On the subject of abortion

Nathan45 · Apr 20, 2008

Here's my two cents on abortion:

I do not think there is any difference between aborting a fetus/embryo and not having a baby at all. Any combination of sperm and egg is a "potential human"-- the fetus, as a "potential human", does not have any more right to life than any random combination of sperm and egg.

Basically, the woman has reproductive freedom, she should be under no obligation to give life to this lump of flesh in her belly unless she wants too.

And there's a huge difference between a human being and a fetus: a human is priceless and an irreplacable part of the community--a 6 week old fetus can be replaced at will by any woman given 6 weeks time and therefore does not have value apart from being a 6 week old lump of flesh.

...

that being said, I don't see how anyone could misunderstand the pro-life position... the pro-life argument is not difficult or hard to understand, it's an extremely straitforward equivocation of a fetus with a person--and therefore of abortion with murder. There's nothing nuanced about it.

Nathan45 · Apr 20, 2008

Also, I think that pro-choice arguments which start "The fetus has a right to life, but... " are extremely weak.

If the fetus actually did have the right to life--in the same way people do--obviously the privacy or reproductive freedom of the woman wouldn't override it.

And "abortion will happen anyway" might as well read "murder will happen anyway" if you think that abortion is murder.

DeathMagus · Apr 20, 2008

Washington said:
Excuse me? What the heck are you talking about?

?????????

All I've done so far is address the matter of jmverville's remark, that preventing is not a matter of controlling, and your implication that dictating is not a matter of controlling. The fact that abortion is the subject of the thread is not relevant to the substance of my remarks.

So you're saying that JM's desired law preventing abortion is in fact, a form of control (inasmuch as any law is), and that his remark to the contrary couldn't possibly be a common colloquialism meaning that such a law would not be born out of a desire to be a busybody or control freak of others?

MikeMcK · Apr 20, 2008

Pwnzerfaust said:
Before I ask this question, allow me to make my position on abortion clear: It should be entirely up to the mother whether or not to have an abortion, except in the third trimester, at which point I'm not entirely sure.

Now, here's my question: Why do certain groups of people feel it is in their power to control the lives of others? Why do they feel they have the right to decide what a woman can and cannot do to her own body?

Abortion isn't about what a woman does with her own body, but about what she wants to do to a baby's body.

MoonlessNight · Apr 22, 2008

Abortion is one of those issues that really makes me lose faith in the whole idea of Democracy. Of course it's not that alone as I've never had too much faith in it in the first place, but it's the subject that takes democracy from "government good in practice but with many flaws" to "completely unworkable."

Why? The heart of the issue is that we do not agree on who is human (or at least a human that counts) and who is not. It's as simple as that, but that seems to be a principle that should have universal agreement if this system is going to work out in the long run. I mean, the duty of government is theoretically to protect the people, but a loophole exists where you can be declared not a person and therefore not worthy of protection.

Obviously this is especially disconcerting to me as I view abortion as heinous and as murder, but even if I didn't the fact that we are disagreeing at all is disconcerting. Even if you believe that the disagreement only furthers the bounds of who is human, it still implies that the condition of anyone or anything being human is perfectly up for debate.

It's a rather unfortunate issue because I don't think that we can afford to be wrong in this definition either way. If we call humans nonhuman, we deny them basic rights. If we call nonhuman things human, then we can't define human rights to their full extent.

cantata · Apr 22, 2008

MoonlessNight said:
It's a rather unfortunate issue because I don't think that we can afford to be wrong in this definition either way. If we call humans nonhuman, we deny them basic rights. If we call nonhuman things human, then we can't define human rights to their full extent.

Does anything possess rights, other than in a legal sense?

Meshavrischika · Apr 22, 2008

Pwnzerfaust said:
Before I ask this question, allow me to make my position on abortion clear: It should be entirely up to the mother whether or not to have an abortion, except in the third trimester, at which point I'm not entirely sure.

Now, here's my question: Why do certain groups of people feel it is in their power to control the lives of others? Why do they feel they have the right to decide what a woman can and cannot do to her own body?

