Pro-Choice Arguments

Libre · Sep 27, 2008

Historical attitudes to abortion

Abortion in ancient history

Ancient Greece and Rome

Abortion was accepted in both ancient Rome and Greece.
The Romans and Greeks weren't much concerned with protecting the unborn, and when they did object to abortion it was often because the father didn't want to be deprived of a child that he felt entitled to.
The early philosophers also argued that a foetus did not become formed and begin to live until at least 40 days after conception for a male, and around 80 days for a female. The philosopher Aristotle wrote:

...when couples have children in excess, let abortion be procured before sense and life have begun; what may or may not be lawfully done in these cases depends on the question of life and sensation.

Aristotle thought that female embryos developed more slowly than male embryos, but made up for lost time by developing more quickly after birth. He appears to have arrived at this idea by seeing the relative development of male and female foetuses that had been miscarried.
Bible times

The Old Testament has several legal passages that refer to abortion, but they deal with it in terms of loss of property and not sanctity of life.
The status of the foetus as property in the Bible is shown by the law that if a person causes a miscarriage they must pay a fine to the husband of the woman, but if they also cause the woman to die then they are liable to be killed.
The New Testament doesn't explicitly deal with abortion.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/legal/history_print.html

Eleveness · Sep 27, 2008

Libre said:
The Romans and Greeks weren't much concerned with protecting the unborn, and when they did object to abortion it was often because the father didn't want to be deprived of a child that he felt entitled to.

Ahh, that opens up an entirely new dimension in the abortion debate: Does the father get to have any say in whether the fetus is aborted?

I am of the opinion that no, the father does not get a say, because it's not his body that's carrying the fetus. Specifically, the father (or anyone else, for that matter) does not have the right to confiscate a portion of the pregnant woman's blood for the purpose of sustaining the life of the fetus, because it isn't his blood. That blood is the property of the pregnant woman, and only she has the right to decide how the oxygen and nutrients in it are spent.

Now, consider the following hypothetical scenario:
1. It is possible for a fetus to develop inside the body of a man
2. It is possible to transplant a fetus from a woman's body to a man's
3. The father of a fetus doesn't want it aborted, but the woman does
4. The father is willing to pay for the medical procedure to transplant the fetus from the mother's body to his
5. There are no potential complications from the procedure

In this bizarre situation, I could see that the mother would be obligated to transplant the fetus from her body to his, in lieu of abortion. In this situation, outright abortion would be wrong, since there is a willing "host", and it is possible to transplant the fetus to the new host.

If there are any of you not creeped out by the idea, what are your thoughts?

(Let me add that since I am a man, one would expect me to defend a father's say in whether or not a fetus is aborted. I have no choice but to respect a woman's rights over her own body, and so I agree that I do not have the right to confiscate a woman's uterus and blood without her consent.)

Eleveness · Sep 27, 2008

I should also add: Since the father does not get a say, he should not be obligated to pay child support if he does not wish for the fetus to be born, but the woman does. If we force an unwilling father to pay child support, the mother can use this to blackmail the father. She can (legitimately) say (for example), "If you don't buy me a new car, then I'll give birth to this child, and then you'll have to pay child support (which would probably be more than the cost of the car). On the other hand, if you buy me a car, I'll abort the fetus." Does that sound right to you?

As I see it, there are two ways to prevent this blackmail:
1. Let the father have a say in whether the fetus is aborted
2. Abolish (compulsory) child support

I believe option 2 is better, since the father shouldn't have a say in what goes on inside a woman's body. But I think either option is better than the blackmail.

Libre · Sep 27, 2008

You have just made my point. We don't want to return to repressive, male-dominated views of this. We don't want to force a woman to carry or not carry a child. The law concentrates on the point of woman's choice. Child support and all extraneous factors are another matter and the courts will deal with them. But the decisions are for the living, and if the child is born, it is to be supported. That is the way the legal cookie crumbles.

Eleveness · Sep 27, 2008

Libre said:
You have just made my point.

Oh yes, I'm not (necessarily) disagreeing with you; I'm just adding to the discussion.

We don't want to return to repressive, male-dominated views of this. We don't want to force a woman to carry or not carry a child.

