Abortion

[Q-Source]

We men have chosen to give up a biological asset (well, most of us, in civilized countries). That's the right thing to do, for our own sakes. But if women were interested in being fair, they would give men something in return. Common sense says they should reward us for setting violence, so that we will be encouraged to continue doing so. I vote for sex: I think women ought to consciously decide to put out more, to show men that being not violent gets them more sex than being violent.

This is definitely another interesting topic, I would like to discuss more about it. In the mean time, I think that biologically, women are predetermined to choose the man that they think is the most protective and strong. Tests show that very masculine characteristics are preferred over soft characteristics. Unfortunately, being strong and protective is sometimes confused with being violent (or is it part of being violent?).


Q-S

 

[Akots]

Sorry to get back to this so late... i would be posting if i hadn't seen this:

Um dude... you just gave away the game. By perjorativly catergorizing sex as not healthy, you have revealed your true bias.

You don't object to abortion; you object to sex for pleasure.

Like I said: it's all about punishing those fornicating sluts.

Utterly ridiculous.

Obviously, sex is a healthy thing. It would be odd for a species' single most important mechanism for survival to be inherantly unhealthy. There are dangers, yes, but it is still a natural process.

Pleasure and enjoyment are not functional things; I condemn irresponsible sex no more than I condemn tasty food with no nutritional value, pleasent conversationg with no meaning, or games that offer no benefit. All things must be taken in moderation, and the exact measure to be taken varies from person to person. And in that area, I'm not the boss of anybody.

My personal feelings have no place in the statement "If you have sex, the consequences are understood, and ignorance is an ineffective argument for defence."

*noncommital shrug*

 

[Thanz]

In your example, Bob is clearly being negligent. In the example of a couple that use contraception, they are not being negligent. You simply refuse to acknowledge that ANY level of precaution excuses you from negligence when it comes to having sex.

You are the only one talking about negligence, or of pregnancy as a punishment. I am talking about the rights of individuals, and the right to life. If the fetus is a person, no amount of birth control usage allows you to intentionally kill that person. Whether you used birth control or not is irrelevant to the ethics of whether or not you can kill the fetus.

Here is the crux of the argument. I reject this position; you endorse it.

To be anti-abortion, Thanz-style, means to accept that NOT having sex is legitimate option.

I choose to live in a society that considers abstinence an undue burden. You do not. These are value judgements, so all we can do is appeal to our democratic citizens to choose one.

I disagree that this is the crux of any argument, as I don't see how birth control is relevant to the debate. You have argued that people should be exonerated if they used birth control, as it makes their intentions known. I think that is a ridiculous argument, and one that doesn't work after the baby is born.

You'll note that I used the term "vaginal intercourse" not "sex". I don't want to get into a clinton-esque debate over what "sex" is, but I would like to point out that there are many ways to be sexually active without engaging in vaginal intercourse to ejaculation.

Further, in what way is not having sex an "undue burden", in comparison with death? In Yahzi-verse, people getting killed = not undue burden, people not having sex = undue burden. Right. You can kill people, in order to protect your right to worry free sex. Is that what you are saying?

It is you that that thinks it has less right to live after birth. You are the one that denys it continued access to the resources that sustained it for the first nine months.

How have I denied it access to anything? What are you talking about?

You create an arbitrary situation: if you come into the country from nowhere, you get to sieze a citzen's personal assets for nine months. If, however, you enter the country under any other means, then this option is denied to you.

You think that I have created this "arbitrary situation?" Firstly, how is an immigrant equivalent to a fetus in any way? The immigrant is like your fictional trespasser - both make their own choices. The fetus does not. The fetus exists soley due to the choices of the parents. NO matter how much you talk of birth control, the choices were still the parents. Not the fetus.

Why? Who is going to inflict the penalty of pregnancy on me?

See? Why is pregnancy a "penalty"? It is the natural result of your actions. It is not a broken leg, or a cancer. Under the assumption we are arguing, it is a person, of moral equivalence to you. This is why I do not think that your brain is truly engaged in the assumptions around the debate.