Not intended to flame or troll or anything. Just trying to understand.

because they don't understand that enforcing morality doesn't truely save anyone (i.e. you might save a life but you're not saving a soul)... at least from a Christian perspective.

jayem · Apr 22, 2008

MoonlessNight said:
I mean, the duty of government is theoretically to protect the people, but a loophole exists where you can be declared not a person and therefore not worthy of protection.

A loophole would have to exist in any law restricting abortion. Which would be to allow termination in cases where the pregnancy poses a serious maternal health risk, or a potential threat to the mother's life. I work in health care. I know such cases, while not common, are not vanishingly rare either. And you really can't justify medically necessary abortion with the "self-defense" argument. The fetus itself does nothing to threaten the mother. Virtually always, the mother develops some illness or complication which could be worsened if the pregnancy continues. Even in ectopic pregnancy, the fetus is really just an innocent bystander. And if you accept abortion for medical reasons (as any reasonable person would) then you are saying that the welfare of the mother overrides the right to life of the fetus. You are implicitly agreeing that when the hard decisions have to be made, a fetus is not quite the same as someone who's been born. It's a "person," but with an asterisk. An innocent fetus's life may have to be forfeited if its mother's life is endangered. Its rights have this loophole that doesn't exist with other persons.

TooCurious · Apr 23, 2008

I don't think the "personhood" argument is sufficient to justify a legal ban or restriction on abortion--hear me out. Even if, for the sake of argument, we momentarily accept the premise that a fetus should be accorded the legal rights of a person, there are still other issues at stake.

The key issue with pregnancy is that the fetus is dependent on the woman's body for survival. As a result of the fetus's presence, the woman experiences significant physiological changes as the pregnancy progresses. Making abortion illegal is tantamount to saying that the government has the right to force a person to relinquish control over their own body for the sake of another person's life.

Let me offer a hypothetical example. Let's say there's an adult human (thus, there is absolutely no question over his "personhood") who is suffering from a life-threatening illness or injury, and requires a transfusion of blood matching his very rare blood type. Better yet, let's say instead he requires a bone marrow transplant, since compatible donors for bone marrow are significantly more rare. In the context of the hypothetical, only one person can be found who is a compatible match for the patient (and is near enough to donate in time to save his life, etc.), but for whatever reason, he does not wish to donate.

Does the government have the right to step in and say that the compatible person must undergo a medical procedure to donate blood or bone marrow, against his will, in order to save another person's life? One might argue that the person should willingly donate, from a moral perspective, but that isn't the issue. The issue is whether the government has the right to override that person's choice. What if the patient instead needed a kidney? Does the government still have the right to intervene?

Given that the US government cannot currently harvest your organs for donation even after you're dead unless you voluntarily sign up to be an organ donor, I'm guessing that the current legal answer to that is "no."

Pregnancy isn't a matter of trivial "inconvenience." Nine months of gestation, followed by labor and childbirth, are significant matters. Furthermore, pregnancy can permanently alter a woman's body chemistry. Leaving aside entirely the socioeconomic factors that might play into a woman's decision to have an abortion, it seems to me that the physiological concerns alone are sufficient to leave the choice firmly in the woman's hands.

MikeMcK · Apr 23, 2008

TooCurious said:
I don't think the "personhood" argument is sufficient to justify a legal ban or restriction on abortion--hear me out. Even if, for the sake of argument, we momentarily accept the premise that a fetus should be accorded the legal rights of a person, there are still other issues at stake.

The key issue with pregnancy is that the fetus is dependent on the woman's body for survival. As a result of the fetus's presence, the woman experiences significant physiological changes as the pregnancy progresses. Making abortion illegal is tantamount to saying that the government has the right to force a person to relinquish control over their own body for the sake of another person's life.

Let me offer a hypothetical example. Let's say there's an adult human (thus, there is absolutely no question over his "personhood") who is suffering from a life-threatening illness or injury, and requires a transfusion of blood matching his very rare blood type. Better yet, let's say instead he requires a bone marrow transplant, since compatible donors for bone marrow are significantly more rare. In the context of the hypothetical, only one person can be found who is a compatible match for the patient (and is near enough to donate in time to save his life, etc.), but for whatever reason, he does not wish to donate.

Does the government have the right to step in and say that the compatible person must undergo a medical procedure to donate blood or bone marrow, against his will, in order to save another person's life? One might argue that the person should willingly donate, from a moral perspective, but that isn't the issue. The issue is whether the government has the right to override that person's choice. What if the patient instead needed a kidney? Does the government still have the right to intervene?

Given that the US government cannot currently harvest your organs for donation even after you're dead unless you voluntarily sign up to be an organ donor, I'm guessing that the current legal answer to that is "no."

Pregnancy isn't a matter of trivial "inconvenience." Nine months of gestation, followed by labor and childbirth, are significant matters. Furthermore, pregnancy can permanently alter a woman's body chemistry. Leaving aside entirely the socioeconomic factors that might play into a woman's decision to have an abortion, it seems to me that the physiological concerns alone are sufficient to leave the choice firmly in the woman's hands.

In order for this to be analogous to abortion, the person who does not wish to donate the marrow must kill the person who needs the transplant.

Diane_Windsor · Apr 23, 2008

Washington said:
Whether or not his dictate is unreasonable doesn't chang the fact that it is still a dictate: telling someone else what they can or cannot do. And it doesn't matter if his reasons are pure or impure. Dictating is still an attempt to control the actions of another. And it's doing much more than "defending the idea that fetuses are individuals who should have the same rights as any other human." It is controling the actions of others. So let's not dance around the issue. To prevent someone from doing something means you are controlling them.

I don't think you're argument is logically sound. Let's say today that SCOTUS overturns Roe v. Wade and makes abortion in this country illegal. Will a mere law prevent a woman from getting an abortion? No.

Laws don't prevent someone from doing what they want to do~just look at the thousands of drug addicts in this country.

DeathMagus · Apr 23, 2008

MikeMcK said:
In order for this to be analogous to abortion, the person who does not wish to donate the marrow must kill the person who needs the transplant.

Only insomuch as it's easier to kill the fetus than it is to simply cut off necessary nourishment for it. Unless you're against the former, but fine with the latter, the distinction is largely aesthetic, rather than meaningful.

TooCurious · Apr 23, 2008

MikeMcK said:
In order for this to be analogous to abortion, the person who does not wish to donate the marrow must kill the person who needs the transplant.

As DeathMagus said, unless you know of a way for the woman to deny the zygote/fetus her bodily resources (including the occupancy of her womb) without killing it, that is not a meaningful distinction.

Further, in the case of my bone marrow hypothetical, the only way for the patient to survive his fatal illness is if the potential donor chooses to donate. When he does not, he makes a choice that means the patient will die, regardless of whether he's the one putting a bullet to him or not.

The question remains: Can (or should) the government have the authority to force one person to contribute his or her bodily resources (against his/her will) in order to sustain the life of another person?

cantata · Apr 24, 2008

I'd like to agree wholeheartedly with TooCurious' position, and add that having babies is definitely still dangerous. My mother's best friend died a few years ago due to complications with her daughter's birth - over eighteen years after the event. After her daughter was born, complications from the birth caused her to suffer chronic kidney infections which eventually led to her death when her daughter was a late teenager.

Apollo Celestio · Apr 24, 2008

cantata said:
I'd like to agree wholeheartedly with TooCurious' position, and add that having babies is definitely still dangerous. My mother's best friend died a few years ago due to complications with her daughter's birth - over eighteen years after the event. After her daughter was born, complications from the birth caused her to suffer chronic kidney infections which eventually led to her death when her daughter was a late teenager.

What did the mother say to her daughter? Did she curse her birth? Are mothers allowed to do that?

MikeMcK · Apr 24, 2008

TooCurious said:
As DeathMagus said, unless you know of a way for the woman to deny the zygote/fetus her bodily resources (including the occupancy of her womb) without killing it, that is not a meaningful distinction.