If only it were that simple....

The law concentrates on the point of woman's choice. Child support and all extraneous factors are another matter and the courts will deal with them. But the decisions are for the living, and if the child is born, it is to be supported. That is the way the legal cookie crumbles.

But is it right to force a person to care for a child if that person doesn't wish to do so, and that person has never indicated his or her desire to care for the child? Contrary to the opinions of many people on this board (not necessarily you), I do not believe that the mere act of sex implies willingness to care for a child.

I believe that there should be a way for a man to formally state his unwillingness to care for a child. I am thinking of something like a legal document--call it a "parental responsibility waiver"--that a man can sign and then, if he impregnates a woman after signing the waiver, he is free of any responsibility of caring for the child; specifically, he is not required to pay child support. A woman can search for and locate this waiver (if it exists), and if she finds that her boyfriend has signed such a waiver, she can take that fact into account when she is considering having sex with him.

Of course, I doubt most people would be so responsible, even if the possibility existed. But I do wish to say that the possibility of paying child support is a major reason why I do not wish to have sex. The institution of child support cripples my ability to express my love for a woman. That's why I take issue with it. And (getting back on the topic of abortion), I also take issue with it since I don't get to have a say in whether a woman has an abortion.

Libre · Sep 27, 2008

Eleveness said:
Oh yes, I'm not (necessarily) disagreeing with you; I'm just adding to the discussion.

If only it were that simple....

But is it right to force a person to care for a child if that person doesn't wish to do so, and that person has never indicated his or her desire to care for the child? Contrary to the opinions of many people on this board (not necessarily you), I do not believe that the mere act of sex implies willingness to care for a child.

I believe that there should be a way for a man to formally state his unwillingness to care for a child. I am thinking of something like a legal document--call it a "parental responsibility waiver"--that a man can sign and then, if he impregnates a woman after signing the waiver, he is free of any responsibility of caring for the child; specifically, he is not required to pay child support. A woman can search for and locate this waiver (if it exists), and if she finds that her boyfriend has signed such a waiver, she can take that fact into account when she is considering having sex with him.

Of course, I doubt most people would be so responsible, even if the possibility existed. But I do wish to say that the possibility of paying child support is a major reason why I do not wish to have sex. The institution of child support cripples my ability to express my love for a woman. That's why I take issue with it. And (getting back on the topic of abortion), I also take issue with it since I don't get to have a say in whether a woman has an abortion.

You can't be serious! It's men like you the laws are written to protect children from. If you are the father, you pay. No waivers. A waiver would encourage abortions in many cases. You are swimming against the tide on this one. Won't ever happen. Grandma was right. You can't call back the feathers once they leave the pillow. But you can pick them out of your hair.

JediMobius · Sep 30, 2008

Archivist said:
Perhaps the "maternal instinct" does kick in in some cases involving rape. The advantage of the pro-choice view is that the final decision rests with the rape victim. The choice to either terminate the pregnancy or give birth rests entirely with her as it should.

I'm still conflicted whether an abortion should be legal in cases where the unborn child would cause deep physical or psychological harm to the mother, but that alone should not justify the whole of abortion as some pro-choice proponents have argued.

There was recently a case in Indiana where the rapist was given visitation rights. Laws govern custody and visitation are a state matter. There are states where visitation rights would never be be granted to a rapist.

That's horrible, I can't believe any court in America today would allow that. If that's true, such an injustice should be corrected and never allowed again.

Because a woman who is a victim of rape should not be forced to give birth against her will. Although I know of no case law on the subject, I would think that forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term and give birth against her will would qualify as indentured servitude, something that the US Constitution specifically forbids.

In the case of rape, I would agree that the victim should have that choice, but not the women who use it as a post-conception method of birth control.

JediMobius · Sep 30, 2008

exxxys said:
A woman's choices comes before that of a blob with eight cells because she has a life already, and her needs must be met.

exxxys said:
Seriously, eight cells. That's not a fetus. A fetus is a baby after three months. An embryo is after it attaches to the wall. Not a child, cells.