In every other imaginable case, you ignore the natural consequences of your acts. You expect medicine when you are sick, entertainment when you are bored, transportation when you want to travel, food when you are hungry.

If I take medicine, no one dies. If I go to a movie, no one dies. If I take the subway, no one dies. If I eat, no one dies. See a pattern here? However, if the fetus is a person, and someone gets an abortion, then someone DOES die. And that makes it completely different from your other examples.

But if a man and woman have sex, then suddenly Mother Nature becomes a Force That Must Be Obeyed. It's not about the rights of the fetus; because if it were, you would not make an exception for rape and incest. No, your entire argument hinges on pregnancy as a morally inescapable consequence of sex.

It is all about the rights of the fetus. And yes, pregnancy is a morally inescapable consequence of sex. Why would it not be? Because you don't want it to be? You need a better argument than that.

Also, where have I made an exception for rape or incest? I have simply been arguing that the personhood of the fetus matters. In fact, in my answers to Denise's questions (I think) I said that rape/incest is the toughest question in the abortion debate and that I did not have an easy answer.

That is a religous position.

No, it isn't. It is an ethical position. Why can't you tell the difference? Or are you saying that religion actually does have a monopoly on morals and ethics, and that athiests are all a bunch of immoral bastards?

I notice that you have ducked this paragraph in your responses. Not surprising, considering how much emphasis you place on birth control:

All of your arguments so far have assumed that the parents have used some form of birth control that is at least moderately effective, and I have answered on that basis. What about those who don't use birth control at all? If the fetus is a person, is there any ethical justification for aborting a normal, healthy pregnancy when the parents simply didn't bother using any birth control?

We know that birth control does work for the majority of the time. More abortions are the result of people NOT using birth control rather than birth control failing. Why don't you address this part of the argument?

 

[Thanz]

What you hold is the most extremist of any possible position. So you mean that if a woman gets pregnant, she has to deal with it. And the only way to avoid pregnancy is abstinence.

How, exactly is this extremist? It is the way things are now - people get pregnant, and they are forced to deal with it. It doesn't go away on its own. All that I am suggesting is that you cannot avoid the responsibility if you don't want it.

And it is simply a fact that the only sure fire, 100% effective way to avoid pregnancy is abstinence. Other ways can be highly effective. But when using them, one accepts certain risks.

What on earth makes you think that?

I know that eating fries and hamburgers will make me get weight, does it mean that I don't have the right to do exercise?

But if you eat the fatty foods, you are accepting the risk that you may need to exercise. Of course you have the right to exercise. Does any other person get killed if you exercise?

I know that eating sugar will cause a cavity, does it mean that I don't have the right to go to a Dentist?

Of course you can go to the dentist. Does any other person killed if you go to the dentist?

A fetus is not that special. He won't trump my right to privacy.

But the assumption we are arguing under IS that the fetus is special (or at least as special as the baby after it is born). IF you can't kill the baby, why can you kill the fetus?

If you were really so concerned about the fetus' right, then you would never accept any exception to the rule. Even if it puts in danger the mother's life, she cannot abort.

Not true. It is a balance of rights, as I have said all along. At some point in a high risk pregnancy, the risks to the mother's life (and most often, the fetus' life as well) will outweigh the fetus right to life. This does not invalidate the fetus right to life.

 

[Yahzi]

Q-source

Unfortunately, being strong and protective is sometimes confused with being violent (or is it part of being violent?).

It's part of being violent. You can't be a credible defense against violence unless you are capable of violence.

Akots

"If you have sex, the consequences are understood, and ignorance is an ineffective argument for defence."

So you concede that your argument does not hinge on the rights of the fetus, but rather, on pregnancy being a morally inescapable consequence of sex?

Thanz

The fetus exists soley due to the choices of the parents

Trespassers exist solely because of the choice of the land-owner. If you didn't build a house, they couldn't have entered it. If you didn't disallow access to your land, then they couldn't commit trespassing. If we didn't have immigration laws, then no one could be an illegal immigrant.

If I eat, no one dies

Do you eat crab meat? Are you aware that the crab fishing industry is amongst the most dangerous in the world, and that every year at least one person dies while fishing for crab?

And yes, pregnancy is a morally inescapable consequence of sex. Why would it not be? Because you don't want it to be? You need a better argument than that.

Why would I need a better argument? Whom do I have to convince? Where is it written that pregnancy is a morally inescapable consequence of sex? Who passed this moral law? Who enforces it?

Death is a physically inescapable consequence of life. Does that mean it is morally inescapable? Is any action done to prevent death and prolong life a violation of the natural moral order? You were born; it is inevitable that you will die. How can you morally justify taking actions that prolong your life - particularly since those actions deny your heirs access to the wealth they are morally entitled to. And your competitors, who morally deserve access to the resources you were using to sustain yourself. Some of them might even die as a consequence of your selfishly hogging medicine, food, and energy long after your natural (read: the first disease you ever had to take medicine for) death should have occurred. Doesn't this mean that death is a morally inescapable consequence of life, and your attempts to escape it are therefore immoral?

Why doesn't your "physically inescapable = morally inescapable" work in any other setting except sex?

Also, where have I made an exception for rape or incest? I have simply been arguing that the personhood of the fetus matters. In fact, in my answers to Denise's questions (I think) I said that rape/incest is the toughest question in the abortion debate and that I did not have an easy answer.

How can you not have an easy answer? The answer is obvious. If the fetus is innocent, then its right to life must be protected. Crimes committed against third parties cannot possibly matter. The answer is obvious: you just don't have the courage of your convictions to embrace it.

Ordinary, rational people might think that if your argument forces you into the absurd position of demanding that a nine-year old rape victim carry her child to term is too repugnant to accept, that possibly your argument might be incorrect. But not you: you reject the absurd consequences of your position, while affirming your position. But of course, you haven't actually rejected them: you have left yourself wiggle room to tell that nine year old girl that her rights are less important than the fetus's rights, because after all she's not going to die. To hell with what bearing a child will do to her body or her mind; it won't kill her, so she loses all rights.

Looks like men have a way to control childbirth after all. They can always commit rape, and thus garauntee themselves a child. And here I had just finished saying how most of us men had given up our biological asset of violence. I guess the emphasis should have been on "most."

The notion that threat of death somehow disrupts my property rights and allows you to take whatever you need from me is a communist notion. I'm pretty sure you reject communism in every other form, and in every other venue - except this one. Once again, we are faced with a person willing to sign away somebody else's property rights to save lives - but only because he knows he'll never have to sign away his.

We know that birth control does work for the majority of the time. More abortions are the result of people NOT using birth control rather than birth control failing. Why don't you address this part of the argument?

I already did, when I said that you don't have to lock your door. If you have sex without INTENDING to get pregnant, then I think your intentions were made clear, and I think your rights are protected. Just as if you DON'T put up barbed wire, no-trespassing signs, or even bother to lock your door: your private property rights remain protected in the absence of any action on your part. To lose your property rights, you have to intentionally act to do so. And no, having sex for pleasure does not in any way signify an intention to get pregnant, just as drinking a beer does not signify an intention to drive drunk and kill someone.

Having sex without birth control is a worst an act of negligence, but since I don't want the government spying on my bedroom and trying to determine who did what to who when, I'm willing to just assume my fellow citizens were behaving competently. I'm willing to trust their judgement, and take their word when they say it was an accident. Particularly since it costs me nothing to do so.

 

[Akots]

Yahzi... what's this "morally" inescapable consequence you keep going on about? It is quite obviously a "physical" consequence.

It was in response to your opinion that a fetus is little more than an inconvenient parasite, when in fact it is a stage of life for a human being; a stage as natural as infancy or adulthood.

The fact that it's off topic isn't my fault. You keep refusing to acknowledge that, and I keep having to bring it up.

 

[Q-Source]

But the assumption we are arguing under IS that the fetus is special (or at least as special as the baby after it is born). IF you can't kill the baby, why can you kill the fetus?

Look at this one, Yahzi. Thanz recognises that the fetus is special.

