Abortion is never the answer:

[Eleveness]

And this demonstrates a fundamental divide between standards of morality. Not only is "looking out for number one" not a legitimate moral defense of anything, at least by any theories of moral philosophy that I'm aware of, but an abortion (excluding cases where the very life of the mother is in danger) is never something that one has to do to get by.

But how does one look out for others without first looking out for oneself? That's the fundamental problem of altruism: It is logically impossible to help someone else without first taking care of yourself. How do you help someone else if you're dead? You obviously can't, so you first need to secure your own survival before caring for others. I think that's what exxxys meant when she wrote, "look[] out for number one."

But what a double standard this presents! We are to protect the comfort of one person, and potentially the life (and it is a small potential indeed), by definitively and absolutely taking the comfort and life from another?

It is true that we would not have the right to kill the fetus if it were absolutely independent of its mother, and if it posed absolutely no danger or other ill effects to its mother. But there are harmful effects that result from pregnancy--everything from fatigue to diabetes to possible death during childbirth--and we have absolutely no right to inflict those upon a pregnant woman. Not even the fetus has the right to inflict those conditions on its mother.

That doesn't make any sense. A counter argument using the same logic would be that we can justify taking scholarship money from a college student who comes an impoverished minority background and give it to someone who comes from a rich white family. Granted, the latter might need it: it is possible that he is estranged from his family and has no way of getting through college, but in the vast majority of cases, its serves only to save him a buck that he already has to spare and as a source of emotional reinforcement. On the other hand, the impoverished minority student definately needs it.

What on earth? I completely fail to see how my logic can be used to support that argument. One student's scholarship money doesn't come at the expense of another's, but the sustenance of a fetus does come at the expense of its mother. Since this sustenance (specifically, the nutrients in the bloodstream) is the property of the mother, it's hers to spend however she wants. The scholarship money, on the other hand, is the property of the person to whom it is awarded.

I think a fundamental difference between most pro-life and pro-choice points of view is the question of whose rights they are trying to defend. The pro-choice person is arguing from the rights of the mother, which the pro-life person usually recognizes, but the rights of the mother do not override the even more fundamental rights of the defenseless unborn (indeed, the right that all have as a consequence of their humanity), which is the right to life.

Even if the fetus has rights, it still doesn't have the right to the nutrients in the mother's bloodstream. No one does, except the mother. Here's an analogy (that isn't flawed): Suppose someone is dying and needs a blood transfusion. Suppose no pints of blood are available for transfusion, but there are people available who are able--but unwilling--to give blood. Do we have the right to force someone to donate blood (it can hardly be called a donation at this point, but you get the idea)?

You probably think that yes, we do have the right to confiscate a pint of someone's blood, since someone else's life depends on it. I hold the opposite: Since the blood is someone's property, we do not have the right to confiscate it (without due process, at least). And since pregnancy is essentially a blood transfusion from the pregnant woman to the fetus, I hold that we do not have the right to (effectively) confiscate the woman's blood and give it to the fetus, which is what a prohibition on abortion does.

I find it more disturbing that those who are pro-choice have the nerve to inflict death on someone than I do that those who are pro-life have the nerve to inflict discomfort on someone.

Again, if the fetus were not dependent on the resources of its mother's body in any way, I'd probably be pro-life too. But we are all morally bound to respect each other's rights, and that includes the right to decide how the resources of one's body are spent. A pregnant woman has rights, including the right to decide how her blood is spent, and if she does not wish to have it spend on the fetus, then we--even the fetus--are all bound to respect that decision.

 

[Annolennar]

But how does one look out for others without first looking out for oneself? That's the fundamental problem of altruism: It is logically impossible to help someone else without first taking care of yourself. How do you help someone else if you're dead? You obviously can't, so you first need to secure your own survival before caring for others. I think that's what exxxys meant when she wrote, "look[] out for number one."

