Atheists, Abortion, and Philosophy

[The GM]

So, what is your opinion on all of this? We have bared our souls [?] for the world to see. What do you believe? Or is the court still in deliberation?

Souls...heh.


Okay, on with the discussion at hand.
I'm a pretty liberal gal...keep your laws off my body and such. However, my rights end where the harm of someone else's physical welfare begins. For instance, if I smoke, my business. If I'm smoking in a room full of asmatics, totally different story.
Once upon a time I was young, dumb, unmarried and pregnant. I was 19, enrolled in college and completely unprepared for what motherhood might entail. My lover was also young, dumb, and unprepared. One thing we both agreed upon was that we had to accept responsibility for our roll in the hay. It wasn't the kid's fault that we'd had an indescretion. Therefore we did the adult thing. We worked our butts off and despite many bumps in the road made our family work. An abortion would have been a cop out, the ultimate denial of reproductive responsibility. It would have been the equivilant of pointing the finger at someone else for my self created problems.
I don't like excuses, and I don't like excuse makers. As a woman, it's my body, but it's also my responsibility. It's my responsibility to choose lovers wisely, it's my responsibility to use effective birth control, it's my responsibility to accept the reprocussions of my actions, whatever the outcomes may be.
I don't know when consciousness begins, whether it be at conception (something I think is probably unlikely) or at 22 weeks or 36 weeks or birth. I just don't know. But I do know that it's not my place to snuff out a life that I, through my own conscious decisions, created. For me, it's not a Heaven or Hell topic, it's not even a moral issue as much as it is about my own little personal code of stepping up to the plate and claiming both the victories and mistakes that I've made in life.
In short, maybe I see all of this in the bigger picture of life and so my personal feelings about the topic are filtered through that POV.
Still, I'm enjoying what everyone else has to say. Very informative.

 

[The Cats Venm]

For me, it's not a Heaven or Hell topic, it's not even a moral issue as much as it is about my own little personal code of stepping up to the plate and claiming both the victories and mistakes that I've made in life.

So you didn't think getting an abortion was the right choice for you, but do you think society should force that same choice on everyone?

 

[BillyTK]

So you didn't think getting an abortion was the right choice for you, but do you think society should force that same choice on everyone?

This strikes me as the heart of the matter, that as a woman has taken a certain action, she should be forced to live with the consequences; I wonder if people who agree with that judgement would be willing to apply to other conditions, such as cancer, heart disease or obesity-related illnesses (well, no-one forced them to smoke that cigarette/eat fatty foods/live a stressful life/take no exercise &c &c). I suspect that there is also an implied moral judgement about women's behaviour–that women are supposed to be maternal and nurturing, and therefore a woman who has an abortion is also committing a crime against her gender.

Of course, the obfuscating factor is the issue of the fetus's potential, but I think we need to bear in mind here that a fetus has little chance of survival outside of the womb before the end of the second trimester, and no absolute certainty of survival through the first trimester; typically abortion is not carried out before the first eight weeks anyway. I therefore don't believe that abortion carried out during this period is intrinsically morally wrong, and fundamentally it's a decision between a woman, her doctor and any others that the woman chooses to be involved.

 

[Christian]

As always, I disagree. If pregnancy happened of its own accord and didn't show itself until a baby popped out, then maybe. But if you choose to engage in recreational behavior that creates a very significant chance of pregnancy, and, after learning of the problem, you refuse to take any action to correct it for six months, then yes, I think you have a non-zero amount of responsibility for the situation. You had plenty of chances to avoid and/or correct the problem, and you deliberately ignored them. That is implicit consent.

Of course, this only applies to late-term abortions. I have no problem with those that take place in the first trimester, before the fetus could possibly experience human-like consciousness.

Jeremy

Ok, so we are basically in agreement. What we could disagree on is the timetable.

Yes, I disagree with Yazhi. We ARE force (compelled) to take care of those who are less fortunate than ourselves. It is not an option.

