Abortion

[Q-Source]

Edited to add: In cases where it is known that the pregnancy will pose a grave threat to the woman's life, I agree that abortion is justifiable even when you assume that the fetus is a human being. That does not mean that it's perfectly fine, however; merely the lesser of two very regrettable evils.

And this is exactly my point.

Let's talk about those justifiable cases, let's talk about when you and Thanz find Abortion permissible.

Let's talk about what you consider the reasons why Abortion is legal.

It is hipocrisy that you find abortion legal and ethical in some cases, and condemn it in other cases. The principle that you both use is flawed if you make exceptions.

I also want to add that my comments here are based on the assumption that the fetus is a person. In reality, I consider that it is not.

Q-S

 

[toddjh]

Let's talk about those justifiable cases, let's talk about when you and Thanz find Abortion permissible.

Okay. I consider abortion permissible when the pregnancy represents a serious threat to the woman's life. As for how serious the threat needs to be, I suggest using the same standards for self-defense that you'd use if you shot someone coming at you with a knife.

It is hipocrisy that you find abortion legal and ethical in some cases, and condemn it in other cases.

That's the part that I just don't get. If I shoot someone who is coming after me with a knife, that's self-defense. That doesn't mean that killing another person is always acceptable -- if I shoot someone because I just don't like him, that's murder.

Is it hypocrisy that I find killing an adult legal and ethical in some cases, and condemn it in other cases?

Jeremy

 

[Akots]

If i shoot my brother because he's coming at me with a gun, that's self defence. Let's say I shoot some guy because I casually agreed to let him stay over for a year while he looks for a job, and since I lost my own job right i did that, I am unable to even support myself, let alone rent.

Assuming that he needs exactly nine months to get his life back together, and that if I send him away before then he has almost NO chance for survival and WILL starve or freeze to death in the harsh winter...

Then am i justified in shooting him?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

And why is the woman more capable of deciding than anyone else?

I would say she's not( necessarily more capable). But, at present (under U.S. law) she's the one who makes the decision. I'm not in agreement with giving that decision to someone else.

But that's just it. Why should anyone else trust her hands? What is it, in your opinion, that makes the woman more qualified to judge whether an abortion is ethical? The fact that she feels strongly about it? Is that a reliable means of making ethical judgements?

I'll have to give more thought to this, to add to my answer above. But I think, if you want to take the abortion decision away from the mother ( when sanity( of the mother) etc .. not subjective morality, is an issue), you are viewing the mother as a vessel, surrogate and etc, and viewing her as such, is no less immoral than than the abortion issue itself can be.. IMO

Hmm, I'd have to have more information before I could comment. Do you think "retroactive abortions" should be allowed? Should a woman who decides that she doesn't want children after all be allowed to kill her six-month-old? If not, what's the difference between that and an abortion -- if we assume that the fetus is a human being?

Jeremy

Do you think "retroactive abortions" should be allowed?

Definitely not.

But, I'm not prepared to define the point at which I believe a human fetus, becomes a candidate for the protection of the
law, that a full term human is entitled to.

I will say, that it involves survivability without extraordinary support. ( again, not to say their are not moral questions
with regard to providing extraordinary support, to sustain human life(at any age) that would not continue without it.
( Another thread perhaps..)


I think it is disingenuous suggest that there are not different levels of ethics, and personal commitment involved,
in making the decision to have an early term abortion, a late term abortion or murdering a child that has survived being born.

 

[toddjh]

I will say, that it involves survivability without extraordinary support. ( again, not to say their are not moral questions
with regard to providing extraordinary support, to sustain human life(at any age) that would not continue without it.
( Another thread perhaps..)

Another thread indeed. But I don't agree that viability is a good measure. There are plenty of adults (Christopher Reeve, for example) who cannot survive without life support equipment.

I think it is disingenuous suggest that there are not different levels of ethics, and personal commitment involved,
in making the decision to have an early term abortion, a late term abortion or murdering a child that has survived being born.

Are there, then, different levels of ethics involved in murdering a child who was just been born, and murdering a child who is five years old? If so, is it right that they are treated the same by the law? If not, what are the grounds for saying there are different levels involved in abortions during various times, since the differences between a newborn and a five-year-old are just as drastic as the differences between a fetus at 12 weeks and a fetus at 8 months?

This is, as most of us have admitted by now, a question that we cannot resolve to the satisfaction of everybody. We desperately need a better understanding of the nature of consciousness, and the development of the fetus in relation to it, before we can begin to formulate a rigorous answer. Alas.

