And on the point of abortion - without having read any of the discussion so far I will share the one and only argument that I need to justify my point of view:

As an elementary school teacher who teaches a social adjustment/behavioural modification class for JK - grade 6 students I see first hand the impact that a child's environment has on them. There is no way that any person or deity would believe that it would be more just and more moral to bring a life into a world that does not want it and that may not have the means to care for it, than to end it in the most infant stages of its development.

 

Your argument assumes that life is necessarily, and in all circumstances, better than death.

We can't confirm this as we are not able to directly compare the states of being from the perspective of the individual (eg. We don't know about the existence of an after life and we don't know if existence after death is better, worse, or relatively neutral compared to life).

To flat out say that people enjoy being alive over being dead is an assumption.

Whose argument?

Yours, but also that of those who came before you.

Disclaimer: My opinion in does not necessarily reflect the opinions of even a minority of Omegans; they are mine and should not be held against anyone that I associate with.

When it comes to abortion, there is one circumstance in which I cannot bring myself to deny a mother and her doctor the right to perform the abortion (this being when they are defending the life of the mother). Rape is horrible and not the fault of the mother, but I have yet to determine exactly where I stand on aborting children that are the progeny of rape.

That being said, in general pregnancy is the result of consentual sexual intercourse. It is a choice! Therefore, people should live with the choices that they have made. The most innocent among us should not have there lives ended before they are even born simply because someone wants to renege on a choice that they had previously made. If you don't want to become pregnant, use protection or abstain from sex or even use the morning after pill.

Abortion violates the child's body. That unborn child does not have a parasitic relationship to the mother; it is a symbiotic relationship. The child needs the mother and (in biological terms) the mother needs to procreate.

Abortion (especially later in pregnancy) is not the mother making a choice about her body, it is the mother choosing to commit infanticide. Especially late the pregnancy there's not a lot of difference between killing the child inside or outside the womb (after birth that is).

has anyone noticed the places with the lowest abortion rates have the highest infant mortality rates?

probably just means that they don't have enough doctors in the area.

I didn't say anything about assuming being alive is better than being dead... all I said was that I can't agree with forcing a child to enter a world that can't care for it. I'm pro-choice.

You start all of your arguments with "probably?"

Not the child's choice. The child didn't make the choice to enter a family that didn't want it and that may not be able to care for it.

naw, i usually start them by drinking some alcohol.

considering i'm a terrible person for thinking innocent life should be protected, why is it legal for the woman to murder the child and we consider it womens rights, but we don't allow the same women to murder herself, in the case of suicide, and let it all be all lovey dovey?

if it's her body, aren't men assholes for telling her she can't slit her wrists? womans body, womans right, no?

Why it is her body, i'm a fluffing douche for thinking otherwise, but she isn't allowed to hang herself, is it not her same body and anybody who says otherwise (government of canada) a fluffing douche?

(suicide is illegal in canada, whether you assist or commit.. however no court will find your dead body guilty, this is absurd and only dibs would argue this..)

"A lot of conservative so called Christians, sure celebrated Osama's death."

There is a difference between people who deserve to die (ie we deserve to live without the threat of their whatever, violence, murder, genocide, etc) and those who are innocent and deserve nothing but to live in peace and happiness beside us,

your actions in life determine this.

Read Micheal Criton's "A case of need". Very interesting arguments presented in that book.

And yes suicide is "illegal" in canada and a violation of the criminal code. I suspect (I am not a lawyer) that the only reason why it's still there is to allow forced medical intervention/protective confinement in the cased one attempts it and fails.

Most societies past and present allow killing in some situations but not others. It is a question of where you draw the line.

Also we are arguing morality. The concept of "innocent life" falls squarely into that. Is it ok to allow children to be born unwanted and into situations of abuse rather than be prematurely aborted. Are the additional costs to society and affected individuals worth while. These are the questions that really need to be answered and not simply "adoption is a viable alternative so there is no reason to abort". Also if abortion is made illegal then "how do we avoid this being a burden on less wealthy individuals while richer individuals will continue to have abortions anyway". The truth is that the only way to ban abortions without increasing general human misery will cost money and be expensive. Are these costs worth while and are we as a society willing to bare these costs. Child poverty rates in Canada are already rising as it is.

