Abortion. Pro-choice reasoning correct?

[Lost until Found]

I have many reasons for being pro-choice, yet one of the strongest reasons I have is that a fetus, in the first trimester when an abortion can happen, is unaware of its existence (thus it does not care if it lives or dies). I found an article that explained my reasoning exactly:

"During the first trimester, a fetus has no idea what is happening, as its brain is not developed enough for such advanced forms of awareness, thought and emotion. In the first trimester, a growing fetus cannot possibly understand what life is. It does not understand that it is being deprived of anything when an abortion is taking place. If my parents aborted my birth, I would not have been upset, as I could not have experienced any emotions during those early weeks of life.
Although it could be argued that I would be missing out on future experiences, I would not have been aware of this deprivation and would therefore not have experienced this deprivation."

I am not trying to start a fight. I simply would like to learn more about the different opinions on this stance.

 

[crippli]

If I'm really drunk I don't think I'm aware of my existence, and don't care if I live or die. I'm pretty sure this wont hold up in court on a murder charge if someone had the splendid idea to kill me while unconscious.

Abortion will always be a controversial theme. I think I go with the notion that parents(primarily female) can decide. They are the ones who will most likely have to care for this.

I don't have an opinion besides that I presume for most it is a difficult decision. The best decision could be to use protection, or stay off the sex. Settle with kissing.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I don't think the matter of the soul / life / consciousness will be solved any time soon, so the first step should be to acknowledge what we are doing:

We are stopping life from growing.

Now that we've acknowledged that, why would abortion be beneficial or harmful?

There are scientific reasons why abortion is beneficial. Instead of disposing them, they can go to stem cell research. Also, incestuous rape victims and unhealthy mothers, I think, should be allowed to have abortions.

Unplanned parenthood, I don't think, should get it so easily. People have to take responsibility.

I don't see any harmful reasons..besides the effects of emotional attachment to the fetus.

 

[Reverse Transcriptase]

Unfortunately, abortions happen and will happen. And the legality of abortion will do nothing to stop it. My friend went to high school in a state where abortion was illegal. Girls who got pregnant would find alternative methods... drinking too much and taking too many birth controls pills at once were common. (No, nothing as gruesome as coathangers. At the least, these girls caught it early.)

There are other parts of the world where fetuses and infants die from malnutrition and disease. Sometimes the death rate can be as high as 50%... which is shocking for a culture like America, where our miscarriage numbers are something like 15%, and the infant mortality rate is barely existent.

To a large extent, being pro-choice about being willing to take the hard path and make the hard decisions about how well one can raise a life. How well you can continue living a decent life with a child. Is a dysfunctional family, non-existant father and poverty worth raising a child? It's a terrible thing to calculate.

Every life is precious. Abortion isn't something you do lightly, and they ones that were let go are still mourned. But sometimes it's the best for our shared future.

 

[gruesomebrat]

I have many reasons for being pro-choice, yet one of the strongest reasons I have is that a fetus, in the first trimester when an abortion can happen, is unaware of its existence (thus it does not care if it lives or dies). I found an article that explained my reasoning exactly:

"During the first trimester, a fetus has no idea what is happening, as its brain is not developed enough for such advanced forms of awareness, thought and emotion. In the first trimester, a growing fetus cannot possibly understand what life is. It does not understand that it is being deprived of anything when an abortion is taking place. If my parents aborted my birth, I would not have been upset, as I could not have experienced any emotions during those early weeks of life.
Although it could be argued that I would be missing out on future experiences, I would not have been aware of this deprivation and would therefore not have experienced this deprivation."

I am not trying to start a fight. I simply would like to learn more about the different opinions on this stance.

So, your reasoning is that if an entity is unaware of the damage that is done to it, that damage doesn't make a difference. Even if I were willing to accept that argument as valid, in and of itself, I'm not sure how this would make it okay for a doctor to terminate pregnancies based solely on the fact that pregnancy or motherhood would be inconvenient to the mother.

The way I see it, abortion is acceptable in cases where delivery would be harmful to either the mother or the child. However, if the only reason for the abortion is because the mother-to-be has decided she doesn't want to be a mother, then I don't see any reason for that abortion to be performed.

Slightly off-topic, but still related... why is it that the "pro-choice" movement seems to have such a problem with the so-called "pro-life" movement? Isn't a mother's decision to carry her baby through to term still a choice? Doesn't that then mean that the "pro-choice" advocates should be all for that decision? It seems to me that marketing themselves as "pro-choice" is just the abortion advocates way of trying to mask the fact that they're encouraging women to kill their babies if the baby isn't going to be convenient to them. [/rant]

 

[Glordag]

However, if the only reason for the abortion is because the mother-to-be has decided she doesn't want to be a mother, then I don't see any reason for that abortion to be performed.

You list a reason for the abortion, then claim that you don't see a reason for the abortion to be performed. Isn't that contradictory?

Slightly off-topic, but still related... why is it that the "pro-choice" movement seems to have such a problem with the so-called "pro-life" movement? Isn't a mother's decision to carry her baby through to term still a choice? Doesn't that then mean that the "pro-choice" advocates should be all for that decision? It seems to me that marketing themselves as "pro-choice" is just the abortion advocates way of trying to mask the fact that they're encouraging women to kill their babies if the baby isn't going to be convenient to them. [/rant]

I've never met a pro-choicer who claims that a mother shouldn't carry a pregnancy to term if they decide to do so. Where is this idea coming from? The reason many pro-choicers have an issue with pro-lifers boils down to infringement. In order to facilitate a "pro-life" society, we must infringe upon the rights of adults. Facilitating a "pro-choice" society only infringes upon the rights of an unborn fetus. Thus, it really comes down to how much of an infringement one thinks it is to terminate the rights of an unborn fetus.

That's how I see it, anyhow.

 

[Meer]

I don't think the 'unaware of it's own existence' argument is very solid. Mostly because you could apply the same reasoning to other situations with different results. Ehh...maybe.

