Is Abortion Ethical?

[Duplighost]

Do you believe abortion is ethical?

• What are your opinions on the justification of abortion?
• Do you believe it is should be a legal act if it is requested by a mother?
• Is it morally acceptable/correct?

Discuss below, and support your argument with facts and details.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I fall firmly in the camp of "It is your body, you can do with it as you please". Or, put more formally, the "bodily autonomy argument". To put it quite bluntly, a woman has no obligation to rent out her body to anyone, under virtually any circumstances.

We have two competing rights here, and this is quite often misunderstood. The right of the mother to bodily autonomy, and the claim of the fetus to the resources of the mother's body. Because the fact is that the fetus has no claim to the body of the mother. Simply because removing the fetus from that situation would end its life (and let's not forget into the significant differences between a fetus and an actual human child - irrelevant to this argument, but still worth mentioning) does not inherently grant that fetus the right to infringe on the bodily autonomy of the mother.

Remember, consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, and consent to pregnancy is not consent to continued pregnancy. We are, after all, talking about something that is very unsafe - the death rate in live birth is 8.8 per 100,000 in the west, compared to 0.6 per 100,000 for abortion; a more than tenfold increase, and considerably worse when you consider a non-hospital setting. There are countless good reasons for a woman to seek out an abortion - not the least of which is a simple "I'm not ready to have a child right now"!

And of course, all of this ignores the incredibly messy discussion about whether or not a fetus is "alive" or "a human" or "a person", and where things such as rights should begin to apply. I don't think a fetus in the first trimester can realistically qualify as a separate human being, let alone a "person" in any meaningful sense, and I don't see the point in conferring any human rights to one. This distinction gets messier the further along you go, but anyone claiming that a blastocyst deserves the same rights as you or I has, in my opinion, lost all sense of proportion.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Damn! Talk about a topic that will really stir a pot of flames, but I'll jump in.

Personally, what Budget said more or less goes with my thoughts, though I do have a couple of differing opinions. I have a bit of a problem when a woman uses abortion as a form of birth control, especially with so many measures to prevent pregnancy to begin with, but I still won't judge said woman should she rely on abortion as if it were a condom either - it's just something I find stupid to rely upon. Now understand that if any form of birth control used fails (condom breaks, pulling out, pill failed, etc.), then abortion is easily fair game. Likewise, if having the baby proves to be a risk to the mother's health, then abortion is more than viable.

Now the only time I do truly have an issue, is if the mother decides to have an abortion when she's extremely advanced in her pregnancy, to the point where the baby is able to breathe and cry once out of the womb. At that point, it is a life that is being taken, and unless having the baby means risking the mother's life, I personally feel there should be clear boundaries where an abortion just isn't an option simply because the woman in question thought, "Y'know, on second thought, I don't want it". Worst case scenario, just give the baby up for adoption. Regardless, because it doesn't affect me directly what the mother does, even when she's 8-9 months pregnant, I don't care too much, so anything I feel is irrelevant in the grand scheme.

Now here's an interesting question: What if the mother wants an abortion, but the father wants to keep the baby? Does the father not have any say because he's not the one carrying the child for 9 months? Surely, the mother could just give all custody rights to the father if she really doesn't want to raise a child. Mind you, the "risk to the woman's life" thing still applies, so in that respect, I think the father should have no say if that situation should surface. Otherwise, if the mother can have the baby with no ill effects, shouldn't the father have some rights to the child's fate? Some food for thought.

 

[Sehnsucht]

Seems we're all on the same general page.

Comprehensive sexual education and easy access to contraceptive measures would go some way to prevent unintended/undesired pregnancies (and thereby reduce the prevalence of abortion). Yet abortion should nonetheless exist as a safe, convenient, and legal option for those that need or want it.

Like Gomez, I have personal reservations about the idea of using abortion as a convenient, go-to contraceptive method. Abortive procedures should be legalized and available, and if a pregnant woman decides to take advantage of such procedures as their go-to contraception, nothing much you can do about it -- because as BCP outlines, the chief concern is bodily autonomy.

Even so, I tend to see abortion as more of an auxiliary measure. The ideal would be to practice safe and responsible sexual conduct. Abortion for reasons of medical necessity or not being able to foster a child may be fine, but doing so out of convenience bespeaks of a certain carelessness of character. Because abortion necessarily prevents a potential person from being actualized, so it's a heavy thing to consider snuffing that potential.

It is my view that other options (contraceptive items, Plan B, etc.) should be prioritized ahead of abortion as one's contraceptive measure, if you want to minimize risks of pregnancy. In the event an expectant mother changes their mind partway through term, then those contraceptive items aren't of use anymore. Abortion thus becomes a potential solution, but so can giving the child up for adoption. Because with adoption, you at least give the chance for a potential person to grow and contribute to society.

So basically, abortion's priority is dependent on one's circumstance and desires, and it should be available to those who want or need it, but other options should be given equal consideration before settling for abortion.

Now here's an interesting question: What if the mother wants an abortion, but the father wants to keep the baby? Does the father not have any say because he's not the one carrying the child for 9 months? Surely, the mother could just give all custody rights to the father if she really doesn't want to raise a child. Mind you, the "risk to the woman's life" thing still applies, so in that respect, I think the father should have no say if that situation should surface. Otherwise, if the mother can have the baby with no ill effects, shouldn't the father have some rights to the child's fate? Some food for thought.

The autonomy of the carrying mother outweighs the desire of the father. In the end, it must be the mother's decision. If the father tries to force or coerce delivery to term because they want the child, then you impinge on the mother's bodily (and personal) autonomy. By virtue of being the sex that gets pregnant (and that has to endure the pregnancy), women invariably have the leverage in the conversation.

This is, of course, not to say that the father's insights or opinions should be discounted out of hand. There should certainly be a dialogue between the two prospective parents. It may not be an easy dialogue to have, but honest and mature discourse is all you can do without starting to coerce or manipulate the mother into carrying to term (which, as said before, should be avoided). If, even after the father makes their case and the mother decides against it, then there isn't anything else for the father to do, as sad or angry or frustrated that might make them.

Though if the father wants a child, and the mother doesn't want to experience pregnancy, there is always the recourse of adoption and foster care. You get a child (or children) without the hassle of pregnancy (though there is the hassle of bureaucracy, which is another matter entirely).

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Now the only time I do truly have an issue, is if the mother decides to have an abortion when she's extremely advanced in her pregnancy, to the point where the baby is able to breathe and cry once out of the womb. At that point, it is a life that is being taken, and unless having the baby means risking the mother's life, I personally feel there should be clear boundaries where an abortion just isn't an option simply because the woman in question thought, "Y'know, on second thought, I don't want it". Worst case scenario, just give the baby up for adoption. Regardless, because it doesn't affect me directly what the mother does, even when she's 8-9 months pregnant, I don't care too much, so anything I feel is irrelevant in the grand scheme.

The answer to this one is a little muddy, because at some point we should consider the mother's bodily autonomy over the course of days, rather than months. My personal answer: at the point where the fetus is viable, it no longer needs the mother, so induced birth (rather than abortion) should be the option in most cases where there is not a significant risk to the mother.

Now here's an interesting question: What if the mother wants an abortion, but the father wants to keep the baby? Does the father not have any say because he's not the one carrying the child for 9 months? Surely, the mother could just give all custody rights to the father if she really doesn't want to raise a child. Mind you, the "risk to the woman's life" thing still applies, so in that respect, I think the father should have no say if that situation should surface. Otherwise, if the mother can have the baby with no ill effects, shouldn't the father have some rights to the child's fate? Some food for thought.

Nope. The father has no say. Abortion is not an issue like that. If the fetus wasn't violating the woman's bodily autonomy, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The father gets no say in what the mother does with her own body.

