The quantification of life (1 Viewer)

Something has been bothering me recently and it has to do with how developed countries determine the sanctity of life.

The two elements that hinge on my point are abortion and the death penalty.

The principle behind outlawing capital punishment is the sanctity of life. That is, that life itself is immune from the remit of punishment because it is held higher in value than the value of punishment. However in nations where this is upheld in law, why is it that the same principle tends not to be applied to the issue of abortion.

If the sanctity of life is given enough credence to outlaw capital punishment where is the same credence for outlawing abortion?

We can see the same thing in reverse in the US where capital punishment is given credence by the state but the issue of the legality of abortion is still under much debate.

My point is not to argue the pros and cons of abortion and the death penalty in themselves though that may follow but rather the contradictory approaches of the developed world when determining the value of life when dealing with these two issues.

dan-cat said:

However in nations where this is upheld in law, why is it that the same principle tends not to be applied to the issue of abortion.

Click to expand...

Because there are those who have determined in their own wisdom (which isn't saying much) that a fetus is not considered living until a certain point, even though its cells are living, and the formation is as a living being. If it can't survive outside of the womb, they consider it not life at all. So, therein lies the main argument, which has been argued into the ground - when does "life" occur?

boblarson said:

Because there are those who have determined in their own wisdom (which isn't saying much) that a fetus is not considered living until a certain point, even though its cells are living, and the formation is as a living being.

Click to expand...

This leads me to my second point. The 'potential' of this developing fetus is dismissed by law and thus abortion is justified.

There is little to no 'potential' in a psychopathic serial killer and yet the life is protected.

Why is it that the absence of the relevance of 'potential' results in two different conclusions?

dan-cat said:

The principle behind outlawing capital punishment is the sanctity of life.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure about that. The arguments I've heard against the death penalty is that it is more expensive, its irreversible in the case of mistakes, and it doesn't seem to statistically deter crime (with each side having their own hand-picked statistics to support them).

dan-cat said:

...rather the contradictory approaches of the developed world when determining the value of life when dealing with these two issues.

Click to expand...

It is very contradictory, but in the eyes of those who are anti-abortion & pro-death penalty, it makes total sense. The arguments I have heard are that life starts at conception, and that a fetus has made no choices/mistakes, etc. Whereas a person facing the death penalty put themself in that position by committing henious crimes.

boblarson said:

Because there are those who have determined in their own wisdom (which isn't saying much) that a fetus is not considered living until a certain point, even though its cells are living, and the formation is as a living being. If it can't survive outside of the womb, they consider it not life at all. So, therein lies the main argument, which has been argued into the ground - when does "life" occur?

Click to expand...

So, which side of the argument are you on? (That's sarcasm).

I can see both sides of the argument when it comes to abortion, but personally I'm not in favor of forcing women to have babies they don't want.

Being nonreligious I don't view life as being sacred, which is probably why my views and those on the far-right side of this are worlds apart.

I was wondering when another abortion topic would be started.

I think abortion must be considered on a very strict case by case basis. It's for this reason, that I side more on the side of pro-choice than pro-lifers seem to follow. I also have a lot of issues with some of the pro-lifer views.

One view pro-lifers seem to over-whelmingly agree on is that abortion should be illegal, except in the case of ra** or health issues. The health issues I have no problem with. Obviously, if the fetus is not going to survive because of a birth defect, it's more humane for the mother and for the fetus to abort it. On the same stance, if the mother and/or fetus are in danger, and the fetus cannot be saved, then abortion is obviously and regrettably the only solution. My argument there is within the hypocricy of that stance. They believe that life begins at conception. Why is an innocent victim of the ra**, the fetus, automatically disposable? It can't help it that its father was a criminal and its mother a victim.

Another thing that has been making it's round around legal offices is a law to force a pregnant woman to endure an ultrasound where they MUST look at the fetus in the womb before making a decision. This is punishment that should not be tolerated by anyone.

Very few pro-lifers believe that there should NEVER be grounds for an abortion, which is just crazy! The mother that gave birth to the stillborn baby recently in the media is an example where this sort of law is inhumane and costly.

The only pro-lifer stance I don't find hypocritical to the pro-lifer cause is no abortion except in the case of health reasons. This means even ra** victims cannot get an abortion. I don't agree with this stance, but it's the only one I don't find hypocricy in.