It's a very meaningful distinction, as I've already explained.

Further, in the case of my bone marrow hypothetical, the only way for the patient to survive his fatal illness is if the potential donor chooses to donate. When he does not, he makes a choice that means the patient will die, regardless of whether he's the one putting a bullet to him or not.

There is a difference between someone dying as a result of care withheld, and a mother and doctor making a conscious decision to aggresively kill the baby.

The question remains: Can (or should) the government have the authority to force one person to contribute his or her bodily resources (against his/her will) in order to sustain the life of another person?

In the case of killing a baby, yes.

The woman made the choice to have sex. The consequences are now hers to bear, not the baby's.

TooCurious · Apr 24, 2008

MikeMcK said:
It's a very meaningful distinction, as I've already explained.

You haven't explained it, you've claimed it. That is a meaningful distinction.

MikeMcK said:
There is a difference between someone dying as a result of care withheld, and a mother and doctor making a conscious decision to aggresively kill the baby.

In both cases, a choice is made that results in the death of another party. I'm interested in understanding in further detail what you see as the difference between the two examples.

MikeMcK said:
In the case of killing a baby, yes.

Leaving aside your use of inflammatory and controversial terminology, you didn't fully answer the question. What about in the case of a bone marrow or kidney donation? Consider the legal precedent being set when such a mandate is legislated.

MikeMcK said:
The woman made the choice to have sex. The consequences are now hers to bear, not the baby's.

I've always thought there was something intensely disturbing about the notion of a baby being a "consequence," as if pregnancy and motherhood were punishments for sexual indiscretion.

DeathMagus · Apr 24, 2008

MikeMcK said:
It's a very meaningful distinction, as I've already explained.

Must have missed it:

MikeMcK said:
Abortion isn't about what a woman does with her own body, but about what she wants to do to a [fetus]'s body.

MikeMcK said:
In order for this to be analogous to abortion, the person who does not wish to donate the marrow must kill the person who needs the transplant.

All I see are assertions, not explanations.

MikeMcK said:
There is a difference between someone dying as a result of care withheld, and a mother and doctor making a conscious decision to aggresively kill the baby.

Is there a practical difference, or is it just easier to live with one's self by rationalizing that one isn't at fault because "nature" killed the fetus instead of you? At any rate, this whole line of thought is pointless unless you're fine with depriving a fetus of necessary nutrition, etc. If a doctor could somehow simply snip the umbilical cord and remove the fetus, would you be alright with that? If not, then you're constructing an elaborate strawman.

MikeMcK said:
In the case of killing a [fetus], yes.

The woman made the choice to have sex. The consequences are now hers to bear, not the [fetus]'s.

I don't think you phrased this in a way that makes sense. Perhaps your position is better represented by the idea that she has a responsibility towards the fetus?

cantata · Apr 25, 2008

Ishida said:
What did the mother say to her daughter? Did she curse her birth? Are mothers allowed to do that?

No, she loved her daughter enormously. What a peculiar question.

Mothers are allowed to do whatever they like. I'd rather they didn't curse their children, of course.

MikeMcK · Apr 25, 2008

DeathMagus said:
Must have missed it:

No, you just choose to ignore it.

Is there a practical differenone's self by rationalizing that one isn't at fault because "nature" killed the fetus instead of you?

Yes, there is a moral difference.

I don't think you phrased this in a way that makes sense.

To you, I'm sure it doesn't.

And, just so you know, I know you think you're being clever by lying about what I said, but fetus still means baby.

On the subject of abortion

Nathan45

Guest

Nathan45

Guest

Stater of the Obvious

Well-Known Member

Fides et Ratio

Queer non-theist, with added jam.

for Thy greater honor and glory

Naturalist

Kitten with a ball of string

Well-Known Member

Senior Contributor

Stater of the Obvious

Kitten with a ball of string

Queer non-theist, with added jam.

Deal with it.

Well-Known Member

Kitten with a ball of string

Stater of the Obvious

Queer non-theist, with added jam.

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency