Abortion
This article is in reaction to http://www.reddink.com/. Their guestbook was broken (I guess diety(s)-of-your-choice (henceforth referred to as DOYC) aren’t completely on their side) and I had written this whole big thing in it that I didn’t want to lose forever, so I’m putting it here. Please don’t feel that you have to read all, or even any of it.
I am assuming for the moment that this web site exists as a troll. As such, it’s a interesting beast, and some of the posts in this guestbook do appear to be worth reading.
For whatever it’s worth, here’s my stance on abortion.
Abortion is immoral if and only if a sentient/self-aware life form is being killed.
This brings up the question: When does a life form become self-aware? Obviously, we feel that things such as cows are not self-aware, at least not very, or we would feel a bit more remorse over killing and eating them. But yet, we’re very clear on humans being self-aware.
Heinlien believed – and stated in The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress – that there’s a critical mass involved. Get a brain to a certain size, and self-awareness will just happen.
Others believe that our brains are merely radio receivers, and our bodies are merely shells – that we exist in some way immortal or outside the time domain of this universe.
I don’t know which I believe. Both sound plausable. However, if there is a omnipotent God, surely said being can move the soul thread / link from one body to another, probably with a trivial amount of work. So abortion doesn’t in fact kill a baby, it just closes a door. It’s also very, very unlikely that a baby that is less than four months old has enough of a brain for the soul-link to work IMHO.
If we are entirely contained in our bodies (which doesn’t neccesarily make us mortal, but getting into why that might be would take several pages) then a abortion becomes murder when the child becomes self-aware. This probably occurs somewhere around the second trimester. I know that abortion activists are always on about how the babies have a heartbeat from a few weeks in – but your computer can have a spinning system clock and still be unable to do anything but show you the bios screen – and a person can have their brain rendered useless and still have a heartbeat – people in comas sometimes never wake up, and yet their heart beats on even though they have gone from this world.
In addition, a child is a parasite until it is born. I think it is immoral to coerce women to support a parasite if they choose not to – although it’s not clear whether this or killing a self-aware lifeform is a greater wrong. I tend to lean on the side of no-abortions-after-life-is-self-aware.
However, I think that if the abortion activists really want to end abortion, what they should do instead of blowing up abortion clinics (which could easily kill a self-aware life form and therefore is about as bright as fighting to end war – but then, I suspect some of these people of not being the brightest bulbs on the string) is work on or support technological advances to make it possible to remove a very young (<3months) fetus from a female intact and raise it in a incubator. This way, abortions don't have to happen and the mothers don't have to be host to a baby they'd rather not be host to and there's still the possibility of the mother changing her mind and raising the child which, given some of the people I've talked to about their abortions, sometimes might be very emotionally helpful to the mothers much in the same way that the religious anti-abortion ads, sites, and clinics are very much not. I hope that if I've offended anyone, I've also managed to make them think at least a little bit.
September 21st, 2006 at 11:09 am
The problem with using “Self Aware” as a criteria is that there’s no good way of knowing that it happens in the 2nd trimester. I could make arguments that it happens later than that for most people, during the first two years of life-post-birth. There’s no good way of clarifying this.
On the host/parasite issue: Very few people consider it the government’s place to force a parent to give blood, bone marrow, a kidney or other organ in order to save their (known self aware) child from certain death. Along the same lines, I see no reason for the government to force a woman to provide her womb to a fetus. Thus evicting the fetus at any point prior to birth is not something the government has the right to restrict. However, I do see a problem with purposely killing a (potentially) viable fetus. So I see inducing labor or c-section to be the only appropriate method of eviction after viability (20-24 weeks right now, this will change with technology). All appropriate medical care due a premature infant should be given to the evicted fetus/infant. If it dies, it wasn’t viable.
The problem with this approach is that it risks creating a significant population of people that survive eviction but have significant disabilities due to elective premature birth. Society is still learning how to cope with people that have disabilities in general. Adding to this population probably won’t help and may create a population of very unhappy people (unhappy at the rules and their mothers for choosing to disable them, unhappy at the way society treats them, etc) in about two decades.
This can be prevented by making the effects of elective premature birth/eviction known publically. Media campaigns should be used, probably at a constant low level, to remind people that fetal eviction has risks for a surviving fetus/infant, so should only be used when absolutely necessary. Just as most parents would donate any needed organ or tissue to their offspring, even in absence of govermental pressure, so most woman would choose to either abort/evict prior to viability or wait in order to give the fetus a better chance. However, the right of a person to govern their own body (the government cannot force you give up portions of your body, give another person sexual access to your body, put substances into your body, etc) needs to be considered so inviolate that these are like seat belt commercials: cars cause much injury, disability and death, but we accept this risk because we need to get around. Seat belt campaigns don’t set people screaming about how we need to outlaw cars, but they get people to use a seatbelt to help lower personal risk. Our right to personal autonomy ought to be at least as inviolate as our need for transportation.
September 21st, 2006 at 6:23 pm
Is an infant any less a parasite than a fetus–taking all the parent’s energy, keeping a mother from achieving top status in her career, taking time a couple would otherwise have for themselves, perhaps getting nourishment directly from the mother herself (although one could argue that getting up in the middle of the night or spending time preparing and giving a bottle takes from the mother anyway), etc., etc. What about a ten-year old who in addition to all the above, now needs driven to soccer practice, help with homework, parents’ continued energy used to pay the bills to provide for his/her needs? Shall we consider teenagers–add emotional drain and strain to all the above and even more financial drain.
Perhaps we should just do away with everyone and the last person who is left on earth will not be bothered with anyone being a parasite. Are we here to be the most important person on earth or to love and care for others? What important role in the world might have been played by those “evicted or eliminated” if they had been allowed to live? Would they have ended up playing a greater role than their hosts? Or–what joy, love, and care might they have brought to their “hosts'” lives during or after the “parasite” stage if they had been allowed to live?
September 22nd, 2006 at 10:44 am
I still think there should be public service ads about being more careful not to breed. Encouraging people to have smaller families. We really are at the brink of there being too many people for our resources to sustain us. (See Nova Special: World in Balance)
The same people who are the most overt-anti-abortion so much of the time are also the people who contribute the least to the world – what does this tell you? It’s the natural-built-in instinct of the idiot, securing their numbers.
And why the hell is it always a fight? A goddamned war against drugs, a war against terrorism, a war against western ways, a war against abortion. You don’t see any of these anti-abortion people in a war against war do you? They love it! They just want larger populations to waste as pawns!
It’s such a bigger picture than most people care to attempt to grasp and my angle is just that with self-awareness and the like being a bit of grey, you can fudge it a little and since we can’t quite narrow that down just yet it’s so much more worth focus on prevention.
PREVENTION! You know, that thing which intelligent responsible people do! (and then still fuck it up now & then – but have the fortitude and wisdom to know that above everything else they aren’t ready or able to be parents and don’t want to create yet another IDIOT who will in the end only be in direct competition with children who have a chance to develop into real contributing members of society)
September 22nd, 2006 at 10:57 am
Oh and as for Food for thought, I believe the use of the word parasite in this case was the more literal one. Where there is a growth within the body which lives directly off it, physically.
Which is very different from the “Gawd, you’re such a parasite!” version in which case kids are just as much as crummy employees or people on welfare.
You sound like someone who would argue that life is so sacred it’s wrong to even terminate cancer cells. How *IS* the weather up your ass anyway?
IMHO to even remark about being down to the last person on earth is rediculous. There are so many people that the only ways to get our numbers that low is really, probably, something that would completely destroy the planet.
That on top of comparing a physical parasite with a lifestyle or social parasite makes me wonder how it is you’ve managed NOT to bump your head and bleed to death or walk out in front of a bus.
I just can’t wait. I can’t wait until the race is being won by the Chinese to live western-style middle class lives. They’re on the fast track to getting what they want. They want to live like us, not burning coal and eating with chop sticks. They want to drive cars and watch big screen TVs.
When this happens it would take 3 planet earths to support them. Where will you and your children be in the forthcoming fight for your share of resources?
-Cygx2
September 22nd, 2006 at 11:08 am
OH! And another thing!
FUCK you people and your meandering bullshit about what the potential child could become! Always smearing your own self-hate or poor self image onto others like it’s their responsibility to contribute to humanity because you were too inept! Get your filthy DICK out of that whore & get out there and make a difference yourself!
Just because 1 in XXX # of people born may have the so-called potential to be the next Mozart or Einstein doesn’t mean we should breed as many babies as possible in search for the next one.
Research has even made it quite clear that ‘genius’ is probably just as much ‘made’ as genetic if not more. You bring a kid into the world and raise them in such a way is to instill values, drive, curiosity, motivation & dedication with the resources required to explore the world and find what makes them happy – you’ll have your next genius.
Bring a child into the world with bad parents, poor environment, and lacking in resources without being taught how to make the best with what he’s got, leave him to be torn down by the critical world of hate – and you’ve got your next Jerry Springer show!
Oops! I just aborted tens of thousands of little potential hitlers into a gym sock! My bad.
There’s plenty more where they came from and when one finally makes it into the real he won’t be after Jews. He’ll be after the IDIOTS.
Ok. I think I covered it all more or less this time.
-Peace an’ fuckin’
Cygz
September 22nd, 2006 at 12:11 pm
> Where will you and your children be
This is really amusing when you know who eaglesoars is…
Or at least I’m amused.
September 22nd, 2006 at 1:27 pm
Yes, because the infant can be passed off to someone else. The issue here is that of personal autonomy — control over one’s own body. Until viability the fetus is dependant on the mother’s body (not just parental care) for survival. If mother and fetus are separated, the mother will survive but the fetus will not. The fetus (or more likely their proxy, since fetuses are notoriously untalkative) has no more right to demand access to and use of the mother’s body than anyone else. A viable infant does not require use of a specific body, just that it be provided with necessities of life.
Society does not have the right to tell an individual member that they must provide their body for another to use. Society does have the right (I’d also argue the responsibility, plus it’s just a good idea, but these are digressions) to encourage and support those who would wish to care for those who need care and to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves.
Note that this is about what rights the fetus, the mother and society have. This isn’t about what is a good idea. Life without love, without interdependence, without caring and service for others is truly bleak and joyless. But these things cannot be forced upon an individual from outside. Love cannot be legislated. Trust cannot be demanded. We can neither command caring nor compassion and service, externally forced, becomes at best skills practice and at worst abuse and slavery.
And perhaps they would have done great things or brought great joy. Then again maybe they wouldn’t. We get one hand, we have to play it as it’s dealt and we don’t get do-overs, so such speculation is fruitless.
September 22nd, 2006 at 5:48 pm
Yesyes!
You know, really though- I have this hard to get over blockage in my head. This ‘blockage’ prevents me from wrapping my little brain around one thing in particular.
I can’t comprehend where the gov’t seems to get off seeing an unborn child as someone with needs that have to be considered such that it could even debate making law regarding its protection over the life of the human being it grows in.
I don’t know why – I just… the whole thing blows me away.
Then again I only recently began to understand the possible reasoning behind gov’t restriction of gambling. Or, had a minor revelation on the subject.
September 22nd, 2006 at 5:49 pm
No really, I’m so much happier with my ignorance most of the time, don’t blow it. š
I do find it amusing who YOU are!! š Ya monkey you!
September 4th, 2021 at 9:41 am
My views on abortion have changed over the years. I’m not sure that my comments earlier were so much about abortion as about using the word “parasite” for a potential human. I remember mixed thoughts on this topic the early 90’s. There were situations were abortion seemed the right thing to do.
The following cut and paste sums up a lot of what I think now. I also think that this country should follow the paths of other countries who have lowered abortion rates with free education for women who can then go into better jobs, easy and free access to birth control, universal free child care, free health care which covers hospital expenses, etc. Of course, paying living wages would likely be a game changer.
Iām not pro-abortion.
I’m pro-Barbara who found out at her 20 week anatomy scan that the infant she had been so excited to bring into this world had developed without life sustaining organs.
I’m pro-Susan who was sexually assaulted on her way home from work, only to come to the horrific realization that her assailant planted his seed in her when she got a positive pregnancy test result a month later.
I’m pro-Theresa who hemorrhaged due to a placental abruption, causing her parents, spouse, and children to have to make the impossible decision on whether to save her or her unborn child.
I’m pro-little Cathy who had her innocence ripped away from her by someone she should have been able to trust and her 11 year old body isn’t mature enough to bear the consequence of that betrayal.
I’m pro-Melissa who’s working two jobs just to make ends meet and has to choose between bringing another child into poverty or feeding the children she already has because her spouse walked out on her. (Maybe one of those is a minimum wage job at Hobby Lobby, and she can’t afford birth control because her employer went to the Supreme Court to make sure her insurance plan doesn’t cover it.)
I’m pro-Brittany who realizes that she is in no way financially, emotionally, or physically able to raise a child.
I’m pro-Emily who went through IVF, ending up with SIX viable implanted eggs requiring selective reduction in order to ensure the safety of her and a SAFE amount of fetuses.
I’m pro-Jessica who is FINALLY getting the strength to get away from her physically abusive spouse only to find out that she is carrying the monster’s child.
I’m pro-Vanessa who went into her confirmation appointment after YEARS of trying to conceive only to hear silence where there should be a heartbeat.
I’m pro-Lindsay who lost her virginity in her sophomore year with a broken condom and now has to choose whether to be a teenage mom or just a teenager.
I’m pro-Courtney who just found out she’s already 13 weeks along, but the egg never made it out of her fallopian tube so either she terminates the pregnancy or risks dying from internal bleeding.
You can argue and say that I’m pro-choice all you want, but the truth is:
I’m pro-life.
Their lives.
Women’s lives.
You don’t get to pick and choose which scenarios should be accepted.
It’s not about which stories you don’t agree with. It’s about fighting for the women in the stories that you do agree with and the CHOICE that was made.
Women’s rights are meant to protect ALL women, regardless of their situation – or how big their bank account is. Because, let’s face it, rich people’s daughters (yes, even the ones who voted for this bill) will always be able to find safe abortions. They did before Roe v Wade. Most poor women will still get abortions too, whether from centuries old, unsafe home methods or from opportunistic untrained, unsafe people.
Roe v. Wade didn’t create abortion. It ended poor, desperate women dying from them.
#roevwade #prochoice #womensrights
Copied and pasted.