Unplanned parenthood, I don't think, should get it so easily. People have to take responsibility.

I agree with this. If there weren't any abortions due to inconvenience, it would be much less of a massive issue. If a mother's life is in danger, then sure. I'm not so sure about rape, though, or at least what seems to be implied with rape and abortion. The circumstances of a person's conception shouldn't dictate their value, or whatever, and I don't think raising a rapist's child is a guaranteed negative experience. But the choice should be there.

Abortion kind of shows how some of society's ideals sometimes need to be encroached upon in order to do stuff that can benefit society. It's probably best for it to stay controversial instead of altering our ideals or whatever slightly, making room eugenics and other scary stuff, maybe. This last paragraph was kind of half-baked.

 

[Don't mind me]

I definitely agree with the rebuttals to OP's stance about the results one gets if one applies your reasoning consistently.

In order to facilitate a "pro-life" society, we must infringe upon the rights of adults. Facilitating a "pro-choice" society only infringes upon the rights of an unborn fetus. Thus, it really comes down to how much of an infringement one thinks it is to terminate the rights of an unborn fetus.

Yes, what a horrible infringement on the parents' rights to forbid them from murdering the foetus... I suppose we should allow murdering severely mentally handicapped people then, since if we forbid it it's a conspicuous infringement on the rights of everyone else, and the infringement of removing the mentally handicapped person's right to, you know, not be murdered, is morally superior to removing everyone else's right to murder him or her.

Now that we've acknowledged that, why would abortion be beneficial or harmful?

There are scientific reasons why abortion is beneficial. Instead of disposing them, they can go to stem cell research. Also, incestuous rape victims and unhealthy mothers, I think, should be allowed to have abortions.

Unplanned parenthood, I don't think, should get it so easily. People have to take responsibility.

I don't see any harmful reasons..besides the effects of emotional attachment to the fetus.

That strikes me as an example of how incredibly terrifying the employment of utilitarianism can be. First of all, I (and probably pretty much everyone) disagree with the premise that the dis-/utility of anything can be measured and compared. Of course, many utilitarians actually do admit this, but they still make the assumption that it's possibly when trying to reason ethically. Second, and perhaps even more importantly, I disagree with the premise that a net increase in satisfaction/utility/whatever actually justifies everything. Even if a rapist gets a satisfaction increase greater than the rape victim's loss, it's still a violation of the victim's rights and it should still be considered a crime.

The impossibility of measurement and comparison is enough to invalidate the entire idea, though, so I guess the second issue wasn't more important.

Unfortunately, abortions happen and will happen. And the legality of abortion will do nothing to stop it. My friend went to high school in a state where abortion was illegal. Girls who got pregnant would find alternative methods... drinking too much and taking too many birth controls pills at once were common. (No, nothing as gruesome as coathangers. At the least, these girls caught it early.)

Oh, are laws around this issue what has been expressed in my newspapers as "criminalizing miscarriages"? How amusing...

 

[snafupants]

yeah the weird thing is you could be tried for a double murder for, perhaps unwittingly, killing a pregnant lady, even in a state where abortion is legal. the law itself is ambivalent, backwards.

abortion should be treated as any other form of contraception, including but not limited to: condoms, morning after pills, birth control pills, and the diaphragm.

the wiles, the outright cunning of nature to couple an act which humans are programmed to enjoy immensely with nine months of pain for one member and a lifetime of it for the other. this is no accident.

if raising a kid where intrinsically rewarding it would not need to be met with a volcanic rush of neurochemicals in mommy.

 

[shoeless]

i wonder if the views presented by female members differ chiefly from the views presented by male members (i'd look deeper but i don't actually know the sex of most of the members here). because, let's face it, a dude can never really know what it's like to have to face the reality of pregnancy and the decision to keep it or kill it. it's not easy, i promise.

i personally am pro-choice for the fact that i believe in the rights of the mother over the rights of the unborn child, if for no other reason than the mother already has a life that could be more than "inconvenienced" by an unplanned pregnancy. what i seem to be reading into many of these posts is that people who make stupid mistakes don't deserve a second chance? because i have to tell you honestly, if i happened to say get insanely drunk and have unprotected sex with somebody (without really having the capability of saying no due to my inebriation) then i'd be fucking pissed if i conceived and then somebody told me NO YOU MUST KEEP THE BABY YOU IRRESPONSIBLE FOOL! i'd like to be able to consider things and then make a choice. i wouldn't want to be completely fucked on the results of one mistake. doesn't everyone deserve that opportunity?

i suppose my viewpoint on abortion doesn't really consider the life of the fetus much, but as far as i'm concerned, an unborn life is simply not as important as a life already in the making. and babies really can ruin lives. think about it, would you want to be born to a mother that didn't want you?

anyway, that's my two cents, as a female and as somebody who has had to think about this in the scope of the real world before. luckily, i've never been pregnant. i've just been terrified.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

That strikes me as an example of how incredibly terrifying the employment of utilitarianism can be. First of all, I (and probably pretty much everyone) disagree with the premise that the dis-/utility of anything can be measured and compared. Of course, many utilitarians actually do admit this, but they still make the assumption that it's possibly when trying to reason ethically. Second, and perhaps even more importantly, I disagree with the premise that a net increase in satisfaction/utility/whatever actually justifies everything. Even if a rapist gets a satisfaction increase greater than the rape victim's loss, it's still a violation of the victim's rights and it should still be considered a crime.

The impossibility of measurement and comparison is enough to invalidate the entire idea, though, so I guess the second issue wasn't more important.

This is not utilitarianism, though my views lean in that way.

My focus is on acknowledging that morality is unreliable and trying to decide if an action is moral or not can be largely insignificant to the situation.

If the motivation behind an action(i.e. abortion) is reasonable, I consider it okay and free from the concept and constraints of morality.