Thats based on the assumption that taking care of others implicitly makes demands that are beyond our power to compensate for. Its not a question of absolute mutual exclusion here - it is entirely possible to both take care of one's own minimal needs and take care of the minimal needs of others. So even if that is what exxxys is saying, it doesn't really apply to the abortion issue, because not only does pregnancy not demand the life of the mother, but it certainly doesn't do so before the baby is born; so how would looking out for number one (getting an abortion, in this particular scenario) enable one to better help others (the baby in this case). In fact, it does the opposite.

It is true that we would not have the right to kill the fetus if it were absolutely independent of its mother, and if it posed absolutely no danger or other ill effects to its mother. But there are harmful effects that result from pregnancy--everything from fatigue to diabetes to possible death during childbirth--and we have absolutely no right to inflict those upon a pregnant woman. Not even the fetus has the right to inflict those conditions on its mother.

We aren't inflicting anything, and the fetus certainly isn't either (unless you wish to take the assertion that it is a person to a whole new level and say that it is a person with both will and the capacity to enforce that will); those things are a natural consequence of the physical state of pregnancy, which in the vast majority of cases here, was willingly entered into by the procreative act. Even if she didn't expect to have a baby from it, she still went through with the act, and is responsible for its results.

What on earth? I completely fail to see how my logic can be used to support that argument. One student's scholarship money doesn't come at the expense of another's, but the sustenance of a fetus does come at the expense of its mother. Since this sustenance (specifically, the nutrients in the bloodstream) is the property of the mother, it's hers to spend however she wants. The scholarship money, on the other hand, is the property of the person to whom it is awarded.

I'll explain how scholarships work then. Organizations that award scholarships have finite resources (a budget), thats why they award limited numbers of scholarships with limited amounts of money attached to each one. Normally, a scholarship (a need-based one, at least, not merit based ones) will go to those in most need of it, those who without it could not attend college. So when faced with two candidates, one who needs the scholarship in order to go to college, and one for whom it is simply a nice bonus, it goes to the one who needs it.

How it uses the same logic you use: Your argument is that there are finite resources (the nutrients, equivalent to the scholarship money) and an objective (living, equivalent to going to college). By the logic of your argument, those resources are to be awarded to the individual who does not need it to acheive the objective of living, being the mother (equivalent to the rich white guy who has enough money already), rather than awarding it to the individual who does need those resources for the objective of living, the child (equivalent to the impoverished minority).

Even if the fetus has rights, it still doesn't have the right to the nutrients in the mother's bloodstream. No one does, except the mother. Here's an analogy (that isn't flawed): Suppose someone is dying and needs a blood transfusion. Suppose no pints of blood are available for transfusion, but there are people available who are able--but unwilling--to give blood. Do we have the right to force someone to donate blood (it can hardly be called a donation at this point, but you get the idea)?

You probably think that yes, we do have the right to confiscate a pint of someone's blood, since someone else's life depends on it. I hold the opposite: Since the blood is someone's property, we do not have the right to confiscate it (without due process, at least). And since pregnancy is essentially a blood transfusion from the pregnant woman to the fetus, I hold that we do not have the right to (effectively) confiscate the woman's blood and give it to the fetus, which is what a prohibition on abortion does.

You're muddling the issue of "is an abortion right" with "is forcing an abortion (or its opposite) right", which is an entirely different issue, and would require different arguments. This is fairly common among pro-choice tactics/misunderstandings.

Taking your example of the blood transfusion: Forcing someone to donate the blood may or may not be wrong, but the act of withholding the blood, on the part of those who have it, is wrong. "We" aren't moral actors in this scenario, the person who needs it and the person who has it are.

Again, if the fetus were not dependent on the resources of its mother's body in any way, I'd probably be pro-life too. But we are all morally bound to respect each other's rights, and that includes the right to decide how the resources of one's body are spent. A pregnant woman has rights, including the right to decide how her blood is spent, and if she does not wish to have it spend on the fetus, then we--even the fetus--are all bound to respect that decision.

That does not change the fact that what she has chosen is morally wrong. Morality is not dependent on a relative standard (in this case the mother's), or we would have to accept that someone who can and does enjoy kicking puppies is morally justified in the act of kicking puppies simply by virtue of the fact that he believes he should do it.