If we are going to have a discussion on the legality of abortion then the above needs to be clearly addressed.

As an aside, the author of Freakanomics argues that the falling crime rate (including violent crimes) is directly related to the legalization of abortions. If you think his finding is correct then the question becomes is this an indication that allowing abortions is a good thing?

As an aside I think that Freakanomics is basically an abuse of statistical analysis and many of the "findings" there are not really valid.

martian: Having a hard life does not mean you would choose non-existance over that hard life. The % of people who would choose never having been born over a hard life is going to be extremely small.

And for the record. I think the Navy SEAL Team 6 should have done what was proper to try and take Osama alive. If he resisted or made any moves so as to be construed as threatening I would not consider it to be "murder". If they had him in custody then shot him in the face, then yes it was murder and yes it was wrong.

Hawkeye: your entire arguement is based on the idea that people that live a hard life would still choose that hard life over being aborted. That directly applies to my comment, I don't see how you can't see that.

H4: You would still err on the side of choosing life from a logical standpoint. A person who does not want to live can always remedy that later, whereas a non-existant child cannot pop back into life later.

My point is that we can't establish a direct comparison, so even someone who chooses death over life later is doing so without full information.

Regardless of the choice made, it is being made with incomplete information, thus we can't make an arguement for one being preferred over the other in any case.

You can't say you'd err on the side of life from a logical standpoint. Logic dictates that you take the action that is rational, aka the action that provides the most utility. That is an assessment we are not able to make.

"martian: Having a hard life does not mean you would choose non-existance over that hard life. The % of people who would choose never having been born over a hard life is going to be extremely small."

Depends on how you define "hard life" (and I defer to H4's point, and lets not get into the topic of assisted suicide). It's more in depth than that though, it's also what are the additional repercussions for adding the number of individuals like that into the world that wouldn't be present if abortion was allowed.
In general, the more you add to a general population's misery the more problems you create for everyone. Puritanism doesn't work and misery perpetuates more misery.
Even the argument that it is the result of an individual's choice isn't fully valid since the consequences of that action are not just felt by the parent and children.

Hawkeye: Sorry I was misreading your comments. I see what you are saying now.

My comments are still valid for everyone else though!

statistics show 20 years after abortion was legalized in the us. violent crime rates fell to an all time low in nyc and prison populations decreased. just something else to consider as impact on society as a whole. also wanted to point out- the adoption is the answer crowd fails to understand that A. it takes $$ to adopt & B. most of these couples are looking for healthy normal babies not the ones being aborted do to drug addiction, aids, and disabilities arising from a mother being too young or too poor to have the proper prenatal care, many of these women can barely take care of themselves.

braden ...I guess I really do not have a problem with euthanasia either. It would be nice to be able to choose the time and method of one's death in some circumstances.

to me, there is a problem with the justice system if every investigation stops with the death of the person accused of the crime. how many crimes remain unsolved and unjudged simply because the perpetrator died? does a judge have to sign off on anything if crimes can be linked to a dead person?

meh, if you find me arguing over my dead body, you might want to try and appease me, or get stuck with being haunted until you do.

Suicide is deemed illegal in Canada under the MHA. It's done so that if a suicide is interupted or was not completed the subject could be lawfully detained under a 'Section 17' (Right for Police to force a subject to receive a psychological exam) and possibly 'Formed' (Term for being forced to receive treatment/institutionalized).

While there are a lot of gray areas here, i only explained the basic process.

"how many crimes remain unsolved and unjudged simply because the perpetrator died? "

I have no idea, and further more I fail to see how it is at all relevant to anything at hand?

if suicide is a crime, and no court makes a determination as to whether or not it was actually suicide, what happens to the person's estate and such? somebody has to find the person to be guilty of suicide, even if it isn't a judge.

