A reasonable stance on abortion

Some people think abortion is murder; other people think it's not.

What about those who think the answer to that question is not clean cut? For example, I believe that terminating a two week old blastocyst (or whatever it's called at that point in development) is not murder or anything close to it in the sense that we use the word. However, I think it's wrong and as good as murder to abort a fetus which is, say, at eight months in development. That's a pretty well developed baby. In one more month when it *officially* slips out of that vagina, it will be a full human.

What's the difference between a fetus before and after it leaves that membrane? Nothing special in terms of embryology. (I'm talking about the instant it leaves the womb) The difference is in the human mind. I think laws ought to take this complexity into account and stop thinking in terms of "murder/not murder" and start thinking more about the way it really is, ie. "heinous murder; plain murder; not so bad murder; eh, civilization's done worse; that ain't nothin'; not really murder; not murder at all." Somebody (hopefully a biologist) could put a metric on how bad the sin is of aborting a fetus of a certain stage of development. For example, one might use a 0-10 scale. Aborting a one week old fetus might get a sin factor of .1 because terminating a one week old fetus is barely a bad thing at all; killing a five month old fetus would be maybe a 4.5; killing an eight and a half month old fetus would be 9; killing a born baby would be a 9.5; killing an intelligent 40 year old man would be a 10; etc. There could be different stages, like when the development of the fetus's nervous system reaches a certain critical level its termination sin value would increase, say, 2 or 3 points.

Then these point value systems could be used according to different situations to determine how appropriate it would be to abort a fetus. For example, if some dumb woman has been careless with birth control, she may be only alloted 4 sin points. She only gets that many because she should have to suffer the consequences of being irresponsible. What right does she have to cause a skeleton of nerves inside her suffer? On the other hand, if a girl is a rape victim, she may be alloted many more sin points, perhaps 8 or 9. After all, it wasn't her fault. She wasn't being irresponsible or anything. She may be committing "semi-murder" by terminating a late fetus, but she might suffer a lot more than that fetus did by having it and taking care of it.

I think it's a pretty reasonable idea, myself. Alas, it will never be acceptable because people have discontinuous minds. They think in terms of right and wrong, black and white, which is probably the result of language. I wish people could think beyond language and break down mental barriers.

What do you guys think?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So none of this has anything to do with the baby, but all about the mom. Do men get sin points for getting woman after woman pregnant?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't agree. I think it does have quite a bit to do with the baby/fetus. The more developed the fetus is, the more humanlike it is, the more human rights it deserves. And of course, the mom has lots to do with it. I never really thought of the man though. I don't see why the man should get any sin points.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If a man pays for the abortion and pays for 4 (with 4 different women) in 3 years, he deserves sin points.

 

Wait--what good would sin points be to a guy anyway? It's not like he's the one pregnant. It's not like he's the one being allowed to "semi-murder" little entities like women.

 

Do you collect sin points each time you have an abortion? And when is too many sin points? I think that many people who don't believe the baby is its own entity until it is born is possibly because it doesn't use its own organs much until the cord is cut. Thats why people can deliver babies underwater and they don't drown because they are still using their mother's oxygen to breathe. But maybe not I'm just guessing.

 

You are alloted a different number of sin points according to the severity of the situation. However, one should never be alloted more than 10 sin points, because 10 sin points is equal to the value of a fully developed intelligent person (not Terri Schiavo). For example, the life of a pregnant woman is worth 10 sin points, so in the situation that she will die if she doesn't have an abortion, she should in theory be alloted 9.9999999 sin points, but not 10. If she's got twins, then she's SOL if it's a choice between their lives and the life of the mother (provided that the twins are so well developed that their total sin value totals more than 10).

 

I think anyone who does not think abortion is murder should at least benefit science by providing their abortion products for research.

 

Please don't be a douchebag Bells. Yes, I know how women get pregnant. However, aren't women, for the most part, the ones who decide whether they get pregnant or not? A woman's body is her responsibility--not that the law recognizes it. But it is. Pregnancy is mostly a woman's affair. It's her body, her life is at stake, therefore, she should be alloted sin points.

Anyway, this is a more fine point of my general argument which is that the matter of abortion is not clean cut of an issue. I just think that people and the law should acknowledge this. Before we get into the finer points of my argument, what do you think about the idea of acknowledging the complexity of the issue and doing something about it?

 

Bells, you might want to reread my initial post if you want to continue this discussion. There seems to be quite a bit you missed. That's assuming you read it.

I never said she does. If you read what I said, you'd see I said something like "aren't women, for the most part, the ones who decide whether or not they get pregnant?

Yes, it sometimes does, but often these days, it does not. For example, in some places it's considered "rape" for an inebriated man to have sex with an inebriated woman. Also, why does a woman, in the eyes of the judicial system, deserve alimony simply because she had a one night stand with a man and therefore has a fetus in her containing his DNA, if the law truly recognizes that she's responsible for her body?

Bells... this is what I'm talking about. You really need to read what I write before you say things. I did not in fact "disregard the reasons why women get abortions." I made that an important part of my argument. If you bothered to read and understand my initial post, you'd see that the answer to your last question is Yes, women who are in dire situations like rape, are alloted many sin points.

You are right, the law does recognize it to some extent, and it should. My point is that my argument should really be taken home and be adopted by more people and on a greater scale. So many people think in black and white, and that's just not the way things are.

You totally misunderstood me here. I'm saying that the ethics of abortion is not simple--not people's attitudes about abortion. I'm saying there's a gross incongruity between the two.

Why'd you put the word abortion in quotes?

As you said, there already are limitations on abortions and that's a good thing, don't you think? If it's a good thing, then why not embrace the idea that not all abortion is the same all the way? Why not embrace a sin point system?

 

so your talking double standards for men then?

men can't sin but women can??

 

Pregnancy is mostly a woman's affair. It's her body, her life is at stake.

Who said that?

 

There will never be a "reasonable" stand on abortion. You cannot convince someone that believes that removing an unborn fetus is not murder as well as you cannot convince those that support abortion that its not. There's a clear line of separation between the two ways of thinking and there's no middle ground. I'd suggest that we keep teaching children about safe sex and parenthood in schools. I also would hope that more parents would teach or talk to their own kids about the problems of unwanted babies.

 

What's unreasonable about my proposed idea?

 

oh oh who got the woman pregenant a vibrator??

 

Because you are only thinking theoretically not realistically.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

She got herself pregnant by using a man.

 

But why couldn't it work?