Abortion: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Ethics » Abortion » Abortion

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Abortion

oligopolist
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 30, 2007

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 94

Posted 12/18/07 - 01:34 PM:	#21
Exactly the point, Military spending provides you a service, whether you like it or not. Abortion provides only a very small handful of people a legitimate service, to most it's a disservice, like to the murdered fetus's.. It's not a case of agreeing with it, it's not what taxes are intended for in our constitution. taxes ARE for Military spending. Capital Punishment is a state issue as abortion should be. Taxes ARE for helping businesses, sadly that's what the forcing of taxes was primarily used for. Taxes are NOT nor never were intended for state sanctioned murder to avoid responsible decision making.

PontificatingChauncy
Student (aren't we all?)

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 27, 2007

Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 265

Posted 12/18/07 - 07:52 PM:	#22
Oligopolist, if you don't mind my asking, what is your gender?
The Tao that can be named is not the true Tao. That thing is a chauncy

Swordfishtrombone
Death to Malaria

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 05, 2007
Location: Erdschweinhöhle

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 266

Posted 12/18/07 - 09:00 PM:	#23
oligopolist wrote: It is manslaughter by definition and CAN be prosecuted if the hospital believes neglegence is involved. Really? Funny, I've worked as a physician in probably 20 hospitals in 4 different states as well as 4 foreign countries, I'm board-certified in three different medical specialties, licensed in two states, and I work in all kinds of settings, and frankly this is news to me. If you fire a gun in the air for fun and it kills someone 1 block away, you're going to jail for first degree manslaughter. If you are known to be pregnant and you spontaneously abort a full term fetus after smoking crack, you can be arrested for doing crack, but you CANNOT be charged with murder or manslaughter under our laws. Period. I've seen it happen plenty of times. Furthermore, I as a physician am not required to report that to the police (I've taken care of probably hundreds people on illegal drugs and I'm not even required to report the drug use to the police -- and good thing, because it's hard to take care of someone you've antagonized by getting them arrested). As with Child abuse, it is up to the staff, but It's already "in the mix." I became a mandated reporter the day I started med school in 1996. Still haven't heard "in the mix". Virtually nothing requires reporting to the police or child protection services other than domestic violence, child abuse, elder abuse, and gross neglect. Impending violence can, of course be reported. But I CANNOT report a mother to the police for smoking during pregnancy or drinking alcohol during pregnancy, even if they result in complications. If a mother is doing heroin or cocaine or alcohol during pregnancy I have to call child protection services once there is a live birth (or strictly speaking in anticipation of a live birth). But if the fetus dies, there is no one to call, and no DA would take the case. The overwhelming majority of abortions, that would mean legal documented abortions, are not for medical reasons Oh, so if it's not for medical reasons then it's for "irresponsible behavior". Is that true for everything? Let's explore a moral scheme in which every human decision is either "for medical reasons" or "irresponsible". I'm being obnoxious with you because you're being preachy and judgemental, and your personal heartfelt beliefs, however sincere, are miles removed from the real world in which people have difficult lives and make difficult decisions. Try and do my job for a week and see how far rigid morality will get you.
Paul - http://www.pbase.com/drpablo74 "Everything you can think of is true..." -Tom Waits

oligopolist
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 30, 2007

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 94

Posted 12/19/07 - 02:06 AM:	#24
It becomes a reportable offense as you stated, when there is potential abuse or endangerment involved. If a woman comes in with bruises on her stomach and loses her child after someone assaults her, the offender can be prosecuted for the death of the fetus. I realize it takes the added step but that’s where the debate is, right? If it’s so obvious on one side why lie about it on the other? swordfishtrombone wrote: I'm being obnoxious with you because you're being preachy and judgemental, and your personal heartfelt beliefs, however sincere, are miles removed from the real world in which people have difficult lives and make difficult decisions. Try and do my job for a week and see how far rigid morality will get you. It’s interesting that you assume your plight would ‘enlighten’ me, or that somehow my life is any less ‘difficult’. Since I don’t agree with you, my experience is less valid? I think being oversensitive about semantics and forcing everyone to lie to make you feel better is a sad exercise in futility and at a great cost to us as a whole. We’ve seen a rise in misinformation due to a very liberal manipulation of the English language, from political correctness to complete redefining of truths. Again, I don’t think abortion should be illegal. I’m saying it shouldn’t be state funded in any way and should be called what it is.