 

[Claire Diviner]

My personal answer: at the point where the fetus is viable, it no longer needs the mother, so induced birth (rather than abortion) should be the option in most cases where there is not a significant risk to the mother.

Are there any citations that states induced birth is safer for the mother? Just curious.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Are there any citations that states induced birth is safer for the mother? Just curious.

I'm not sure it is. I can't find any data on the subject, and I'd assume that induced birth is still more risky (albeit not much, as the typical method to abort late-term involves inducing birth anyways); however, at a certain point, a mild risk to the mother can be seen as acceptable, because the fetus is viable.

 

[Claire Diviner]

I'm not sure it is. I can't find any data on the subject, and I'd assume that induced birth is still more risky (albeit not much, as the typical method to abort late-term involves inducing birth anyways); however, at a certain point, a mild risk to the mother can be seen as acceptable, because the fetus is viable.

If going through the "joy" of labor proves to be too much for the mother (even if it isn't a risk to her health), would a Caesarean section be a viable option, or...? Actually, would that be more risky than a vaginal birth, or would it be less of a risk, despite requiring the mother's stomach being surgically cut open?

 

[Sucumbio]

The autonomy of the carrying mother outweighs the desire of the father. In the end, it must be the mother's decision. If the father tries to force or coerce delivery to term because they want the child, then you impinge on the mother's bodily (and personal) autonomy. By virtue of being the sex that gets pregnant (and that has to endure the pregnancy), women invariably have the leverage in the conversation.

Though this topic is done to death I always look forward to a fresh idea such as this.


This indeed signals a deep human condition, where Mother is vessel and Father her protector. Gone are the simple days, when a malformed new born would simply be clubbed and fed to a wild pack of dogs. People have intellect now, so they can play mind games with creation, like gods.


"It was an abortion, Michael! An ABORTION! "

 

[Claire Diviner]

Gone are the simple days, when a malformed new born would simply be clubbed and fed to a wild pack of dogs.

Soooo, Darwinism before Darwin came to be?

People have intellect now, so they can play mind games with creation, like gods.

Mankind may as well be gods, what with what life we've already created in animal breeding alone. I hear they can even manipulate a fetus' DNA to make them into the "perfect" human specimen, devoid of all genetically transmitted diseases and deformities, etc. Yeah, mankind is god.

 

[Sucumbio]

Soooo, Darwinism before Darwin came to be?

Mankind may as well be gods, what with what life we've already created in animal breeding alone. I hear they can even manipulate a fetus' DNA to make them into the "perfect" human specimen, devoid of all genetically transmitted diseases and deformities, etc. Yeah, mankind is god.

But of course! Darwin was a smart cookie. If anything human compassion has evolved alongside our physical bodies. But to cull your seedlings is both necessary and potentially traumatic. Heck, I cried the first time my grandpa boiled lobster.

 

[Manta]

(IMHO) The only way I don't have an issue with abortion is if it was caused by r@pe, has a large risk to the mother's life, the fetus is VERY likely to be still-born or have severe mental issues, or if several measures were taken and they filed to prevent the pregnancy. Other wise I still see it as killing a child no matter how far along it is, there is still life, the fetus is a living thing, if it isn't explain how it obviously will become a recognizable child one day. Black people are no less human than white or any other race, a fetus is no less human than an infant, teen, or adult.

 

[Sehnsucht]

(IMHO) The only way I don't have an issue with abortion is if it was caused by r@pe, has a large risk to the mother's life, the fetus is VERY likely to be still-born or have severe mental issues, or if several measures were taken and they filed to prevent the pregnancy. Other wise I still see it as killing a child no matter how far along it is, there is still life, the fetus is a living thing, if it isn't explain how it obviously will become a recognizable child one day. Black people are no less human than white or any other race, a fetus is no less human than an infant, teen, or adult.

There is a distinction to be made between humanity and personhood. It is this divide that (to my observation) forms the heart of the debate surrounding the legality and permissibility of abortion.

Is a fetus a human? If it's a human fetus, you can classify it as such, I suppose. Though at what point does a fertilized zygote become a human human, and not just a mass of cells? That's something to be considered.

This question intersects with the notion of personhood. We can grant that a human fetus is human, but is it a person? Can it reflect on its own actions and circumstances? Can it compute and simulate the potential outcomes of its actions? Does it possess some semblance of the capacity for moral reasoning?

We recognize that fellow humans are deserving of moral consideration, because we recognize their personhood. People tend to have a lot less reservation about squashing flies, because while they are alive, they don't seem to qualify as persons displaying the qualities I listed above. If a house fly is not self-aware and has no moral capacity, and a human fetus is not self-aware and has no moral capacity, then how are they different? Is it because the latter is human, and the former is not? What does that matter?

You say that we shouldn't engage in abortive acts because the fetus is a "living thing". But how does that follow? "Fetuses are alive, therefore we should never abort them". "Some people have green eyes, therefore we should kill green-eyed people". The latter does not follow from the former. The fact that a fetus is alive does not provide sufficient justification for why (barring extenuating circumstances) we should disallow abortion, or have it be considered murder. Nor, conversely, does it provide sufficient justification for why we should allow abortion in all situations.

I think what's of concern is not that abortion kills a child, but that it terminates the potential for something to become a child (that something being the embryo/fetus). A fetus is not yet a child. Nor is it an infant, for that matter. Not until it is successfully born into the world. Until then, we have a human-looking organic structure that is not (yet) a person. If it is not (yet) a person, then we, as persons, have no necessary obligation to give human fetuses moral consideration -- no more than, say, a house fly.

However, I do agree with you that snuffing potential children is less desirable. So, barring extenuating circumstances (like, as you say, coerced pregnancy or medical emergency), it would be better to consider other options with equal weight before considering abortion.

Yet abortive procedures should nonetheless be legal and safe and available, since we as persons also respect the (bodily) autonomy of others persons -- in this case, pregnant mothers -- so that they can opt for abortion for whichever reason(s) they choose. You don't have to like or approve of their choices, but would you dream of inhibiting or limiting the capacity of a mother to choose?

If one wants to reduce the prevalence of abortion, best to promote a culture of responsible sexual conduct through the convenient access to contraceptive (and child-rearing) options and a comprehensive sexual education, rather than to inhibit the volition and autonomy of (pregnant) persons through legislation and cultural condemnation and taboos.

 

[Manta]

A fetus may not be 'human' (as in self-aware etc.) but it is still fully alive and is a human (as in a stage in the human life cycle).

 

[Sehnsucht]

A fetus may not be 'human' (as in self-aware etc.) but it is still fully alive and is a human (as in a stage in the human life cycle).

...Yes. That's a distinction I made. I used the term "human" to refer to the fetus as being part of the human developmental process (i.e. a human fetus), and the term "person" to denote the capacity of an organism for self-awareness, moral reasoning, etc.

My post served as an examination of the distinction between humanity and personhood in human fetuses, which are the two central variables in determining the permissibility of abortion. I was responding to your proposal that fetuses should not be aborted on the basis of their humanity (i.e. the fact that they are both human and alive) -- at which point I chimed in to note that A) the abortion issue concerns personhood as well as humanity, and B) appealing to the humanity of a fetus doesn't provide sufficient justification one way or another concerning the permissibility of abortion.

You seem to be repeating your position, here. If you hold to the following argument:

"Human fetuses are alive and human, THEREFORE their abortion is impermissible, barring extenuating circumstances"

Then you have to demonstrate how the above [THEREFORE] applies. A human fetus is human and alive. So what? Who cares? In what way do these two facts have any bearing on the discussion of abortion? And so on and so forth.

I invite you try and justify your "appeal to human essence" argument, taking this all into consideration. We both agree that extenuating circumstances like coercion and medical emergency are legitimate causes for abortion. My contention is that you further assert that you can't abort fetuses out of pure choice -- and that you have yet to demonstrate the math behind that statement.

