In 1973, the Supreme Court made one of its most controversial decisions, declaring most anti-abortion laws unconstitutional. Now on November 4th, the people of South Dakota will head to the polls to vote on a proposed statewide abortion ban. With emotions running high on both sides, how should abortion be legislated in tomorrow’s America? (Editor's Note: On November 4th, South Dakota voters rejected Measure 11 to ban abortion.)
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Should South Dakota Pass the Abortion Ban?
Debate misses the key point
Abortion rights is an important issue, and it is typically presented (as in this debate) as a complex topic involving women's right, women's health, the doctor-patient relationship, government interference, social policy, historical precedent, biblical interpretation, etc.
But in the end none of this is relevant. The root question is "When does life begin?"
If you believe that life begins at conception (I do not), then there can be no justification for abortion, just as there can be no justification for murder. In this case, abortion must be illegal in ALL cases. Ethically, exceptions cannot be made, even for cases of rape, incest, or the health of the mother just as we cannot murder one innocent person to save the life of another. It seems to me that "Pro-lifers" who allow these exceptions are contradicting themselves, because there are no exceptions to rules against murder.
But if you believe that life does not begin at conception, then abortion (at least until the point at which you believe life does begin) has no ethical component, and should be legal as a matter of personal choice.
I don't know when life begins. But I do know that it is NOT at conception, or any time soon thereafter. For me life is not based my interpretation of when the soul inhabits the body. It is based on when consciousness begins. And that cannot happen AT LEAST until there is a functioning brain.
No matter what anyone claims, at this point NO ONE knows when life beings. Clearly this is a matter that has been debated for thousands of years, and on which we all have opinions (most of them strong). But that's the point, they are OPINIONS, not facts. Our philosophy and science have simply not come far enough to give an unambiguous answer to this question, leaving it (for most people) in the realm of faith.
And since the nature of life IS a matter of opinion at this point, abortion should also remain a matter of opinion...and choice.
Much of this needs elaboration, but it's a good place to start.
Sid
- SidAirfoil
October 15, 2008 4:18AM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Life or personhood
I think you're thinking of personhood, because there is simply no question about whether or not you are ending a life. I think the issue comes when dealing with what defines personhood before you can get to whether or not an embryo has an interest in remaining alive.
Then, IF you establish that it does have that interests, you'd have to determine if it should have a right to protect that interest. Only then would it be clear that any point before that, the cells cannot have an interest, and aborting the pregnancy is an amoral issue. For any point after that, you'd have to determine under what circumstances a pregnant woman, who clearly has a fundamental interest in remaining alive (and rights to life), would be allowed to infringe upon the interest of that embryo in order to do so. This is clearly an issue of morality.
Because, if it's determined that a fetus has interests, and we know that a grown woman has interests, and both lives are in danger, whose right will be violated? Who makes that decision? I suppose it would be put to a medical triage of sorts.
There are no other interests that rise above the one to live, so any infringement on this would be immoral. One would have to prove that a fetus has interests (which I don't believe can happen until there is a central nervous system), and we've got a moral issue. Otherwise, it's not even really a valid debate.
- mike
October 16, 2008 7:30AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Life vs. personhood
Mike said "I think you're thinking of personhood, because there is simply no question about whether or not you are ending a life. ".
Yes, I was referring to "personhood" throughout my post.
The idea of "life" in and of itself is not important to this debate. This sound's strange, I know, but many things are "alive" that as a society we have no compunctions about killing. Many animals for food, insects as pests, skin cells when we scrape our knee. All of these things are alive, but killing them is (for most of us) not controversial. We even let people die when they are in a vegetative state (most of the time).
So "life" is not the standard for the debate on abortion. The standard must be HUMAN life, which I treat as synonymous with "personhood". With respect to a fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus, the question is When does it become a person? Certainly not at conception, by my way of thinking. Possibly not until birth. Arguably sometime in between.
But aside from chronological definitions, the acquisition of higher consciousness characteristic of humans from birth onward is my functional definition. I just don't know when that happens. And since no one else does either, we should leave up to each of us.
Sid
- SidAirfoil
October 16, 2008 1:38PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
A slippery slope.
Thanks for clarifying. Currently, in Colorado, USA, there is an attempt to constitutionally define "personhood" as starting from conception. To me, this is a silly notion.
But on the flip side, it's a dangerous thing to base an argument on "I just don't know when that happens. And since no one else does either, we should leave up to each of us."
I'd rather apply hard science and err on the side of not generating needless suffering. There has to be a point where nociceptors are up and running. At that point, a fetus has a clear interest in not being injured and killed. I don't know where that point is, and it sounds like you don't either, but that should not justify making potential inflicting of pain and death a "personal" choice.
At the same time, do I think this decision should start with legislation? Nah. I think that, as I feel with most big ethically-based laws, the moral majority should make that happen. And that won't happen until we have more information, more education, and some effective methods of planning, protection, and prevention in regards to human reproduction.
- mike
October 16, 2008 2:47PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Life begins
We can't ignore medical science.
At 21 days, the heartbeat can be heard. At 40 days, brain activity can be detected.
In a hospital, these are often used to determine the beginning and end of life. So if the cessation of these is the definition of dead, should we adpot these as the beginning of life? Would you therefore banning all abortions after 21 days? 40 days?
- DominicSavio
November 2, 2008 12:24AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Medical science and life
DominicSavio said "At 21 days, the heartbeat can be heard. At 40 days, brain activity can be detected."
Maybe. But a heartbeat is not the essential characteristic of human life. All animals have heartbeats, but we kill them all the time. And even humans in persistent vegetative states also have heartbeats but are often allowed to die precisely because it is the mind, not the heart that defines human life.
The same can be said for brain activity. It is not enough to have an "active" brain. Animals have those, too. The brains of humans in vegetative states also have active parts (the parts that keep there lungs and heart pumping, for example). It must be a brain with consciousness, awareness, person-ness. And since there is no clear definition of when that begins, or even what it is, I reject those criteria.
(Aside: 59.3% of abortions in the U.S. are performed at 8 weeks of gestation of less (Wikipedia). That's 56 days, which is pretty close to your 40 day suggestion. So probably close to half of abortions might be acceptable to you, right?)
Sid
- SidAirfoil
November 4, 2008 7:26AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
A quick objection
While most of your argument is very good, I do have a problem with you denying that abortion to save the life of a mother cannot be valid if you believe the fetus to be a person. If there is a car crash, and two people are somehow fused together in such a way that one will live and the other will die if seperated, but if left together both will die, then the doctor has a tough decision to make, but ultimately should make. One must be saved and one must die. This is the same scenario as if an abortion occured to save the life of the mother. Being as the mother usually has a higher chance of survival, it is usually wise to save her rather than the baby. Granted, at that point, it is the doctor's decision. As far as the other extenuating circumstances, you are right, they have no justification. I also disagree with your apparent belief that we should err on the side of liberty over life. I would place life before liberty, and would rather risk denying someone a freedom they should have had to try and save someone's life than deny someone a life they should have had to try and save someone's freedom.
- richardsonkr
January 18, 2009 12:27PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
very eeenteresting.
"I would place life before liberty, and would rather risk denying someone a freedom they should have had to try and save someone's life than deny someone a life they should have had to try and save someone's freedom."
which is odd, you being a military man. we've argued this before... but now that i know you're pre-military, it has all the more meaning. how can you be going into such a position where liberty is extended over life?
give me liberty or give me death.
freedom isn't free.
a thousand other cliches.... life without liberty is a poor, sad life. not much of a life at all.
- SocialistBetty
March 23, 2009 2:28AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Good Point
As I reread my own comment, I did realize that that seemed a bit off, even before I read yours, which pointed it out. I think the clarification needs to be made with consciousness. If someone willingly risks their life for freedom, and does in fact lose it, he or she has made the choice to sacrifice their life for freedom. If someone chooses to oppose freedom, and strives to take it from another, it is within the rights of those whose freedom is being taken to take his of her life in defense of their own freedom. A fetus, however, is created, in the vast majority of cases, by the actions of its parents . Nature has chosen the mother to bear the biological burden of childbearing. (except in the case of seahorses, but I digress) A fetus does not intentionally limit a woman's rights, nor does it seek to limit her freedom. Unfortunately, evolution has made the fetus dependant on the mother. What must also be taken into account is the amount of liberty being taken. Conquest by fascists would be an incredible violation of freedom. Freedom to work, live, move about freely, all of the Bill of Rights, national sovereignty, all would be utterly and permanently destroyed. Bearing a child requires giving up some of the freedom to one's own body for a mere nine months. The taking of one being's life, who has done nothing to warrant its destruction except for being formed as a side effect of it's parents' actions, for the sake of that small liberty cannot be justified.
