All!

Since I'm a big fan of existentialism, [a] post today on another board reminded me of the 'essence and existence' of [human] Being itself.

The reason it follows that abortion is logically 'wrong', (I hate those words-wrong, logical;) is because Being is a process. Your own existence was, and is still is, completely and naturally dependent on time. When you interupt any part of the *process* of life beginnings (in this case), it is one in the same-you would not exist. To exist is a predicate. Therefore, there would be no such thing (noun)existence.

So maybe the next question is choice *volitional existence* as responsible Beings.
And the answer relates to the denial of that Being's existence while in the *process* of becoming. Or, preventing that thing from becoming a fully developed existing Being.

I believe if you think about things say, like 'time, process, existence, and Being' it puts a different light on the whole argument. No?

1. A Human being is dependent on time for its existence.
2. Physical existence is not a timeless concept.
3. Therefore, to be a human in this physical world requires a process of time.

I welcome correction.

Walrus

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by WJ:
When you interupt any part of the *process* of life beginnings (in this case), it is one in the same-you would not exist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, if your parents chose not to have sex, you would not exist, and, therefore ...


...and the parents existence required time in order to make that choice.

What's missing in this analysis is the connection
between ethics and 'logic.' Abortion, in itself,
is a medical procedure. As such it is like any
other form of surgery. (Is removal of a tumor
'logical,' 'ethical,' etc.? Some Christian
Scientists might argue that surgical removal is
against God's Will.) The issue of abortion, as
always, is about when life begins? If life's
purpose is always unconditionally 'good,' then is
ending it always 'bad'?, etc. G-man T

Hi Gman!

Good to hear from you.

I don't think this is a religious issue(even though I'm a Christian). I came full circle on this. I used to be pro-choice (and in favor of the death penalty). Now I'm pro-life (and against the death penalty).
I feel much more comfortable and logically consitent with this position.

The only problem would be military service and eminent death of the mother prior to delivery. In those cases, killing/sacrificing to serve a greater good (future life) is sometimes logically necessary-if that makes sense.

Feel free to poke holes if you like.

Walrus

Hi WJ, G-man, all,

I am still thinking on this issue, abortion, and have my prejudice in favor of pro-choice by the woman, though the man may have pro-life. But though we as men contribute to the birth process, the actuality of conception, gestation, maturation, and delivery, all are in the body of the woman. So whether it is pro-choice or pro-life, by default, becomes a women's issue, not for us men to debate. Am I totally off on this? But then again, as G-man says, removal of a fetus before it is ready to remove itself into our world becomes a surgical procedure, one modified only by how much life we are willing to assign to the fetus while still in the womb... I do not know the answer to this.

Please write more on this, especially from a woman's point of view.

Ivan

My point simply was...the initial question, with
the term 'logical'...makes little sense. Is
abortion moral, ethical? My personal view is that
abortion is not good. It's not preferable, to be
sure. Yet I believe a woman's personal right to
choice (albeit, a legal right involving an ongoing
political debate) is/should remain/is best to
remain absolute, without state interference. Some
view abortion as murder. But it's a highly
complex, nuanced issue, which involves many
case-specific contingencies. (Consider, for
example, test positive fetal genetic deficiencies,
i.e. Downs, etc.) My point being: it's not always
the absolute seemingly simple, clear-cut moral
facts that are solely involved. Other, practical
personal family societal issues are involved in
the medico-technologies that create such
awarenesses for decision in the first place. The
best way to 'manage' against excessive or perhaps
even needless abortion is to condition, limit,
regulate its window of option. The AFP/FDT
screenings usually occur at 12-14 weeks. Decisions
to end or continue should made then...few, I
suspect, disagree with setting limits on late term
abortions.

The same debate could also be said to apply to
other nuanced issues, such as homicide: is it ever
justifiable, i.e. in self-defense? G-man This
is..

G-man, all,

I think you make a valid point, that one can argue logically against excessive and needless abortions. It would seem to me that being 'pro-choice' is not always a negative, however, since many choices are in fact 'pro-live/life' rather than abortion. There are circumstances, as you mentioned above, that a woman would choose to terminate her pregnancy, justifiably, which may have already advanced to later stages, if this is in agreement between herself, her family and spouse, her religious counsel, etc. I should add that in the agreements sought by a woman before choosing abortion, her attending physician is also an important factor, though his/her role is seen here as more technical than ethical. To the woman, it is not only an ethical and medical question, but also a very highly stressed one on her psychological health, which must also be considered, perhaps not often enough by those who would decide for her. Such joint agreement then is often so difficult to achieve, that the decision in the end falls back upon her solitude, which in her solitude may be a very uncomfortable emotional thing. I too feel that abortion is not good, not a good in itself for sure, but then it is also sometimes necessary and best, alas, such as in those cases where the unwanted child is truly unwanted by the mother, for a myriad reasons. Recall that in most former societies, infanticide was an acceptable practice if done by the parents, and was not confused with murder. We have at least progressed beyond that stage, so infanticide is no longer practiced in modern society. But the question remains: how do we make a distinction between when a fetus is a woman's organ, hers to elliminate, and when is it a new life? Clearly, once outside the womb, the fetus is a child, a new human being. But I say this from a man's point of view. What would a woman think of this?

Ivan

Ivan: You seem to be suggesting that, Setting aside all medically reasoned/requisite conditionalities which would justify otherwise restricted pregnancy terminations beyond, say, 16 weeks...the real issue is...a woman's choice to abort (early) absent any medical rationale. All I was trying to aim it...is where you've taken us to where we are now in this debate. (At least those that are 'pro-life' have been able to limit the window of opportunity down to a cleanly focused, albeit enduring, conundrum-like enduring dilemna...similar to a Louisiana tick well-placed in a very hard-to-reach place on one's back:) I suggest, however, that infanticide (despite its historic culturalities) is unlike abortion on the basis of 'socio-technologization.' Common to both decisions, as you note (and it's an excellent point), are considered ratios of what's ultimately in the infant's best interests, given practical limited conditionalities. (Quality of Life concerns.) Ideally, a woman falls in love with a well-grounded, smart, stable guy that thinks she's sexier than Brittany Spears...he wants her to be the stay-at-home mom of his kids...and he's not a bad bread-winner. But ideally ain't always the case. (What about the 19 year-old coed who soon after breaking up with he boyfriend learns she's pregnant? Truly, how to determine the infant's best interests? Do Christian Scientists and 100% Pro-Lifers bear similarity?:) G-man