What if abortion really were murder, wonders George Reisman. And how come those who claim it really is murder don't act as if that were the case? The answer, he says, is instructive. "Hopefully," he says, reflecting on this question will lead to reasonable people questioning the premise that abortion is murder. "To do that, they will need to question the premise that a fetus, especially, in the early stages of pregnancy, is an actual human being... Unfortunately, persuading people of this elementary fact of perception can be very difficult... "
Read on here: If Abortion Really Were Murder - George Reisman.
11 comments:
Well, hell ! I've known about plenty of abortions in my time. Many seem to be drawn directly from the slops bucket into politics and the civil service. Would that some of them had been right and properly aborted in the first instance. A human thagedy that they weren't. Oh well.
I've got reasonable views about abortion. When your daughter does it, it's a sin and a shame, and when mine does it, it's to preserve her mental health and wellbeing.
That said, the first point about why the woman isn't had up for a crime of murder is pretty straight forward.. examples..
It's pretty well established in the US and NZ that the incidence of false rape accusations is exceedingly high.. somewhere around 15-30%, and in many places it's much higher. Not long ago a Christchurch cop said that of three reported rapes over any weekend, two accusations were withdrawn by Monday or Tuesday.
Yet it's also quite clear that when these accusations are shown to be false that there's little comeback on the woman.
Or take domestic violence.. we know that women start at least 50% of it, but it's only the male who gets punished. Same for the woman who kills a child.. she often gets treated leniently because of some aspect related to her "femaleness".
And it's no accident that the thick looking male thugs who appear in the docks for male assualts female and child murder are uneducated.. they simply haven't received the knowledge that women are special and must be protected.
So it's almost part of our DNA to protect women from the consequences of their actions and entirely consistent with not prosecuting or even blaming the aborting woman.
The early reasons for the prohibitions on abortions are also pretty clear.. the family/tribe/society couldn't afford to lose future breeders and fighters and food suppliers. We now say, with some truth, that situation no longer exists, at least in the Western world. Thus we can "afford" to use our reason and morality to justify abortion.
For me, Reisman's argument about some stage of fetal development is crap. Once conception has ocurred there's separate life and killing it is a degree of homicide. The reason to not get too upset about it is because neither the mother, father, family or society has had a chance to bond with the child, or the child to demonstrate a separate and distinct personality. We know it's not a big deal because according to Wikipedia, between 10-50% of pregnancies result in spontaneous abortion, and the worst you'll hear from even a fundy is "Bad luck".
JC
JC
"Once conception has ocurred there's separate life and killing it is a degree of homicide."
Right then. By that standard one could argue that a cancer tumour is a separate life and killing it is a degree of homicide.
Seems that you may need to revisit what the professor trying to explain to you.
LGM
Reisman: Removing it is not killing a human being but simply stopping—aborting—a process that if left unchecked would result in a human being weeks or months later. Weeks or months later, there would be a human being. But not at the time of the abortion.
Unfortunately, persuading people of this elementary fact of perception can be very difficult.
Quote of the Year. The truth is always simple.
"Right then. By that standard one could argue that a cancer tumour is a separate life and killing it is a degree of homicide."
You could argue that. However, I suggest there's little comparison between a fetus and malignant cells caused by genetic abnormalities.
JC
JC
Really? What evidence have you for that?
Little comparison indeed. I reckon that were I to put some cells from a fetus into a petri dish and put some cancer cells right next to them you would not be able to tell me which was which.
LGM
"Really? What evidence have you for that?
Little comparison indeed. I reckon that were I to put some cells from a fetus into a petri dish and put some cancer cells right next to them you would not be able to tell me which was which."
Indeed I would not know. But we both know that one lot would have lead to probable life and the other towards death or infirmity.
Is it your contention that a growing lump of malignant cells is no different to those of a fetus?
JC
JC
My contention is the observation that removiong a fetus is not killing a human being but rather an act of halting a process, is valid. Similarly it can be appreciated that the removal of the tumour is not the killing of a human being, it is the cessation of a process.
A potential is not an actual.
LGM
Anon says it for me:
"Reisman: Removing it is not killing a human being but simply stopping—aborting—a process that if left unchecked would result in a human being weeks or months later. Weeks or months later, there would be a human being. But not at the time of the abortion.
Unfortunately, persuading people of this elementary fact of perception can be very difficult.
Quote of the Year. The truth is always simple."
Excellent article from Reisman, thank you for posting it PC.
It's also noteworthy that those blowing off against abortion are nearly always men.
I guess it's because;in the course of conception, gestation, childbirth, and lactation, they only have to do the fun bit at the beginning. The rest is SOMEONE ELSE'S PROBLEM on the most elemental and undeniable level.
Bravo !!
Post a Comment