Swordfishtrombone
Death to Malaria

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 05, 2007
Location: Erdschweinhöhle

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 266

Posted 12/19/07 - 04:37 AM:	#25
oligopolist wrote: It becomes a reportable offense as you stated, when there is potential abuse or endangerment involved. If a woman comes in with bruises on her stomach and loses her child after someone assaults her, the offender can be prosecuted for the death of the fetus. Yes, but that's not the question I posed. I posed a question of self-harm on the part of the woman, i.e. she does something that inadvertently (or carelessly) aborts her own pregnancy. She is the sole agent here. And this is not reportable, even though you said quite clearly above that it was. I realize it takes the added step but that’s where the debate is, right? If it’s so obvious on one side why lie about it on the other? I'm not lying about anything. I didn't pose a scenario of a woman who is hit by a drunk driver and loses a pregnancy -- because in that case you can prosecute for murder. But what this boils down to is that you are confusing law with morality with ethics with biology with Christian doctrine. Pick one or another and we can debate that. But for you to declare "Abortion is Murder" is untrue under our law. For you to declare that manslaughter law applies to fetuses when the mother is the agent is also untrue under our law. So our law does not have a consistent definition of a human fetus or embryo as equivalent to a born human. If you want to present a case to change laws based on legal inconsistency, then by all means propose it. But if you want to debate ethics and morality, then that's a separate topic, because the law is nothing but a compromise between lawmakers -- it's not meant to be moral or ethical. It’s interesting that you assume your plight would ‘enlighten’ me, or that somehow my life is any less ‘difficult’. Are you having trouble reading? Go up and take another look. I didn't describe my own plight, nor did I make any comment on the difficulty of your life. I described generically the difficult lives of thousands of people whom I've cared for; and that for you to cast judgement upon people without this kind of experience makes your admonitions extremely ungrounded. I think being oversensitive about semantics When you learn the difference between American criminal law, American health care ethics, and your individual Christian conservative frame of reference, and can separate them in a conversation, then I'll have less imprecision to concentrate on. The ball is in your court on this one. You aren't going to get far in a logical argument if you can't avoid mixing up concepts. Again, I don’t think abortion should be illegal. I’m saying it shouldn’t be state funded in any way and should be called what it is. Called what it is? Ok, in that case nothing should be called murder, because murder is a term that has moral overtones. Everything should be called homicide, and qualified further when necessary. You don't want to pay taxes for Medicaid patients to have legal abortions. Well, I don't want to pay taxes for you to get Medicare benefits when you retire, and I don't want to pay taxes for your children to have a chair in their kindergarten classroom (I'm exaggerating to make a point here). But that's not the way taxes and benefits work. If you don't like it, then change the lawmakers. And if not enough people agree with you to change the lawmakers, then you at least get to be thankful that democracy is working.
Paul - http://www.pbase.com/drpablo74 "Everything you can think of is true..." -Tom Waits

