How is abortion morally ethical.....

hippiemom · October 2006

dangerboy wrote:

it most likely will if you don't kill it

And when it does, then killing it will be murder. Not before.

cornnifer · October 2006

shahril wrote:

EVEN if one day science can conclusively prove that a fetus is living being with feelings, emotions, and whatnot, the question still stands unanswered. DOES THE STATE HAVE THE RIGHT TO INTERVENE IN A WOMAN'S CHOICE OF HER OWN BODY?

Religion says yes. Secularism and individual liberty says no. Thats my point.

.

I would have to say ... yeah. They do because it isn't just HER body anymore. That being said it would be stupid for the state to do that because she would probably do it anyway with a coathanger in her friends dirty garage. Now you have two dead people.

common sense says all this. Religion has nothing to do with it. Thats MY point.

Jackhammer · October 2006

cornnifer wrote:

(...) it isn't just HER body anymore.

Well technically, yes, it is and remain her body.

The foetus is unable to live on its own, therefor "parasiting" the mother.
The mother is responsible for the survival of the foetus, which is depending on her.

Still, it is HER right to dispose of her own body as she sees it fit.
No one should ever interfere with that.

If two people have sex, it's their choice.

If they use condoms, pills, if they like sodomy or the kama-sutra, it's their choice.

And if, for whatever reason, one wants to abort, it's their fucking choice, and not yours, or the gov's, or the pope.

shahril · October 2006

cornnifer wrote:

i try really hard nowadays to stay away from abortion threads. Then i read things similar to this. i have a seven year old son who is nowhere near capable of thoughts and emotions comparable to what a fully grown person has. Is it o.k. then, by your standards to kill him? i don't mean to be rude or crass, but you would have to agree thats a pretty silly argument.

BTW its also pretty silly, IMO to throw around the "what about rape card" when it such a miniscule percentage of abortions. The percentage is so small, it really doesn't even factor into the argument, IMO.

i apologise if i touched a soft spot i had no idea about your child.

No, it would not be ok to kill him by my standards, because u have not understood my standards.

My 'standards' are that of a State following Islam, (and no Saudi Arabia is not Islamic in my opinion but nevermind we can wait for another for that debate) so its not really applicable here.

This is my argument, and from here you will see why your son's case is not relevant.
In the case of a liberal democracy like America where there are a significant amount of atheists and casual followers, and a seperation of Church and State, the State has no moral justification to force a woman to carry the child if she doesnt want to. Its her body, and its her right to choose. Maybe I wouldn really respect her as a person for aborting, but the idea here is that in a country where the principle of liberty exists noone should have any authority to force a person to do something against their will.

In your son's case, u no longer have to carry him INSIDE your body. Your responsibility as a mother is to raise him as you see fit. Note: He is not inside your body.

The bit you quoted me as saying wasnt the essence of my argument. You made a good point however. The mental capabilities of a fetus/child has little to do with this debate in my opinion, although your son can obviously feel pain whereas the fetus may not.
But in any case, I take thAT bit back.

The rape card as u call it, is still a significant aspect of this debate. We are arguing here about moral justifications. If you want to make a law on aborting you must consider ALL likely scenarios.And furthermore,its not actually the actual scenario of rape that im concerned with. Its the distinction between choice and chance. Are u willing to accept that if a woman is raped she can abort?

If so, will it be right for me to imply that the reason for the exception you allowed is because the woman didnt choose to engage in sex?

If the answer is yes, then will I be right to assume that you believe once a woman knowingly engages in sex (with/without protection) she waives ALL right to her body and accepts that she MUST carry a potential fetus?

are these two things the basis of your stance?

shahril · October 2006

cornnifer wrote:

I would have to say ... yeah. They do because it isn't just HER body anymore. That being said it would be stupid for the state to do that because she would probably do it anyway with a coathanger in her friends dirty garage. Now you have two dead people.

common sense says all this. Religion has nothing to do with it. Thats MY point.

so your grounds for supporting State intervention is because u believe once a woman engages in sex she is actually giving up her body to a potential child, even if she never wanted it to begin with?

shahril · October 2006

dangerboy wrote:

i'm trying to answer some of this in other responses.