 

[Manta]

I did, fetus's are part of the life cycle and therefore abortion out of pure choice is essentially murder. I'm not saying it is murder just that the only difference is a fetus hasn't necessarily been born, even though he/she has the potential to be a full human one day and many have shown signs of being fully awake and aware in the womb.

 

[Sehnsucht]

I did, fetus's are part of the life cycle and therefore abortion out of pure choice is essentially murder. I'm not saying it is murder just that the only difference is a fetus hasn't necessarily been born, even though he/she has the potential to be a full human one day and many have shown signs of being fully awake and aware in the womb.

I took issue with this reasoning in my first response, and touched on why. But if it wasn't clear before, I'll try to give a straightforward case here.

[collapse=ON THE IS AND THE OUGHT]
Your reasoning exemplifies the pitfall of the Is/Ought gap. In short, you cannot derive an Ought from an Is. Which is to say, you can't derive moral values or prescriptions from facts alone, because facts in themselves don't tell you anything about whether we should or should not do something.

Facts alone have no moral value; it is only in combination with reasoning that facts attain relevance to the moral conversation.

"It is the case that [X]. Therefore, [Y] is/isn't permissible."

This is the formulation of your argument, which can be framed as:

"It is the case that [human fetuses are part of the human lifecycle]. Therefore, [aborting human fetuses] is not permissible."

But the fact that fetuses are part of our reproductive cycle tells us nothing about whether one should or should not abort them under circumstance X. It is just a fact about the world. So what if a fetus is part of the human lifecycle? What relevance does this have to the question of abortion?

It is this that you must address, otherwise your case has no feet to stand on.

To address this problem, you will need to combine your facts with reasoning. The fact you present is [fetuses are part of the human life cycle]. You will need to use axioms, propositions, syllogism, and other tools of logic to show why and how this fact has moral value -- and thereby, why and how that fact should inform our views on abortion.
[/collapse]

You also say that abortion out of choice classifies as murder. To address this, we have to examine what murder is, and whether abortion does indeed qualify as murder.

[collapse=ON MURDER AND PERSONHOOD]
Is squashing a house fly murder? If I smack a fly on the wall and it dies, am I a murderer?

If you define "murder" as [the intentional termination of any and all life], then abortion is murder. And so would be the termination of any life, past present and future. If you have ever intentionally crushed a bug, hunted an animal, cut down a tree -- you are a murderer by that above definition.

Should law and justice take this into account? If so, most of us would be tried as guilty for plenty of murders of living things over the course of our lives, even if only plants and bugs and the like. Most people would have to pay fines or be imprisoned, and be branded as murderers.

This is obviously highly impractical and rather absurd. Our definition of "murder" and whom it applies to seems much too broad.

This is why murder commonly applies to persons, and why there is a difference between killing something and murdering something. The reason murder is commonly viewed as impermissible is because we, as persons, recognize that other humans are persons as well. And in killing them, we not only terminate the human organism, but we violate their autonomy, their volition, and so on. As self-aware persons, they can reflect on, and be aware of, injuries and violations done against their person. They are capable of moral action unto us, and we are capable of moral action unto them. Therefore, we must consider morality in our interaction with persons.

I can kill a house fly if I squash it. But can I murder it? By the above, I can't. House flies are not persons. They cannot reflect on their own pain, their own suffering. They have no idea that I, Sehnsucht, am a person. They can't compute what effect their actions will have on other persons. Lacking self-awareness, flies operate purely on reaction, reflex, and instinct. As do all animals that are not self-aware.

Does this mean we should be cruel toward animals? No. It just means that we can be cruel, if we so choose. It also, and simultaneously, means that we can be kind toward animals, if we so choose. Because they are not persons, they can't possess moral consideration, because have no moral capacity nor moral reasoning.

Are fetuses self-aware? If they are, then they are persons, and so we must respect their autonomy and will. Are they not self-aware? If they aren't, then they are not persons, and so we can treat them however which way we choose. It is possible to kill them -- for abortion necessarily entails the termination of the organism -- but we cannot murder them. We can abort them; we can refrain from aborting them. There's nothing to tell us what we should or shouldn't do, beyond our own choices and reasoning and desires.

It remains that if fetuses lack personhood, then it is impossible to murder them. As such, you can't appeal to murder as justification for why we shouldn't abort fetuses out of choice.

To work around this problem, you would have to prove the personhood of human fetuses. Are human fetuses persons? At what point, from conception to birth, does a fetus attain personhood? These are the questions you will have to address, if you indeed want to make the case of "abortion=murder".
[/collapse]

So there you go. This is the second post in a row of yours where you reiterate the same points (e.g. fetuses are part of life cycle ergo don't abort them, abortion is murder, etc.). I would suggest you try to support your claims beyond just baldly stating your positions again and again.

 

[Manta]

You don't get what I'm saying...... (that or I'm not really sure what you're trying to point out)

A fetus is part of our reproductive cycle, if I was to kill a fetus, which could be self aware at the moment I have no way of knowing, it would be no different than me killing an adult or teen etc. If all fetus's were to be aborted than there would be huge issues with our life cycle as it would skip an entire generation, this is no different than if all children (2-18) were killed, there would thus be major issues. However, it is murder to kill children so it VERY likely won't happen, but there is nothing saying that every fetus can't be aborted so it would be perfectly legal for every current and future pregnant woman to have an abortion for the next 10+ years which would severely impact the human race. Now I highly doubt that will happen but it is just to illustrate a point.

We cannot know when the fetus becomes self-aware thus we shouldn't be having abortions unless it is necessary. I'm pretty sure you agree on the opinion that killing a self-aware being is murder, and but since we can't know exactly when/if becomes self-aware we shouldn't be killing it in the first place, what if a fetus at 5 weeks is becoming partially self aware but unable to show it in any way?

(anyway, I don't plan on replying further as I mostly just wanted to get my opinion out there, not argue it. I'm here (SmashBoards) to argue Smash, not abortion)

 

[Sehnsucht]

You don't get what I'm saying...... (that or I'm not really sure what you're trying to point out)

A fetus is part of our reproductive cycle, if I was to kill a fetus, which could be self aware at the moment I have no way of knowing, it would be no different than me killing an adult or teen etc. If all fetus's were to be aborted than there would be huge issues with our life cycle as it would skip an entire generation, this is no different than if all children (2-18) were killed, there would thus be major issues. However, it is murder to kill children so it VERY likely won't happen, but there is nothing saying that every fetus can't be aborted so it would be perfectly legal for every current and future pregnant woman to have an abortion for the next 10+ years which would severely impact the human race. Now I highly doubt that will happen but it is just to illustrate a point.

We cannot know when the fetus becomes self-aware thus we shouldn't be having abortions unless it is necessary. I'm pretty sure you agree on the opinion that killing a self-aware being is murder, and but since we can't know exactly when/if becomes self-aware we shouldn't be killing it in the first place, what if a fetus at 5 weeks is becoming partially self aware but unable to show it in any way?

So your position is that we can't currently tell when fetuses attain personhood (if they do at all), so it's best to refrain from resorting to abortion unless strictly necessary, and/or when all other options aren't viable?

Some condensed thoughts:

[collapse=ON IMPLICATIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS]
Not an unreasonable position. Though this starts to get into the science of it all -- studies and research into fetal personhood and the like. Even self-awareness in non-fetuses isn't yet totally understood. So far, we've simply been discussing things on a purely ethical, philosophical level. I'm not in a position to engage in empirical-based debate, since I'm not clear on the current science; I'm only approaching this through reasoning alone.

My current suspicion, though, is that fetuses are not persons, even at the point of 9-month development. They cannot yet reason morally (or perhaps reason in any meaningful respect). They can't compute or simulate the effects of their actions on others, and so can't be deserving of moral consideration. In fact, I've long wondered if self-awareness only starts when you're 2-3 years old -- since, in the testimony of most people, that's as far back as their memories tend to span (it's certainly the case with me). Before then, infant babes may well just be like house flies -- driven by impulse and instinct until their brains sufficiently develop to allow more autonomous, self-aware processes.