If we are indeed morally bound to respect others rights, then why does this not apply to the mother? Why is she excused in ignoring her child's rights, and we are supposed to stand by and respect her rights.

I suppose you could take an extreme Kantian viewpoint to explain that (the whole "can't lie to a murderer to keep him from murdering because it would violate his humanity" thing), but that still doesn't apply to whether abortion is wrong, only whether we have the right to do anything about it.

Edit: I see that there is an announcement about this being a "Christian-Only" forum now, which I suppose precludes the possibility of a response. Which is too bad, because I was looking forward to it. Anyway, I guess I'm just acknowledging that you are unable to post a response because of forum rules; sorry about that. Maybe we'll continue it someday somewhere else.

 

[solarwave]

Gotta look out for number one, I know it sounds cruel, but in this day and age, you have to do what you have to do to get by.

The thing is that is totally wrong. In this day and age, especially in western society, life is so easy compared to what it once was, healthcare, law and order, its easy to find food and a home. This day and age isn't the problem, its drop in morals and the me, me, me attitude (obviously not true for all people but still). There are more important things when looking out for number one, and living a life getting everything you want is not the most important ether.

Tbh abortion is no more then genocide concealed by looking after number one.

 

[Eleveness]

I've looked and I don't see any announcements saying that atheists can't post in this particular forum. So, I'll post if I'm permitted to, and I apologize if I'm posting somewhere I'm not permitted to.

Thats based on the assumption that taking care of others implicitly makes demands that are beyond our power to compensate for. Its not a question of absolute mutual exclusion here - it is entirely possible to both take care of one's own minimal needs and take care of the minimal needs of others. So even if that is what exxxys is saying, it doesn't really apply to the abortion issue, because not only does pregnancy not demand the life of the mother, but it certainly doesn't do so before the baby is born; so how would looking out for number one (getting an abortion, in this particular scenario) enable one to better help others (the baby in this case). In fact, it does the opposite.

Actually, it is very possible that pregnancy could demand the life of the mother. Many women die during childbirth--to say nothing of the myriad other health problems that a woman may suffer during pregnancy--and we certainly have no right to force a woman to risk her life if she doesn't wish to do so.

This Wikipedia link lists the various problems associated with pregnancy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complications_of_pregnancy

Please click that link to see what medical issues a pregnant woman might face during pregnancy. I must emphatically state that we have no right to inflict those conditions on a woman, even if it means preserving the life of the fetus.

We aren't inflicting anything, and the fetus certainly isn't either (unless you wish to take the assertion that it is a person to a whole new level and say that it is a person with both will and the capacity to enforce that will); those things are a natural consequence of the physical state of pregnancy, which in the vast majority of cases here, was willingly entered into by the procreative act. Even if she didn't expect to have a baby from it, she still went through with the act, and is responsible for its results.

It's entirely possible for a woman to have sex for reasons other than procreation. Many people have sex as a means for expressing their love for each other, and prohibiting the practice of abortion cripples a couple's capacity to express their love for each other.

I'll explain how scholarships work then. Organizations that award scholarships have finite resources (a budget), thats why they award limited numbers of scholarships with limited amounts of money attached to each one. Normally, a scholarship (a need-based one, at least, not merit based ones) will go to those in most need of it, those who without it could not attend college. So when faced with two candidates, one who needs the scholarship in order to go to college, and one for whom it is simply a nice bonus, it goes to the one who needs it.

How it uses the same logic you use: Your argument is that there are finite resources (the nutrients, equivalent to the scholarship money) and an objective (living, equivalent to going to college). By the logic of your argument, those resources are to be awarded to the individual who does not need it to acheive the objective of living, being the mother (equivalent to the rich white guy who has enough money already), rather than awarding it to the individual who does need those resources for the objective of living, the child (equivalent to the impoverished minority).