Well, we never made that assumption. We only said that the fetus is a person during all the pregnancy. And we still disagree whether or not it has rights while it is inside the mother's body.

I think that it has no rights at all, if I consciously decided that I didn't want to have a child. A born baby does have rights, because he is already an independent individual. "Killing" a fetus only means that we are giving priority to our own private rights, it is not immoral, it is just a survival mechanism.

Q-S

 

[Thanz]

Well, we never made that assumption. We only said that the fetus is a person during all the pregnancy. And we still disagree whether or not it has rights while it is inside the mother's body.

Q-Source, you keep changing the assumption here. The whole point of assuming that the fetus is a person is to assume that it has the same rights as everyone else. I have said this many times, including my very first post in this thread:

It seems to me that most of the posters in this thread have assumed away the trickiest issue (indeed, the only issue) in the abortion debate. Is the fetus a "human", deserving of all of the same rights as you an I, while still in the uterus of the mother?

Saying that the fetus is a person, but doesn't have any rights, is the same thing as saying that the fetus is not a person. I understand that this is your position. But it ignores the debate based on the assumption that the fetus IS a person and DOES have rights.

I think that it has no rights at all, if I consciously decided that I didn't want to have a child. A born baby does have rights, because he is already an independent individual. "Killing" a fetus only means that we are giving priority to our own private rights, it is not immoral, it is just a survival mechanism.

I understand that this is your position, but as above, it ignores the assumption. From this paragraph, and from your answer to my jungle question, I think that you would agree with me that the personhood status (or rights-achieving) status matters.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that your position could be accurately described as follows: "If a fetus did have rights, the same as a baby, then in some circumstances it might be wrong to kill the fetus, just as it would be wrong to kill the baby. But the fact is that the fetus is not a "person", and does not have any rights, and so the woman's right to choose is paramount."

It is not hypocritical to say that the "personhood" of the fetus matters in the debate (that is, it matters if we decide if the fetus has rights) and then ultimately decide that the fetus does not have those rights. I am just trying to get people to acknowledge that the question needs to be addressed, regardless of which side you come down on.

 

[TexasBEAST]

Give 'em time. They'll show up.

I'll join in an represent the other side. I just had a major electrical wiring short in the house over the weekend and I couldn't get to the computer. If y'all don't mind, I'll respond to the comments from the other thread first, though.

Note: By taking the pro-life stance, I am mostly arguing in the abstract. I still have not totally made up my mind on this one. But ironically, I actually tend to lean toward siding with the religious kooks, for a change. Not an apology. Just a frame of reference...

 

[c4ts]

I say that while it may be alive by the time the embryo looks different enough from the basic embryo that looks kind of like Geiger's alien, it's not human until the medulary plate becomes functioning neural tissue actively handling information before the senses. Is that even relevant? Probably not. But that's my two cents anyway.

 

[Yahzi]

Q-Source
Thanz is right: this thread assumes the fetus is a person and thus has the same rights as a person.

Although I can't explain why he described it as "special." That does seem to concede my point that he wants to give it rights other people don't have.

Akots

It is quite obviously a "physical" consequence

You are being deliberately obtuse (at least, I hope it is deliberate).

The physical consequences are not the issue; the moral consequences are. If the mother does not incur a moral debt by choosing to engage in sex, then your argument collapses. The mother becomes no more responsible for this fetus person's plight than any other stranger. Shall we grab people at random off the street and implant the fetus in them?

(edited for formatting)

 

[TexasBEAST]

From “JREF Forums > General Academics > Religion and Philosophy > Of particular interest to Women.”

this is sad and cruel, rape is one ordeal but being denied (allegedly) the morning after pill by a religion is in my eyes as bad as the rape. This breaks my heart and is probably why I hate religion so much. [...]

I feel sick and cold reading this.

Again, I'm still not absolutely sure what to think about all this. I'm only floating my ideas. I don't mean to preach or force anything.

Yes, this is sad and cruel. And disgusting and infuriating! It's sad the girl was raped. It's sad she got pregnant by someone's else's devices. It's sad she was forced to make such an important decision in a state of emotional and physical turmoil. It's sad a church was given a license to run a hospital. It's sad she chose to go to that church-run hospital. And it's sad she didn't get her request filled.

But IMO, I don't think that the refusal to grant the pill was anywhere near as bad as the rape. As upsetting to a rape victim as it may be, declining to kill the innocent is not an evil thing--deciding to go ahead and kill them even though you know they're innocent is.

Originally posted by Pie
Why, life is one thing but how can they expect a rape victim to go through with what would be an unwanted pregnacy and possiblly re-live that horrifc event.

Granted. I'm a guy, so I will not insult any woman's intelligence by claiming to know with certainty what would be going through a rape victim's mind in the aftermath. Completely maddening chaos!

I think we can all concede that for most women it would be extremely difficult to accept a policy of being forced to continue the pregnancy full-term. It's just too horrible. Granted. But does that make it right for her to turn around and kill an innocent over it? No, it doesn't. If she's so hot-to-trot to kill, then go after the rapist. I live in TX--I'd support a woman all the way in that regard. Or join the military and take out that hostility on middle-eastern terrorists and their ilk. There are plenty of real mysogenistic men over there who deserve it. But don't kill the baby because of your anger at the sick father! It's the Bible morons and their kind who supposedly believe in visiting the punishment of sinners on their descendants. Don't sink to their level.

That said, the horrible facts surrounding the forced insemination and fertilization must be taken into account. We have to bear it in mind. Maybe a fetucide by rape victim could be considered manslaughter, rather than murder. (If that's not a case of "extenuating circumstances" or “extreme emotional disturbance”, then what is?)

But just because you're mad your car was wrecked does not give you reason to kill the rental car agent who further inconveniences you with a bad replacement vehicle. It's not his fault. No, ideally you shouldn't have to bother with it at all. But sometimes, you have to anyway, as difficult as that is. Just don’t blame and punish the innocent in the process.

 

[TexasBEAST]

Whose side are you on, anyway?

Um, apparently, you already figured that one out for yourself. I must be on the side of all those evil women-haters. After all, you said so yourself:

All of you

That's because you are for the oppression of women.

For clarification, no ma’am, I am not for the oppression of women. I am for the ideal of widespread freedom, to the extent possible with our limited resources. Killing our own innocent babies, well, that just doesn’t seem to qualify. Sure, women should be able to be “free”, too. But they shouldn’t be able to kill innocent babies with impunity in order to feel free. Maybe women should sacrifice a little of their freedoms in order to save the lives of those children. I don’t think it’s right at all that the babies should have to sacrifice everything because you aren’t willing to sacrifice your unrealistic ideal of total personal autonomy. (Especially when deep down you know that that ideal isn’t real, anyway...)

 

[TexasBEAST]

But if we really thought spontaneous abortions were the death of innocent people, wouldn't we be morally obliged to spend some of our research dollars on figuring out how to lower the rate? Just like we spend money on diseases that kill people?

Sure, we are obliged to try to address that health problem, just like we’re obliged to try to address any other health problem. What’s your point?

Our obligation to try to help people does not in any way translate to an obligation or license to try to hurt people (by killing innocent babies).

And once we had the medical technology to prevent or reduce spontaneous miscarriages, wouldn't it be the woman's moral duty to use it?

We already do have the tech (and duty) to reduce miscarriages. Prenatal pediatric medicine is a whole slew of ways designed to help improve and maintain the health of a human embryo/foetus. It includes such kernels of wisdom as “Don’t drink or smoke or snort or shoot up if you’re pregnant”. A mother is obliged to use that kind of tech and wisdom. If she fails to do so, it’s child abuse, reckless endangerment, negligence, etc. So...what’s your point? Still doesn’t make it alright to deliberately kill babies.

And then wouldn't we just make sex 3 times more likely to result in pregnancy than it already is? (Because spontenaous miscarriages are about 3 out of 4 pregnancies). Wouldn't that make women 3 times more likely to not have sex?

Yes, with advancing medical technology, we increase the probability of successful fertilization and full-term pregnancies. Duh. The worldwide population explosion and overcrowding is ample proof of that.

Doesn’t make it alright to kill the unwanted babies. Makes it an obligation to be even more careful about your sexual activities.

As to whether or not it would dissuade women by a factor of 3 from having sex, I can’t speak for women. I can only speak for myself. I keep it in my pants unless I’m ready to be a husband and a father. If I ain’t ready for that, then I ain’t ready for sex. Now, since you asked me, I’d say the same should go for women. How’s that for gender equality?

 

[TexasBEAST]

Texas Beast
There are institutions which are privately owned, but have public duties. Hospitals recieve a license from the state to operate. Part of the requirements to recieving that license is an agreement to provide certain public services. [...]

Are you aware that hospitals are required by federal law to provide emergency service to anyone who walks through their doors? Allowing them to deviate from normal medical practice for religious reasons is just another way of violating the law.

True, a hospital must render emergency “treatment” to any patient requesting such. But it is up to the hospital’s doctors to determine what the best treatment is. Just because a patient comes in requesting drugs doesn’t necessarily obligate a doctor to give it to them. A doctor’s initial oath and ultimate obligation is “to do no harm”, and when some harm is unavoidable, to do the least harm necessary. That is a matter of the medical professional’s judgment. It certainly shouldn’t be left up to a hysterical rape victim to make a life-or-death decision like that.

Yes, I think a dumb-ass institution like a church should still be allowed to continue to be dumb-ass, if it so chooses. (No, I wouldn’t actively join in and support it in doing so, but I would passively support it, by not doing anything.) That’s part of what it means to be free. We are generally free to do as we like, even when it seems dumb to somebody else—as long as it does not actively contribute to the suffering of another. In this case, it’s primarily the freedom of religion of the hospital’s sponsors that’s being asserted. And in this case, as dumb-ass as they are in other respects, I choose to support them. If our country is going to allow conscientious objectors the freedom to abstain from killing when they are called upon to do so by their own war-crazed government, they I definitely think that conscientious doctors should be able to abstain from killing when they are called upon to do so by grief-stricken, irrational, traumatized patients.

What if they feel emergency medical treatment for black people is immoral? Would you support them then?

As far as a KKK-type hospital not wanting to help Black people, I guess it would depend on exactly what kind of “help” they were denying. If they were refusing to give a Black woman a desperately needed blood transfusion or defibrillatory procedure, then of course that would be criminally wrong. Racially-discriminatory, attempted homicide. Murder. A hate crime. But if they were refusing to give that same Black woman a desired abortion and kill her unborn child or actively interfere with the natural fertilization/gestation process, then no, I wouldn’t think that was wrong. In that case, they would be doing the right thing. For the wrong reasons. But the right ends.

I agree that a private hospital can refuse service to whomever it wants; but only if you agree that the State can refuse to license any hospital it wants. And I elected my State officials with the understanding that they would not license public institutions that would use rape as a method of foisting their religious beliefs onto the population.

I agree that the government should be able to decide who they’re going to give hospital licenses to. I thought they already did that, though?

All of you

That's because you are for the oppression of women. The abortion debate is not about the fetus -- it is about who will control the means of production.

First off, the abortion debate is about a whole lot of issues. It is intellectual dishonesty on your part (both to your audience and to yourself) to oversimplify it like this.

For me, it does not come primarily from a desire to control production. (That’s where responsible contraception comes in; it is a desire to have some measure of control in the process, and understandably so.) But I don’t presume to tell women to carry a baby full term out of a desire to control them. I’m not that easy to please. I’m certainly not some mere cartoonish bad-guy who gets off on world domination or women-domination. I resent that kind of wildly presumptuous misrepresentation.

I don’t take the notion of compelling a woman to carry a baby she helped to create lightly. But I take the idea of intentionally killing that baby even less lightly. I feel that the best way to deal with it is to do the least harm and inconvenience the mother, for the sake of the innocent child’s continued life.

For me, it is about the foetus. But as a teenager, I was pro-choice. I disliked the idea of telling a woman what to do so much that I never even tried to see past the women with the megaphones. I just didn’t want to piss the angry feminists off. Eventually, I grew up some, and I stopped making all of my decisions simply out of fear. (Like when I stopped believing in “God”...) I took all those history lessons about how history is written by the victor, and all those civics lessons about how there are always two sides of a coin (and sometimes even more). I took the time to consider the other voice, the one that I hadn’t been hearing (or listening to) all that time as a teen. I stood up for the underdog.

I don’t want to tell a woman what to do. I feel lousy having to do it. Just don’t try to kill your baby in the name of “freedom”, and I won’t have to.

And stop telling me what my motivation is. I’m not some hack actor who needs direction from the likes of you. Sorry. But you don’t know me. So stop acting like you do.

Amazing, isn't it, how quick men are to defend their property from the clutches of the have-nots when property is defined as taxes -yet how swift they are to dispense with property in the name of the poor and needy when property is defined as a woman's body?

Forcing women to yield their physical assets to these new citizens is the ultimate act of weath transferall. You guys won't even vote tax money to feed or educate immigrants from another country, but you'll vote women's bodies to feed these immigrants from nowhere?

I’m not defending “my property”. I’m defending a human life. I’m not a father, and frankly don’t wish to ever become one. I’m not thinking about any sort of material that I ever want to have anything to do with. I don’t want a baby. But I certainly want babies that do exist to be able to enjoy as full of a life as I have, and not have it cruelly cut short because Mommy didn’t want to put a crimp in her style.

Immigrants from another country choose to come here. They know the risks and the challenges. So let them handle it themselves.

But human foetuses don’t choose to come into this country (or this world). Their parents make that decision for them, by participating in activities that they know have an ever-increasing chance of successfully conceiving and producing a child. If parents are going to choose to bring those foetuses into this world, then make them take care of those “new citizens”. Don’t let them be “Indian-givers” (no racism intended). Don’t let them welch out on their de facto contractual obligation as parents.

It’s all fun and games...till somebody gets pregnant. (Then, it’s time to act like a grown-up and stop your obsession with personal freedom and flight from obligation.)

If women have an unfettered right to abortion, then men have no control whatsoever over childbirth. This is unfair to men. But this biological injustice cannot be corrected by robbing women of their rights. To do so would be like the old canard about equality: will we tie wieghts to the swift and the strong so they can't run faster than the slow?

Sorry, but this is an empty argument. Granted, we can never make things absolutely equal. We just have to suck that up. But that doesn’t mean that we should overindulge in our differences. We certainly shouldn’t kill babies, just in the name of asserting our differences.

who the hell cares about another baby in this overcrowded world? [...]Concern over the rights of some miniscule bit of tissue is irrelevant.

Um, I care! At least as much as I care about the life of a pompous loudmouthed woman who presumes to tell me why I am against abortion based on no other fact than that I am a man.

If concern over that “miniscule bit of tissue” is irrelevant, then I guess that concern over some really fat person should take priority over your rights, huh? And I guess that NBA players are more worthy of our concern and respect than you, as well, because they certainly have a lot more “tissue” than you or I do. Since the size of the person in question is apparently so important...

Oh, Goliath, Goliath, wherefore art thou, Goliath?...

I don't have the right to chain you down for 9 months while I use your internal organs to keep me alive. Your chosing to have sex with someone does not give me that right. End of story. Even if the fetus is a person, it's a person with no right to the property of others unless others want to give it to them.

No, you don’t have the right to obligate me. But then again, I’m not your father or mother. If I were, then you would have that right. No, my simply choosing to have sex would not give you the right to obligate me in such a fashion. But my helping to conceive you sure would.

Copulating and subsequently conceiving a child does incur certain responsibilities, not the least of which is the protection of the developing child. A foetus is a person, and it has the right to its survival (“life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”...), even if it doesn’t have the right to property. It at least has the right to protection of its life from those who brought it into being.

And if you even think of suggesting the woman is somehow responsible for having had sex - then just give up the notion that you will ever get laid again. If the use of birth control is not an adequate and sufficient act to discharge her from the risk of pregancy, then you might as well resolve yourselves to having sex 2.4 times in your entire life.

So be it. Vindictively threatening me doesn’t change my mind. It only makes me more resolute. Er, stubborn. No, I’ll go with resolute.

“End of story.”

 

[TexasBEAST]

If you were to put one-month old dog, horse and human fetuses side by side, I doubt that you would be able to tell the difference without genetic testing.

So if you look like something else, it's OK to equate you with that something else? (And negate you for further consideration?...)

To me what makes it human is human consciousness. Without that, it is just another piece of tissue.

So are we conscious when we're asleep? What about the temporarily comatose? Or the longterm comatose? Or really elderly folks nearing the ends of their lives?

Could I just knock somebody out, rendering them unconscious, then shoot them? Would that make it OK to kill? You just have to render (or merely deem) them unconscious first. That's the rule.

 

[TexasBEAST]

Re: My take

I'm sure there are exceptions, but I don't really think anyone is for abortions. I can't see any reasonably minded person attempting to get pregnet just so she can have the "fun" of having an abortion. So, claiming someone is "Pro-Abortion" never made any sense to me.

I kinda understand this. But if we're not gonna come right out and say abortion is wrong, then it seems like tacit approval. And to concede that it is a legitimate, valid medical procedure that should be protected by law, well that seems to be a form of support. Sounds "pro-" to me.

Then again, I nominally defend religionists right to be religious, even though I don't support their religions. Is that kinda the same thing?

Now, as a man, I don't see where it's any of my business to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body.

I will not presume to interfere in your particular relationship.

But in general, I think the issue of abortion is understatedly misrepresented by using these familiar terms (what's the opposite of "hyperbole"?). It is not just a matter of what a woman can do with her body. I get really upset when people say that. Abortion is a procedure involving at least 2 bodies--the mother's, and the baby's. Abortion is an action involving multiple people's bodies. It is gross oversimplification to characterize it as merely a matter of a woman's being able to maintain control over her own body. A woman who wants an abortion is asserting control over her body and the body of another human being. But she is claiming it is merely an action involving her own body. That's just not true.

It becomes someone else's business to take interest and maybe even action when a person tries to kill someone else under false premises. I've begun to think that it is our duty to do something, when women assert mortal (fatal?) control over their babies' growing bodies, only to dismiss it as a mere elimination of waste, like so many sheets of toilet paper or Kleenex.

 

[Thanz]

Although I can't explain why he described it as "special." That does seem to concede my point that he wants to give it rights other people don't have.

No, Yahzi, it does not concede that at all. If you had read what I wrote in the context of what I was responding to, this would be clear. Q-Source wrote that the fetus was "not that special". I was clarifying that the fetus was as "special" as the baby after it is born. Simply trying to get Q-Source to stick to the assumption. The "special" language was hers, not mine.

 

[Akots]

[B}Q-Source
Thanz is right: this thread assumes the fetus is a person and thus has the same rights as a person.

Although I can't explain why he described it as "special." That does seem to concede my point that he wants to give it rights other people don't have.

Akots

You are being deliberately obtuse (at least, I hope it is deliberate).

Hm... possible... *rubs chin*

The physical consequences are not the issue; the moral consequences are. If the mother does not incur a moral debt by choosing to engage in sex, then your argument collapses. The mother becomes no more responsible for this fetus person's plight than any other stranger. Shall we grab people at random off the street and implant the fetus in them? [/B]

I'd like to clarify something... do you believe there ARE any moral consequences incurred by having an abortion?

 

[Q-Source]

The "special" language was hers, not mine.

Oh, there is a misunderstanding here.

What did you call it special in the first place?. That made me think that you were saying that he his rights trumps mine.

Let's say that it has the same rights as a well-born baby. However, if he threatens a women's emotional and physical stability (as he does), then they have to do something about it.

I know that you hate this idea, but this is what actually happens. This is part of taking responsability, Abortion is part of the solution.

I wonder if it would be covenient to move further into the discussion. What are the consequences of having unwanted children?

I think that the effects on society in the long run are negative. Those childre usually live in dysfunctional families and most of them are abused as a result. Personally, I find it immoral and cruel to provide this kind of life to an innocent child.