But I digress. In any case, you are absolutely correct that, if abortion is permissible in all circumstance, every pregnant woman could choose to abort their fetuses. As you also note, this is unlikely to happen (and I agree).

However, the fact that this could happen by no means suggests that we should disavow abortion out of choice. Not only would we be inhibiting the autonomy of the carrying mother -- who has to actually experience and go through the pregnancy -- but we both agree that if abortion were legalized and available, women won't suddenly flock in droves to their nearest health clinic to have themselves a fine ol' time with suction tubes. So why not allow abortion if it is needed and/or wanted, if it's obviously not going to pose a risk for the survival of mankind?

There's also the consideration of who deserves what. If both the mother and the fetus are persons, whose autonomy gets moral priority? Earlier in this thread, BCP put it succinctly. A woman can consent to sex, but she may not necessarily consent to getting pregnant -- much like how consenting to get into a car doesn't mean you consent to getting in a collision. In that eventuality, the fetus starts leeching off the resources of the mother. Because of this, the mother gains moral leverage and priority. So the "desires" of the fetus (if any) are out-prioritized by the desires of the mother.
[/collapse]

Lastly, if it wasn't clear before, my personal position on matters of abortion, for the record, is this:

[collapse=ON SEHNSUCHT'S VIEWS]
It is my view that abortion as a procedure should be legally available, and be convenient and safe for those who need and/or want it. I do believe that abortion is warranted in cases of medical emergency and other contingencies. Yet because of things like the Is/Ought gap and questions of personhood VS humanity, there is nothing preventing or allowing abortion out of choice alone.

I don't like the idea of using abortion as a go-to contraceptive measure, or as an easy solution to a change of heart partway through pregnancy. Abortion seems a more extreme solution, which is why A) sexual responsibility and education are important to minimize unwanted pregnancies, and B) other options should be considered, such as giving up the infant for adoption, since at least then the child can go on to contribute to the world (whereas abortion terminates that potential). But even with all this, I also want to respect the autonomy of the mother, so if she does choose to resort to abortion, I can't hold it against her. And if she's going to resort to abortion, it might as well be done safely and conveniently.

And my contention with your position is that you presented your case without justifying your claims. At least, initially. I tried to prompt you into expanding your position by pointing out the flaws in your presentation. Because while I may sympathize with several of your points, that's no excuse for presenting your position poorly. [/collapse]

As you might notice, I write and write and write. It has its pros and cons -- the con being that you have to wade through my copious walls of text. So apologies for any inconveniences. XD

(anyway, I don't plan on replying further as I mostly just wanted to get my opinion out there, not argue it. I'm here (SmashBoards) to argue Smash, not abortion)

This is a Smash site, true, but we have auxiliary sections for non-Smash topics (found in the Smasher's Hangout, and this doesn't include non-visible sections like Back Rooms and the Premium-only forum). The Debate Hall exists so people can debate and argue and discuss non-Smash topics. So if that's what interests you, all are free to swing by and participate,

If not, then perhaps the DH is not where you'd want to spend your time. Coming into the DH solely to "get your opinion out there" is not the best approach, since in the DH, you are encouraged, if not outright expected, to explain and defend your opinions (and refute the arguments of others, if you see issues with them). If you simply want to post opinions, you have to be prepared for other DH perusers to respond as though you are initiating debate. That's why I've been engaging you as I have; I'd be doing you a disservice if I half-assed my responses.

If you're no longer interested in engaging with me, then I won't keep you. I will say I'm pleased you remained civil throughout our engagement. So have a good one. 8)

 

[Manta]

"A woman can consent to sex, but she may not necessarily consent to getting pregnant -- much like how consenting to get into a car doesn't mean you consent to getting in a collision."

But she consents to the risk of those things happening as a result of consenting to having sex or getting in the car. I can consent to getting in a plane and skydiving, but if I die I consented to the risk of that happening because I consented to skydiving which carries the risk of something bad, like death, happening.

 

[Sehnsucht]

That's not how consent works.

[collapse=ON CONSENT]
Consent is a contract between persons. If I, a person, wanted to hold the hand of you, another person, I would ask for your consent. "Hey, can I hold your hand?". If you give your consent ("Sure thing, Sehn!"), then all is fine between us two persons. If you don't lend your consent ("Nah, not today"), then I, as a person, must respect your autonomy. If I forcibly try to hold your hand anyway, then I am violating your consent.

Dying from skydiving has no room for such a contract. I can acknowledge that skydiving entails the risk of injury or death. But I don't consent to being injured or to die (because I desire neither of those things). You can't really say "Hey, ground, I don't consent to you killing me if I fail to open my chute in time". Being killed through impact with the ground, drowning in the coean, tripping on the sidewalk and bonking my head -- your environment is not a person, and so can't violate your consent. It doesn't know you are a person, because it doesn't know anything, because the environment is not a person that can intentionally act with or against you.

Morality, therefore, necessarily concerns persons -- entities who can reflect on what they do unto others and what others do unto them.
[/collapse]

[collapse=ON AUTOMOBILES AND ANALOGIES]
When it comes to automobiles, you have multiple persons co-existing on the road as they drive about. True, I risk getting collided into whenever I enter and/or operate a motor vehicle. But that does not mean I am consenting to having such collisions occur unto my person.

Which is why when examining the moral culpability of collisions, the person who caused the collision is said to be "at fault". They transgressed the autonomy of the other driver, who did not express their consent to be smashed into.

Now, obviously, there's the question of intent behind the collision to consider, which determines the severity of the violation. Was this a pure accident? Did someone intentionally smash into another's car out of malice? Was someone under the influence of alcohol, and so was driving with impaired judgement? Depending on the circumstances, you can decide who is at fault, and to what degree, then proceed from there.

But it remains that just because I risk something, doesn't mean I have to want this thing to happen, nor do I need to accept it if it does. If someone collides with me when I'm driving, I don't have to let the other person off the hook.

"What's that, Sehn? You didn't consent to me crashing into you? Well, why are you even on the road in the first place? You knew the risks involved before you took the wheel. You can't blame me for crashing into you. You have only yourself to blame."

Obviously, this reasoning is absurd. It's the kind of logic used by **** apologists. You can't blame me for violating you if you decide to walk alone and/or at night and/or wearing those clothes. Didn't you know the risks beforehand?

(Not saying you are such an apologist; I'm speaking generally, here).
[/collapse]

Since consent is person-centric, we can see how this all applies to unintended pregnancy and abortion.

[collapse=ON PREGNANCY AND CONSEQUENCE]
Suppose a woman wants to have sex, but not to get pregnant. Yet she learns she is pregnant. She didn't consent to have the next nine months burdened with the carrying of a prospective child. Who is at fault, if anyone? Was the pregnancy the result of sexual assault? Was it the result of poor contraceptive planning, or intoxicated judgement? Was it out of ignorance? And once you determine what the case may be, you can determine how to proceed.

The pregnancy itself happened; there's no way around that. But the mother can decide how to move forward. She did not want this. But just because she knew the risks of pregnancy involved in sex, does not mean she now has to endure nine months of pregnancy. Just because you know the risks of something, does not mean you have to bear with the consequences as some kind of serves-you-right karmic punishment***.

It is within the mother's power to terminate the pregnancy, if she wishes to avoid those months of pregnancy, or if she thinks she can't afford to support a child, or doesn't want to bring up a child in their environment, or whatever. If the fetus is a person, they are infringing on the mother's consent and autonomy. "I did not agree to have you grow inside me," she says. As such, the mother's autonomy out-prioritizes that of the fetus. If the fetus is not a person, then there's nothing saying the mother should abort, or that she should not abort. That decision will remain solely in her hands -- and hers alone, since she is the one who is actually subject to having a thing gestating in her womb.

***If you murder someone, you infringed on their autonomy and consent. Being the instigator, you are thus at fault, and are subject to moral reprimand. But the pregnant woman is not the instigator of the pregnancy. She did not intentionally guide a spermatozoa into fertilizing her ovum. As such, a woman is never at fault for a pregnancy, unless she intentionally and consensually facilitated that pregnancy (e.g. going off birth control, putting aside contraceptive tools, etc.).
[/collapse]

In short, I think your counterpoint example is flawed, because consent concerns persons, and skydiving doesn't have a person on the other side of the contract (whereas automobile driving does have persons on both sides of the equation, which is why I invoked that analogy in the first place). If your skydiving instructor or partner intentionally sabotaged your chute, then someone will have violated your consent to not die -- that someone being the instructor/partner, and not the ground below.

And on the matter of risk and consequence, accepting that activity X has the risk of Y does not mean you consent to Y happening, nor does it mean you have to accept the consequences of Y. As such, I reject your assertion that a woman can't abort a fetus on the basis that she accepted the risk that she could become pregnant, nor that she must endure the pregnancy because she accepted that risk.

 

[Manta]

consent-[kuh n-sent]-permission, approval, or agreement; compliance; acquiescence
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consent
Nothing in there concerning people.

Someone consented to getting in the car and thus the risks of something going wrong (maybe they got caught in a landslide that was no ones fault?) must be accepted. Now if they listened to the news, (maybe it was a dangerous area?), were driving safely, and were paying full attention to the road then it is no one's fault, but they have to live with the fact that driving (and life in general) has risks. Sex has risks, sometimes unless you are doing pretty much everything in your power to prevent you from getting pregnant, they need to accept there is a very real chance they could potentially get pregnant.

 

[Sehnsucht]

consent-[kuh n-sent]-permission, approval, or agreement; compliance; acquiescence
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consent
Nothing in there concerning people.

Who is it that can confer permission? Who can approve of things? Who can agree to things? Who can comply or acquiesce to something?

Persons can do all of these things. The environment can't. In the skydiving scenario, the ground can't acknowledge your consent in any respect. It can't recognize that you are person, or that it is a person (for it is not a person). It can't permit, approve, agree to, comply with, or acquiesce anything. Same goes with non self-aware animals, who too cannot perform those listed functions.

It remains, therefore, that consent is something of which only persons are capable, and which can only apply to persons.

That aside, risks are expressions of probability. You can't permit, approve of, agree to, or comply with risks, because risks are factors in nature you can't necessarily control. They exist independent of your agency (i.e. your capacity to make choices of your own volition, to make actions that impact the world). You could acquiesce risks, since acquiescence is a synonym of acknowledgement.

But that's all you can do. Risks will exist regardless if you permit them, approve of them, agree to their presence, comply with them, or acknowledge them. How could risks in themselves, therefore, pertain to consent, unless those risks are tied to, or are produced by, the agency of one or more persons?

Someone consented to getting in the car and thus the risks of something going wrong (maybe they got caught in a landslide that was no ones fault?) must be accepted. Now if they listened to the news, (maybe it was a dangerous area?), were driving safely, and were paying full attention to the road then it is no one's fault, but they have to live with the fact that driving (and life in general) has risks. Sex has risks, sometimes unless you are doing pretty much everything in your power to prevent you from getting pregnant, they need to accept there is a very real chance they could potentially get pregnant.

[collapse=ON THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN RISK, CONSENT, AND CONSEQUENCE]
There are risks associated with driving. There are risks associated with sex. There are risks associated with skydiving.
The moment you engage in such activities is the moment you implicitly accept that such risks may actualize for you. If you are aware of such risks, and they manifest for you -- whether you wanted them to or not -- you can't be surprised, since you knew it could happen.

I fully, completely, and without contention agree with this.

But again, the existence of risks is not relevant to matters of consent. Your definition of consent is flawed, because it fails to acknowledge what consent is about -- the contract of interaction that exists between two or more persons. Would you say consent is relevant in the interaction between myself and a potted plant? What about a house fly and a dust bunny? How about a rabbit and a centipede? Or playing tennis and the number 23?

For there to be consent, there must be an interaction between persons. A landslide isn't a person. Abstract probabilities in nature are not persons. You can't control them, and they can't control themselves. They have no intent in their action, no capacity for reflection.

Other drivers do. The ground does not. Sexual partners do. A house fly does not.

So. The act of sex has the risk of pregnancy -- which can happen even if you take all the precautions. So what are you saying? If a woman gets pregnant despite taking the precautions, what would you, Manta, say her fate should be? Will she have to "deal with it", carrying the fetus to term because now now, can't complain that you're pregnant if you knew the risks going in?

If you experience an injury during a vehicle collision -- for the sake of example, a broken leg -- you don't have to "endure" a broken leg. You can take measures to rectify this undesirable situation -- namely, by getting medical attention, having your leg placed in a cast or splints for your bones to heal.

If you experience pregnancy following a sexual act, you don't have to "endure" nine months of pregnancy. You can take measures to rectify this undesirable situation -- namely, by getting a medical procedure by which the fetus is terminated and removed from the womb.

How are these two situations different? You might say that the fetus is the deciding factor, since you're dealing with a (potential) person, whereas the collision scenario only involves your own personal injury. But if you invoke that, then I will reiterate what I've said before. If the fetus is a person, then the mother's autonomy out-prioritizes that of the fetus. If the fetus is not a person, then the mother can do as she deems fit.

In both scenarios, the mother has the leverage in the decision. It may be undesirable, it may be unfortunate, it may be icky, but a scenario where the mother cannot make that choice (undesirable/unfortunate/icky though it may be) is a scenario where you are infringing on the mother's autonomy.

So in short, you keep on coming back to this idea that you can consent to risks, despite risks not being persons capable of acknowledging or accepting (or rejecting) your consent to be subject to such risks. Who is morally accountable? The "risk" of being crashed into while driving? Or the person(s) who actually crashed into you? Risks cannot be accountable for anything, and environment cannot be accountable for anything, but people certainly can.

You also insist on the point that [sex entails the risk of pregnancy; THEREFORE, abortion out of free choice is impermissible; BECAUSE if you have sex and get pregnant despite not wanting or planning to be pregnant, you... only have yourself to blame? Should have thought twice before engaging in sex? Now have to live and deal with the consequences of your choices?].

But the thing is that in this case, there IS a way to deal with the consequences. Pregnancy is a reversible outcome. It's not a consequence that you have to endure and live with, if you don't want to.

If you don't want to be pregnant, you simply have to terminate the pregnancy. And this process is known as abortion. [/collapse]

It seems like I'm writing a lot about so little, but I have the habit of wanting to be comprehensive and thorough, for the sake of both ourselves and whoever else wants to follow this dialogue. I see issues with your conflation between what risks are, what consent is, and the relationship between the two, so I must cover all the bases to make my case. But it is for the best.

As a final prompt, maybe you should think about why you hold the position you do. Why do you think abortion be permissible in instances of medical emergency? Of coerced/sexual assault? Of potential fetal non-viability? Could it, perhaps, have something to do with the consent of the mother being violated in some way? Something for you to think about.

 

[Manta]

"If a woman gets pregnant despite taking the precautions, what would you, Manta, say her fate should be? Will she have to "deal with it", carrying the fetus to term because now now, can't complain that you're pregnant if you knew the risks going in?"

If she took all precautions and is still pregnant then it would be premittable IMO to have an abortion.

"Who is it that can confer permission? Who can approve of things? Who can agree to things? Who can comply or acquiesce to something?" A human, they consent to doing something. They things they approve to do don't have to involve another person, a person approves of driving than they imply that they accept the potential consequences should they occur.

 

[Sucumbio]

Ah sen shute and your walls of text nicely collapsible too. I am... In awe. No not really lol but this is good stuff I think we have a real good argument in favor of not calling a Fetus alive though I forgot if anyone mentioned the whole parasite analog but whatever... Point here is that laws cannot be made to apply to fetuses but they can be made to protect mothers and I'm all for legislation that not only condones a mother's right to control her body, but that also attempts to establish terms such as person, life, etc. I made a similar argument ages ago except that my devil's advocate is not great lol but in essence I proposed a test legislation granting fetusus... Fetusi? Nemesis! Some kind of rights but because of the mother and Fetus are attached inexorably to birth there's no getting a law in on JUST the fetus regardless of what its potential growth could become.

 

[Manta]

Ah sen shute and your walls of text nicely collapsible too. I am... In awe. No not really lol but this is good stuff I think we have a real good argument in favor of not calling a Fetus alive though I forgot if anyone mentioned the whole parasite analog but whatever... Point here is that laws cannot be made to apply to fetuses but they can be made to protect mothers and I'm all for legislation that not only condones a mother's right to control her body, but that also attempts to establish terms such as person, life, etc. I made a similar argument ages ago except that my devil's advocate is not great lol but in essence I proposed a test legislation granting fetusus... Fetusi? Nemesis! Some kind of rights but because of the mother and Fetus are attached inexorably to birth there's no getting a law in on JUST the fetus regardless of what its potential growth could become.

Why not?

 

[Sehnsucht]

"If a woman gets pregnant despite taking the precautions, what would you, Manta, say her fate should be? Will she have to "deal with it", carrying the fetus to term because now now, can't complain that you're pregnant if you knew the risks going in?"

If she took all precautions and is still pregnant then it would be premittable IMO to have an abortion.

What if she didn't? What if a woman didn't use any protection, learns she is pregnant, and decides "welp, better get me an abortion"? What if a woman wants to get pregnant, but during her pregnancy, has a change of heart? What if a woman uses abortions as her go-to method of eliminating pregnancy (as opposed to contraceptive measures)?

Would abortion be permissible in any of these scenarios? If not, why so?

Consider the following:

[collapse=ON ELUCIDATING MANTA'S POSITION]
Is it because the fetus is a person, and so abortion would result in murder? We already touched on the contentious and murky subject of fetal personhood and murder, and why the mother has moral leverage whether the fetus is a person or not.

Also -- and as I'm just now noticing -- even if a fetus is a person, your position has some contradictions. If a fetus is a person, and murder is to terminate a person, then abortion results in murder. Yet you say that in some cases, abortion is permissible, and in other cases, it is not.

What's with this inconsistent application of the moral value of murder? If murder is always bad, you can't say abortion is sometimes okay. But you don't seem to be saying this (and if you are, then you'll have to show why murder is sometimes okay if it is also always bad).

If murder is sometimes okay, then on what basis? It seems to me that you consistently go back to agency. If the pregnancy wasn't the mothers fault, then abortion is okay; if the mother could have done something to prevent the pregnancy (or the risk thereof), but did nothing, or not enough, then abortion is not okay.

In other words, you have to accept the consequences of your actions, as punishment for your ignorance or lack of planning and foresight or recklessness or whatever. Is this indeed your view?

If so, it's insufficient. I can see this logic applying well for car collisions. You are to blame if you harm yourself or others if you are reckless on the road. But how can this apply to pregnancy? No one is harmed beyond the mother, since pregnancy utterly and invariably concerns the mother's body, and her body alone. The tangible consequences of abortion do not extend outside of herself.

Now, if the fetus is a person, then it can affect the fetus. But as I've mentioned a few times now, whether a fetus is a person A) is not very clear, and B) doesn't ultimately matter, since the mother's desires out-prioritize whatever desires the fetus has anyway.
[/collapse]

So. Why is abortion not okay, if a woman did not take appropriate precautions to prevent pregnancy? Who cares if she didn't take the proper precautions, or didn't put much effort into it, or even no effort at all? Why does that point matter? How is any of that at all relevant to whether abortion is a warranted course of action? Help me out here, Manta. Because so far, I'm not seeing it (and this ties into the "Problem of B)", which I touch on below.

"Who is it that can confer permission? Who can approve of things? Who can agree to things? Who can comply or acquiesce to something?" A human, they consent to doing something. They things they approve to do don't have to involve another person, a person approves of driving than they imply that they accept the potential consequences should they occur.

A human is a person. But you can have non-human persons. We don't technically know of any that exist at the moment -- not for certain -- but in principle, a person only has to be something that possesses agency, self-awareness, etc. So being human is not a prerequisite for personhood.

Just wanted to clarify this point. Because obviously, I agree that humans can do all those things. But the reason they can do those things is because they are persons. If humans were not persons, they would not be able to execute those functions. Hence why I skipped the "human" and went straight for the "person".

In any case, take a look at this:

[collapse=ON THE FATAL GAP]
In any case, I think my argument isn't getting through. Let me state again that I do not deny that driving entails risks, and that a person who chooses to drive consequently accepts the risks, and that they could experience consequences they didn't want nor foresee. We both agree on this point. You don't need to bring up this point at every juncture.

What I do disagree on is how the acceptance of these risks connects to consent. Consider this formulation:

A) Sex can entail pregnancy, even when all precautions against it are taken;
B) ???
C) Therefore, in the event of pregnancy, the mother did indeed consent to being pregnant/having a baby.

What is B)? I don't yet know what B) is. I do not see it in your posts so far. Either you've not done a good job of presenting your B), or you haven't done it at all. Whenever I ask your for B), it feels like you invoke A) and point to C). But if you can't show or justify B), then how can you arrive at your conclusion C)? This is very much a problem that must be addressed.

This problem can be seen in the vehicular analogy:

A) Operating a motor vehicle can entail collision and accident, even when all precautions against them are taken;
B) ???
C) Therefore, in the event of collision/accident, the driver did indeed consent to having been subject to collision/accident.

Again, I don't see B). I'm having a real hard time understanding how and why accepting a risk means that you have to accept whatever consequences come your way, no questions asked.

I mean, no one wants to get in an accident on the road, yet people need to drive, so they have to accept that risk. But in what world does that mean that they consented -- that is, that they agreed to -- getting into a collision/accident? In what world does that mean that after the act of sex, that a woman consents -- that is, that she agreed to -- getting pregnant?

You consistently conflate (i.e. mistake, mix-up) the definitions of consent and risk-acceptance, to your continuing detriment.
[/collapse]

But I think we are devolving into tangents. We're straying too far from the heart of the argument. Going forward, I will focus on your points of "moral culpability" -- the idea that, if a mother gets pregnant, but did little to nothing to prevent it, then she can't complain about it. And therefore (?!?!), abortion in such cases is impermissible.

Which I don't agree with, because of the "Problem of B)" (as I will henceforth call it).

Ah sen shute and your walls of text nicely collapsible too. I am... In awe. No not really lol but this is good stuff I think we have a real good argument in favor of not calling a Fetus alive though I forgot if anyone mentioned the whole parasite analog but whatever...

You are my muse, Sucumbio. :leswoon:

I'm aware of the parasite analog. The fetus uses resources from the mother to sustain itself, yet doesn't give many, if any, tangible benefits in return (save the emotional and psychological ones, if a mother is indeed aboard with the pregnancy). Otherwise, what you have is not a symbiosis, but parasitism.

This does unflatteringly paint fetuses as fleshy xenomorphs, but the imagery is apt, in cases of unintended and unwanted pregnancies. Not to mention that earlier-stage embryos do actually look like parasite aliens. 8P

Point here is that laws cannot be made to apply to fetuses but they can be made to protect mothers and I'm all for legislation that not only condones a mother's right to control her body, but that also attempts to establish terms such as person, life, etc. I made a similar argument ages ago except that my devil's advocate is not great lol but in essence I proposed a test legislation granting fetusus... Fetusi? Nemesis! Some kind of rights but because of the mother and Fetus are attached inexorably to birth there's no getting a law in on JUST the fetus regardless of what its potential growth could become.

Why not?

I can't speak for Sucumbio, but I think he touched on it in his post (which I bolded).

The fetus is by necessity linked to the mother, so you have to consider both the mother and the fetus when dealing with potential legislation. If you pass legislation that says, for instance, a fetus is a person, this will invariably affect all women capable of pregnancy. Likewise for any and all legislation that is passed concerning abortion in general. All women capable of pregnancy will be affected by such laws and strictures.

It does not work the other way around. The fetus needs the mother, but the mother does not need the fetus. Passing legislation on a woman's ability to vote has no bearing on the fetus. But passing legislation on the fetus will always impact the mother.

Another key point to consider is that a fetus doesn't DO anything. All a fetus does is gestate in the womb, draining resources from the mother. A fetus cannot impact other people through its choices. It can't make choices, period. It cannot communicate in any meaningful way. It's improbable that it's aware that it's inside of a womb (let alone understand what a "womb" is, nor that there's an entire world full of persons beyond). If a fetus has desires, thoughts, a capacity to reflect, and whatever, then not only can it not express any of it, but it is very likely that these faculties are extremely basic, to the point where a fetus would only just barely qualify as a person (and this, even up to the point of birth). A fetus has never interacted with other persons or the world, and so knows nothing about anything anywhere at all.

So... why exactly should we pass legislation that states such a thing is a person? At most, you could say that it's a potential person. But an outright person? How does the description above show that a human fetus is any more of a person than a parasite, or a slug, or some primitive, simplistic non-person organism? Are we going to pass legislation protecting the potentiality of a fetus to become a person? If we start making legal precedents for such abstract, philosophical notions, then where does it end?

...But let's see what Sucumbio thinks about Human Fetuses (Fetii? Feta?) and The Law. XD

 

[Claire Diviner]

This question intersects with the notion of personhood. We can grant that a human fetus is human, but is it a person? Can it reflect on its own actions and circumstances? Can it compute and simulate the potential outcomes of its actions? Does it possess some semblance of the capacity for moral reasoning?

If the answer is no, couldn't the same be said for newborn babies? Last I checked, they don't have these traits from the word "go". Just a thought.

 

[L9999]

Do you believe abortion is ethical?

• What are your opinions on the justification of abortion?
• Do you believe it is should be a legal act if it is requested by a mother?
• Is it morally acceptable/correct?

Discuss below, and support your argument with facts and details.

No, I don't.
What justification does murder has? None at all.
Of course not. What kind of mother would kill her child?
no because it is murder.

Just because the idiotic government says "it's not human, kill it" it doesn't mean it's right. They don't care about your problems, they just want to make money. Worse of all, they SELL aborted baby parts! What in the **** are this crazy people thinking?

 

[Claire Diviner]

They don't care about your problems, they just want to make money. Worse of all, they SELL aborted baby parts!

You seriously need to cite this claim, because I've searched thoroughly and found nothing on this, including the government making money off abortions.

 

[Sucumbio]

Why not?

Simply put, because it's poor legislation.

Something as important as a personhood amendment MUST NOT FAIL EVEN ONE LIFE. If it does, it's already less than perfect. Most laws are, obviously. But reducing the chance the law backfires on a citizen harming them instead of helping them is what takes decades of debate in congressional forums to hash out. Why is the drinking age 21? Has that saved every last u.s. citizen from a DUI collision? Of course not. Has it helped? Google it, who cares, not the point. Point is now were talking about a law that encompasses brain dead people, amputees, coma patients, etc etc ad naseum. No. Can't. Even one sentence in a constitutional document can be devastating. Hello Obama care? Tanked at every turn by tea party jerk wads. Tangent. Anyway!

I under stand fully the implications that a fetus might as well be a limb, saw it off if you must. I dare not position myself to comment on the stress of undergoing an abortion, and that's having been the father of 2 of them. Did I grieve? Technically. Grievance isn't what many think it is... It is your brain reprogramming itself to continue on in life. If you don't do it right, or your brain is compromised so you can't do it right, then you lose. Lose enough times, there are no continues my friend. Don't even think about using turbos, or I'll know. Wait what

Tldr unless you're saying we should pass laws preventing the amputation of limbs a fetus has no greater chance in terms of legislation. Sad, but true.


@ Sehnsucht

I disagree on a few things but they're outliers so I'll refrain from an all out no you're wrong cause you're not really just nit picky today...

Babies in the womb affect their environment and are effected by it. Stimulus response is a requirement of life if we go by the definition 30 years ago lol the one that says viruses are not life forms technically because they cannot sustain themselves without a host. Sound familiar guys and gals? Neway lol We cannot assume too much. Babies can sense things, mothers too... More so than men, and less moreso but still moreso than dads.

Sources suco? Bite my shiny metal galaxys5

 

[L9999]

You seriously need to cite this claim, because I've searched thoroughly and found nothing on this, including the government making money off abortions.

http://www.prolife.com/harvestingabortedbabies.html
I didn't meant the government. I made a writing mistake.

 

[Sucumbio]

http://www.prolife.com/harvestingabortedbabies.html
I didn't meant the government. I made a writing mistake.

http://www.pregnantpause.org/abort/partexpl.htm

 

[Claire Diviner]

http://www.prolife.com/harvestingabortedbabies.html
I didn't meant the government. I made a writing mistake.

If you're going to use a citation, I highly suggest using a non-biased website. prolife.com is obviously heavily biased. Furthermore, the so-called sources the article links are either 404'd, or links to something completely different from the main topic. Want to know what the "Baby Parts For Sale" links to? A site selling a water filter.

Fox News also doesn't count either, and for obvious reasons, neither does The Onion or National Report. Do make sure to read thoroughly enough the things you cite, and that they're not outdated and/or dubious.

EDIT: Upon clicking the "Baby Parts For Sale" link again, I come to find that it redirects to some other random site that sells nonsense, which makes your source all the more dubious.

 

[Sehnsucht]

If the answer is no, couldn't the same be said for newborn babies? Last I checked, they don't have these traits from the word "go". Just a thought.

Yes, it could. I even touched on speculation that personhood, in the sense that we experience it, may not kick in until 2-3 years of age. But that's just armchair speculation; I have no sources for this, nor am I current on the science.

The difference between a fetus and a born child, though, is that pregnancy is now out of the picture. And so is abortion. You can't abort a born child. You can commit infanticide, but that's another discussion. Although I see why you'd bring it up, given the points I've been making -- if a born child is not a person, is infanticide permissible up until the point they do attain personhood?

I don't want to derail the thread by delving into infanticide, but my initial impression is that infanticide is foremost undesirable, since a born child has made it into the world, and so you can now raise it or give it to someone else so that it can grow and contribute to the world (without taxing on the mother's bodily resources). But as with abortion, the permissibility of infanticide is contingent on when personhood emerges (which is still undecided, to my knowledge). If it doesn't show up until a bit after birth, then, if you hold to my premises, it would follow that infanticide is permissible. Whether it is warranted is another matter. Like abortion, I'm inclined to say that unless infanticide is necessary, better to consider other options with equal weight.

But anyway.

@ Sehnsucht

I disagree on a few things but they're outliers so I'll refrain from an all out no you're wrong cause you're not really just nit picky today...

Babies in the womb affect their environment and are effected by it. Stimulus response is a requirement of life if we go by the definition 30 years ago lol the one that says viruses are not life forms technically because they cannot sustain themselves without a host. Sound familiar guys and gals? Neway lol We cannot assume too much. Babies can sense things, mothers too... More so than men, and less moreso but still moreso than dads.