Jeremy

 

[Yahzi]

Akots

Correct me if i'mwrong, but sex has no other biological purpose other than reproduction. If you decide to have it for recreational purposes, it's understood that you also happen to be performing an act of procreation.

You are wrong on both counts.

1. Sex has other biological functions than reproduction. Human beings are social animals, and sex is a social act.

2. This has to be the only case in which you allow biology to trump morality. Men are biologically built to commit violence (what else is all that upper body strenght for?) but that in no way makes it moral. Rape is a biologically successful way of procreating: does that mean it's morally ok in your book?

Wasn't somebody complaining about "just-so" stories and socio-biology? Isn't this the ultimate just-so story? And finally, who the hell cares what biology wants? It is the function of humans to create justice. We reject our biological heritage in favor of our cultural and intellectual heritage constantly. Just one example that springs to mind is racism. It is obviously biologically sensible to discriminate on the basis of race (simply because those different-looking people are almost certainly not your closest kinsmen). By your argument, racism becomes perfectly acceptable legal theory.

Why do you insist on honouring biology in this particular case of sex, but not in any other?


Thanz

It is not the choice of the fetus to exist. It exists because of the choices of the parents.

The parents explicitly made the choice NOT to have a baby. That's what the contraception was all about.

If a fetus can be assigned rights, then it can be assigned choices.

People know that sex causes pregnancy.

Name any other case in which you would accept this argument.

People know that skiing causes broken legs. Does that then make them responsible for their broken leg, even if they took the appropriate precautions? You have defined the term "accident" out of existance: if you know a result is possible, then you are responsible for it regardless of any effort to prevent it.

If your brakes fail while you are driving (despite your following the recommended maintainence schedule), and you run into someone and kill them, have you just committed pre-mediatated murder? You knew there was a possibility that they could fail, no matter how well maintained; you chose to drive anyway. Hence you must accept responsibility for the death. And it can't be accident or negligence, because you have defined these terms out of existance: so it must be murder. But that's absurd, isn't it?

You reject the concepts of negligence and accident, but only when it comes to sex and pregnancy.

Tell me how a human life (the same life) is worth more after birth than before.

For the nth time, because we politically decided so. It's the same reason that a citizen's life is worth more than a non-citizen's life. It's the same reason we send immigrants back to their home country to die.

It's called politics. And unless you want to dispense with immigration policies altogether, you might want to reconsider how many rights you want to grant non-citizens.

As for condoms and child-support, I already said that giving women the exclusive right to decide for or against an abortion was unfair (and that any other solution would be even more unfair).

but the fact is that the situation doesn't occur. The baby does not need my organs to survive after birth

I assure you, somewhere, sometime, this happens. It is a physical possibility; therefore, it occurs.

Please, remember Yahzi that I am arguing under the assumption that the fetus is a human with the same rights as everyone else.

No, you are not. You are arguing the fetus has a special right that no other person, under any other circumstance, ever has. You are arguing that the fetus has this right because of actions the parents made, even though they took every reasonable precaution.

They cannot escape the responsibility for that pregnancy.

You and Akots keep saying this, but you never say why. We use technology to escape all sorts of naturally necessary conditions. We save lives that biology has given up on; we travel faster and further; we eat too much meat, and then work it off in our high-tech gyms. What is so special about sex that suddenly our technological prowess is not acceptable?

Are you absolutely certain that your arguments do not revolve around a religious conception of sex?

It is reasonably foreseeable that pregnancy will result from sex, even if birth control is used.

As somebody else posted, it will fail once in 5 years or so. Assuming sex twice a week, that's one out of 500. You have just defined a %0.2 chance as "reasonably foreseeable."

At what point do you draw the line?

More importantly, why do we care? The point is you made your intentions known. If I put a fence, it doesn't have to be the biggest, best fence in the world: it just has to be adequate to make my intentions known. Why do you refuse that same standard to people who use contraception?

Gethane

It always amazes me the strength in which some men truly believe that this issue is "just" as important to them.

It is just as important to us. As I pointed out earlier, abortion is quite unfair to men, who have simply no say. If the woman doesn't want a kid, they don't get one. If the woman wants to accept a 18 year committment, then they have to accept it to.

