure in favor of something like that?
I don't think it would be enough.
Forgetting about all the many circumstances in which a woman might become pregnant as a result of "inappropriate" sexual liasons. Let's just consider a case of a married couple who regularly uses contraception, knows how to use it properly, and just happens to get "lucky" in the contraceptive failure sweepstakes.
The "morning after" pill won't help - they won't find out about the pregnancy until it's too late, it's not something that you can take after every sexual encounter, and it has its own failure rate. You can't condemn them for being "irresponsible", or "immoral" or any of the usual excuses. They made an affirmative decision that they don't want children (yet).
Let's even ignore the patently false notion that "abstinence is 100% effective". I doubt you can convincingly argue that they should abstain from sex.
And is it really reasonable to deny them access to a safe abortion, at least for a short period after they learn about the pregnancy?
View Full Discussion