The question of who receives the scholarship money rests solely with the organization giving the money. We have no right to dictate to the organization who is to receive the money; it is the organization's money to disburse however it pleases. By the same token, the nutrients in the pregnant woman's bloodstream are hers to spend however she wishes.

You seem to think that I am advocating forcing a woman to have an abortion. That is my explanation for your analogy comparing my defense of abortion rights to forcing an organization to give scholarship money to a rich kid instead of someone who needs it. Please, please understand the difference between the statements "I think a woman should have an abortion" and "I think a woman should have the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion." That's why my position is called "pro-choice" instead of "pro-abortion": I don't advocate abortion per se; rather, I advocate the right to choose.

You're muddling the issue of "is an abortion right" with "is forcing an abortion (or its opposite) right", which is an entirely different issue, and would require different arguments. This is fairly common among pro-choice tactics/misunderstandings.

I certainly agree that the question "Is abortion right?" is different than the questions "Is it right to force a woman to have an abortion?" and "Is it right to forcibly prevent a woman from having an abortion?" It is the difference between "Is abortion morally right?" and "Is abortion legally permissible?" Of these last two questions, I do not care to answer the first (I'm a guy, after all), since it depends on an enormous amount of information regarding the individual woman's situation and goals. But I certainly think that a woman should have the right to abort, since it's her body, after all.

Taking your example of the blood transfusion: Forcing someone to donate the blood may or may not be wrong, but the act of withholding the blood, on the part of those who have it, is wrong.

Somehow, I knew you'd say that. But again, I think you're confusing two separate issues: "Is it morally right to withhold needed blood?" and "Is it legally permissible to withhold the blood?" Again, I do not care to explore the first question, but I must emphatically answer the second question in the affirmative.

"We" aren't moral actors in this scenario, the person who needs it and the person who has it are.

Questions of legality do not care about the relationship between the "moral actors" (as you call them) and bystanders. Indeed, questions of legality impose requirements on bystanders.

If we are indeed morally bound to respect others rights, then why does this not apply to the mother? Why is she excused in ignoring her child's rights, and we are supposed to stand by and respect her rights.

Very well, if we are going to say "we are indeed morally bound to respect others' rights", then this requirement applies to the fetus, as well as everyone else. That is, the fetus is bound to respect the rights of its mother. In particular, the fetus does not have the right to forcibly take blood from its mother's body, if she does not wish it.

 

[BAFRIEND]

Did your mother kill you ?

 

[Annolennar]

I've looked and I don't see any announcements saying that atheists can't post in this particular forum. So, I'll post if I'm permitted to, and I apologize if I'm posting somewhere I'm not permitted to.

They recently made an announcement making this a "Christians Only" forum (as distinguished from the Philosophy and Ethics subforums in the Society part of the forum). But I won't tell if you don't. I'm not a fan of that rule.

Actually, it is very possible that pregnancy could demand the life of the mother. Many women die during childbirth--to say nothing of the myriad other health problems that a woman may suffer during pregnancy--and we certainly have no right to force a woman to risk her life if she doesn't wish to do so.

This Wikipedia link lists the various problems associated with pregnancy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complications_of_pregnancy

Please click that link to see what medical issues a pregnant woman might face during pregnancy. I must emphatically state that we have no right to inflict those conditions on a woman, even if it means preserving the life of the fetus.

I'm quite aware of the potential dangers of a pregnancy gone wrong. But abortions due to serious medical problems do not make up a majority of abortions, and cannot justify the taking of a life. The fact remains, even in cases where there are serious medical complications, getting an abortion is solving a potential problem for one person by intentionally causing a serious problem for another (i.e. killing them).

What possible justification is there for that? How does possibly stopping a lesser harm justify definately causing a greater harm?

It's entirely possible for a woman to have sex for reasons other than procreation. Many people have sex as a means for expressing their love for each other, and prohibiting the practice of abortion cripples a couple's capacity to express their love for each other.

The issue isn't the intent behind sex, but the actual, real consequences. Sex is both a means of expressing love and a means of procreation; you can't have one without the other. The important thing is, it is not the only way of expressing love. If love was impossible without sex, then we might have a different matter, but it isn't; and a couple who's love, or ability to express such, is crippled by that is in serious trouble.