Now, I know pro-choice has the potential to be abused and is abused. There are definitely people who have had multiple abortions without any feeling of regret involved. I believe this is a very small minority of people. I believe most people who have had abortions go into serious thoughts and considerations before coming to that conclusion. I've witnessed it at Planned Parenthood by the emotions expressed by others who have made that decision. I've never seen someone walk out of a clinic like it was an everyday routine. Outlawing abortions because of a small minority of people that may abuse it is not the way to go. Rights should not be removed because of a small potential for abuse. If that was okay, then we should outlaw guns, cars, alcohol, smoking, free speech... you see where this is going?

I think abortions before the cerebral cortex development and activation should be legal. Science and medical research recognizes this as when conscious thought begins. We know this starts after the second trimester. Prior to this, there is no brain activity other than brain stem and spinal cord, which only controls internal ticks and are not responsible for conscious awareness. I think once this begins, "life" has begun. Medical research agrees with this sentiment.

Vassago said:

I think once this begins, "life" has begun. Medical research agrees with this sentiment.

Click to expand...

I'd like to pick up on this point. Let's put aside the cases of ra** and medical endangerment and assume that the fetus is perfectly healthy.

The onus of this argument has always been that the fetus is not alive. But here's a different way of looking at it. An abortion is not considered in these cases because the fetus is an unwanted clutch of cells. The abortion is considered because it is the new life that is unwanted. It is life that is the premise for the decision.

Is the notion of a clutch of cells simply cold comfort for the choice that is actually being made?

Adam Caramon said:

The arguments I've heard against the death penalty is that it is more expensive, its irreversible in the case of mistakes, and it doesn't seem to statistically deter crime (with each side having their own hand-picked statistics to support them).

Click to expand...

Those reasons are so disturbingly bureaucratic that perhaps they are the groundings for the law of non capital punishment. Perhaps I was being overly optimistic in thinking such laws are based on moral principles.

dan-cat said:

Those reasons are so disturbingly bureaucratic that perhaps they are the groundings for the law of non capital punishment. Perhaps I was being overly optimistic in thinking such laws are based on moral principles.

Click to expand...

There are definitely moral complications faced with irreversible mistakes. There have been many cases lately where an innocent victim's punishment has already been carried out, even though they claimed innocence throughout their time in death row, only to be proven innocent by dna and forensic evidence analysis that didn't exist at the time. These statistics are disturbing all on their own. Imagine this happening to you simply because you were in the wrong place at the wrong time and no one believing your innocence.

I'm sure some of it is bureaucratic, but for me, it's far more on the human side. I believe that this will happen less with today's technology, but it's not foolproof. Back then, we believed we had enough technology to prove crimes. Who knows what better capabilities we will have in 50 years?

dan-cat said:

I'd like to pick up on this point. Let's put aside the cases of ra** and medical endangerment and assume that the fetus is perfectly healthy.

The onus of this argument has always been that the fetus is not alive. But here's a different way of looking at it. An abortion is not considered in these cases because the fetus is an unwanted clutch of cells. The abortion is considered because it is the new life that is unwanted. It is life that is the premise for the decision.

Is the notion of a clutch of cells simply cold comfort for the choice that is actually being made?

Click to expand...

If the life has not began yet, then it's not really a life. The person choosing that they don't want that life is irrelevant because that life doesn't exist yet. It's different when there is a conscious being losing its life.

It's no different in my opinion than a person using a condom to prevent pregnancy, cells are being lost, but they don't sustain a conscious life on their own with a cerebral cortex of their own.

I actually saw a prolife slogan which was refreshingly acceptable for a change.

Choose Life

Mostly they are the same tired old "preaching to the choir" routines.

And speaking of hypocrisy, the very same hard-line conservatives that are always up in arms over taking care of the “lazy no-counts”, are the very same ones promoting an endless stream of poor children.
Go figure.

dan-cat said:

Perhaps I was being overly optimistic in thinking such laws are based on moral principles.

Click to expand...

Yes, I think you were. As morals are very subjective, they can't have a solid foundation in law.

The sanctity argument sounds a lot like Catholic rhetoric. Catholics tend to be anti-abortion and anti-death penalty, which from my understanding is do to the idea that life is sacred, as you've previously mentioned. It seems like a logical argument.

Protestants, on the other hand, tend to be anti-abortion but pro-death penalty, which as you and I have both mentioned seems contradictory if they're using the sanctity of life basis for their views. But I suspect that they are not.

Thales750 said:

And speaking of hypocrisy, the very same hard-line conservatives that are always up in arms over taking care of the “lazy no-counts”, are the very same ones promoting an endless stream of poor children.
Go figure.

Click to expand...

I've noticed that as well. It also seems like a contradictory view point. I can see eye-to-eye with fiscal conservatives on some of the entitlement & spending issues, but some of their other platforms are so illogical it makes me wonder how they fit in one political party.

boblarson said:

So, therein lies the main argument, which has been argued into the ground - when does "life" occur?

Click to expand...

Therein also lies the infinite ignorance that we use everyday to try and create useless arguments to make our jobs last a little longer.

Ah, well, time to toss in my two cents' worth.

First, no matter how you feel about it, abortion is already the last stage of a condition that should not ever have occurred in the first place if abortion is even being considered. That is, we have abortion because of crazy religious views that don't allow birth control to prevent abortions from being needed in the first place.

We have abortion because we don't hold people responsible for their actions uniformly. The female CANNOT run away from the situation. She either has an abortion or a child. Period. The male (sperm donor) can leave because despite laws to the contrary, it isn't that hard for an irresponsible sperm donor to flee the local jurisdiction. When only increases the stress on the young woman that much more.

It is for this reason that I tend to believe guys should not talk about abortion at all unless they are willing to take their stance to its logical conclusion. That is, stay with your partner and your child or support your partner in getting an abortion. If you don't adopt or support a child or support your partner through the abortion decision, you are probably all talk and no action. OK, that's a tough attitude and I know it. But it is an honest belief.

I also consider that abortion is exceedingly complex because many different religious groups define different beginnings of life. If we are to allow freedom of religion, then we must allow each person to act according to their religious beliefs. If they aren't uniform (which they aren't) then you have trouble (which we DO have.)

Some folks say life begins at conception. Others, at quickening. Still others have later starts. Judaism says that separate and independent life begins only when the umbilicus is severed. I can't recall the denomination, but there is a group that focuses on the Biblical phrase, "The breath is the life." They consider the first breath as when life begins.

The point of this little tour is that if you want to allow for full religious freedom, then you cannot stop abortions at any time, any trimester. Otherwise, you disenfranchise those who have the latest start of life. Before anyone tosses anything scientific in this mix, remember that with freedom of religion, the person who is claiming to want religious freedom can at the same time reject scientific arguments. (I see this latter position all the time in the evolution/creation debates.) And don't forget that if the single mother is a member of a sect that uses prayer rather than medicine, she can already make life-or-death decisions to let the kid die anyway.

Finally, abortion prevents a child from enduring the pain of growing up unwanted. How many children grow up bitter and hateful, filled with terrible self-loathing because "mommie doesn't love me" ?? It is hard to imagine a child growing up in such an environment, yet we see unfit single parents in the headlines all the time, usually because their child has been maimed or killed. When a kid grows up neglected, that kid becomes a sad person. I know this from person experience because my dad was one of the neglected and unwanted kids of the world. His mother's abuse via neglect echoed over to my life. It wasn't pretty until Dad learned how to love himself at a relatively late age in life. I was late in learning that lesson myself.

I'll think about the death penalty for a separate post. I must admit mixed feelings on that one, but I'm not ready to discuss it yet.

The_Doc_Man said:

Ah, well, time to toss in my two cents' worth.

First, no matter how you feel about it, abortion is already the last stage of a condition that should not ever have occurred in the first place if abortion is even being considered. That is, we have abortion because of crazy religious views that don't allow birth control to prevent abortions from being needed in the first place.

We have abortion because we don't hold people responsible for their actions uniformly.

Click to expand...

Talk about crazy views -

What a warped argument - Abortion is the fault of religious views.

I dont recall any religious groups picketing public toilet vending machines, or boots or tesco, or online shopping, or even doctors prescibing contraception in the UK. Certainly not on any mass scale anyhow.