condom fails: accepted risk. no one thinks condoms are foolproof.

i didn't say if a woman has sex she has to "pay for it now". it's not about punishment, it's about accepting the consequences of your actions. pregnancy is a possible result of sexual activity. so is contrcting an std. you can lessen the chances, but never fully remove them.

you said:

"And u argue that scientifically when a sperm and an egg combine there is life, and thats not religious. I agree completely. But my argument is EVEN if one day science can conclusively prove that a fetus is living being with feelings, emotions, and whatnot, the question still stands unanswered. DOES THE STATE HAVE THE RIGHT TO INTERVENE IN A WOMAN'S CHOICE OF HER OWN BODY?"

i respond to that by saying that the fetus is not a woman's body. it is another being. you got to this thread late....some of this has already been covered here.

and i ask you this: if a woman chooses to engage in risky behavior, does she have a right to interfere with the fetus' choice if its own body? the fetus didn't choose to be inside of a woman who has little regard for its life. the fetus didn't choose to be inside a woman who chooses not to accept the responsiblities that come along with her choices in life.

you said:

"What happens if when she conceived the fetus, she had a good life ahead of her, but 2 months into her pregnancy she discovers that she has a late stage cancer and only has 2 more years to live. She wishes to spend every minute of that life alone with her family without having the burden of the fetus. Was it still her 'choice' to get pregnant? Yes it was, but was it an informed choice?"

in this scenario, getting an abortion would be for selfish reasons. nobody knows how much time they have left. a co-worker of mine was recently diagnosed with breast cancer only 4 months after having a baby. should she kill it now so she doesn't have to be burdened by it? or becuase she may not be around to raise it?

you said:

"What happens if she discovers 2 months into her pregancy that having the baby would likely shorten her life, and she is not willing to make that sacrifice. Was it an informed choice to have the baby?'

again, getting an abortion in this scenario would be for selfish reasons. dying during childbirth is a risk of pregnancy. pregnancy is a risk of having sex. accepting the risks of having sex includes accepting any results, and other issues that arise from those results.

you said:

"I repeat, so u guys dont come out attacking me: even if there was a consensus that a fetus is a living being with FULL mental capacities, able to feel like u and i feel now, DOES THE STATE HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE THE CHOICE FOR THE MOTHER? thats the question.
and come on...do u actually think in your scientific mind that a fetus is capable of emotions comparable to what a fully grown person has?"

and i repeat so you don't come out attacking me: does the mother have the right to make the choice for the fetus? why does a woman have the right to choose to end this particular life when she would not be granted the right to end the lives of others? especially when it was her actions that led to this other life being created in the first place?

i'll admit, as i said in another post, i hadn't thought of the rape angle in quite the terms presented. up until now, i would have said that i support abortions in some very few cases, including rape. maybe i should be against it even in that case, too? congratulations! you actually influenced my opinion! not in the direction you intended, though, eh?

so now you're going to flame me for forcing rape victims to have rape babies, right?

haha. well i will say if i were a women and i got raped i dont think I have any moral DUTY to keep the child. I may wish to do so to save his life, but I never engaged in any sexual activity within my control, so I cant be forced to bare the consequences.

Look, I agree with most of the things u said. Like I stated before, I am against abortion in most cases. I may not respect women who abort. But my question which u havent answered is that does the State have a moral authority to outlaw abortion.
Thats all we disagree on really. The justification of someone else telling you what to do with ur body
So? give me a yes or no answer.

hippiemom · October 2006

dangerboy wrote:

i didn't say if a woman has sex she has to "pay for it now". it's not about punishment, it's about accepting the consequences of your actions. pregnancy is a possible result of sexual activity. so is contrcting an std. you can lessen the chances, but never fully remove them.

When you make a mistake, are you obligated to take no further action to mitigate the trouble caused by that mistake? If you screw up something at work that's going to hurt your company in some way, do you just sit around waiting for all hell to break loose, or do you explore options that might lessen the damage?

dangerboy wrote:

i respond to that by saying that the fetus is not a woman's body. it is another being. you got to this thread late....some of this has already been covered here.

and i ask you this: if a woman chooses to engage in risky behavior, does she have a right to interfere with the fetus' choice if its own body? the fetus didn't choose to be inside of a woman who has little regard for its life. the fetus didn't choose to be inside a woman who chooses not to accept the responsiblities that come along with her choices in life.