In my opinion, the concept of morality is inherently flawed, for it seeks standardize itself through consistency, which is dehumanizing, not to mention impossible, to uphold.

Again, if the motivation behind abortion was, for example, that the mother would die otherwise, then the situation has been reasonably considered and is justified, in my opinion. Morality is irrelevant. The qualification of an action should not be subject to the concept of morality, which deals with too many arbitrary factors to actually be a valid system.

 

[Don't mind me]

This is not utilitarianism, though my views lean in that way.

My focus is on acknowledging that morality is unreliable and trying to decide if an action is moral or not can be largely insignificant to the situation.

If the motivation behind an action(i.e. abortion) is reasonable, I consider it okay and free from the concept and constraints of morality.

In my opinion, the concept of morality is inherently flawed, for it seeks standardize itself through consistency, which is dehumanizing, not to mention impossible, to uphold.

Again, if the motivation behind abortion was, for example, that the mother would die otherwise, then the situation has been reasonably considered and is justified, in my opinion. Morality is irrelevant. The qualification of an action should not be subject to the concept of morality, which deals with too many arbitrary factors to actually be a valid system.

You don't recognize that you're simply substituting "morally correct" for "reasonable"? If you don't actually involve any moral evaluation you can only conclude that action A leads to X while action B leads to Y, you can't decide if X or Y is the more desirable situation. In order to do this, you have to make a subjective assessment of what you value and desire (what I would call ethical reasoning/moral judgment/whatever).

I don't understand the sentiment behind your criticisms of moral judgments, really (e.g. upholding consistency being dehumanizing & impossible). If you don't elaborate, I will continue in ignorance. If you do, I might understand. I guess it's up to you to make a moral judgment and decide which outcome is desirable.

 

[Fukyo]

I'm far more concerned with the ethical implications of creating life than terminating it.


As for abortion, I don't find it objectionable, but I don't find murder in itself to be necessarily objectionable either.

 

[Kuu]

Slightly off-topic, but still related... why is it that the "pro-choice" movement seems to have such a problem with the so-called "pro-life" movement? Isn't a mother's decision to carry her baby through to term still a choice? Doesn't that then mean that the "pro-choice" advocates should be all for that decision? It seems to me that marketing themselves as "pro-choice" is just the abortion advocates way of trying to mask the fact that they're encouraging women to kill their babies if the baby isn't going to be convenient to them. [/rant]

What the... ?

I don't think the 'unaware of it's own existence' argument is very solid. Mostly because you could apply the same reasoning to other situations with different results. Ehh...maybe.

Care to elaborate at all?

To a large extent, being pro-choice about being willing to take the hard path and make the hard decisions about how well one can raise a life. How well you can continue living a decent life with a child. Is a dysfunctional family, non-existant father and poverty worth raising a child? It's a terrible thing to calculate.

i personally am pro-choice for the fact that i believe in the rights of the mother over the rights of the unborn child, if for no other reason than the mother already has a life that could be more than "inconvenienced" by an unplanned pregnancy. what i seem to be reading into many of these posts is that people who make stupid mistakes don't deserve a second chance? because i have to tell you honestly, if i happened to say get insanely drunk and have unprotected sex with somebody (without really having the capability of saying no due to my inebriation) then i'd be fucking pissed if i conceived and then somebody told me NO YOU MUST KEEP THE BABY YOU IRRESPONSIBLE FOOL! i'd like to be able to consider things and then make a choice. i wouldn't want to be completely fucked on the results of one mistake. doesn't everyone deserve that opportunity?

Indeed.

I just plainly don't get how people that are pro-life can think that an unwanted child born to a single mother that probably had to abandon her education and dreams and get some crap ass job struggling to survive because she made one error of judgment and society would not let her even have the choice of deciding to not keep the not even sentient fetus will have any sort of happy childhood. And if she was so "irresponsable" to begin with, what makes them think that same person actually will be able to properly raise a child? It makes zero sense to me.

I think it is highly questionable to force people to have children... If they think that they don't have the capacity to raise a child, and fear it will only have a miserable childhood and on top of that ruin their lives... but you force them to have it with zero guarantee for the child's wellbeing, and certainly no support for the mother.... how is that any kind of right?

It seems to me they're not really factoring in all the ethical implications to creating life, like fukyo says. Personally I will never have a child, not accidentally, and not deliberately....

 

[Oblivious]

http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=390

http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=1286

I was such a trooper in those days.

 

[Glordag]

Yes, what a horrible infringement on the parents' rights to forbid them from murdering the foetus...

The reason pro-choicers claim that there is a right involved with an abortion is because of the impact to a woman's body and life in order to go through with a pregnancy. That isn't something to be taken lightly.

I suppose we should allow murdering severely mentally handicapped people then, since if we forbid it it's a conspicuous infringement on the rights of everyone else, and the infringement of removing the mentally handicapped person's right to, you know, not be murdered, is morally superior to removing everyone else's right to murder him or her.

Things always sound better when you phrase them with passion, emotion, and bias, right? How does a handicapped person infringe upon the rights of another person? A better analogy would be murdering a conjoined twin. Of course, the difference in that scenario is that each twin has as much right as the other...

At any rate, I'm also going to bring up the "do we really need more babies in this world?" argument, as well. I mean, seriously...there are a lot of people on this planet :\ .

 

[mke2686]

I don't think the matter of the soul / life / consciousness will be solved any time soon, so the first step should be to acknowledge what we are doing:

We are stopping life from growing.

Now that we've acknowledged that, why would abortion be beneficial or harmful?

There are scientific reasons why abortion is beneficial. Instead of disposing them, they can go to stem cell research. Also, incestuous rape victims and unhealthy mothers, I think, should be allowed to have abortions.

Unplanned parenthood, I don't think, should get it so easily. People have to take responsibility.

