Abortion

[TeddyKGB]

Regarding the bolded portion - yes, the baby is living inside of her and off of her, but it was not the baby's choice to do so, it was the woman's when she had sex. The baby didn't ask to live off of her. The baby didn't weasel his/her way into her body without her permission. She allowed it when she had sex, so she must deal with the consequences.

Call it whatever you like; this is the "baby = punishment for sex" defense. Are you really comfortable with that?

 

[gwenmead]

For those who are okay with abortion, I have a question. If we could somehow prove that the unborn baby is a baby and not a fetus, would you still be okay with abortion? I mean, is your feeling on the matter based on your supposition that the unborn baby is a fetus (or whatever word you want to describe it as)?

I am pro-choice, rabidly so.

Terminology isn't an issue for me. Different labels are appropriate for different stages of development (blastocyst, zygote, fetus, or baby), but for me it isn't the terminology that determines my position on abortion.

I simply think that one human being should not be allowed to use another human being's bodily resources against their will. I do not equate consent to sex with consent to pregnancy. I also feel the life of a born woman is more valuable than the developing life of an unborn human being.

Note that while this sums up the gist of my thoughts on the matter, it's very much an oversimplification, done for brevity. So there is probably a lot missing from my explanation here. Nonetheless, I hope it answers your initial question about terminology, at least as far as this individual POV goes. (I can't speak for every pro-choice person, so one's mileage may vary there.)

 

[angellica]

Call it whatever you like; this is the "baby = punishment for sex" defense. Are you really comfortable with that?

It's not punishment for sex unless you treat being pregnant as punishment instead of welcoming the baby as a blessing.

 

[angellica]

It was uninvited if she doesn't want it there, regardless of the precautions she may or may not have taken. Even if it was invited, that also does not negate one's rights over their person and property. If I invite someone into my home, I can kick them out for any reason because it is my home, not the intruder's. Just as it is the woman's body, not the fetus'.

Also, making the decision to have an abortion is dealing with the consequences.

The baby's body, no matter how small, is not the woman's. She is caring for it in her body, but the baby is not like one of her organs like a heart or something.

 

[angellica]

I am pro-choice, rabidly so.

Terminology isn't an issue for me. Different labels are appropriate for different stages of development (blastocyst, zygote, fetus, or baby), but for me it isn't the terminology that determines my position on abortion.

I simply think that one human being should not be allowed to use another human being's bodily resources against their will. I do not equate consent to sex with consent to pregnancy. I also feel the life of a born woman is more valuable than the developing life of an unborn human being.

Note that while this sums up the gist of my thoughts on the matter, it's very much an oversimplification, done for brevity. So there is probably a lot missing from my explanation here. Nonetheless, I hope it answers your initial question about terminology, at least as far as this individual POV goes. (I can't speak for every pro-choice person, so one's mileage may vary there.)

Whether you recognize it or not, having sex is the way she got pregnant. If you can consent to sex, you should consent to the fact that you might get pregnant. It's a chance you take when you have sex. Is your issue that the baby is actually inside the woman and that is why she has rights over it?

 

[angellica]

And she has, by deciding to have an abortion.

*

Next time I get my bills, I'll deal with them by throwing them away and not paying them.

 

[truthshift]

(I can't speak for every pro-choice person, so one's mileage may vary there.)

I'm pro-choice on the basis that when you are in a developmental stage, you have no memory, no consciousness, and no coherent thought.

By all means, a fetus (or whatever the label is at any stage) is purely a functioning organism and nothing more. In fact, by definition, a developing child is simply in a parasitic relationship with the host.

I'm not attempting to devalue children or anything, but to be honest, there is not much to say that an embryo resembles human mental characteristics until very late stages of pregnancy or even until birth and consciousness.

If you have a moral conviction against aborting your child then, so be it. In fact, I am this way and I would personally never do it. But, based on the facts, I have no right to impose my standards on others because it can't be clearly defined as murder of a human being. (yes, I'm aware of DNA)

 

[Skaloop]

The baby's body, no matter how small, is not the woman's. She is caring for it in her body, but the baby is not like one of her organs like a heart or something.