Children are the most important thing produced on this planet. Until quite recently, men had some control over the production and ownership of children (albeit at the cost of women's rights and freedom). Now that we have surrendered that control, what do we get in return? Biology gave you children, and gave us strength to steal them. If we give up our biological advantage because it's reasonable to do so... will you give up yours? How will women make sure that men are not completely sundered from children, now that we have abandoned the economic, social, legal, and physical violence that once gave men some control?

I'm completely for abortion on demand, because I think the rights of privacy are paramount. Still, I'd like to point out that men are left at the mercy of women when it comes to children, and that shouldn't seem fair to anyone.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Another thread indeed. But I don't agree that viability is a good measure. There are plenty of adults (Christopher Reeve, for example) who cannot survive without life support equipment.

Whether it is equipment or the aid of another human, it is one thing to to believe someone is entitled to support, and another to provide it yourself, at any cost, or insist that someone else do it..

Are there, then, different levels of ethics involved in murdering a child who was just been born, and murdering a child who is five years old? If so, is it right that they are treated the same by the law? If not, what are the grounds for saying there are different levels involved in abortions during various times, since the differences between a newborn and a five-year-old are just as drastic as the differences between a fetus at 12 weeks and a fetus at 8 months?

One man's ' drastic ' might be another man's ' so what?'.. Again you are talking about imposing one's beliefs/perceptions upon another., and something we are unlikely to reach a consensus on..

This is, as most of us have admitted by now, a question that we cannot resolve to the satisfaction of everybody. We desperately need a better understanding of the nature of consciousness, and the development of the fetus in relation to it, before we can begin to formulate a rigorous answer. Alas.

Jeremy

Resolving the question of the nature of conciousness and when it begins, will probably parallel the evolution of conciousness, to a point where unplanned human conceptions will be a meaningless concept.

Try to imagine, a widespread belief, that slavery is cool.. Unthinkable, huh?

 

[Yahzi]

Akots

You listed absolutely nothing in your example for the productive purposes of sex that cannot be accomplished in other, much healthier ways

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.

LukeT

Make your choice prior to the sex act whereupon you create a human being.

Luke, you're good guy. Don't jump on this wagon, it's going straight for a cliff.

Let me modify my position a tiny bit: I don't think you have to put up a fence to keep the bums out. I don't even think you have to lock your door. The mere fact that you did not invite somebody into your house is sufficient to maintain your rights.

Just because people have sex does not mean they intend to have children. To assert that biology trumps their intentions is to create a dangerous precedent. There is a strong biological incentive for male lions to kill all the cubs when they take over the pride; does that mean we must accept step-father's murder of their step-children as biological hence unavoidable?

We routinely subjugate biological destiny to intentional choice (it's called medicine). We're not going to halt cancer treatments just because we find a gene for cancer; hell, we're not going to withhold cancer treatments from people that smoked for 40 years!

The "sex is biologically equivalent to choosing pregnancy" argument cannot hold up, because no-one will support that biological primacy in any other field.

The point of technology is wealth, and the definition of wealth is choices: the implementation of your intentions. If two people had sex without intending to get pregnant, then I say they are morally exculpated from pregnancy. You can make an argument about due diligence, but since the victim cannot ever bring suit in a court of law, it doesn't seem terribly relevant.

I have no idea why someone as reasonable as Luke would want to eshrine the act of sex as immune to intention, like some kind of punishment meted out to us by a divine force that we can't ever hope to escape, but it depresses me. The rights of the fetus are utterly irrelevant. What is at stake is whether or not you are allowed to commit an act for pleasure while escaping the price biology has laid upon that act. We all agree the answer is yes, in every other case, save sex. Luke will argue that sex is different because their is a person's life at stake, while ignoring that pregnancy puts a woman's life at stake. The fact that the relative risks of death for each are dramatically different doesn't matter. What matters is that you aren't allowed to imperil my life for any reason, even to save your own; and the fetus has no special rights once I've made clear my intention not to have children.

 

[Yahzi]

Neutrino, Q-Source

I think that we can agree on extenuating circumstances for abortions (rape, incest, mother in danger) correct?

You both make the excellent point that if we allow the fetus's right to life to trump the mother's right to privacy, then no exemption can be made for rape or incest (after all, the fetus is morally innocent). And even in case of life-threatening danger, the decision has to be made by evaluting who is more likely to survive.

The only way they work an exemption in is by asserting that the mother did not make a "choice" in the case of rape, etc. But the act of using contraception doesn't count as choosing. Only abstinence does.

See why I originally characterized the debate on abortion as an attempt to control women's sexuality?