Sources suco? Bite my shiny metal galaxys5

I'm totes mcgotes reasonable. If you want to correct me on something, I make myself prostrate before you.:ommanipadmeom:

In any case, a fetus can respond to stimulus -- to the extent that it can given its enclosed environment. So can any other living thing that has sensory apparatuses for sense-reception. What of it? The question is one of life VS personhood (and this dichotomy forms the playing field of Pro-Life and Pro-Choice, respectively).

But that's a tangent. After reading the bulk of your response, I see the limb analogy to be apt. No one is saying that abortion is an easy option to consider, or that it's clean and tidy (emotionally, physically, psychologically). No more than amputation is. But in both cases, the procedure should be available if required. Otherwise, you either have to deal with the problematic limb, or you have to resort to the procedure yourself -- which certainly can be done, but it's a much riskier and dangerous enterprise if you lack the proper medical knowledge and equipment.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

I only take issue if the mother is using it as birth control instead of just being more careful when they have sex.

**** and potential health risks, that's a different story and I hate it when people force a woman to have a child when it will most likely kill her and then she dies.

I would treat the soon to be child as a potential live to come and I really take a huge issue when people treat it as just, "getting rid of a problem."

It should be there when it is needed, the issue will come up, but I hate the idea of using it as a form of birth control. You can call it her right and such, but I think it is killing someone even if they aren't entirely sentient yet.

I'm happy I wasn't aborted, and I was an accident.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

No, I don't.
What justification does murder has? None at all.
Of course not. What kind of mother would kill her child?
no because it is murder.

Just because the idiotic government says "it's not human, kill it" it doesn't mean it's right. They don't care about your problems, they just want to make money. Worse of all, they SELL aborted baby parts! What in the **** are this crazy people thinking?

I'm curious if you read any of the thread. Here's a justification for "murder": it's a parasitic life-form and I want it out of my body.

People have a right to bodily autonomy, and the fact that another human's life is contingent upon violating that does not give them the right to violate that. For 9 months, the woman has to deal with rather severe changes to her body and lifestyle, changes which often do not end with pregnancy. Carrying a fetus to term is still considerably riskier than abortion - more than 10 times more likely to lead to the death of the mother.

It doesn't matter whether or not it is a human. I'm not convinced that we should be granting the rights of personhood to a clump of cells, but it's irrelevant to the argument. Whether or not the fetus is a person with the rights that confers, the mother is not obligated to sacrifice her bodily autonomy to support it.

 

[..uuuuu.....]

abortion is ethical by this world's standard's.

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,

and before you were born I consecrated you;

I appointed you a prophet to the nations."

jeremiah 1:5

 

[Sehnsucht]

I only take issue if the mother is using it as birth control instead of just being more careful when they have sex.

**** and potential health risks, that's a different story and I hate it when people force a woman to have a child when it will most likely kill her and then she dies.

I would treat the soon to be child as a potential live to come and I really take a huge issue when people treat it as just, "getting rid of a problem."

It should be there when it is needed, the issue will come up, but I hate the idea of using it as a form of birth control. You can call it her right and such, but I think it is killing someone even if they aren't entirely sentient yet.

Mm, yes.

Though there's the concern of autonomy. Sure, using abortion as convenient after-the-fact contraception may be unappealing, distressing, or whatever else. But would it be proper to deny a woman that choice and inhibit her will -- even if for purposes you don't agree with? If a mother is willing to abort, she will have to deal with whatever consequences come out of that choice, for good or ill (which can include "killing a yet-to-be-sentient entity", as you put it). I would say that if that's what she really wants, then abortion should be legally available for her. Though I would also say that the ideal would be to promote a culture where abortion is seen as more of a last resort, when all other options aren't as viable.

As for fetal personhood, you kind of say two conflicting things. You say you'd treat a fetus as a potential person, yet in your closing statement, you say abortion is "killing someone". Do you think that a fetus is indeed a person (in which case abortion is murder), or do you think a fetus is a non-person, or a "potential" person (in which case you are killing a mass of cells)?

Whatever the case, you can't kill a "potential" person; you can only eliminate that potential (by terminating the fetus). And you can't murder a non-person, either. You can kill it, though. And given the limb analogy that's been proposed, it may be that you can't "kill" a fetus either, no more than you "kill" your arm when you have it amputated. But I digress.

I'm happy I wasn't aborted, and I was an accident.

To be fair, if you were never born, there would not be a "you" to say that you were happy to have not been aborted. You can only say that in hindsight -- and obviously, being alive would bias your perspective.

Then again, it's not unheard that aborted babies come back to express their distaste.

 

[Sucumbio]

What of it? The question is one of life VS personhood (and this dichotomy forms the playing field of Pro-Life and Pro-Choice, respectively).

Right... well... this:

Another key point to consider is that a fetus doesn't DO anything. All a fetus does is gestate in the womb, draining resources from the mother. A fetus cannot impact other people through its choices. It can't make choices, period. It cannot communicate in any meaningful way. It's improbable that it's aware that it's inside of a womb (let alone understand what a "womb" is, nor that there's an entire world full of persons beyond). If a fetus has desires, thoughts, a capacity to reflect, and whatever, then not only can it not express any of it, but it is very likely that these faculties are extremely basic, to the point where a fetus would only just barely qualify as a person (and this, even up to the point of birth). A fetus has never interacted with other persons or the world, and so knows nothing about anything anywhere at all.

So... why exactly should we pass legislation that states such a thing is a person? At most, you could say that it's a potential person. But an outright person? How does the description above show that a human fetus is any more of a person than a parasite, or a slug, or some primitive, simplistic non-person organism? Are we going to pass legislation protecting the potentiality of a fetus to become a person? If we start making legal precedents for such abstract, philosophical notions, then where does it end?

...But let's see what Sucumbio thinks about Human Fetuses (Fetii? Feta?) and The Law. XD

A bit of what you'd said there is ... not really true, I guess, and that's just not a good way to defend the position: treat it like any other piece of flesh. That point is in itself already a safe point to make (because it's scientifically accurate to call a fetus a temporarily attached lump of flesh matter) but to assume the fetus is so incapable of interaction is to decline an invitation to the touchy-feely side of parenthood and pregnancy especially. Though there's still plenty of research to be done on the effects of infants, mothers, fathers, pregnant women, et al, there's no doubt that babies cause humans to congregate. There's just something about babies that forces people (usually women but not always) to notice. Call it what you will, but this phenomenon plays out like every other "instinct" in the day to day lives of humans and expresses itself in ways that we may not ever recognize at first. Nurture, essentially. Human nurturing. If a fetus really is just a lump of flesh that we may discard as we would 10 pounds of fat (yes, the vacuum method for abortion, seen that ****... man...) then why are we so desperately attached to it, unlike a limb that's gone bad. Perhaps it's because we don't remove parts of our body until we decide we don't want them anymore? And is that decision meant to be awkward to a mother, perhaps? Should it FEEL wrong? I don't know, myself I can't know (and no I'm not saying it can't be known, just that I don't know.) But I think it should feel wrong. It should feel as wrong as sleeping with your sister. But unlike the latter, circumstance, well it presents itself, and the brain has to decide, to I do this or do I not? Look at it simply. Genes. Obviously the women who went through with the abortion weren't from a gene pool/culture where that was just absolutely forbidden, and so those peoples will probably have a greater population and indeed higher influence over policies regarding abortion. Meanwhile women who DO go through with it, well, it's safe to say that they're from a gene pool/culture that isn't so dead set against the idea. I think all people may think "huh, that's a horrible idea" but under circumstance would consider it. But I think your Roman Catholic families, for instance, tend to shame abortion and even birth control. I can't post the link here but there's a hilarious YT entitled "F me in the A if you love JESUS!!!" or whatever, it's so spot on. That was a rant and half