You are partly right. But it is still using her body and resources against her will, and she has the right keep her body hers. But the fetus cannot survive outside her body, and therein lies the problem. A conflict between the mother's right to her body, and the fetus' "right" to life. And there is vast precedent that one's right to their body over-rules another's right to life, which is why we don't force people to donate blood or organs against their will, even if it could save dozens of lives.

Even if one consents to being an organ donor by signing up for the donor registry, they can still later refuse to donate if they want to. By your logic, anyone who signs up should be harvested against their will to save others as soon as their organs are needed. All that "they knew the risks, they should face the consequences" junk.

 

[PsychMJC]

Next time I get my bills, I'll deal with them by throwing them away and not paying them.

Have fun without heat.

 

[PsychMJC]

It's not punishment for sex unless you treat being pregnant as punishment instead of welcoming the baby as a blessing.

Obviously not everyone thinks of a baby as a blessing. If you do, great, more power to you. But not everyone will think so.

 

[Skaloop]

Next time I get my bills, I'll deal with them by throwing them away and not paying them.

That's so not even close to the same thing. A better analogy would be that you would close your accounts with those who are sending you bills.

An even better analogy is if you signed up for a free nine-month trial with some company. You consent to use their services, knowing that their services may not be exactly what you are looking for. At the very start, they are great. After a couple of months, you find out that their services are not what you wanted from them, so you end your trial well before the nine-month deadline. You have dealt with the consequences.

Throwing the bills away without paying them is like tossing a newborn in a dumpster.

 

[gwenmead]

Whether you recognize it or not, having sex is the way she got pregnant. If you can consent to sex, you should consent to the fact that you might get pregnant. It's a chance you take when you have sex.

Well, yes, I do know a bit about human biology... I do recognize that sex is how pregnancies happen, and I am aware that pregnancy is a possible result of sex. Nonetheless sex and pregnancy are not the same thing. Consent to sex is consent to sex; it is perhaps also a consent to the risk of pregnancy. But it is not consent to be or remain pregnant, should a pregnancy occur.

Another possible analogy might be that crashing is a risk of driving. Driving does not mean consent to crashing, however, it just means one is willing to take on the risk of crashing.

Is your issue that the baby is actually inside the woman and that is why she has rights over it?

Sort of, but not exactly.

It isn't location, per se, but the fact that a developing fetus is directly attached to a woman's body and takes resources directly from it (nutrients, oxygen, etc.). If a woman wants to be pregnant and is willing to undergo such a use of her body, then it's all good and more power to her. If not, then the situation is that a developing human being is using her bodily resources against her will.

I think of compulsory pregnancy as being similar to compulsory blood donation, for instance. We don't bring people into blood banks and force them to give blood, nor do we use the argument that their having and using a viable bloodstream equates to consent to donation. Such would be a violation of one's bodily integrity.

I recognize that a woman can avoid the issue entirely by remaining abstinent. That's just fine with me. So are other methods of birth control. So is abortion. So is adoption, if a woman is willing to go through with an unwanted pregnancy.

Again, this is probably an oversimplification, but I hope it provides a bit more explanation.

 

[Garyzenuf]

Next time I get my bills, I'll deal with them by throwing them away and not paying them.

Knock yourself out. Better bundle up.

*

 

[angellica]

I am done with this thread. I told myself I would not even read it because I can't stand to read what some people say about abortion. I'm very grateful that my mom didn't think of me as an "organism" using her bodily resources, or a "parasite" feeding off of her. My last thought is this - science can't really tell us at what point the "fetus" becomes a "baby", and if there is even the slightest chance that abortion is killing a human life (in my opinion it is), we should absolutely not allow it and especially not for reasons like, "I wasn't ready" or "I don't want a kid." A human life is worth so much more than that. It is the epitome of greed to cut off someone's chance at life because it would be an inconvenience to you.

 

[TeddyKGB]

It's not punishment for sex unless you treat being pregnant as punishment instead of welcoming the baby as a blessing.

And offenders wouldn't be punished if they willingly go to prison and enjoy their time there.

One of the key elements of punishment is forcing someone to do something they do not want to do. You would unquestionably face such situations by outlawing abortion. You even used the word "consequences" in your post. It appears that you are not overly bothered by the punitive aspect of illegal abortion.

 

[truthshift]

I'm very grateful that my mom didn't think of me as an "organism" using her bodily resources, or a "parasite" feeding off of her. .

I'll ask you this question even though, I guess you won't read it.

If you were aborted, would you care?

 

[Garyzenuf]

...science can't really tell us at what point the "fetus" becomes a "baby...

...and neither can the bible, thats all some people are saying.

*

 

[cantata]

Could you please quote properly? It's incredibly difficult and fiddly to respond to these posts when you reply in the way that you do. Just putting <quote></quote> (with square brackets instead) around each of my comments would be an improvement. It's not rocket science, and frankly I consider it a matter of common courtesy.

Either the statement that things (including life) is only valuable insofar as someone confers value on them is true or it is not. If you are using this argument to defend abortion then why is it wrong extend the argument to include the killing of any unvalued life?

Scenario 1: Abortion is legal. Women who want to carry their pregnancies to term don't need to worry about someone forcing abortion on them, because that is still illegal. No panic ensues at all.

Scenario 2: Killing unvalued, unvaluing children is legal. Parents worry that if their child were lost or if they died, it would be killed. PANIC ensues!

Scenario 3: Killing unvalued, unvaluing adults (such as mentally ill people) is legal. Quite a few adults worry that if they were to become unvalued and unvaluing, they would be killed. MORE PANIC ensues!

According to you argument it isn't. I wish to know whence the the double-standard, or hypocrisy, for people other than foeti who can not be known to value their own life and no-one else values it either? Why is this any more frightening??

See above. There are good social and practical reasons not to kill any children or adults. These reasons do not apply to foetuses.

Except of course if said persons are foeti. In that case even if someone other than their mother values them very much, they can still be killed. Hence, hypocrisy.

I do not believe that a foetus can be valued more than the mother values her own wellbeing, by anyone other than its mother.

It about as difficult as it is to differentiate between a foetus's desire to live at 28 weeks gestation as when it is 3 months post natal.
Answer you can't tell.
Is this supposed to help your argument in some way?

I do not believe that a 3 month post-natal baby can desire to live either. Not difficult to differentiate at all.

I don't know why. Possibly because they present an inconvenience that a lifetime of care would involve?

Perhaps. But it is entirely possible to lapse on one's responsibilities without legal recourse if one really doesn't value the person. Old people can be dumped on care homes and children on social services. Killing someone a way of not having to put up with them any more seems to be the mark of someone who is not very mentally stable.

Good. Impossible to tell re the foeutus unfortuantely; and guess what? There isn't a whole heap money going into researching this either. Who'd have thought it?

That is hardly my fault, is it?

So can you tell me how we can objectively quantify suffering in both the cases discussed?

Nope. It is conjecture on my part, but I think it is reasonable conjecture. And by the way, I certainly don't think you want to go down the route of claiming that women should be obliged to make babies in order to make other women happy.

 

[cantata]

p.s. Why is being aborted bad from the point of view of a foetus?

And since Mike will probably pipe up again, why would being quickly, painlessly, and non-preemptively killed be bad for a person who does not value their own life and whose life is not valued by others?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To cantata,
Originally Posted by brightmorningstar
Ok I accept what you are saying but there are two problems.
Firstly as to what you are claiming the foetus/baby 5 mins before birth can no more value itself than the baby born 5 mins later. So what is stopping the mother terminating the life of the baby at any time she sees fit before the baby can be seen to value itself?

Can you imagine how frightening it would be to live in a world where it was okay to kill born babies?

I do live in a world like that
http://www.impiousdigest.com/Livebirth.htm
http://www.priestsforlife.org/testimony/jillstanektestimony.htm

So you do if you realised it. Indeed does it make any difference to your views? If not do you even know what you are talking about?

The reality is there is no difference to your foetus and my baby 5 mins before it is born and 5 mins after. The MP in the UK who lead the fight to keep the abortion times and situation is an atheist gay lobbyist.

Also the question to you was

Either the statement that things (including life) is only valuable insofar as someone confers value on them is true or it is not. If you are using this argument to defend abortion then why is it wrong extend the argument to include the killing of any unvalued life?

Scenario 1: Abortion is legal.

Then maybe we need to make it illegal for you to be able tot address the question. The question was about the value of the foetus/life, not the abortion of it.