I don't see any harmful reasons..besides the effects of emotional attachment to the fetus.

i agree with everything in this post

 

[MissQuote]

To make abortion illegal would be in a sense to tell all females that the biological fuctions of their bodies are of higher worth than their own sentient existance or anything they could contribute to society with it, including their own intelligence over whether said biological function is something they wish to have happen to them.

I believe abortion should be discouraged, mainly by means of pregnancy prevention education, but always allowed without the need to prove necessity (i.e. prove one was raped).

A second argument can be made towards it being legal when the actual medical aspect is considered. Making abortion illegal will not cease it from happening and people who choose to abort shouldn't have to resort to risky and/or shady means that would not only endanger them but also encourage exploitation of people in vulnerable situations.

The are the first couple of logical arguments that come to mind. I think the entire topic is one that is rife with emotion on both sides, one problem is both sides are arguing different points, one arguing for the rights of the baby, the other arguing for the rights of the woman, and neither is able to bend.

 

[gcomeau]

The primary argument in favor of legal abortions is simple and, as far as I have ever found, unassailable.

Mother's body, mother's choice. PERIOD.

Any arguments about whether the fetus is aware or not, is a person or not, has feelings or not... are completely and totally irrelevent. And to prove it we're going to give the fetus every single last benefit of the doubt.

For the sake of argument we're going to say that it's a person, it's sentient, it has feelings, it has EVERY SINGLE LAST RIGHT any other person has. A person like, say, me.

Now... in order to extend my life do I have the right to use someone else's body against their will to accomplish that end? Why no, I damn well do not. If there is a conflict between my right to life and someone else's right to control over their own body I am out of luck.

What if it's *their fault* I'm in this situation? Let's take it to the most extreme unlikely condition... Some idiot hit me with their car, I need a blood transfusion (fust a freaking BLOOD transfusion, a little damn prick in their arm!!!!), the jackass that hit me is the only compatible donor that can be located before I'm going to bleed out.

They say no.

Guess what? Too bad for me. I STILL don't have the right to force them to use their body in *any way whatsoever* against their will, even to save my life. NO person has that right.

So if the fetus is a person, so what? People don't have the right to use other people's bodies against their will. Not to do a tiny ittle thing like draw blood, sure as HELL not to use their body as an incubator for nine months. The end.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

The primary argument in favor of legal abortions is simple and, as far as I have ever found, unassailable.

Mother's body, mother's choice. PERIOD.

Any arguments about whether the fetus is aware or not, is a person or not, has feelings or not... are completely and totally irrelevent. And to prove it we're going to give the fetus every single last benefit of the doubt.

For the sake of argument we're going to say that it's a person, it's sentient, it has feelings, it has EVERY SINGLE LAST RIGHT any other person has. A person like, say, me.

Now... in order to extend my life do I have the right to use someone else's body against their will to accomplish that end? Why no, I damn well do not. If there is a conflict between my right to life and someone else's right to control over their own body I am out of luck.

What if it's *their fault* I'm in this situation? Let's take it to the most extreme unlikely condition... Some idiot hit me with their car, I need a blood transfusion (fust a freaking BLOOD transfusion, a little damn prick in their arm!!!!), the jackass that hit me is the only compatible donor that can be located before I'm going to bleed out.

They say no.

Guess what? Too bad for me. I STILL don't have the right to force them to use their body in *any way whatsoever* against their will, even to save my life. NO person has that right.

So if the fetus is a person, so what? People don't have the right to use other people's bodies against their will. Not to do a tiny ittle thing like draw blood, sure as HELL not to use their body as an incubator for nine months. The end.

Inconsistent analogy.

Abortion illegalizing = Non action
Forcing blood transfusion = Action

 

[crippli]

The primary argument in favor of legal abortions is simple and, as far as I have ever found, unassailable.

Mother's body, mother's choice. PERIOD.

It's not so simple. Because in most cases she can not do it herself. She needs help to do it. So in essence it's someone elses choice to provide this help. That means it's a collective decision.

 

[gcomeau]

Inconsistent analogy.

Abortion illegalizing = Non action
Forcing blood transfusion = Action

Forcing someone, by law, to undergo a nine month long pregnancy and then give birth = ACTION.

You want to disagree, go into a delivery room and tell the screaming lady that she isn't doing anything so please keep it down and stop being so dramatic. Let us know if you survive the experience.

It's not so simple. Because in most cases she can not do it herself.

Now tell me the part where that's relevent in any way whatsoever.

 

[crippli]

Now tell me the part where that's relevent in any way whatsoever.

I believe I already addressed how it's relevant.

If I like a job done. I think the workers are relevant. You don't?

 

[gcomeau]

I believe I already addressed how it's relevant.

If I like a job done. I do tend to think the workers are relevant. You don't?

And where does it become relevent to *the rights* of the people involved? Were you under the impression that not making abortion illegal somehow forced specific individuals to perform them against their will or something?

 

[crippli]

And where does it become relevent to *the rights* of the people involved? Were you under the impression that not making abortion illegal somehow forced specific individuals to perform them against their will or something?

Who makes the rights? One single person, or a collective?

And no. I believe you can make any person perform any task if you just pay enough.

 

[gcomeau]

Who makes the rights? One single person, or a collective?

I can make no sense out of those sentences... what in the world are you talking about?

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Forcing someone, by law, to undergo a nine month long pregnancy and then give birth = ACTION.

You want to disagree, go into a delivery room and tell the screaming lady that she isn't doing anything so please keep it down and stop being so dramatic. Let us know if you survive the experience.

Your reasoning still fails. Like the previous poster before me pointed out, in this case, deciding to have sex was a choice of will. Pregnancy was the risk. There is no forced action in the case of illegalizing abortion.

Now in the case of being in an accident and needing a blood transfusion, you cannot escape accidents. Surely you also cannot equate daily commute as the same as having indulgent sex. In this case, forcing a transfusion is proactive action.

 

[crippli]

I can make no sense out of those sentences... what in the world are you talking about?

Abortion.

My point is that it is a collective decision regarding the abortion.