oligopolist
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 30, 2007

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 94

Posted 12/19/07 - 05:48 AM:	#26
There are two similar threads going now on this and both seem to center on the use of the word ‘murder’. You said, swordfishtrombone wrote: Called what it is? Ok, in that case nothing should be called murder, because murder is a term that has moral overtones. Everything should be called homicide, and qualified further when necessary. which is completely false. ‘Murder’ is not moral by any unified standard, it does however mean the wanton killing of another individual or killing another individual with premeditation or malice. An abortion is premeditated and commonly done for self interest. I do agree that homicide is the best term to use but way more people think that ‘homicide’ is an illegal killing, so damned if I do… swordfishtrombone wrote: Yes, but that's not the question I posed. I posed a question of self-harm on the part of the woman, i.e. she does something that inadvertently (or carelessly) aborts her own pregnancy. She is the sole agent here. And this is not reportable, even though you said quite clearly above that it was. If there was confusion allow me to clarify I was demonstrating that a fetus attains life status if a pregnant woman is assaulted, which creates a double standard and makes your conditional question somewhat pointless. It’s still murder, plain and simple. There is no reason or definition to say otherwise. Check the other thread for the Webster’s definition of murder. Look up fetus too. I am not Christian, nor do I believe in the general accounts of the bible. I do however believe that lying and rearranging semantics to justify irresponsible actions is ignorant and harmful. I don’t agree with allowing mentally fragile people to hijack semantics under the guise of what’s moral or isn’t. If I said ‘people who have abortions are bad.’ I could see your point, but calling them murderers is just part of the consequence to their actions. Soldiers are murderers but are so in the name of a cause that justifies it, to most people of course not all. But a man who has killed with intent IS a murderer, so then is a woman. I am absolutely not debating the morality or ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ of abortion, simply stating that by definition and all reason, it’s murder. I don’t believe that violence is inherently evil either if that helps explain why I don’t view ‘murder’ as inherently evil either. I can call rape, ‘autonomy challenged intercourse” but that doesn’t change what the action actually is. This thread is about the necessity of abortion and whether it is murder. Anyone who views abortion as murder is instantly viewed by the opposition as emotional, which is a complete misnomer and no better than those who view it as murder considering everyone who sees it differently as criminal. It isn’t criminal. The law states it clearly as of now so there is no question or debate to be had about it. The legal questions are directly about taxes and funding. swordfishtrombone wrote: You don't want to pay taxes for Medicaid patients to have legal abortions. Well, I don't want to pay taxes for you to get Medicare benefits when you retire, and I don't want to pay taxes for your children to have a chair in their kindergarten classroom (I'm exaggerating to make a point here). But that's not the way taxes and benefits work. If you don't like it, then change the lawmakers. And if not enough people agree with you to change the lawmakers, then you at least get to be thankful that democracy is working. Someone getting Medicaid and state sanctioned murder/homicide are not the same. Military spending and capital punishment are similar to abortion. Euthanasia is the closest though and is NOT allowed to be state funded either. We can’t trust a private institution to run the legal system so execution, if legal, has to be state run. Same for the military, privatized military is a big no-no. It’s not about what I ‘want’ or you ‘want’ that was my point. People are too concerned about what the other person ‘wants’. Abortion CAN be done privately and in no way is government funding necessary. It keeps it legal and keeps people who disagree from paying for it. It should be a state issue. It is simply too geographic of a topic to be nationalized.

Swordfishtrombone
Death to Malaria

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 05, 2007
Location: Erdschweinhöhle

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 266

Posted 12/19/07 - 07:05 AM:	#27
You've been much more clear in the above post, so I thank you. I think that if you did a survey you'd find that most people have different associations with the word "homicide" than they do with the word "murder". For instance, the phrase "accidental homicide" makes sense (whether or not it's a legal term), but the phrase "accidental murder" does not. So homicide is more neutral. I think we agree that the definition of "life" is inconsistent and contextual. I'm entirely pro-choice in my political and medical views (for whatever that's worth), but that doesn't change the fact that biologically life begins at conception. The problem here is that biological life is an impossible standard to use for many legal questions. Like all the frozen embryos in fertility clinics -- fine, some people disapprove of stem cell research, but by extension they should disapprove of any fertilized egg (i.e. a live human being)being stored in a freezer rather than implanted in a suitable uterus. Even when state health insurance reimburses for pregnancy termination, I don't see how that can be referred to as "state sanctioned". I mean I have a patient that I recently saw who is on Medicaid and is getting blood thinners for a pulmonary embolism -- would you call that "state sanctioned anticoagulation"? And when the medical assistants take her blood pressure, would you call that "state sanctioned sphigmomanometry"? Do you understand the point? The state as a third party payor has relatively loose guidelines as to what are reimbursable medical expenses, but legally you cannot call this "sanctioning" -- and the reason I say legal sanctioning is that in repeated legal cases insurance companies and Medicaid/Medicare refuse to take responsibility for medical decisions that they pay for or refuse to pay for -- and the courts have invariably found in their favor. Finally, for you to call abortion "murder" may indeed be how you regard it. But I'm not sure it's productive to refer to it like that in this sort of conversation, because I (and many others here) find that to be a very morally loaded, judgemental, and presumptuous label (presumptuous meaning you presume that the rest of us in that thread accept this very targeted word you choose to describe it, which is not an accepted way to describe abortion in any context except condemnation). When you say "the law states it clearly as of now", I'm not sure what you're referring to. If you have access to a written legal statute that clearly says that abortion is murder (using that exact word), then it would be helpful if you could share it.
Paul - http://www.pbase.com/drpablo74 "Everything you can think of is true..." -Tom Waits

Cookie Parker
Born 'n Raised in Iowa

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 25, 2006

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 10

Posted 12/19/07 - 07:40 AM:	#28
Once you attach a morality issue to decisions of conscience you assume knowledge which no one has. As the solider who shoots in the time of war, no one can say if he was in danger or murdered an innocent person. You cannot decide a decision of conscience for someone else. Argue murder versus whatever....the issue is the right of the woman to decide her life, her future and her choices...not anyone else's. When society refuses to care for all, then there exists the innate right within the society to care for itself. Choice is one of those issues.
John W. Gardner: The society which scorns excellence in plumbing because plumbing is a humble activity, and tolerates shoddiness in philosophy because philosophy is an exalted activity, will have neither good plumbing nor good philosophy. Neither its pipes nor its theories will hold water.

Cookie Parker
Born 'n Raised in Iowa

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 25, 2006

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 10

Posted 12/19/07 - 07:42 AM:	#29
oligopolist wrote: Exactly the point, Military spending provides you a service, whether you like it or not. Abortion provides only a very small handful of people a legitimate service, to most it's a disservice, like to the murdered fetus's.. It's not a case of agreeing with it, it's not what taxes are intended for in our constitution. taxes ARE for Military spending. Capital Punishment is a state issue as abortion should be. Taxes ARE for helping businesses, sadly that's what the forcing of taxes was primarily used for. Taxes are NOT nor never were intended for state sanctioned murder to avoid responsible decision making. What service is the military providing...or the contractors for that matter? No, you are stressing an emotional/religious intolerance to individuality and women's rights to choose their lives based upon your beliefs. A woman....one woman...will be affected by her decision....you will not.
John W. Gardner: The society which scorns excellence in plumbing because plumbing is a humble activity, and tolerates shoddiness in philosophy because philosophy is an exalted activity, will have neither good plumbing nor good philosophy. Neither its pipes nor its theories will hold water.

