Justifying Abortion

[xpower]

I don't agree with abortion, but instead of just condemning abortion, why don't we try to find some practical alternatives to abortion and encourage those.

Like putting on wanted babies up for adoption and encouraging that and making it easier, I am sure there are many aspiring parents that would love to have children but can't.

Or making having children more economical, some people can't really afford to have children, when they can barely take care of themselves. As modern-day life seems to becoming more expensive and many of us young people Who come out of college are already in deep debt.

Or just make condoms and birth control more easily accessible.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We just heard a good deal of interesting rhetoric in the third presidential debate last night. Clinton's main line of argument was that she did not believe that the government should make the difficult decision of terminating a pregnancy, but that this decision should be in the hands of women and their families.

Part of this line of argument is that there can be some pretty disturbing and perplexing medical cases that pregnant women face:

There are situations wherein the child/fetus has some disease that makes it so that the child will be born, suffer agony for a few hours or days, and then die. Perhaps women and families should have the option to terminate a pregnancy to spare the child and family from this pain.

Furthermore there are cases wherein the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother - sometimes to a certainty. If the mother carries the child to term she will likely die. Perhaps women and families should have the freedom to terminate such a pregnancy in order to save the life of the mother.

Admittedly, these situations are tragic and morally perplexing. But they are extreme and incredibly rare. They don't even represent 1% of abortions performed. Pro-Choice folks use these extreme situations in order to justify the vast majority of abortions which have nothing to do with saving the life of the mother or sparing a terminally ill fetus from agonizing pain.

For this reason I believe that these situations ought not be considered when debating the legality or moral permissibility of abortion. These cases are so extreme and so rare that they ought to be dealt with separately. Conclusions we make in these cases should have no bearing on conclusions made about the vast majority of abortions. And so these cases should not be used to defend abortion wholesale.

While those cases are indeed only relevant to those case, I don't need such case to argue "pro choice".

It's a women's decision what can and cannot happen in her own body.
And for me, that is final.

It's autonomy over your own body.
For me, if a woman can be forced to have her body play host to another being, then the exact same logic could be used to force someone to hand over a kidney or bone marrow or whatever, to save another being.

It doesn't matter at all how you personally feel about it in ethical or moral ways. It's the woman's decision. If are against abortions... don't get one.

But don't tell others what they can and cannot do to their own bodies.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't know for sure. All I know is that Yahweh has destroyed plenty of nations in the past and won't hesitate to do so again if we do not fear him and give him glory.

Why would you fear someone that supposedly "loves you"?

My wife loves me. I don't fear her.
My parents love me. I don't fear them.

People I fear, usually aren't people who love me, but rather people who wish to do me harm and are motivated to do so.

I wouldn't worship such people either, by the way.

 

[Skavau]

The atheist silly notion that it is anybodys responsibility to convince them of anything,they place themselves on a pedestal and invite everyone to sit at their feet and try to sway them.

This is a discussion forum. It's up to you what you do, but chanting "God exists" or "God does X" at people is useless. It's especially useless when you're trying to argue that abortion is wrong for secular reasons.

 

[Skavau]

A reminder to Atheist,a Christian has no common ground with you and in the context of Christianity it is you who are irrelevant.

So why are you even talking to Atheists then? What's the point?

And you think Christians have no common ground with Atheists, seriously? Are you that bunkered off?

 

[Skavau]

God gives people over to a reprobate mind,America is in the process of being destroyed but because we have celebrities,football,homosexual marriage and porn people think all is well,indeed they judge well being by being able to indulge themselves and ignore the eroding financial,cultural and social rot that is eating away because the party for now is still on,our eneimies are watching and waiting for the right time.

What enemies?

This really sounds like you're arguing against having fun.

 

[Strivax]

Admittedly, these situations are tragic and morally perplexing. But they are extreme and incredibly rare. They don't even represent 1% of abortions performed.

...

Conclusions we make in these cases should have no bearing on conclusions made about the vast majority of abortions. And so these cases should not be used to defend abortion wholesale.

It's good to hear a rational voice in this discussion.

So, just to make myself unpopular, with just about everyone, I'm going to state my point of view for you all to pick over, if you have nothing better to do with your lives.

I am both 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice'.

I am pro-life because I think, in a perfect world, there would be no abortions. And I am pro-choice out of compassion for women who do not live in a perfect world.

To elaborate, a little. I believe society owes a 'duty of care'. And that duty of care extends most especially to the most vulnerable in the world; the sick, the poor, the disabled, the marginal, the young, the old. And even to the most vulnerable of all; the unborn, each capax universi, as all people are, potentially capable of anything.

But, I think if society wishes to express that duty of care, then societies need to win the debate, each by discussing with each and all. You cannot inflict compulsorily a duty of care on those who do not want it, since this will only arouse resentment and rejection. And it will particularly be resented and rejected if the attempt is made to present a quasi-religious moral case, to people who do not share your quasi-religious morality. You cannot create a virtuous individual by subjecting dissenters to those laws that conveniently suit your own world-view. If we are to have a duty of care, it must be a burden lightly bourne by the whole of society, voluntarily, for the good of the whole of society.

So, I believe a case can be made, on the starting basis that inflicting any harm on anybody is generally immoral, unless there are significantly overriding extenuating circumstances, like self-defence.

And, I think, once societies accept this idea, and all harms are included in the discussion, then I think we stand a reasonable chance of persuading women that their case is not unique, not a matter of sexual subjugation, just the working out of a moral principle everyone should subscribe to, for their own good, and everyone else's. When we have won that argument, and come together in unanimity, then there will be no need for anti-abortion legislation. Pregnant women will make their choice, and it will be their choice, and it will be the right choice.

And we really can win this argument, about harms, if we want to. The question is, does society really want to, given the implications and ramifications ...

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[JustHereToTalk]

There is a deeper problem with Mrs. Clinton's position, aside from her citing medical reasons for late-term abortion, when a child could simply be delivered early to save the mother's health, rather than butchered and then removed.

She was not simply defending a stance on abortion, but on federal action to control state policies on abortion, and that action being called upon by the judges of the Supreme Court in RvW. She cited no constitutional recognition of a person's right to an abortion (perhaps relying on RvW as implication); she simply stated that judges ought to use their power in favor of one.

There is a thing called consent of the governed, and the USA was built upon it. We do not only choose our leaders; we choose what decisions they can make. For the federal government, we have listed what decisions they can make, exclusively, in the United States Constitution. What provision was made therein for the federal government to rule state policy on abortion?

All of the issues which were briefly discussed by the OP should be considered and hashed out by the people of the states. Is the unborn a person with rights? When does he become so? How do his rights compare to that of his mother? Are there times when ending his life at the will of another is justified? Can it be done as a profession? What regulations should be placed on that practice? How are the circumstances of these issues different in our commonwealth as opposed to others?

Those are all things that the people in their sovereignty need to hash out together, in their respective states. Mrs. Clinton, however, would rather the federal government usurp authority that it has not been given, and effect her personal opinion upon the entire nation to a further extent than what was done in RvW. Trump and other Republicans would oft do the same thing of course, but this thread is about abortion.

 

[JustHereToTalk]

But don't tell others what they can and cannot do to their own bodies.

Sorry, you don't have the right to use your body to destroy another person's body. That's called murder, and government has been controlling such actions for a long time. You don't have a right to use your body to violate the rights of another person.

(I would also point out to Mrs. Clinton the many ways that she believes that she should be able to control my body, but you're not Mrs. Clinton)

The issue is not about what a person can and cannot do with his or her own body. It is about whether the unborn is a person with rights. We have given no clearly assigned power to the federal government to figure that out. It is an issue for the people to debate in the states. That's where Mrs. Clinton is a tyrant on this issue.

 

[Strathos]

While those cases are indeed only relevant to those case, I don't need such case to argue "pro choice".

It's a women's decision what can and cannot happen in her own body.
And for me, that is final.

It's autonomy over your own body.
For me, if a woman can be forced to have her body play host to another being, then the exact same logic could be used to force someone to hand over a kidney or bone marrow or whatever, to save another being.

It doesn't matter at all how you personally feel about it in ethical or moral ways. It's the woman's decision. If are against abortions... don't get one.

But don't tell others what they can and cannot do to their own bodies.

We're not talking about a stranger here. I'd gladly give up an organ or blood to save my own child, as would any good parent.

 

[Cearbhall]

There are situations wherein the child/fetus has some disease that makes it so that the child will be born, suffer agony for a few hours or days, and then die. Perhaps women and families should have the option to terminate a pregnancy to spare the child and family from this pain.

Furthermore there are cases wherein the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother - sometimes to a certainty. If the mother carries the child to term she will likely die. Perhaps women and families should have the freedom to terminate such a pregnancy in order to save the life of the mother.

And this covers pretty much all partial-birth abortion cases. It's not a procedure that women go into because they decide they won't want to be pregnant.

Admittedly, these situations are tragic and morally perplexing. But they are extreme and incredibly rare. They don't even represent 1% of abortions performed. Pro-Choice folks use these extreme situations in order to justify the vast majority of abortions which have nothing to do with saving the life of the mother or sparing a terminally ill fetus from agonizing pain.

To be honest, I don't feel a need to "justify" it anymore than I feel the need to justify my freedom of speech or my right to not be an organ donor. It's just one of the many rights that is essential to a productive, first-world society. It's weird to me that the topic keeps coming up, and that it was one of the topics chosen for the debate. It's over. We had an odd period in American history where it was outlawed because of the Victorian era, and then we went back to kicking government out of medical decisions. What's next? Debating interracial marriage?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sorry, you don't have the right to use your body to destroy another person's body.

People have a right to bodily autonomy.
Otherwise, you can just pick up people on the streets by force and rob them of their organs.

You don't have a right to use your body to violate the rights of another person.

The woman has rights to. And it is HER body.

(I would also point out to Mrs. Clinton the many ways that she believes that she should be able to control my body, but you're not Mrs. Clinton)

Nore do I care about her opinion on the matter.

The issue is not about what a person can and cannot do with his or her own body.

It is, actually, because we are talking about the woman's body.

It is about whether the unborn is a person with rights.

And if it does, wheter they override the rights of another person.
I say: no, they don't.

Just like if I am the only suitable donor in the world to provide you with a kidney, I cannot be forced to do so - even if that means that you'll die.

Your rights don't override my rights.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We're not talking about a stranger here. I'd gladly give up an organ or blood to save my own child, as would any good parent.

Good for you.

My point is that nobody can force you to do so, as it concerns YOUR body and you are the master of what does and doesn't happen to and in your body.

 

[Cearbhall]

We're not talking about a stranger here. I'd gladly give up an organ or blood to save my own child, as would any good parent.

Cool, but there's no law saying you have to, and no nurses would ever pin you down to forcibly take blood from you. They'd go to prison.

I know House and his team did some illegal stuff because they liked their decisions better than those of some of their patients, but that's not real life.

 

[essentialsaltes]

All of the issues which were briefly discussed by the OP should be considered and hashed out by the people of the states.

We tried that with slavery, and later decided that it wasn't such a good idea.

Heck, we tried it with abortion, and the Supreme Court ultimately decided that, just like for slavery, the states have to abide by a constitutional right.

 

[Tree of Life]

To be honest, I don't feel a need to "justify" it anymore than I feel the need to justify my freedom of speech or my right to not be an organ donor. It's just one of the many rights that is essential to a productive, first-world society. It's weird to me that the topic keeps coming up, and that it was one of the topics chosen for the debate. It's over. We had an odd period in American history where it was outlawed because of the Victorian era, and then we went back to kicking government out of medical decisions. What's next? Debating interracial marriage?

It might not be quite as over as you think. If Trump is elected and appoints conservative justices then Roe v Wade could be overturned and the decision making would be turned back to the states. Don't get too comfortable.

 

[Skavau]

I don't mean to tempt hubris, but all polling indicates Trump is going to get obliterated at the general election.

 

[Hetta]

A reminder to Atheist,a Christian has no common ground with you and in the context of Christianity it is you who are irrelevant.

Because that loving attitude always wins them over, right.

 

[JustHereToTalk]

We tried that with slavery, and later decided that it wasn't such a good idea.

Heck, we tried it with abortion, and the Supreme Court ultimately decided that, just like for slavery, the states have to abide by a constitutional right.

I'm not sure that you have noticed, but there is a constitutional ban on slavery.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Now, where is power to decide matters on abortion granted to the federal government?

 

[Tree of Life]

I don't mean to tempt hubris, but all polling indicates Trump is going to get obliterated at the general election.

We will see.