But somehow its relgions fault when what is available, isnt used, drunkenly accidentily adopting one bit of religious advice whilst ignoring a whole bunch of other advice in the same act.

You dont seem to hold anyone responsible for their own actions - instead shifting the blame to religion.

Bang another drum.

The_Doc_Man said:

The point of this little tour is that if you want to allow for full religious freedom, then you cannot stop abortions at any time, any trimester. Otherwise, you disenfranchise those who have the latest start of life.

Click to expand...

You would disenfranchise those with the earliest start of life surely?

ie if you allow abortions till 6 months, you are denying those who beleive life starts after abortions, but denying those who believe life starts to allow life.

Thereby giving one latter sides right to abortion over the earliers idea of right to life.

Whish is more valuable life - or abortion.

AnthonyGerrard said:

What a warped argument - Abortion is the fault of religious views.

Click to expand...

Maybe it is different in the UK, but what The_Doc_Man says is very appropriate for the US. The religious right, as they are referred to, do not want to fund any sort of sex education other than abstinence only, which has been proven to be ineffective.

AnthonyGerrard said:

You would disenfranchise those with the earliest start of life surely?

ie if you allow abortions till 6 months, you are denying those who beleive life starts after abortions, but denying those who believe life starts to allow life.

Click to expand...

Huh? If I'm understanding your rambling correctly, you don't understand what disenfranchise means.

Disenfranchise means to take away someone's rights. Those who believe life starts at conception do not have any rights on other people's body. Therefore, there is no disenfranchisement.

the_net_2.0 said:

Therein also lies the infinite ignorance that we use everyday to try and create useless arguments to make our jobs last a little longer.

Click to expand...

I don't know Net, I work on fixed contracts, I want an argument that says I'm done.

These are all old arguments.

But one that does not require any stretch of religion, is father's rights, or lack of them.

Rights that are completely trampled on by our laws.

First, the man has no right to stop a woman from having an abortion, and then he has no right to enforce an abortion, and last if she doesn’t have an abortion he has to help pay to raise the child.

Sadly unless she has been date raped, she is actually more culpable then him, in deciding to have sex.

Ultimately in most cases it is the woman who decides.

He has no rights and very little control.

Adam Caramon said:

Maybe it is different in the UK, but what The_Doc_Man says is very appropriate for the US. The religious right, as they are referred to, do not want to fund any sort of sex education other than abstinence only, which has been proven to be ineffective.



Huh? If I'm understanding your rambling correctly, you don't understand what disenfranchise means.

Disenfranchise means to take away someone's rights. Those who believe life starts at conception do not have any rights on other people's body. Therefore, there is no disenfranchisement.

Click to expand...

Forgive me for thinking, that if religious folk advocated contraception generally, then the abortion debate still wouldn't be over. You can pretend otherwise, for whatever reason you wish.

And again forgive me but I dont think my ramblings or supposed misunderstanding of disenfranchisement, has any real influence on your lack of ability or willingness to acknowledge the two (even forgetting the innocent to be allowed to live or not) sides to the age old thorny problem of whos rights to decide supercede whos in abortion.


We have strayed off topic anyhow, into abortion debate 101 for your benefit.

Vassago said:

If the life has not began yet, then it's not really a life. The person choosing that they don't want that life is irrelevant because that life doesn't exist yet. It's different when there is a conscious being losing its life.

Click to expand...

This is something I wrestle with philosophically.

Take a wall-lamp that is not switched on. When it is not switched on does it cease to become a wall-lamp or is it still a wall-lamp that is currently not switched on?

A womb is simply a womb thus contraception doesn't change any current state. [EDIT: Scratch that lol] Abortion is different by it's very definition. It alters a current state. When the sperm and egg have fertilized and the development cycle is in process does the resulting entity, the clutch of cells, not become something more than it's current state?

The lamp not emitting light is still a lamp. Why does the definition of the clutch of cells NOT leap beyond it's current state like the lamp does?

My consideration is this. The definition of the clutch of cells DOES leap beyond it's own definition, in the same way as the lamp, at the point when a woman first considers abortion. That the scientific definition of 'alive' MUST be an afterthought to soften the premise for the decision. The decision to not want something that is alive.