oligopolist
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 30, 2007

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 94

Posted 12/19/07 - 09:10 AM:	#30
swordfishtrombone wrote: I think that if you did a survey you'd find that most people have different associations with the word "homicide" than they do with the word "murder". For instance, the phrase "accidental homicide" makes sense (whether or not it's a legal term), but the phrase "accidental murder" does not. So homicide is more neutral. We have to quantify what ‘most people’ constitutes. If we are talking about the U.S. and similar nations as that group, yes the majority would see homicide as a term usable for something accidental, and in the case of an accidental death of a fetus it would be homicide. But I still think the overwhelming majority will also define murder as the willful act of killing another human regardless of moral ideology. It’s specifically when it comes to discussing a fetus that the line starts to get blurry. Euthanasia is similar. It’s still murder, and homicide. I agree that homicide is a broader term, like ‘rectangle’, representing the idea of any death and murder is more defined, like ‘square’, representing to kill another human being. The moral implication lies in how we define ‘human being’ or ‘life’. Unfortunately, people who see it as ‘murder’ and believe it should be illegal are considered emotional for doing so and that isn’t true. It’s a common trend for people who believe abortion should stay legal to view the opposition as ignorant and emotional but that’s terribly pretentious. It’s much more of an ‘emotional’ decision to want to legally justify homicide or killing of any nature, in my opinion. swordfishtrombone wrote: I think we agree that the definition of "life" is inconsistent and contextual. I'm entirely pro-choice in my political and medical views (for whatever that's worth), but that doesn't change the fact that biologically life begins at conception. The problem here is that biological life is an impossible standard to use for many legal questions. So if biologically life starts at conception and by definition, murder is the willful act of taking another life, you can see where there is no need to add emotion to create a few interpretations of the word. People who support abortion just have to accept that it’s murder in the eyes of most of the world. Most of the world seems to accept murder more in general though, they aren’t living in our bubble. I also agree that abortion should be legal, though for the sake of women’s rights and civil liberties, I refrain and advise against the words ‘pro-choice’. The idea of a woman having the freedom to NOT be told what she HAS to do to her body, “pro-choice’ is not the same as being allowed to do whatever she wants to her body, much less when it effects an unborn child, a father her/their lineage/inheritance/medical situation, etc. The decision to have or not have a child can have a lot of major impacts on a family and it’s finances as well as in the grandparents and siblings, so to choose whether or not to kill the unborn child Is not only affecting ‘the woman’. It’s dangerous to oversimplify this argument into ‘A woman has the right to kill her unborn child.” It just has way too man facets. swordfishtrombone wrote: Like all the frozen embryos in fertility clinics -- fine, some people disapprove of stem cell research, but by extension they should disapprove of any fertilized egg (i.e. a live human being)being stored in a freezer rather than implanted in a suitable uterus. I agree, that would be consistent. parameter wrote: Even when state health insurance reimburses for pregnancy termination, I don't see how that can be referred to as "state sanctioned". I mean I have a patient that I recently saw who is on Medicaid and is getting blood thinners for a pulmonary embolism -- would you call that "state sanctioned anticoagulation"? Absolutely! If it was important enough to enough people. parameter wrote: And when the medical assistants take her blood pressure, would you call that "state sanctioned sphigmomanometry"? Do you understand the point? The state as a third party payor has relatively loose guidelines as to what are reimbursable medical expenses, but legally you cannot call this "sanctioning" -- and the reason I say legal sanctioning is that in repeated legal cases insurance companies and Medicaid/Medicare *refuse* to take responsibility for medical decisions that they pay for or refuse to pay for -- and the courts have invariably found in their favor. When you are talking about killing, murdering or committing homicide, it’s always considered ‘State Sanctioned’ or not, it’s simply too big of an issue not to be. The state can’t claim complacency, in other words. How do you feel about capital punishment? Is that not, ‘state sanctioned’ murder? I believe it is, but that it should be allowed on a state per state level. No one seems to factor in the multiple levels of our legal system. States should have the right to vote on these things individually. One option would be to only allow abortions in private hospitals and clinics. I believe that is one of the benefits of a private medical facility is the ability to not be hindered by state regulation as much. I am just trying to throw out ideas that might appeal to both sides, because telling people they are emotional for calling it murder is not going to work. swordfishtrombone wrote: Finally, for you to call abortion "murder" may indeed be how you regard it. But I'm not sure it's productive to refer to it like that in this sort of conversation, because I (and many others here) find that to be a very morally loaded, judgemental, and presumptuous label (presumptuous meaning you presume that the rest of us in that thread accept this very targeted word you choose to describe it, which is not an accepted way to describe abortion in any context except condemnation). I see nothing wrong with judgment in reasonable context. Especially for a woman who has had an abortion, social judgment is one of the few external reprimands. Back to why I believe the non-murder argument is the emotional one, the only reason to call it something else is to placate the woman having an abortion and a decision not to do so would be an emotional one. Most people I talk with that have similar problems with ‘words’ being ‘emotional’ have similar issues with judgment and generalization. I believe it’s imperative to clarify the myth’s about words meaning things they don’t, like murder having moral or legal connotation. I grew up watching words slowly change into what certain political parties/special interest groups, wanted them to and in the end it was the primary catalyst for my complete disillusion with the liberal and socialist ideals in the left wing, thankfully. I am far from a conservative, but I have come to find that the overall concept of liberalism is a mental disorder, similar to religious fanaticism but with no accountability to a higher power, just to self and ‘community’, which seems to slowly turn back into self. I think liberalism leads to voting for democrats, but I don’t think being a liberal or socialist is anymore political than being spoiled, traumatized or undereducated. I DON’T AT ALL think that all democrats are that way, I know quite a few that are good people with good intentions but they still all seem to have a chip on their shoulders about authority and/or money. Most of them have personal reasons, bullies, poor families, rich families with guilt etc... that irrationally define their motivation, but it’s definitely a psychosis. I believe that all this word play and semantic redefining is a direct product of liberal psychosis and an inability to accept certain truths. swordfishtrombone wrote: When you say "the law states it clearly as of now", I'm not sure what you're referring to. If you have access to a written legal statute that clearly says that abortion is murder (using that exact word), then it would be helpful if you could share it. I was saying that the law clearly states that abortion ‘is legal’ as of now, sorry to confuse. I can dig up the stuff on the states who are still pushing to appeal RvW but that would not be my first choice.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.