 

[Thanz]

Thanz

The parents explicitly made the choice NOT to have a baby. That's what the contraception was all about.

If a fetus can be assigned rights, then it can be assigned choices.

If the fetus is a human life (the premise we are arguing under) it is not ASSIGNED rights, it just has them, the same as you or I. We can't just assign it choices that we know for a fact it did not make. You are just making stuff up here. The fetus cannot be "assigned" choices just so that your fence analogy makes sense. The fetus, as a FACT, did not make any choices. The parents did, as a FACT. Your analogy makes no sense.

Further, the parents did not explicitly make the choice not to have a baby. They made the choice to engage in a behaviour that might result in a pregnancy. Yes, they took some precautions so that pregnancy does not occur, and they hoped pregnancy would not occur, but that doesn't relieve them of reponsibility once it does occur. Just because you don't want a baby doesn't mean you aren't responsible for it.

Name any other case in which you would accept this argument.

People know that skiing causes broken legs. Does that then make them responsible for their broken leg, even if they took the appropriate precautions? You have defined the term "accident" out of existance: if you know a result is possible, then you are responsible for it regardless of any effort to prevent it.

I haven't defined anything out of existence. Even things that are accidents have consequences. Is the skier going to think that his broken leg was someone else's fault, and punish them for it? Do we need to assign responsibility for his broken leg? With the fetus, we are talking about a human life - not a broken bone.

If your brakes fail while you are driving (despite your following the recommended maintainence schedule), and you run into someone and kill them, have you just committed pre-mediatated murder? You knew there was a possibility that they could fail, no matter how well maintained; you chose to drive anyway. Hence you must accept responsibility for the death. And it can't be accident or negligence, because you have defined these terms out of existance: so it must be murder. But that's absurd, isn't it?

I'd agree that your example is absurd, but of course, that's why you make it. The fact is that it is not reasonably foreseeable that properly maintained brakes would fail, and thus the rest of your example is pointless. Especially absurd is your comparing it to pre-meditated murder.

You reject the concepts of negligence and accident, but only when it comes to sex and pregnancy.

I'm not sure what you mean here. I haven't rejected any of these concepts.

For the nth time, because we politically decided so. It's the same reason that a citizen's life is worth more than a non-citizen's life. It's the same reason we send immigrants back to their home country to die.

You just do that because you are bastards.

It's called politics. And unless you want to dispense with immigration policies altogether, you might want to reconsider how many rights you want to grant non-citizens.

We are debating ethics, not politics. And if you really believe that politically or ethically we can say that we can kill some people because they are worth less than others, I find that quite offensive.

I assure you, somewhere, sometime, this happens. It is a physical possibility; therefore, it occurs.

Find me one reference and I might believe you. Otherwise, it is too far fetched to be of any value in this debate.

No, you are not. You are arguing the fetus has a special right that no other person, under any other circumstance, ever has. You are arguing that the fetus has this right because of actions the parents made, even though they took every reasonable precaution.

They could have not had vaginal intercourse. That is 100% effective.

And, I am just arguing that the fetus has a right to live. There is no other circumstance like pregnancy. The fetus that exists SOLELY because of the parents actions DESPITE THEIR INTENTIONS. Their intentions are not relevant.

You and Akots keep saying this, but you never say why. We use technology to escape all sorts of naturally necessary conditions. We save lives that biology has given up on; we travel faster and further; we eat too much meat, and then work it off in our high-tech gyms. What is so special about sex that suddenly our technological prowess is not acceptable?

You haven't explained why they should not take responsibility. Just because they don't want to be pregnant, they get a free pass? People use technology to prevent pregnancy. However, sometimes it doesn't work. When that happens, you have to take responsibility. You don't abdicate responsibility simply because the technology failed.

The "technology" of abortion is irrelevant if it means killing people.

Are you absolutely certain that your arguments do not revolve around a religious conception of sex?

Yes, I am absolutely certain that my arguments do not revolve around a religious conception of sex.

As somebody else posted, it will fail once in 5 years or so. Assuming sex twice a week, that's one out of 500. You have just defined a %0.2 chance as "reasonably foreseeable."

In this case, yes. Look at the box for any contraceptive. It will tell you what the rate of contraception is, if used correctly. None of them are 100%. Therefore, pregnancy is reasonably foreseeable. Why do you think that contraceptive makers can't be successfully sued for unwanted pregnancies?

How many Pintos exploded? I'd venture it was much fewer than 1 in 500. Yet, they were still liable.