They're all stages in the development of a unique human being, even those 8 cells (even when they're only 2) have DNA different from the mother's. How can you say when the egg becomes an individual and when it isn't?

JediMobius · Sep 30, 2008

karisma said:
This is the only point I'll bother addressing as it encompasses the other two. All people have the right to bodily integrity. No born person has the right to another's blood or organs as it violates their right to bodily integrity. This applies even if it means saving that person's life.

Hypothetical scenario 1: a hemophiliac infant with a rare blood type is born and needs an emergency blood transfusion to survive. Neither parent is required by law to donate blood to save the infant. That baby can bleed to death right in front of the parents and it's perfectly legal, as forcing people to give blood or organs is considered a violation of the right to bodily integrity. No born child has any right to a parent's blood or organs, and in the interest of equal rights, neither can a fetus.

Hypothetical scenario two: an otherwise healthy 18 year old is killed in a tragic accident. This person is not an organ donor. Even though this person's perfectly healthy kidneys, heart, and other organs could be used to save many other lives, it is against the law to take that person's organs, as it would violate their right to bodily integrity. A person can lie dying in a hospital bed while those organs get buried with the person.

As you can see, one individual's right to bodily integrity supercedes another's right to life, even when that violation will save another's life. This right to bodily integrity even applies to the deceased. A person (or the unborn) may have a right to life, but they do not have the right to violate another's right to bodily integrity.

Both of these hypothetical scenarios are examples of a life that is in peril from beyond the individual's control. Choosing not to rescue an individual is very different from choosing to keep the individual from ever living. It is a lack of action to withhold blood or organs which could save a life, but a deliberate action to abort a life.

JediMobius · Sep 30, 2008

Libre said:
Karisma, you have stated the principle here very well. If we can legislate on pregnancy, then we can legislate on other private matters involving a woman's right to choose. The Nazis violated women's bodies. We are not Nazis, but the potential to fall into a very dark place will exist if we try to overturn the right to reproductive privacy. It will probably never be overturned, since after 40 years it is precedent. Not even the most recent liberal judge would vote to do so, citing the reason I just gave.

Conversely, if an individual's right to life and other rights are denied during pregnancy, the precedent could be used to justify violating the rights of a child, and from there an adult. If a legislative body were to use Anti-abortion legislation to justify oppression, that would prove the corruption of the system, not call into question the validity of the abortion law. It's the same with warrant-less wire-tapping. The reason of national security is not invalid, but the method which takes away constitutional rights for the sake of security is corrupt. Therefor the legal implications of banning abortion are no reason to allow abortion to continue.

JediMobius · Sep 30, 2008

Eleveness said:
Excellent argument! This is similar to an argument I stated a few months ago, but I was not convinced anyone took it seriously, so I stopped posting. But I can now see that someone cares about the rights of the pregnant woman, so I feel empowered to post again.

The argument in favor of abortion on the grounds of the the rights of the pregnant woman can be condensed as follows:

1. A pregnant woman is a human being.
2. All human beings have ownership rights over their own body (what you call "bodily integrity").
3. It follows from #1 and #2 that a pregnant woman owns her own body.
4. A person's blood is part of his or her body.
5. It follows from #3 and #4 that a pregnant woman owns the blood in her body.
6. A person's blood contains nutrients that are to be spent only in accordance with its owner's wishes. No one other than the owner has the right to decide how the nutrients in his or her bloodstream are spent, regardless of whether another's life depends on the nutrients in that bloodstream.
7. It follows from #5 and #6 that a pregnant woman has the exclusive right to determine how the nutrients in her bloodstream are spent, even if her decision results in the death of someone else.
8. The life of the fetus inside the pregnant woman depends upon the nutrients in the bloodstream of the pregnant woman.
9. It follows from #7 and #8 that the pregnant woman has the exclusive right to determine whether the nutrients in her bloodstream are spent on the life of the fetus.

Believe me: I really, truly, honestly don't know how to make the argument any clearer that that. If it was tedious to read, believe me--it was tedious to write, but I wrote it in such a way to make it as clear and airtight as possible. I truly cannot find any flaw in the above argument; I encourage the reader to try and find a flaw.