All people must deal with the consequences of their actions. Abortion is indeed one way of dealing with an unplanned pregnancy. If you think a woman should be prevented from doing that, I ask you to demonstrate why the needs of a pre-conscious being with no central nervous system should take precedence over the needs or desires of a fully developed, fully conscious human being.

dangerboy wrote:

in this scenario, getting an abortion would be for selfish reasons. nobody knows how much time they have left. a co-worker of mine was recently diagnosed with breast cancer only 4 months after having a baby. should she kill it now so she doesn't have to be burdened by it? or becuase she may not be around to raise it?

Again, you still haven't explained how and why a fetus at a primitive stage of development has rights equal to or exceeding it's mother's. A fetus is NOT the exact same thing as a baby, and you repeatedly saying it doesn't make it so.

dangerboy wrote:

again, getting an abortion in this scenario would be for selfish reasons. dying during childbirth is a risk of pregnancy. pregnancy is a risk of having sex. accepting the risks of having sex includes accepting any results, and other issues that arise from those results.

Selfish, huh? Self-defense is selfish now? Opening your front door entails the risk that the person on the other side might kill you. Once the door is open, are you obligated to let them do it, or can you defend yourself?

dangerboy wrote:

and i repeat so you don't come out attacking me: does the mother have the right to make the choice for the fetus? why does a woman have the right to choose to end this particular life when she would not be granted the right to end the lives of others? especially when it was her actions that led to this other life being created in the first place?

Because a woman has a right to decide what to do with her body, and her rights don't suddenly evaporate in a puff of smoke when an egg meets a sperm. As to why she can't end the lives of others, please see my post a page or two back.

dangerboy wrote:

i'll admit, as i said in another post, i hadn't thought of the rape angle in quite the terms presented. up until now, i would have said that i support abortions in some very few cases, including rape. maybe i should be against it even in that case, too? congratulations! you actually influenced my opinion! not in the direction you intended, though, eh?

so now you're going to flame me for forcing rape victims to have rape babies, right?

Quite the contrary. I still disagree with you, but at least your position has become more consistent. Now all that's left for you to do is to explain why an entity that is not even aware that it exists and can feel no pain should be spared at the expense of a breathing, thinking, feeling woman in a great deal of physical and emotional pain, and why you are the one who should make that decision.

soulsinging · October 2006

dangerboy wrote:

the premise of the analogy is wrong from the outset. the woman chose to engage in the act that got her pregnant. if you equate outlawing abortion to forcing her to save the life of another...so be it. being kidnapped and forced to save the life of another is not the same thing...

and religion has nothing to do with why i oppose abortion. i am not a practicing anything. i believe, scientifically speaking, that once the sperm and egg meet and there's electricity and cells begin to divide, that's life set on its course. nothing religious about it...

suppose you hit said musician with your car, and thus bear responsibility for his injury. should you then be forced to do it, just becos you are responsible for it?

cornnifer · October 2006

shahril wrote:

so your grounds for supporting State intervention is because u believe once a woman engages in sex she is actually giving up her body to a potential child, even if she never wanted it to begin with?

YOU laid out the fucking criteria! YOU said: "EVEN if one day science can conclusively prove that a fetus is living being with feelings, emotions, and whatnot, the question still stands unanswered. DOES THE STATE HAVE THE RIGHT TO INTERVENE IN A WOMAN'S CHOICE OF HER OWN BODY?"

LIVING BEING WITH FEELINGS, EMOTIONS AND WHATNOT. Those are the criteria YOU provided. Now you come back with some "potential child" bullshit.

Abortion debates are fucking stupid!

cornnifer · October 2006

soulsinging wrote:

suppose you hit said musician with your car, and thus bear responsibility for his injury. should you then be forced to do it, just becos you are responsible for it?