More importantly, why do we care? The point is you made your intentions known. If I put a fence, it doesn't have to be the biggest, best fence in the world: it just has to be adequate to make my intentions known. Why do you refuse that same standard to people who use contraception?

Because "making their intentions known" is irrelevant. Who are you saying they are making their intentions known to? Certainly not the fetus. The fetus has no choice but to exist. The actions of the parents are the only things that made the fetus exist. To say that they can abdicate that responsibility by saying "but, I didn't want to get pregnant" is absurd.

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?

 

[Thanz]

The rights of the fetus are utterly irrelevant.

The rights of the fetus are irrelevant to you because you don't think that the fetus has any rights. It seems that you are incapable of arguing under the assumption that a fetus has just as much right to live before birth as after birth.

What is at stake is whether or not you are allowed to commit an act for pleasure while escaping the price biology has laid upon that act. We all agree the answer is yes, in every other case, save sex.

Oh, bullsh*t.

Let's say Bob goes to a bar and has a few drinks. Bob gets a little drunk. As a result, Bob's reflexes are slower, he can't think as fast, and his co-ordination is off. He gets in his car and just wants to drive home. He doesn't want to hit anyone. He just likes his beer and now wants to go home. But, on the way, he hits another car and the other driver is killed. But that's not Bob's fault is it? After all, he didn't want to hit anyone. He even yelled it out before he got in the car - "I DON'T WANT TO HIT ANYONE". That should be enough to exonerate him, right?

Luke will argue that sex is different because their is a person's life at stake, while ignoring that pregnancy puts a woman's life at stake. The fact that the relative risks of death for each are dramatically different doesn't matter.

Again bullsh*t. Of course the relative risks of death matter. If I came at you with a wet noodle, would you be as justified in shooting me as if I came at you with a machete?

What matters is that you aren't allowed to imperil my life for any reason, even to save your own; and the fetus has no special rights once I've made clear my intention not to have children.

The fetus doesn't have to have any "special" rights, and your intention is completely irrelevant. You engaged in the behaviour. live up to it.

Before you engaged in vaginal intercourse, you knew that pregnancy is a possible result. Whatever birth control method you use. You then do a risk/reward analysis to see if the risk of pregnancy is worth the reward of vaginal intercourse. By going ahead with vaginal intercourse, you have accepted the risk of pregnancy and are responsible for the fetus, whether that was your preferred outcome or not.

(sorry about the language, but you really are dropping some steaming piles here)

 

[gethane]

I could almost buy that, except its always ONLY the woman that absolutely has to take responsibility for her actions, not the man. Child support? You know how many men evade that? And that's not even counting the 9 months of pregnancy, many of them miserable (been there, done that) and the up to 2 days of labor.

If a man had to face the possibility of 2 days of gut wrenching torture, followed by permanent body changes, for every sexual act, maybe i could buy it. As is though, nope, its a way for people to control those horrible sluts.

The whole responsibility argument truly just sounds false to me. Very biblical. And in cases of rape, it would be like charging the passenger of the car, one forced into it, with DUI.

 

[Valmorian]

If the fetus is a human life (the premise we are arguing under) it is not ASSIGNED rights, it just has them, the same as you or I.

Documentation that makes contrary assertions aside, ALL 'Rights' are granted.

What is a 'right' if nobody recognizes it?

Further, the parents did not explicitly make the choice not to have a baby. They made the choice to engage in a behaviour that might result in a pregnancy. Yes, they took some precautions so that pregnancy does not occur, and they hoped pregnancy would not occur, but that doesn't relieve them of reponsibility once it does occur.

Perhaps not, but taking precautions that prove to be ineffective is often taken into account when judging cuplability for other acts.

I'd agree that your example is absurd, but of course, that's why you make it. The fact is that it is not reasonably foreseeable that properly maintained brakes would fail, and thus the rest of your example is pointless. Especially absurd is your comparing it to pre-meditated murder.

Nonsense. You're simply stating that it's not reasonably forseeable because you've arbitrarily judged the likelyhood of one to result in responsibility while the other is not.

Just how 'unlikely' would something have to be before you'd accept that the person involved was not responsible?

FYI, just claiming that it is absurd to compare the case in point to pre-meditated murder is not a rebuttal, especially when he's simply using your own criteria.

They could have not had vaginal intercourse. That is 100% effective.

People could not drive. This would be 100% effective at eliminating all drunk driving deaths.

And, I am just arguing that the fetus has a right to live. There is no other circumstance like pregnancy. The fetus that exists SOLELY because of the parents actions DESPITE THEIR INTENTIONS. Their intentions are not relevant.

Why does the fetus have a right to live?

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?

I don't know about him, but since I don't by fiat give fetuses the right to life, I don't have a problem with this.

 

[Yahzi]

Thanz

Let's say Bob goes to a bar and has a few drinks. Bob gets a little drunk. As a result, Bob's reflexes are slower, he can't think as fast, and his co-ordination is off. He gets in his car and just wants to drive home. He doesn't want to hit anyone. He just likes his beer and now wants to go home. But, on the way, he hits another car and the other driver is killed. But that's not Bob's fault is it? After all, he didn't want to hit anyone. He even yelled it out before he got in the car - "I DON'T WANT TO HIT ANYONE". That should be enough to exonerate him, right?

And you accuse me of making bad analogies.

So now you are comparing sex to reckless endangerment?

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.

They could have not had vaginal intercourse. That is 100% effective.

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.

When you finally frame the choice in honest terms - that people could decide to stop having sex - how many people are gonna vote for you?

The rights of the fetus are irrelevant to you because you don't think that the fetus has any rights. It seems that you are incapable of arguing under the assumption that a fetus has just as much right to live before birth as after birth.

Your density becomes grating. To dismiss something as irrelevant is not the same as denying its existance; furthermore, at no point in this thread have my arguments depended upon the non-person hood of the fetus.

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. 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 then do a risk/reward analysis to see if the risk of pregnancy is worth the reward of vaginal intercourse.

Why? Who is going to inflict the penalty of pregnancy on me? What agency is going to ignore my intentions and force me to submit to natural consequences? Oh, that's right... you.

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. You expect technology to overcome whatever natural obstacles exist to provide you with these things. And you expect the government to use deadly force to protect your access to these luxuries.

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.

That is a religous position.


Only God knows why some men spend so much time trying not to get laid.

 

[Yahzi]

Valmorion
For the sake of argument, this thread assumes that a fetus is a person with the same rights as other persons.

Whether or not a fetus is a person is a different discussion. I'm just trying to show that it doesn't matter: even if it were, it wouldn't change a woman's right to have an abortion.

 

[J3K]

I think a great point was made that if we are speaking about the fetus's rights and everything. Then, durning situations that involve rape or incest, then no abortion should still take place.

 

[Q-Source]

The fetus doesn't have to have any "special" rights, and your intention is completely irrelevant. You engaged in the behaviour. live up to it.

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.

By going ahead with vaginal intercourse, you have accepted the risk of pregnancy and are responsible for the fetus, whether that was your preferred outcome or not.

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?

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

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

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.

 

[Q-Source]

Yahzi

Your arguments for abortion make sense. I must admit that, before this thread, I did not have very clear idea why the mother has always the right to make the final decision.

In my country, Abortion is still illegal and I don't think there is any chance that this issue will be even open to discussion in the short run. The President belongs to the right-wing conservative party.
(So, if I get pregnant, no matter what I will have to give birth an unwanted child)

I wonder if you know what are the arguments in the USA for considering abortion legal. Is there any restrictions according age, reasons for abortion or pregnancy period, for example?.

I would also like to know your opinion about the father. Do you think that the father should have any take on abortion? (assuming that he will take care of the child).


Q-S

 

[J3K]

Q-Source, to respond to your thing about the father. I believe that the father should have some say in what happens, if the father and mother have a good relationship. Couldn't make this legal though because knowing whether the relationship is good or not, is pretty hard to know. But I believe any women(if the father stays around and is a good man) will talk with the father for the final decision.

 

[Yahzi]

I wonder if you know what are the arguments in the USA for considering abortion legal. Is there any restrictions according age, reasons for abortion or pregnancy period, for example?.

It varies from state to state. What the federal law. However, if you are over 18 and in the first trimester (or is it first 2?), the government cannot prevent you from obtaining an abortion.

I would also like to know your opinion about the father. Do you think that the father should have any take on abortion? (assuming that he will take care of the child).

By the logic I've argued here, the father cannot have any say, because he isn't entitled to the woman's internal organs either.

He does have a property right in the fetus (it's half his). If you could take it out and let him raise it, there might be an issue. But since you can't, and since his investment in the property is so small, it's just not worth the court's time.

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.

But, as you can see, some men actually object to that plan, so how can we convince all women of it?