If there is no flaw, then we may conclude, once and for all, that a pregnant woman has the right to abort if she so desires. Whether or not the fetus has any rights is absolutely irrelevant; even if the fetus is a human being, and even if it has all of the rights of a 21-year-old (ha!), it still does not have the right to deprive its mother of her property, which includes the nutrients in her bloodstream. No one has the right to deprive a person of their property--not even a fetus.

It may not be a drawn-up legal contract, but by consenting to sex, a woman thereby agrees to risk pregnancy and the responsibilities thereof. If this were not so, any man or woman could deny food and clothing to their own child indefinitely on the basis of personal property rights. The rights given us are only valid so long as exercising these rights does not infringe upon the rights of another.

JediMobius · Sep 30, 2008

icarus62 said:
The circumstances in which a woman gets pregnant are entirely beside the point. It's not appropriate for me or anyone else to judge whether a woman's reasons are 'good enough' for her to have an abortion - that's for her to decide. What matters is whether the abortion involves killing what is essentially a featureless blob of cells (which surely cannot have rights which supersede those of the parents), or whether it involves killing something that is indistinguishable from a newborn baby (which cannot be any different from murdering a newborn baby). Therefore, the only way to deal with this is to set a time limit and say that abortion is acceptable only up to a certain stage of development, which is what most civilised countries have opted to do.

How is such a thing decided? Is it human once it becomes a fetus at 9 weeks? Is it human once brain activity begins in the 6th week as an embryo? Is it human at conception? The specific DNA of the [to be] individual is in place and is growing of its own accord, though it must do so within the womb of its mother who provides the nutrients needed. The zygote which forms from the fertilized egg will become a human being barring complications. To prevent even a miniscule being from becoming a child is taking away its right to life. Would a mortgage company be allowed to prevent a man from owning a home? The down payment has already been made. Even if evidence of further payment cannot be seen, the mortgage company doesn't get to take away the house until payments have been missed and the contract is breached.

brightmorningstar · Sep 30, 2008

To icarus62,

The circumstances in which a woman gets pregnant are entirely beside the point

They are crucial. If a woman and a man have unprotected sexual intercourse conception is likely to occur, if they haven’t planned that its they who have made the mistake and they who need to face the consequences. .

What matters is whether the abortion involves killing what is essentially a featureless blob of cells (which surely cannot have rights which supersede those of the parents), or whether it involves killing something that is indistinguishable from a newborn baby (which cannot be any different from murdering a newborn baby). Therefore, the only way to deal with this is to set a time limit and say that abortion is acceptable only up to a certain stage of development, which is what most civilised countries have opted to do.

No that’s a pro-choice decision, the reality is life has already started, as stated so well by TheLowlyTortoise, ‘To prevent even a miniscule being from becoming a child is taking away its right to life.’

The question is at which stage do you propose taking away the life? As far as I am concerned it doesn’t matter so much to me at what stage you propose, though I guess later rather than earlier, say 70 years old.

JediMobius · Sep 30, 2008

Eleveness said:
Ahh, the problem with this reasoning is that it's possible to have sex for reasons other than for procreation. Sex among lesser animals has only one purpose--procreation, but sex between consenting humans could have multiple purposes.

The most common reason why humans have sex seems to be to express the love that each partner has for each other. The two partners have very strong feelings for each other (that lesser animals are incapable of possessing), and sex is the most effective way to communicate those feelings. If we prohibit abortion, we may as well prohibit sex altogether, since (as you point out) a woman always runs the risk of becoming pregnant when she has sex (even if she's on birth control, even if the man has had a vasectomy).

"If we prohibit abortion, we may as well prohibit sex altogether" - I don't get that, how does that follow from the previous assertions?

There's nothing more quintessentially human than true love. If we prohibit abortion, we cripple a person's capacity to express feelings of love to his or her partner. Does that sound right?

Refusing to care for the child that results from having sex contradicts that there was love in the first place.