Dibs - see my post as to why it's deemed a crime. A successful suicide (once deemed so by the detectives and the coroner) does not affect any of the estate. It MAY affect the life insurance claim.

"and no court makes a determination as to whether or not it was actually suicide"

as charcoal just mentioned, the police and the coroner determine suicide, not a jury of your peers (i mean i'm guessing, but i'd be shocked if i was wrong)

Trust me, i deal with it all the time at work. ;-) you're right

an attempted suicide is a crime, but a successful one isn't a crime. i dunno, to me it seems that the state figures that it can't punish the person because they are dead, so don't have an effective means of keeping people from committing the crime.

Dibs - we didnt say successful WASNT a crime, but you're absolutely right, a dead person won't be a punished person. I just explained as to WHY they are considered crimes.

Crime - Suicide

Punishment:
a) If dead - Loss of life insurance claim is the only one off the top of my head?

b) If Alive - Forced rehabilitation through the Mental Health Act

The courts are bogged down enough, they don't need to be wasting time convicting dead people of killing themselves.

that would just go to prove that justice isn't being served and the state isn't fulfilling it's duty for the taxes that it collects from it's citizens.

At least in the US you cannot prosecute a dead person because that person is not capable of defending themselves and thus would be robbed of "due process".

most people don't represent themselves in a court of law in the US anyway, at the most you're just denying them the right to choose the lawyer that would defend them.

and if they are so dang particular as to which lawyer is to represent them after death, they can hire them beforehand, or get stuck with a court appointed attorney.

they get to decide their plea, and their method of defence.

They also cannot testify etc... Dibs. It makes perfect sense, you would be prosecuting someone incapable of defending themselves.

do they really? if it's decided that a person isn't sane, do they let that person make decisions... can a will be upheld if the person wasn't sane?

it's my understanding that suicide isn't a spontaneous decision. my understanding is that it's a choice of last resort. people don't go around offing themselves just for the heck of it.

they are getting prosecuted no matter what. it's being left in the hands of the insurance company as to whether or not the beneficiary will be paid. it's being left up to the police or the coroner to decide whether or not it was suicide. they aren't getting any kind of due process period.

Police can make a determination that it was suicide, however it is not set in stone in the same manner as a conviction just as the police determining someone died by homicide does not convict the accused.

Insurance company payouts are a civil matter where the burden of proof is much less then a criminal matter.

i don't see how it can't be a violation of their due process rights, if a policeman or a coroner is the one to makes the judgement. they aren't there to judge, they are there to collect evidence. well, mostly just to serve and protect, give speeding tickets and collect stolen merchandise...

The police judgement is only used as evidence in an actual trial and is not inherently taken as true. It is simply the opinion of the police and nothing more as far as legal proceedings or the position of the actual government.

yes, but the person is dead, so there isn't a trial nor a verdict reached by a judge. well, technically, i don't actually know how it's handled, but my understanding is that once a perp is dead, the case is closed, whether they were guilty or not.

The case is closed because constitutionally you cannot prosecute someone who is not capable of defending themselves. It's the same reason you cannot be convicted of a crime if you are insane.

i sorta see that, but i feel that it's more of a loophole for police to abuse than a protection of a person's rights.

"Insurance company payouts are a civil matter where the burden of proof is much less then a criminal matter."

Correct, because my understanding is that Insurance payouts are based on contract law. A lot of things are different as a result of that (I am not a lawyer).

In the threshold for civil matters are a "preponderance of the evidence" as opposed to criminal cases which are "beyond reasonable doubt". In lay terms in a civil matter whoever has 51% of the evidence backing them wins, and in a criminal matter the evidence has to be convincing to the point of being 95-99% positive.

No it isn't. I said the exact opposite...

Ooh :P Didn't notice your second reply. My reply was a bit wordy - I can see where it was easy to misread.