The decision to do so is up to the person in question...that seems obvious.

But by making that argument(your post), are those who are to kill the fetus not allowed to decide what they will use their body for? And refuse, if they don't want to do it?

 

[menaceh2k]

i personally see the issue of abortion as a red herring. i find it rather ironic that the pro life pro choice debate stops after 9months. after the child is born what happens to it is rather irrelevant. the parent does not have to keep it, so it is really not a matter of responsibility for those who did not plan ahead. If our society was responsible for taking care of the child from conception to adulthood, it would be a different issue. But like many other things people debate, fight, etc over 10% of the issue and forgoing the rest. Ive always thought the abortion issue as a non-issue because we dont really care about human life as a society. at the core of the issue is our societal's historical repressed sexuality manifesting itself. if it was really about the life of the child we would not stop caring after birth.

 

[MissQuote]

What if science could come up with a way to implant unwanted pregnancies into "donor wombs"?

Instead of aborting, ceasing the life, offending fetuses (would it be Feti in the plural?, seems like it should be.) could be removed from the bodies of women who choose not to carry them to term and relocated into the bodies of volunteer women who feel the sanctity of the life is worth the sacrifice.

With this plan the only problem is what to do with them once they are out for good after their gestation.

 

[MissQuote]

and as cynical as all that ^ sounds, I really was being at least halfway serious.

 

[gcomeau]

Your reasoning still fails. Like the previous poster before me pointed out, in this case, deciding to have sex was a choice of will. Pregnancy was the risk. There is no forced action in the case of illegalizing abortion.

Try to follow along carefully.

Undergoing a nine month long pregnancy is an action.

Giving birth is an action.

Making it illegal to terminate that process is what we call "FORCING" said actions.

What part of this is not clear to you?

And to return to my analogy, the driver that hit me made a choice to drive a vehicle. A risk of driving the vehicle was that they would get in an accident and injure someone else.

So... now the law says they have forfeited their right to self determination over their body parts... right? Oh wait, no it doesn't.

Now in the case of being in an accident and needing a blood transfusion, you cannot escape accidents.

Guess what you call unintentionally getting pregnant. AN ACCIDENT.

Abortion.

My point is that it is a collective decision regarding the abortion.

The decision to do so is up to the person in question...that seems obvious.

But by making that argument(your post), are those who are to kill the fetus not allowed to decide what they will use their body for? And refuse, if they don't want to do it?

Ok, so you seriously do think that not making abortion illegal somehow involves forcing people to perform abortions against their will...

Wow. Just... wow.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Try to follow along carefully.

Undergoing a nine month long pregnancy is an action.

Giving birth is an action.

Yes, but what set this action in motion was NOT the law. Who had sex and got pregnant?

Making it illegal to terminate that process is what we call "FORCING" said actions.

There is no force to become pregnant. Your logic is muddy.

Not pregnant - > Sex - > Pregnant - > Abortion
Her------------------Her------Her-----------Her

Not pregnant - > Sex - > Pregnant - > No Abortion - > Birth
Her------------------Her------Her-----------Her---------------Her

It is logically clear that sex WILL lead to pregnancy, there is NO accident. People are, or should be, well aware that it is their own choice to commit sexual acts that set the ball in motion.

The law is NOT forcing women to have sex, therefore they are not forcing any proactive action against pregnant females.

There are many methods to prevent pregnancy, failure on the side of the acting party to do so is their own fault.

Driving - > Accident - > Blood Transfusion
Driver--------Driver---------You

Driving does not probabilistically, in a definite and logical way, lead to car accidents. There are far too many factors in play to say that the Driver is directly responsible and is compelled to fulfill his obligation as the blood donor.

Yes, he is the last factor in play, but he did not set the ball in motion.

Forcing the driver to donate because he was the last factor is not the same as indirectly forcing birth by preventing abortion.

 

[crippli]

What if science could come up with a way to implant unwanted pregnancies into "donor wombs"?

Instead of aborting, ceasing the life, offending fetuses (would it be Feti in the plural?, seems like it should be.) could be removed from the bodies of women who choose not to carry them to term and relocated into the bodies of volunteer women who feel the sanctity of the life is worth the sacrifice.

With this plan the only problem is what to do with them once they are out for good after their gestation.

I think it's just a question of time until we have functional artificial wombs to deliver offspring. In gender reassignment surgery it's one of the sides that are not done properly yet. Certainly there exists a marked.

Ok, so you seriously do think that not making abortion illegal somehow involves forcing people to perform abortions against their will...

The thing is that I'm conflicted about this. Just the other day, walking past the hospital I was thinking how nice it would be having clinics on the corners you could drop by to have your life terminated. Just a chair you sit down, and having someone inject a syringe in your arm, and deposing of your body in the backyard.

Instead of coffee bars, you could have these.

But then I got to thinking. It's not just about me is it, about my rights?

Btw. It's illegal to do suicide. Why is that?

How do doctors consider abortions? Should they be allowed to decide if they will help?

 

[SpaceYeti]

I don't see any reason abortion ought to be illegal. Sure, there are arguments on each side, but arguing is stupid. There's simply no reason for it to be illegal. At least, not in the first trimester.

 

[Don't mind me]

So if the fetus is a person, so what? People don't have the right to use other people's bodies against their will. Not to do a tiny ittle thing like draw blood, sure as HELL not to use their body as an incubator for nine months. The end.

I would contend that the woman actually does grant the foetus the right to be carried to term by merely becoming pregnant. She knew what she was doing when she had sex.

I'm trying to come up with an analogy. Given that the actual issue involves creation of life, it's quite hard. An equivalent of this isn't easy to find.

Let's try this: Person X is in state A (as in condition, how X and his set of attributes are). Person Y enters a contractual agreement with X which says that for a specified amount of time, X and Y will be connected in a way that puts X in state B. After the specified time, they will be separated, and X will be in state C. If Y disconnects her-/himself from X before the specified time has passed, X will die. All of this is agreed upon and specified in the contract.