 

[Yahzi]

But if you choose to engage in recreational behavior that creates a very significant chance of pregnancy,

Anti-abortion positions always wind up equating pregancy as the punishment for sex. One wonders how punishing the parents by forcing them to raise a child they don't want can possibly be considered in the best interests of the child, but then, the anti-abortionist isn't actually interested in the welfare of the child.

and, after learning of the problem, you refuse to take any action to correct it for six months,

American law recognizes that. If you let people walk across your land long enough, they earn the right to continue doing so. Consequently, abortion has wound up right where it should be: legal, restricted, and earlier in the term is always better. But the legal principle I outlined above makes it clear that the human nature of the fetus is irrelevant, and so your final issue does not matter. The law can impose a burden on you (to deal with the issue in a timely manner) but it cannot be an undue burden. Is six months sufficient time, or do people need seven, or should they be allowed the full nine? I don't know, and I don't particularly care: the courts can make that fine distinction. As long as we all understand exactly what distinction they are making.

 

[Yahzi]

Yes, I disagree with Yazhi. We ARE force (compelled) to take care of those who are less fortunate than ourselves. It is not an option.

You agree with me. You do not feel that the government is entitled to force you to take care of a particular bum.

We both agree that we are morally required to take care of those less fortunate. We both agree that is what taxes are for - an agreement that sets us both apart from the Compassionate Conservatives. The government is entitled to share its burden fairly on society at large.

However, picking you out of a crowd and saddling you with the complete responsibility for a bum, while your neighbors get off scot-free, is not fair.

When the government can raise my taxes and provide for all the unborn, then I'll be glad to pay. Until then, randomly forcing people at gunpoint to take care of random strangers is a greater wrong than allowing some people to die.

 

[Yahzi]

Double post. These forums are really sluggish. I mean mechanically, not intellectually.

 

[The GM]

1. This strikes me as the heart of the matter, that as a woman has taken a certain action, she should be forced to live with the consequences; I wonder if people who agree with that judgement would be willing to apply to other conditions, such as cancer, heart disease or obesity-related illnesses (well, no-one forced them to smoke that cigarette/eat fatty foods/live a stressful life/take no exercise &c &c).

2. I suspect that there is also an implied moral judgement about women's behaviour–that women are supposed to be maternal and nurturing, and therefore a woman who has an abortion is also committing a crime against her gender.

1. Yes, yes and yes. If you smoke, expect to have a negative outcome. If you sit on the couch and consume 4k cals a day for twenty years, expect a negative outcome. If you deal w/ stress poorly and do nothing to alieviate that, expect a negative outcome. If you choose to have unprotected sex w/ a poorly choosen lover, expect a negative outcome. If you engaged in risky behavior and there are consequences, step up to the plate. Responsibility is the key word here.

2. I don't think it's a crime against her gender. I think it's a cop out. I think it's potentially a crime against the unborn life she carries. The fuzzy area is the definition of when consciousness begins of course, and so it's hard to say when it turns from a medical procedure into a crime.

 

[Christian]

However, picking you out of a crowd and saddling you with the complete responsibility for a bum, while your neighbors get off scot-free, is not fair.

Sorry for misspelling Yahzi.


Whether we believe this to be fair or not, is irrevelent. The government can and does force us to take the complete responsibility for a bum, while the neighbors get off scot-free.

 

[Yahzi]

I think it's potentially a crime against the unborn life she carries. The fuzzy area is the definition of when consciousness begins of course, and so it's hard to say when it turns from a medical procedure into a crime.

No. The status of the fetus does not matter.

If you build a house, and invite someone in for dinner, must you then feed them for the rest of their lives? If you leave your door unlocked, is that an open invitation for people to move in for the next 18 years?

You are citing a principle that only applies to women, sex, and pregnancy. In every other situtation your principle is immediately discarded as obviously faulty.

To have sex is not an invitation to pregnancy anymore than skiing is an invitation to broken legs, or leaving your door unlocked is an invitation to squatters. If you go home tonight and there are bums living in your house, you will call the police and have them evicted. They can argue all day long that you built a door, which clearly implies that you intended for people to come in, and you won't care. You did not specifically invite them to use your door, even though you invited others. And a woman who has sex does not specifically invite a child to live with her for 18 years.

Pregancy is not the punishment for having sex. Your doctor does not leave your leg broken so you won't be so careless about skiiing, and we do not require women to support random uninivted guests into their bodies so they won't be so careless about having sex.

 

[The GM]

Anti-abortion positions always wind up equating pregancy as the punishment for sex. One wonders how punishing the parents by forcing them to raise a child they don't want can possibly be considered in the best interests of the child, but then, the anti-abortionist isn't actually interested in the welfare of the child.

It's not a punishment, it's a consequence of certain consciously decided upon actions. Life is full of consequences, good and bad. I feel very little sympathy for a woman who doesn't think about potential negative consequences ahead of time. I have very little sympathy for the man who does the same.

Rape and health issues area a completely different topic, obviously, and in those cases, abortion doesn't bother me when performed early on.

 

[Yahzi]

Whether we believe this to be fair or not, is irrevelent. The government can and does force us to take the complete responsibility for a bum, while the neighbors get off scot-free.

I thought it was evident we were having a discussion about what the government should do.

But please, enlighten me. Do you have a law, case, or example - other than pregnancy - that supports your claim?

 

[Yahzi]

Oh my god.

Double post again.

Now I remember why I don't come here anymore. This has to be the slowest BB I have ever seen.

 

[Christian]

I thought it was evident we were having a discussion about what the government should do.

But please, enlighten me. Do you have a law, case, or example - other than pregnancy - that supports your claim?

You claim that a bum cannot come into your house and stay there right?

If his life is danger, yes he can. If you throw him out, and he dies because you threw him out, you are partly responsible for his death.

I can think of multiple scenarios of why you randomly would be forced to take full responsibility of a person if his life was at stake.

Your analogy is incomplete because, (in yours) when you throw that person out on the street, that person does not die.

 

[thaiboxerken]

It is rather weird that people bring up what the law actually says in a discussion about what we think the law should be.

If that's the case.......... abortion is legal, deal with it.

If not, let's continue on with the discussion of whether or not abortion should be legal or not.

 

[Gulliamo]

I was 19, enrolled in college and completely unprepared for what motherhood might entail. My lover was also young, dumb, and unprepared. One thing we both agreed upon was that we had to accept responsibility for our roll in the hay. It wasn't the kid's fault that we'd had an indescretion. Therefore we did the adult thing. We worked our butts off and despite many bumps in the road made our family work.

I wonder if you would have the same opinion if you didn't have a supportive family and if the "boyfriend" said, "Good luck, I'm moving back to Ecuador!"

Personal decisions aside... We as individuals have always had a right to choose to keep a child if it was wanted (at least in the US) but would you force that decision upon another? I wholeheartedly agree with the theory that responsibility for ones actions should be a societal foundation. But until it is can we assume that everyone has that instilled?

Courts allow "2nd chances" (often referred to as "deferred judgments") for an appalling diverse number of crimes. Do you think the "one shot" responsibility standard should apply across the board?

 

[Yahzi]

If his life is danger, yes he can.

Actually, no.

We do not have Good Samaritan laws, at least in most states in the USA. While you cannot act in such a way as to threaten a life, and of course if you are merely selfish your community will probably find a way to prosecute you: but if the bum will live at least 24 hours, then you're probably off the hook.

You might be surprised, Christian, at just how callous the law can be.

Your analogy is incomplete because, (in yours) when you throw that person out on the street, that person does not die.

The absolute certain foreknowledge that the bum will starve to death does not impinge upon your rights. You have a point that the bum does not die immediately, but I think you can see that really isn't terribly important.

 

[The GM]

I wonder if you would have the same opinion if you didn't have a supportive family and if the "boyfriend" said, "Good luck, I'm moving back to Ecuador!"

Personal decisions aside... We as individuals have always had a right to choose to keep a child if it was wanted (at least in the US) but would you force that decision upon another? I wholeheartedly agree with the theory that responsibility for ones actions should be a societal foundation. But until it is can we assume that everyone has that instilled?

Courts allow "2nd chances" (often referred to as "deferred judgments") for an appalling diverse number of crimes. Do you think the "one shot" responsibility standard should apply across the board?

If I make poor choices, I expect to reap the fruits of those choices. Had I picked a low life BF that would have taken off, I would have still accepted my responsibility and shouldered it to the best of my ability. It's my body and my choice of who I wish to share it with, but as I said, my rights end where the physical welfare of someone else begins.
You're right, there is a disturbing lack of personal responsibility going on in society right now. Everyone is a victim, and it's always someone else's fault. I say hooey! I don't much respect those who won't take charge of and responsibility for their own life.
As far as second chances...
Maybe this sounds callous, but life doesn't often allow for second chances. Remember my OP? *You* agreed w/ it. I have a friend, she's beautiful, smart and wildly successful in her career. She made a poor choice and picked a POS lover who cheated on her and gave her a VD that will remain w/ her for the rest of her days...no cure. It was a direct consequence of her decision to not heed the advice of the people around her who were telling her that the guy was screwing around, and her decision to not use adequate protective measures. No second chance. Yes, it sucks for her. I wish it hadn't happened to her, but it did. Not only does she get to live w/ the consequences, but her current lover gets to as well, since they have decided to marry. No second chance.
That's life. I didn't make the rules, but there they are.
Pregnancy is the least that could potentially happen when one doesn't take full and complete responsibility for their sexual choices. Also, keep in mind that the only two choices aren't just 'get an abortion or raise child through age 18'. Many other options exist for a woman who wishes to relinquish her responsibility to someone else.

 

[BillyTK]

1. Yes, yes and yes. If you smoke, expect to have a negative outcome. If you sit on the couch and consume 4k cals a day for twenty years, expect a negative outcome. If you deal w/ stress poorly and do nothing to alieviate that, expect a negative outcome. If you choose to have unprotected sex w/ a poorly choosen lover, expect a negative outcome. If you engaged in risky behavior and there are consequences, step up to the plate. Responsibility is the key word here.

2. I don't think it's a crime against her gender. I think it's a cop out. I think it's potentially a crime against the unborn life she carries. The fuzzy area is the definition of when consciousness begins of course, and so it's hard to say when it turns from a medical procedure into a crime.

0. If you're going to edit the post you're replying to, would you please note what you've done and why. Thank you

1. If people have contributed to a negative outcome, should treatment for that outcome be withheld from them?

2. How is the other person involved in conception going to be held to account? "Unborn life" is an oxymoron; after all, every sperm is a potential "unborn life"; everytime a woman goes through her menstrual cycle, she's terminating potential "unborn lives". If consciousness is the criteria you're going to use here, then it carnt be a crime to kill newborns, which is why I'd go for viability outside the womb.

 

[Yahzi]

She made a poor choice and picked a POS lover who cheated on her and gave her a VD that will remain w/ her for the rest of her days...no cure.

And if a cure was invented tommorrow, would you deny it to your friend? Morally, according to what you've just typed, you would. Does she know this?

It was a direct consequence of her decision

This fantasy that you are in complete control of your life, that accidents never happen, that other people are unable to harm you through their own actions if only you are careful enough, is just a stupid fantasy.

I didn't make the rules, but there they are.

Except you do want to make the rules. Pregnancy is a problem we are quite capable of solving: you just don't want to allow people to solve it. You cannot claim recourse to the invisible rules when the only reason we have the rule is because you want to enforce it.

Pregnancy is the least that could potentially happen when one doesn't take full and complete responsibility for their sexual choices.

And it sometimes happens even when one does take full and complete responsibility. Are you aware that the Pill (and in fact every form of contraception - including sterlization!) has a failure rate? Small, but existant. I'm sorry, are my facts getting in the way of your prejudices?

You keep selling pregnancy as the punishment for having sex. But you don't don't seem to think that broken legs are the punishment for skiiing: you don't think that doctors should be compelled by law to do less than they have the technology to do to fix broken legs. You only want doctors to have their hands tied when it is pregnancy. Because your entire argument, your entire position, simply assumes that pregnancy is the punishment for having sex.