JediMobius · Sep 30, 2008

Libre said:
Historical attitudes to abortion

Abortion in ancient history

Ancient Greece and Rome

Abortion was accepted in both ancient Rome and Greece.
The Romans and Greeks weren't much concerned with protecting the unborn, and when they did object to abortion it was often because the father didn't want to be deprived of a child that he felt entitled to.
The early philosophers also argued that a foetus did not become formed and begin to live until at least 40 days after conception for a male, and around 80 days for a female. The philosopher Aristotle wrote:
...when couples have children in excess, let abortion be procured before sense and life have begun; what may or may not be lawfully done in these cases depends on the question of life and sensation.
Aristotle thought that female embryos developed more slowly than male embryos, but made up for lost time by developing more quickly after birth. He appears to have arrived at this idea by seeing the relative development of male and female foetuses that had been miscarried.
Bible times

The Old Testament has several legal passages that refer to abortion, but they deal with it in terms of loss of property and not sanctity of life.
The status of the foetus as property in the Bible is shown by the law that if a person causes a miscarriage they must pay a fine to the husband of the woman, but if they also cause the woman to die then they are liable to be killed.
The New Testament doesn't explicitly deal with abortion.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/legal/history_print.html

Firstly, this has little to do with the points of the thread. Secondly, not one verse or passage is cited from where the bible supposedly deals with abortion as "loss of property and not sanctity of life."

brightmorningstar · Sep 30, 2008

To Eleveness,

There's nothing more quintessentially human than true love. If we prohibit abortion, we cripple a person's capacity to express feelings of love to his or her partner. Does that sound right?

What you have written doesnt sound right. Love isnt sex, the two are different, sex may be a part of a loving relationship, but I love chocolate but that doesnt mean I have sex with it.
Furthermore I love many people but it doesnt cause conception unless I have sex with them. How about a rewording of your post ?
There's nothing more quintessentially human than true sex. If we prohibit abortion, we cripple a person's capacity to express feelings of sex to his or her partner. Does that sound right?
Nope.

JediMobius · Sep 30, 2008

Eleveness said:
Ahh, that opens up an entirely new dimension in the abortion debate: Does the father get to have any say in whether the fetus is aborted?

I am of the opinion that no, the father does not get a say, because it's not his body that's carrying the fetus. Specifically, the father (or anyone else, for that matter) does not have the right to confiscate a portion of the pregnant woman's blood for the purpose of sustaining the life of the fetus, because it isn't his blood. That blood is the property of the pregnant woman, and only she has the right to decide how the oxygen and nutrients in it are spent.

Now, consider the following hypothetical scenario:
1. It is possible for a fetus to develop inside the body of a man
2. It is possible to transplant a fetus from a woman's body to a man's
3. The father of a fetus doesn't want it aborted, but the woman does
4. The father is willing to pay for the medical procedure to transplant the fetus from the mother's body to his
5. There are no potential complications from the procedure

In this bizarre situation, I could see that the mother would be obligated to transplant the fetus from her body to his, in lieu of abortion. In this situation, outright abortion would be wrong, since there is a willing "host", and it is possible to transplant the fetus to the new host.

If there are any of you not creeped out by the idea, what are your thoughts?

(Let me add that since I am a man, one would expect me to defend a father's say in whether or not a fetus is aborted. I have no choice but to respect a woman's rights over her own body, and so I agree that I do not have the right to confiscate a woman's uterus and blood without her consent.)

Eleveness said:
I should also add: Since the father does not get a say, he should not be obligated to pay child support if he does not wish for the fetus to be born, but the woman does.

Are you serious?

If we force an unwilling father to pay child support, the mother can use this to blackmail the father. She can (legitimately) say (for example), "If you don't buy me a new car, then I'll give birth to this child, and then you'll have to pay child support (which would probably be more than the cost of the car). On the other hand, if you buy me a car, I'll abort the fetus." Does that sound right to you?

As I see it, there are two ways to prevent this blackmail:
1. Let the father have a say in whether the fetus is aborted
2. Abolish (compulsory) child support

I believe option 2 is better, since the father shouldn't have a say in what goes on inside a woman's body. But I think either option is better than the blackmail.

I'm not trying to insult you or anything, but this is ridiculous. If, say, the father raped the mother in the first place, and the father doesn't want her to have the child, but the mother decides to let the innocent child live, by your reasoning the father would not be held financially responsible for the child.