Now, person X has the right to Y's body in the sense expressed in the agreement. Even though Y's possibilities are limited if she adheres to contract, it is still not acceptable that she disconnect herself from X. Doing so would be an infringement on X's rights.

Of course, X=foetus/baby, Y=mother, A="non-existence" (the troubles of finding an equivalent of this was what made me settle with simply letters for everything), B=the state of being a foetus, C=the state of being a born human. Also, quite crucial for what I'm saying, contract=conception.

I would like to posit that in conceiving the mother binds herself to supporting the foetus until its birth. I'm not sure if anyone would agree with this, but the trivialization of pregnancy and termination thereof seems to me to be ignoring the profoundness of creating life and the sheer abomination of ending it. Frankly, it rather appalls me when this is marginalized by people who uphold the horrors of actually being a pregnant mother as the worst evil involved in abortions, although admittedly I've never given birth to anyone and wouldn't know what it's like.

Ok, so you seriously do think that not making abortion illegal somehow involves forcing people to perform abortions against their will...

Wow. Just... wow.

The woman who wants an abortion voluntarily contacts a doctor. The doctor, quite likely, voluntarily performs the abortion, in exchange for his wage. This wage is paid by someone. IF it is paid by the state, it comes from tax revenue. Taxes are forcibly collected from the people whether they want to or not.

If abortions are tax-funded, people are indirectly forced to "perform" abortions against their will.

Of course, if the procedure is voluntarily funded by the woman herself or others this isn't the case.

 

[Jennywocky]

Slightly off-topic, but still related... why is it that the "pro-choice" movement seems to have such a problem with the so-called "pro-life" movement? Isn't a mother's decision to carry her baby through to term still a choice? Doesn't that then mean that the "pro-choice" advocates should be all for that decision? It seems to me that marketing themselves as "pro-choice" is just the abortion advocates way of trying to mask the fact that they're encouraging women to kill their babies if the baby isn't going to be convenient to them.

As far as engaging on this forum, let's please not just start categorizing each other as part of a binary position and then start assuming how each other feels.

(Specifically, I might vote "pro-choice" in the end; but it's a hard decision, and I don't really "have a problem" with the "pro-life" position. I understand where it's coming from, and I respect it. I only hate it when people treat each other like asshats or start slandering each other's character because of their broad position. I think some of that intensity of feeling within the two movements though occurs because of what each feels is happening; some lifers see choicers as murderers, while choicers can see lifers as slavers/dictators.)

As far as applying your descriptions just to the broad movements themselves, I think you're just describing the extremes. Pro-life extremists and pro-choice extremists are both problems in themselves, where pro-choice could abort out of mere convenience and pro-life would insist on life in any circumstance beyond their personal jurisdiction without sharing any responsibility for such life. Neither of them really depicts a realistic pro-choice or pro-life opinion. Choice vs life is not really a binary pair either, both are actually "goods" on the continuum of human morality, and we're trying to decide which "good" to honor in a particular situation.

 

[gcomeau]

Yes, but what set this action in motion was NOT the law. Who had sex and got pregnant?

There is no force to become pregnant. Your logic is muddy.

Just as there is no force to drive a car and get in an accident. My logic remains clear as a mountain stream, sorry.

Not pregnant - > Sex - > Pregnant - > Abortion
Her------------------Her------Her-----------Her

Not pregnant - > Sex - > Pregnant - > No Abortion - > Birth
Her------------------Her------Her-----------Her---------------Her

Not pregnant -> Sex -> Pregnant -> Tries to Abort -> PREVENTED FROM DOING SO
Her----------------Her-----Her------------Her--------------- YOU

Oh look at that, logic still clear.

It is logically clear that sex WILL lead to pregnancy, there is NO accident.

Good grief, I've somehow managed to become involved in a discussion with the only person on the internet who never heard of condoms or birth control pills, or taken a sex ed class and thus thinks pregnancy is a certain outcome of sex!

People are, or should be, well aware that it is their own choice to commit sexual acts that set the ball in motion.

The law is NOT forcing women to have sex, therefore they are not forcing any proactive action against pregnant females.

You can't possibly be this obtuse.

If you make something illegal you have to enforce it.

Enforcement is proactive action.

If you make it illegal for a woman who does not want to be pregnant to terminate a pregnancy you are FORCING that woman to go through a nine month pregnancy and give birth against her will. There is no rationally debating that point. If she doesn't want to do it, and the law makes her do it, what the hell do you think "forcing" means?

There are many methods to prevent pregnancy, failure on the side of the acting party to do so is their own fault.

Driving - > Accident - > Blood Transfusion
Driver--------Driver---------You

Driving does not probabilistically, in a definite and logical way, lead to car accidents. There are far too many factors in play to say that the Driver is directly responsible and is compelled to fulfill his obligation as the blood donor.

There are many methods to prevent getting in an accident. Failure on the side of the driver to do so is their own fault.

Oh wait... those aren't 100% effective, so accidents still happen anyway! You're totally right!

Oh wait, guess what else isn't 100% effective? Is it.... condoms? Is it... birth control pills? DING DING DING!

Amazing how well my analogy holds up isn't it?

Yes, he is the last factor in play, but he did not set the ball in motion.

What the hell are you talking about? Getting in the car and driving it set the ball in motion, if he didn't do it was he possessed by an evil spirit?

Forcing the driver to donate because he was the last factor is not the same as indirectly forcing birth by preventing abortion.

There is nothing indirect about that.

 

[gcomeau]

I would contend that the woman actually does grant the foetus the right to be carried to term by merely becoming pregnant.

If she didn't intend to become pregnant then getting pregnant was an accident.

You can't. Consent. To accidents.

Let's try this: Person X is in state A (as in condition, how X and his set of attributes are). Person Y enters a contractual agreement with X which says that for a specified amount of time, X and Y will be connected in a way that puts X in state B.

You also don't accidentally enter a contractual agreement.

The woman who wants an abortion voluntarily contacts a doctor. The doctor, quite likely, voluntarily performs the abortion, in exchange for his wage. This wage is paid by someone. IF it is paid by the state, it comes from tax revenue. Taxes are forcibly collected from the people whether they want to or not.

If abortions are tax-funded, people are indirectly forced to "perform" abortions against their will.

Good grief, I'm going to need psychological counselling for my post traumatic stress disorder.

See... a LOT of my tax dollars, way more than could ever conceivably be spent somehow subsidizing abortion costs, went to paying for the war in Iraq. I've been forced to go to war against my will!!!! To shoot people and blow them up!

It still haunts me... sometimes I can hear the screams at night...

 

[Don't mind me]

If she didn't intend to become pregnant then getting pregnant was an accident.

You can't. Consent. To accidents.



You also don't accidentally enter a contractual agreement.

Yes, I know. I treated it as if she deliberately got herself pregnant and then decided to get an abortion since I wanted to propose that, in this case, abortion might not be justified. Earlier, you seemed to state that abortion was justified in any and all situations. This is why I thought that my proposal might be of some interest. But yeah, you're right, I phrased it as if I meant all cases.



But I still think there's something there. Ridiculous example: Putting timed bombs on a field, leaving and watching the field from afar with binoculars for entertainment doesn't necessarily mean that someone is going to get killed, but every once in a while someone will be close enough to the bomb when it goes off to get killed. Is the bombman not in any way responsible for this? He's guilty of killing this man, so he should be brought to justice. But it was an accident; it wasn't his intention to blow the kind man up.

But the entire approach of looking at intention is, in my view, deeply flawed. The inescapable fact is that you can't actually read someone's mind and know their intention. So you try to look at the actions taken by them, conditions around them etc. and try to make a judgment whether or not it can be reasonably argued that it was their intention etc., and ultimately, it boils down to an arbitrary judgment which makes a whole lot of assumptions about the thought process, mental capacity, preferences etc. of the actor. But these are all fundamentally unknowable things. Only in our hypotheticals can we say "She intended it" or "it was an accident", in practice, these things cannot be known. Is this really the path to justice?

I don't really know how to integrate probabilities, accidents, intentions etc. into my "moral judgments".

Good grief, I'm going to need psychological counselling for my post traumatic stress disorder.

See... a LOT of my tax dollars, way more than could ever conceivably be spent somehow subsidizing abortion costs, went to paying for the war in Iraq. I've been forced to go to war against my will!!!! To shoot people and blow them up!

It still haunts me... sometimes I can hear the screams at night...

Yes. You are, under the threat of violence, forced to fund war. Fine, maybe you don't think it's proper to call this indirectly engaging in war, but it's still your money that's being used to make possible bombings in the middle east, and it is being taken against your will (essentially at gun point). This is something that should haunt you. The screams of innocent civilians getting slaughtered over there are directly effected by use of your money. This is something I find appalling, I don't know why you seem to think it a triviality.

 

[SpaceYeti]

You can't. Consent. To accidents.

Yet you can consent to taking a risk of an accident.

 

[aaaw]

I have yet to hear any convincing or rational argument for making abortions illegal. It's a total non-issue as far as I'm concerned.

Abortion isn't murder, it isn't killing a baby, it's preventing a bunch of cells from reaching their potential to become an independent human life.

There are enough people on the planet already, why not keep child birth for those that are ready for it and want to become parents?

 

[gcomeau]

Yet you can consent to taking a risk of an accident.

Quite true. I'm going to assume you're not implying that consenting to risk of the accident means consenting to be legally barred from taking what action you then deem is necessary to alleviating the consequences if the accident should, against the odds, actually occur.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Quite true. I'm going to assume you're not implying that consenting to risk of the accident means consenting to be legally barred from taking what action you then deem is necessary to alleviating the consequences if the accident should, against the odds, actually occur.

Even if the odds are large, no.

 

[cheese]

Once again, Wikipedia says it best:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_debate#Terminology

I don't know which side is morally superior, but the arguments from both sides are so often really retarded. They dodge the issue the other side brings up and focus on character assassination instead to win sympathy votes. If this were done to gain actual votes for legislation then I'd understand, though it's still pretty under-handed but at least it's clear and goal-oriented thinking and action. But these are the kind of arguments I hear on the street, where the individual fight doesn't make a mite of difference.

Perhaps this reveals a slight bias but I find the pro-choice camp often offers the dumbest retaliatory remarks. On the other hand, I quite liked gcomeau's argument in favour of their side (although I do agree with ESC's criticisms) so hopefully I'm not just blinded by prejudice. It actually addressed the issue of whether the fetus has any right to use the mother's body, instead of dodging the issue and complaining about how sad the mum's life would be or how unfair it is for people to tell her what to do when she didn't mean for things to turn out like this, it was totally an accident and you guys are so unfair! - which is really just the sort of immature, whiny thing a kid says to his parents when they're forcing him to face the consequences of what he's done. Demanding grace and a second chance and all that is also sort of missing the point, I think - again, totally self-focused (should try to get the issue of the fetus's rights out of the way instead) and sort of forgets that grace and second chances are gifts, not something you have a right to. These sorts of things are too easily attacked so they really need to find better avenues of defense (which I think they do have, it's just that the stuff the common man resorts to is pretty weak). Besides, saying you deserve a 'second chance' and that it was an 'accident' kinda emphasises the fact that you made a mistake and should've been a bit more careful, which emphasises the fact that you're responsible for this 'terrible thing' that has happened. Killing someone because they're sort of in the way and you want a second chance, mum, is generally considered a really bad solution to your guilt. (I'm not saying fetuses can be considered people, but this is how the pro-life movement would see it, and that's why this line of argument is totally useless.)

Having to carry your rapist's baby must really suck though. But again, I don't know if that's enough justification to end a life. It's the same sort of moral conundrum presented in many mind-fuck movies: Kill an innocent man or you'll be horribly tortured, or something along those lines. Is it fair for the man to die? I don't know how to answer this kind of question. I would guess not though, and I think most people would agree. So again the question shouldn't be whether the pain caused to you is enough to justify you killing another person, but whether that life you're ending actually constitutes a person. (Otherwise you'll be too easily shot down by the moral police.) Afaik it doesn't, although that still has its own issues. Life is a complicated matter.

Anyway, one argument I find quite snazzy uses the actual legal status of children (instead of talking about morality which is sort of murky) to argue for/against the type of rights a fetus should have. This is the clearest argument I think. The law says this, you check to see if what you're saying fits in, and if it doesn't, too bad - because at the end of the day this is a legal issue. Of course that doesn't leave room for change that might be morally necessary but the least you can do is check it out first. [This paragraph sounds pretty sus.]

Whether fetuses can legally be considered people, and whether their rights take precedence over the mother's, and whether the two are more accurately considered one entity, and whether their status as person or non-person should affect their right to life, and how this ties in with animal rights movements, are much more interesting and more productive lines of inquiry imo.



The donor mother idea sounds really interesting. Would it be that much more difficult than surrogacy? Maybe it's possible now.

 

[A22]

I was eating an egg for breakfast today and the thought of abortion came to mind. I mean, you are by somehow inhibiting that egg from becoming a living creature. In abortion you destroy the embryo instead of the zygote - It's a matter of when live "begins". A curiosity: In some asian countrys, Balut, an boiled egg with an embryo inside is considered a delicacy.

 

[GottabeKB]

Couldn't a woman give her child up for an adoption for free as an alternative to abortion? I don't understand the arguments for pro-choice who say that it will be horrible for the woman who has to raise a child if they were raped, or had an unplanned pregnancy and the father left. Couldn't these women simply give up their child for adoption then as an alternative to aborting it?

 

[Fukyo]

Couldn't a woman give her child up for an adoption for free as an alternative to abortion? I don't understand the arguments for pro-choice who say that it will be horrible for the woman who has to raise a child if they were raped, or had an unplanned pregnancy and the father left. Couldn't these women simply give up their child for adoption then as an alternative to aborting it?

I think you fail to understand that pregnancy and childbirth are actually body horror.

Do you realize that most of the time the vagina tears during childbirth? Either by itself, but it's actually cut up towards by the doctors in a lot of medical institutions as a routine procedure. It's genital mutilation that can even extend to form anal tears that can cause anal leakage. If it's a cesarean it involves cutting the freaking uterus open. It's not even over after that. There's the recovery period after that to endure.

None of this taking into consideration that the nine moths of pregnancy are painful and completely screw with the woman's emotions.

It is far from a mere inconvenience.

 

[Cavallier]

I'm a pro-choicer mostly because I value having the opportunity to make a choice over strangers making a law and then forcing me to follow it. It's way to personal and situational a decision to make a blanket law for it.

Also, the adoption program in the U.S.A. is hardly a good one. Though I don't know about other countries and can only speak for my own.

As an aside:

I think couples considering having a child should consider first adopting a child. No "body horror" as Fukyo puts it, it helps to lessen the overpopulation of this planet, and these kids really really really need a good home to go to. I think most people would find that they love the infant they bring home from the orphanage just as much as they love the infant with their own DNA.

 

[GottabeKB]

I think you fail to understand that pregnancy and childbirth are actually body horror.

Do you realize that most of the time the vagina tears during childbirth? Either by itself, but it's actually cut up towards by the doctors in a lot of medical institutions as a routine procedure. It's genital mutilation that can even extend to form anal tears that can cause anal leakage. If it's a cesarean it involves cutting the freaking uterus open. It's not even over after that. There's the recovery period after that to endure.

None of this taking into consideration that the nine moths of pregnancy are painful and completely screw with the woman's emotions.

It is far from a mere inconvenience.

Fair enough. I guess because I have never had sisters and I never saw my mother go through the birthing process, my comment was unsympathetic towards the 'body horror' women have to go through when birthing a baby. So are you saying that if there was no pain involved with birthing then you would be Ok with women putting up their child for adoption as an alternative for abortion?

Personally I think that a human life should not be trivialized and thrown out simply because of an unplanned pregnancy. I figure that upon conception a human life is made. Using contraception is Ok because they inhibit the sperm and the egg from coming together and since the sperm and the egg do not constitute a human life in and of themselves then it is perfectly fine to use them. The problem for me lies in killing an unborn baby simply because of the complications of a unplanned pregnancy. Isn't a human life worth more than that? Understand that I am arguing with the premise that a human life is constituted upon conception. Sure it can't feel, can't voice its opinion, but it is human because it will grow into a human adult if circumstances allow it to. It has the potential for perhaps making huge scientific discoveries, or making possible seemingly impossible feats. This is why I don't enjoy the prospect of abortion because it limits the possible potential for humanity. Sure we don't need more people on this planet but perhaps the one child that was aborted could have solved the problem of population on Earth.

However I am not arguing that a woman shouldn't have an abortion at all costs. If it is possible that the woman will die upon childbirth then yes, I think it would be perfectly fine for an abortion to occur because the livelihood of the living person should not be subjected to the livelihood of a child who only just breathed his first breath. When a woman is raped it is fair for a woman to have the choice I think. I'm still undecided over that issue. Anyways, I think that the livelihood of a pregnant woman is only a small bit greater than the livelihood of the unborn baby, thus this is where my understanding of this issue comes from.

I'm a pro-choicer mostly because I value having the opportunity to make a choice over strangers making a law and then forcing me to follow it. It's way to personal and situational a decision to make a blanket law for it.

So you just don't want to adhere to a law? What makes this law any different than any other law? Why is it too personal and situational a decision? (This is simply to receive an understanding on your point of view)