You’d have to not deconstruct the terminology to a certain extent. I’m well aware that technically a birth means that abortion cannot occur, but based on my question, I did not (and may not currently) call it any difference.
The alternative in my understanding would be to call “abortion” “murder,” but I didn’t want to do that.
Consciousness is the quality or state of being aware of an external object or something within oneself. I am not concious when I’m asleep, does that make me the same as an infant or a legit subject to murder?
Well, you’ll wake up. And it’s not like you haven’t lived a life before then. It’s the same sort of logic I’d apply to a fetus. At some point (assuming everything goes well in the pregnancy, because a healthy pregnancy and birth (although a very serious procedure/medical event) is more likely than a known miscarriage), the child will come to be born. If you get pregnant, the assumption is that the baby will be born and will have minimal if no problems. I believe my point still stands in regards to that.
(Although, I haven’t tried to think of a counter to Crimson Locks’ rebuttal yet. There may not be one that I could pose.)
As for using time, then I can’t argue a period of time. It seems like saying that most children would be able to make adult decisions by age 16/17/18/20/21/25 would be true, but it varies. You set the age to catch most people who would be able to make informed decisions with a “full set of cards.”
But I wouldn’t chance the fact that some children (or fetuses) might be able to feel the pain of death unless it was really necessary (and “necessary” is up for debate.)
Would you place other pregnancy end results like miscarriage on the same scale as abortion?
Oh, of course not. That’s easy.
In all cases, miscarriage is not an intentional act. At worst, it involves carelessness or ignorance, but it’s not due to a decision made to actively end a human’s life/potential for life.
Take in consideration to this question that miscarriage can occur due to medication the mother is on. Smokers also have an increased chance of miscarriage (even when the father smokes). Other things that increase the chance of a miscarriage are exposure to environmental toxins, caffeine, and even positive things like exercise.
Well, medication brings in the mother’s life. The mother is on medication for her own good, so getting off that medication is endangering her physiological well-being. Smoking should be intervened upon.
But like I said, intentional death of a baby which will occur in an act whose main function is to kill whatever is in the womb is different from the 15% increased likelihood of a miscarriage where smoking/drinking/exercise/poor nutrition plays a role but isn’t used to kill the child/fetus.
There’s a big difference between the two, even when miscarriages can be attributed to health behaviors of the mother.
You could argue that the life of the child would also affect the mother’s well-being, but an accidental miscarriage is different in my eyes still than an intentional abortion.
I had a couple of comments to Crimson Locks’ points made earlier, but I thought they were well-conceived.
I can’t really argue the difference between values in what she believes sex offers to a relationship and the responsibility to the child and what I believe, because those are generally personal.
In her mind (in my opinion), she would rather kill a kid that was due to her own, intentional actions than to have the kid (even while being aware of the risk of having sex.)
In my mind, (in her opinion), I would rather remain abstinent and only have sex when I know that I can handle that 1% chance that the condom or other contraceptive methods fail. I have had many people say that they couldn’t be in a relationship with me, because of my abstinence, and I wouldn’t know that sort of intimacy until I felt like I could handle the effects of that risk.
I don’t think we’re missing anything, and I don’t think our logic is flawed. I’m willing to sacrifice one thing, and she’s willing to sacrifice something else. Our values differ.
But in regards to what I value personally, I think what I call a human life outweighs missing out temporarily on sexual intimacy. It’s a pretty easy call for me to make, but it’s just as easy (in theory) a decision to make for her.
I would never hope that she has to make that decision to abort a child, mind you, and it wouldn’t be easy to make in practicality. I don’t think a massive majority of women undergo abortion “very easily,” but I say “easily,” because logically, it doesn’t make sense for her to have a child right now. And I can’t tell her that she should think differently.
However, since I think it’s something akin to murder, I do feel that it’s not something that could be made solely upon the basis of the mother. Again, I take it to a point where the young child is a great burden to the mother and the child is greatly disadvantaged in life by not having resources in place. But you don’t decide to kill it. Again, as it stands, I don’t see the difference between 3 months old and 10 weeks in regarding how the baby feels about it or it’s “right” to life or the potential of life.
However, I think the main thing that draws the line between when most pro-choicers think it’s ok to abort and when they think it’s not is when the child will actually be able to survive being separated from the mother.
I think that’s a great point, but I still disagree.
If you leave a 3 month old kid to fend for itself, then it will die. If you leave a 1 year old kid to fend for itself, then it will probably die by eating something that it has no business eating or somehow endangering itself
Now you might say that someone could come by and take care of the child that was crying and would eventually die. Technically…that’s adoption. The only difference (again, in my eyes) is the pregnancy and birth that the mother is exposed to. However, I don’t think that’s what most of the pro-choice opinions here are concerned with. They are concerned with the choice of the mother in regards to the rest of her life after the child is born.
In regards to the child making this decision for themselves:
First off, this is implying that suicide is even an ok thing to do to begin with. Second, this means that whoever was close to the person who committed suicide is now devastated by the loss and may even go into depression and take their own lives.
Does it imply that suicide is OK? Of course not.
It does explicitly state that I think the child should have the choice as to whether or not they want to live. So yes, I believe that suicide would be preferable to abortion…
…even (now considering the second point,) when you leave behind friends and family when deciding that life is not worth living.
The reason is because I’m still looking at the alternative. I won’t say in what contexts due to privacy, but abortion and suicide have reared both of their heads in my life. In both instances, they would have sucked to the greatest degree. And for my situation (note that I am not the suicidal person nor am I the potential aborted child,) I would have preferred the abortion.
If you gave me the choice at life or having another person decide whether or not my life was worth living (based upon her life), then I would have taken the choice. No, I would hate, hate, hate being a burden to my mother.
But that’s not my fault nor is it my responsibility. I cannot see past that part. On principle, I do not like someone making a decision for someone else.
It’s interesting, because I’d be advocating for the government to do the same thing, but infringing on life’s potential strikes me as entirely different from preventing a decision that infringes upon life’s potential.
As for the actuality of suicide of the child?
Out of all of the children born to people who weren’t planning or prepared for it, how many actually choose to commit suicide?
In terms of death for just about anything, it won’t be many out of that population. So most children do actually decide that their life as an accident and their life into a situation their parents weren’t prepared for is better than death.
Suicide is something I do study, so I won’t say anything about it lightly.
So yes, I think my points still stand as my values stand.
I think the main thing here is that I still value potential life and personal responsibility (for the mother and child) over accidental births into unwanted situations.
I’m not asking people to change their minds, but as Western values for life stands, I do think that using abortion in specific situations is the best way to reconcile bad situations with those values.
Again. That assumes certain values, but I think those who are pro-life (or lean that way) only want to interfere (I would hope), because of the same reasons they interfere with any mother wanting to kill their born children.