The question of who receives the scholarship money rests solely with the organization giving the money. We have no right to dictate to the organization who is to receive the money; it is the organization's money to disburse however it pleases. By the same token, the nutrients in the pregnant woman's bloodstream are hers to spend however she wishes.

Once again, its not a question of whether we have the right to do anything about it, its an issue of who it is morally right for the organization to give that money to. Big difference.

You seem to think that I am advocating forcing a woman to have an abortion. That is my explanation for your analogy comparing my defense of abortion rights to forcing an organization to give scholarship money to a rich kid instead of someone who needs it. Please, please understand the difference between the statements "I think a woman should have an abortion" and "I think a woman should have the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion." That's why my position is called "pro-choice" instead of "pro-abortion": I don't advocate abortion per se; rather, I advocate the right to choose.

I'm not sure why you would think that, but even if I did, it doesn't have any bearing on the arguments for or against abortion. (Note: I used to be pro-choice, so I am aware of what it stands for)

I certainly agree that the question "Is abortion right?" is different than the questions "Is it right to force a woman to have an abortion?" and "Is it right to forcibly prevent a woman from having an abortion?" It is the difference between "Is abortion morally right?" and "Is abortion legally permissible?" Of these last two questions, I do not care to answer the first (I'm a guy, after all), since it depends on an enormous amount of information regarding the individual woman's situation and goals. But I certainly think that a woman should have the right to abort, since it's her body, after all.

Hmm, thats fine and all, but to me the question of whether it is morally right is a much more important question than a question of legality. Once the first has been decided then the second should logically follow.

Given that, though, I fali to understand how this idea came about in Western society that anything can be justified "because I have a right to freedom". One person's rights end where they violate another person's more fundamental rights - a right to live as we choose ends where it violates another's right to live at all.

Somehow, I knew you'd say that. But again, I think you're confusing two separate issues: "Is it morally right to withhold needed blood?" and "Is it legally permissible to withhold the blood?" Again, I do not care to explore the first question, but I must emphatically answer the second question in the affirmative.

Questions of legality do not care about the relationship between the "moral actors" (as you call them) and bystanders. Indeed, questions of legality impose requirements on bystanders.

Hehe, I think it is you who are confusing "is it morally right" with "is it legally permissible." Seriously though, I think we both realize there is a difference, but perhaps we disagree on which is more important.

In my opinion, the first issue is much more fundamentally important than the second.

Very well, if we are going to say "we are indeed morally bound to respect others' rights", then this requirement applies to the fetus, as well as everyone else. That is, the fetus is bound to respect the rights of its mother. In particular, the fetus does not have the right to forcibly take blood from its mother's body, if she does not wish it.

If we were talking about two persons of equal will and capability to enforce that will, and the rights involved for each person were of equal importance, then I would agree with you. But we aren't.

An abortion is a a case of a person with more power enforcing their preference regarding a lesser right over the greater right of someone who is defenseless. The reasoning is similar to why we put a stop to criminal states such as Nazi Germany when they impose their will at the expense of others.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Caduseus,

Then why does your deity allow miscarriages (i.e. spontaneous abortions)? Why does it create a child knowing full well that the child will never survive? Does it enjoy observing the misery and anguish this causes to mothers and fathers?

Good question, but before I answer, let me ask why you said your deity? Which other deities were you thinking about.
The answer to the question is we are all destined to perish through our fault in disobedience, and destined to eternal life through Christ...and God doesn’t want one person to perish, so that’s another issue because based on the logic of God liking observing the misery of parents, He would equally be against the misery of abortion, so that doesn’t help the case for abortion.

 

[brightmorningstar]

If two parents did not have sex they wouldn’t naturally conceive therefore the possibility of abortion only arises after conception. If conception is a mistake it’s a mistake, so live with the consequences, if there are mitigating circumstances such as rape or mortal or even physical danger to the mother then indeed a debate might take place.