Even if the sex was completely consensual, the woman wants the child, but the man wants her to get an abortion, why would the man get out of child support? Where's the accountability for the man's actions? If the man and woman went in 50/50 on a sure thing at a horse race, the man doesn't get to take his half back just because something unexpected happened and the horse didn't win.

Furthermore, where's the responsibility for anyone's actions? The vast majority of the time, unwanted pregnancy is the result of carelessness and was always a risk in the first place. The idea that a man or woman is not responsible for carelessness doesn't hold up in any other legal preceding I know of.

This society has begun taking away repercussions, which only opens the door to more and more carelessness until all personal accountability is gone. If we don't have any responsibility for our actions, how can we at the same time uphold our rights and keep our freedom?

-~Truth_N_Trust~- · Sep 30, 2008

TheLowlyTortoise said:
There are a few arguments for pro-choice that I have problems with as arguments themselves.

1) In the case of rape, a child would be a constant and painful reminder of the poor woman's trauma. It's given that rape is a terrible crime. However, it is not given (as far as I know) that the child conceived would in fact be an open wound so to speak. Is there evidence that in most, many, or any cases the mother would look upon her newborn child with disgust or pain because of the crime of the father? Wouldn't maternal instinct kick in with unconditional love for the child?

2) Another argument that bothers me is that the man who raped the woman would somehow be able to litigate his way into the child's life and fight for custody. Could that actually happen? If our justice system is actually that messed up, shouldn't that be fixed rather than more or less allowed for the sake of argument?

3) Argument: A woman's body, a woman's choice. Why is the choice of the growing human being ignored?

Edit:

My major problem with argument #1 is when it's used as a reason for all abortions to be legal, not just cases of rape, and by extension incest or mortal danger to the mother.
Argument #2 should not be a reality in a just legal system, and so if it happens should be its own issue, not an excuse for abortion.
I intended argument #3 as separate from rape cases and other extremes.

My problem with using the 'even for rape?' argument for legal abortion is that it doesn't actually deal with the difficulties of surviving a rape experience. It is an argument thrown out purely to make anti-abortionists look heartless, which is just not the case. It is said in way that encourages a stigma of shame and defeat over the rape survivor, instead of empowering them through real support and counselling. I actually find it quite insensitive to use such an arguement - while conceding that it is an issue that needs serious discussion.

Onto the my body my choice argument, I have difficulties with this because the baby/fetus has a body too - it just doesn't get a choice apparently. It didn't choose to be conceived, it doesn't get a say in whether it lives or dies.

-~Truth_N_Trust~- · Oct 14, 2008

Tropical Wilds, I really feel for your situation and I'm so sorry that it is so hard for you and your husband.

But your post was exactly the defeatist and shame inspiring rhetoric I was talking about. It's hardly encouraging, helpful or healing.

Your example of a murder is just not the same, no one is being asked to live with a rapist, you're being asked to at least consider holding off on a finite decision until such a time that with proper support and counselling a desicion can be made with a sound mind. Until then, the woman is being asked to live with an innocent fetus that is partly her too.

Although I think it is a terrible blight on our society that such support is very rare.

fivepointTULIP · Oct 15, 2008

TW, for what it is worth, I am entirely with you on this one. I lived for almost a year under the threat of the scenario posed by this thread. (Although I have not personally struggled with compounding it with infertility, I can imagine the pain through your words and it makes my heart ache).
I realised when I was actually faced with the horrible reality, that I was willing to get "abortificient" birth control, I was willing to take herbal tonics to induce menstruation/miscarriage, and last ditch I was willing to go to a clinic.
Before having to face that scenario, I would have described myself as die-hard "pro-life". It's easy to do from a distance, or when the personal traumas and tragedies are far from your own life.

Pro-Choice Arguments

Regular Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Regular Member

Junior Member

Regular Member

The Guy with the Face

The Guy with the Face

The Guy with the Face

The Guy with the Face

The Guy with the Face

The Guy with the Face

brightmorningstar

Guest

The Guy with the Face

The Guy with the Face

brightmorningstar

Guest

The Guy with the Face

gone

gone

Drawn by Irresistible Grace

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency