Comments on: Abortion http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/11/21/abortion/ Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:03:12 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: TXStorm http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/11/21/abortion/#comment-4835 TXStorm Wed, 22 Nov 2006 05:29:19 +0000 http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/11/21/abortion/#comment-4835 A skin cell or hair follicle has the same potential, but none of us feels bad when we slough off these, nor should we. Are you willing to accept all possible consequences of sex? Such as the woman deciding to accuse you falsely of rape? Or do you contest such situations because the facts are contrary to the claims? If you dare to object, then you are not accepting the consequences of that sex act, and if you do not object you are allowing falseness to rule the day... I contest that neither of these outcomes are acceptable, which demonstrates that the approach itself is fatally flawed. Your claims about abortion stand true for the rhythm method, condoms or any contraceptives as well, which at least ought to give us pause... As for the fertilization reference, this is at best completely arbitrary. Why not simply start at arousal? Why not the thought of sex? Why not penetration? Why not the casting of the test tube? A skin cell or hair follicle has the same potential, but none of us feels bad when we slough off these, nor should we.

Are you willing to accept all possible consequences of sex? Such as the woman deciding to accuse you falsely of rape? Or do you contest such situations because the facts are contrary to the claims? If you dare to object, then you are not accepting the consequences of that sex act, and if you do not object you are allowing falseness to rule the day… I contest that neither of these outcomes are acceptable, which demonstrates that the approach itself is fatally flawed.

Your claims about abortion stand true for the rhythm method, condoms or any contraceptives as well, which at least ought to give us pause…

As for the fertilization reference, this is at best completely arbitrary. Why not simply start at arousal? Why not the thought of sex? Why not penetration? Why not the casting of the test tube?

]]> By: Jim http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/11/21/abortion/#comment-4833 Jim Wed, 22 Nov 2006 03:17:06 +0000 http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/11/21/abortion/#comment-4833 I am personally against abortion because I look at the potential that a fetus possesses. To me, that potential is worth protecting. When having sex (and I am leaving out situations involving rape or incest or other instances of being forced) one must accept that a potential consequence of doing so is pregnancy. Having an abortion is, to me, a convenient way of avoiding responsibility for one's choices. That being said (and on this one I'm not budging, sorry), I will not force my personal opinion on another. My opinion is my own and at no point do I support legislation that would force my opinion on anyone else. That includes not treating someone differently because they chose to have an abortion. I know enough people, good friends, that have done so - or been the male involved - to know that I can't make their decisions for them. I guess you could say I disapprove of the act - but not the person making the act. And although I understand your reference, Pedro, to the Monty Python sketch I do not see the potential a sperm has as on the same level as that of a fetus. Nor would I feel the same about an unfertilized egg. It is only after fertilization that I see the potential it possess. Before that it is like looking at a piece of wood and saying it has the potential of being a table. I am personally against abortion because I look at the potential that a fetus possesses. To me, that potential is worth protecting. When having sex (and I am leaving out situations involving rape or incest or other instances of being forced) one must accept that a potential consequence of doing so is pregnancy. Having an abortion is, to me, a convenient way of avoiding responsibility for one’s choices.

That being said (and on this one I’m not budging, sorry), I will not force my personal opinion on another. My opinion is my own and at no point do I support legislation that would force my opinion on anyone else. That includes not treating someone differently because they chose to have an abortion. I know enough people, good friends, that have done so - or been the male involved - to know that I can’t make their decisions for them. I guess you could say I disapprove of the act - but not the person making the act.

And although I understand your reference, Pedro, to the Monty Python sketch I do not see the potential a sperm has as on the same level as that of a fetus. Nor would I feel the same about an unfertilized egg. It is only after fertilization that I see the potential it possess. Before that it is like looking at a piece of wood and saying it has the potential of being a table.

]]> By: Kren http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/11/21/abortion/#comment-4832 Kren Wed, 22 Nov 2006 01:21:05 +0000 http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/11/21/abortion/#comment-4832 I agree with TX. It is however kind of sad to me though, I've seen how guilty some people feel afterwards. I also see that with the moral agent thing in mind, elders and other less fortunate people may also be subject to death. I agree with TX.
It is however kind of sad to me though, I’ve seen how guilty some people feel afterwards.
I also see that with the moral agent thing in mind, elders and other less fortunate people may also be subject to death.

]]> By: TXStorm http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/11/21/abortion/#comment-4830 TXStorm Tue, 21 Nov 2006 20:37:47 +0000 http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/11/21/abortion/#comment-4830 Whether or not a fetus is a human being is irrelevant. What is important is whether or not a fetus is a moral agent since all and only moral agents are protected by morality (thus subject to the notion of initiation of force). Do we treat a fetus like a moral agent? Nope.. Is a fetus responsible for its actions? nope. Do we have any basis whatsoever for suggesting that a fetus is a moral agent? Nope.. Moral agency requires at least rationality, awareness, vunerability, and the ability for impartiality. Of these a fetus possess only one, the same one shared by plants, tables, and most everything we encounter in our lives: vulnerability. Clearly this is insufficient basis for claiming moral agency on the part of a fetus.. Whether or not a fetus is a human being is irrelevant. What is important is whether or not a fetus is a moral agent since all and only moral agents are protected by morality (thus subject to the notion of initiation of force). Do we treat a fetus like a moral agent? Nope.. Is a fetus responsible for its actions? nope. Do we have any basis whatsoever for suggesting that a fetus is a moral agent? Nope..

Moral agency requires at least rationality, awareness, vunerability, and the ability for impartiality. Of these a fetus possess only one, the same one shared by plants, tables, and most everything we encounter in our lives: vulnerability. Clearly this is insufficient basis for claiming moral agency on the part of a fetus..

]]>