Of course, what immediately comes to mind is collateral damage. The loss of innocent life as a result of war is horrifying, and should act to deter nations from unnecessary fighting. It is however, a fact of war, and if a war must be fought, every step should be taken to minimize it. That being said, one cannot fail to do what is necessary for fear of the negative consequences. Chemotherapy is horrifying, but it is better than the alternative. Collateral damage differs from abortion in that abortion in several ways. The first is in the degree of the freedoms at stake, which have been mentioned above. The second is intent. Killing a fetus in cold blood is different from killing a civilian in a warzone on accident. In civilian courts, it is the diffence between murder and manslaughter, in a military court, it is the difference between an accident and a war crime . Collateral damage wil happen so long as there is war. That is an excellent reason to try for peace, but unfortunately violent measures must sometimes be employed in the defense of both life and liberty. Abortion, on the other hand, is necessary only to preserve the rights of a woman to her body for a very short period of time. In cases where two people's rights collide, one must look both at the difference in severity of the rights in question, and at who has the greater claim. I would argue that a fetus has greater right to life than a woman has to her body, and a nation has a greater right to life and all liberty than the soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen who sacrifice both for it, than the enemy combatant who emperils both to end it, and the innocent civilian who was simply in the ewrong place at the wrong time.
- richardsonkr
March 23, 2009 4:36PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
10 months.
Which is the actual length of time, really. 40 weeks, in general.
I make the claim that it wrong to force a woman (by means of either allowing or disallowing action) to be imprisoned to her body for any reason. More over, I find the claim that we must allow only medical actions that agree with nature to be preposterous considering the whole point of medical advancement has been to thwart nature.
And if you find that it is acceptable to force a woman to give up her freedom for however long because it means that one life might live, you find it acceptable to say one person's life can not be free.... and this then applies to all people - including the life that freedom was tossed aside for. Which makes little sense.
If you say one person has no right to freedom because it's only for a short time, you make it allowable for every person to be enslaved to another for only a short period of time.
Freedom doesn't work that way. Either you are free (in so far as the use of your body by others), or you are unfree.
This is one reason why Vietnam was so opposed. Because you had thousands, literally, who were enslaved by the government.
And further to that, men like Cheney and Bush and Clinton and a host of others were able to buy their way out this enslavement.
Which speaks further to injustice.
You join the military because you want to. If you were forced into it against your will and principles of what you believe (for if you believed in the war , you would have enlisted), would you still hold that your life was worth less than others?
And if you hold that your life is worth less than others lives, why then should you try and force your belief upon me?
I owe my life to no one. To be forced to owe my life to someone, even for a short period of time, means that I have no individual right. This is the very foundation of this country... that I have the right of an individual.
I think I have said though, that if it determined that the fetus is viable - or even if the medical community is unsure but there is a possibility of it being saved, there is little difference between an abortion and a c-section. If the woman does not want to give up her freedom and owe her life to a fetus, there is more than one option of abortion, at some point, that doesn't enslave the woman. If this is the case, then it becomes the responsibility of us all to ensure that the life of the fetus IS protected. This doesn't mean the woman must remain pregnant.... it simply means a change in procedure. However, if this is the case - which I think it is.... it is not the woman who bears the burden of this extra cost, but the society that says life should be protected.
- SocialistBetty
March 25, 2009 9:53AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Freedom
I think we need to introduce to this conversation a definition of freedom. Freedom is not the ability to do whatever you want. That's anarchy. In a free society , everyone has "inalienable rights" that are protected by the government. Sometimes, those inalienable rights are mutually exclusive. For example, if someone buys something, it his property by right, and it is absolutely wrong to take it away. At the same time, people have a right to freedom from slavery, and it is absolutely wrong to violate that right. So if a someone buys another person, we have a problem. On the one hand, the first has an inalienable right to his (or her) property. On the other, the second has an equally inalienable right to his/her liberty. Both cannot be. It is absolutely wrong to keep slaves, but it is absolutely wrong to confiscate an individuals property. What to do? Fortunately, this nation made a decision that the right to liberty trumps the right to property. As you well know, this was not always the case. Now, you rightly argue that it is absolutely wrong to force a woman to be imprisoned in her own body for any reason. I agree with this, but by the same token, it is absolutely wrong to kill her child for any reason. The pregnancy cannot rightfully be terminated, and cannot rightfully be allowed to continue. Alas, both cannot be. In this situation, one must consider which has the greater claim to his or her rights. This is the only situation in which it is acceptable to consider the extent and length of the limitations of freedoms. I would argue that the fetus, assuming that it is a person, has a greater right to life than its mother has to her right to reproductive freedom.
I fail to see where you are trying to go with your little "the government enslaved Americans back in Nam" rant. Are you referring to the draft?
Also, you seem to suggest I said some things that I did not. The first is the comment about natural medical procedures near the beginning. I never said anything about abortion being "unnatural" or anything like that. I support genetic engineering, cloning, adult stem cell research, Frankenfoods, etc. The only reason I am opposed to infant stem cell research is the necessity of killing a fetus to conduct said research. I really don't give a shit about whether something is "natural." The second is the claim that somewhere in this conversation I said that my life was "less valuable" than other Americans. I never said that, not once, or even implied that. And where do you get off questioning my support for the war based on my enlistment status? Because I didn't enlist right out of high school I obviously don't believe in the war? What? You don't know the circumstances, and you can't make judgements like that without signifigantly more information than you have been given.
- richardsonkr
March 31, 2009 9:33AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Everything but the last paragraph(ic). almost.
it does appear to be a catch-22 (have you read that book?... great book. "there's a dead man in my tent.").
that's why i proposed that if the medical community thinks it worth the cost and effort to support the life... it's a different procedure altogether and frees the woman from the enslavement of a forced pregnancy (as in: laws that ban aborted pregnancies). that's the whole point. that's what i've been trying to get across. come on. it was the last thing i said, k.r.
there are some people on here that think that because i will never - under any circumstances... and i don't care if it meant that ten million babies would die - support the forced use of one person's body for the needs, wants, or expectations of another. for whatever reason.... who think that because i would never support that, obviously i just don't give two shits about life and innocent beings. obviously, that's not true.
liberty and life are not separate issues. life without liberty (and screw all the other kinds.... it's the freedom of simple BEING that we are talking about) is essentially meaningless. this doesn't mean the freedom to walk around punching people in the face. it is the freedom to walk around without being told that you may or may not walk around. it is the freedom to speak without being told what to say or when and how to say it. This. THIS is the freedom that i am speak of. the ultimate right of choice over one's own body. OWN body. not that of others. it is the right for which you have said you are willing to die for to ensure that is possible for others. that is your choice. if you had that choice made for you - as the drafted boy-soldiers of vietnam had it made for them - it wouldn't be free, would it? in fact, if you were drafted into the army, mr. richardson, you would be enslaved to your own country.
this is an issue of freedom, yes.
but this isn't JUST about "reproductive" freedom, mr. richardson. it is the freedom of the whole woman. if you ban abortion , you reduce women down to merely their wombs and what they can do and define the woman as merely that: a reproductive organ housed in skin and bone and muscle topped off with a useless brain. the woman's woman parts are greater than the sum of her whole is what you then say.
i say: would you feel the same way if it were you?
would you say: I
I, say the I with feeling!!!
I am worth less than my womb. (ARE you worth less then one part of you? Is your freedom?)
I am less than my womb.
I have no right to do as I please [with my body] for the sake of my womb because nature has designated my womb to be the carrier.
how does that make you feel to know that you are worth less than a single part of you?
...... mr. richardson, i never said you said abortion was unnatural. i mentioned nature and medical science because you did say it's merely nature that designs a woman to carry the child. you say the child has no choice. did i choose to be a woman? did you choose to be a man? we had no choice in our sex. i have a choice to not bear a child, though. that is the freedom i have over my body, though i chose not the form. it doesn't matter intent of lack of intent or accident or design of nature when a fetus is inside the womb.... if MY freedom is at stake... I have a right to keep it.
my body IS my choice.
again. see the last paragraph. because there are choices in the choice..... abortion is one until the life of the growing fetus outweighs the demands of freedom of the mother. but that doesn't mean you can simply allow the enslavement of one individual to another. it means that the medical community that has provided women with a safe means to something women have been doing for thousands of years must provide an alternative. that's all.
there needn't be a catch-22.... there doesn't have to be a dead man in your tent, so to speak.
you're the only person i feel like i can actually speak with about this subject (who doesn’t just agree with me). so, you know... if you're still thinking i'm saying you're saying things you're not. well then, just tell me. i do sometimes read things wrong. i'm not fucking perfect.
- SocialistBetty
April 1, 2009 1:44AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
End Song
Clear this bitch up, between, shall we?
natural medical procedures near the beginning... that would be this.
SB(me): More over, I find the claim that we must allow only medical actions that agree with nature to be preposterous considering the whole point of medical advancement has been to thwart nature.
i didn't mean that YOU, krk, were making that claim. just that it's A claim. pologies. however, it does seem to me that you do give a shit if something is "natural". because you, like a lot of people, are saying that it is biological fact that the woman carries the fetus, and that the fetus didn't "ask" (so to speak... or rather... not?) to be created.
see the other post for more on that one.
~~
second claim of "somewhere in this conversation" you said that your life was "less valuable" than other Americans. You never said that, or implied that.
here's where i got that from:
rkr (that's you, dollface): a nation has a greater right to life and all liberty than the soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen who sacrifice both for it
so what i take that to mean is that your freedom - as part of the military - is less valuable than "civilians". that you make a choice to be in the military doesn't matter at this point.
what Did you mean by that statement? .....
- SocialistBetty
April 1, 2009 1:56AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.