Am i ticketed for being at fault, because, if so, i gotta say... yeah.

shahril · October 2006

cornnifer wrote:

YOU laid out the fucking criteria! YOU said: "EVEN if one day science can conclusively prove that a fetus is living being with feelings, emotions, and whatnot, the question still stands unanswered. DOES THE STATE HAVE THE RIGHT TO INTERVENE IN A WOMAN'S CHOICE OF HER OWN BODY?"

LIVING BEING WITH FEELINGS, EMOTIONS AND WHATNOT. Those are the criteria YOU provided. Now you come back with some "potential child" bullshit.

Abortion debates are fucking stupid!

its hard to have a respectful debate if ure gonna behave this way.
You answered my initial question abt whether the state had a right to intervene. You said yes, to which I enquired the basis of those beliefs. I asked, is it because once a women engages in sex through choice, she gives up her body to the State's mercy, if she becomes pregnant.

To which u respond in a very childish manner.

If its so stupid why did u get involved in the first place?

Some people here are downright rude.

soulsinging · October 2006

dangerboy wrote:

interesting. hadn't thought of it in exactly those terms before.

i think the difference would be in the choice contained in the actions that lead to the pregnancy. a woman who is impregnated during rape did not choose to engage in said activity, and not allowing her to abort in that case would in fact be controlling her reproductive freedom. it's forcing her to become pregnant in the first place, and then forcing her to suffer the consequences of someone else's actions, not her own.

so it IS ok to murder innocent life, but only under circumstances that YOU find acceptable or excusable?

dangerboy wrote:

becoming pregnant during consentual sex, even if pregnancy is not intended and birth control measures are employed, is part of the risk of engaging in the behavior. the risk is a known factor going in. birth control only reduces the risk, not eliminates it. this is where i think we're dealing with a personal responsiblity issue. there's a risk something unintended might happen. you don't intend to get herpes, but you might. and if you do? you'll have to deal with it. you can't just take a pill or stop by the doctor's office and have yourself absolved of the consequences of your actions. you can take measures to lessen the risk that you'll pass it on, but there's still a risk that you will. for example, you owe it to anyone else that you are exposing to this risk the right for them to decide whether or not they want that exposure by telling them what the risks are and letting them decide for themselves. if they know the risks, and still get herpes from you....that's something they've got to live with, right? they can't say "oh, wait. i got herpes. it's your fault, not mine, even though i accepted the risks." having an abortion after knowing the risks and engaging in the activity anyway is akin to blaming the fetus...

imho, of course.

why can't you say she chose to go into the bar and get drunk and accept a ride home from her good friend, then he raped her. being raped while you are drunk and alone with a boy is part of the risk of engaging in that behavior. she should bear the responsibility for putting herself in a position where there might be consequences. you don't intend to get raped, but it might happen. statistically, it's even more likely than getting pregnant while on the pill. so shouldn't she bear the consequences of taking that risk?

soulsinging · October 2006

cornnifer wrote:

Am i ticketed for being at fault, because, if so, i gotta say... yeah.

can you point to any cases where somebody who hit another person in their car was forced to give them their blood or a kidney to remedy the damage done?

cornnifer · October 2006

shahril wrote:

its hard to have a respectful debate if ure gonna behave this way.
You answered my initial question abt whether the state had a right to intervene. You said yes, to which I enquired the basis of those beliefs. I asked, is it because once a women engages in sex through choice, she gives up her body to the State's mercy, if she becomes pregnant.

To which u respond in a very childish manner.

If its so stupid why did u get involved in the first place?

Some people here are downright rude.

Oh, please.

Jackhammer · October 2006

it seems also that anti-choice (I use anti-choice because I feel using the term pro-life a shame) displays few, if any, considerations about the child bearer.

Even in a normal situation of 2 people being together, and in love, there might be other concerns to decide wether to keep a child or not. It might still be unwanted, it might still be an accident, it might still not be the right time.

And I'm talking about experience, even a woman who decided to have an abortion don't come out after it jumping around and singing. I know a few people, and it seems to be very often a very difficult choice to make.

cornnifer · October 2006

soulsinging wrote:

can you point to any cases where somebody who hit another person in their car was forced to give them their blood or a kidney to remedy the damage done?

No, honestly, i can't. But we're speaking in analogies here, now, aren't we. Can you point to any cases where a woman became pregnant by accidentally runnung over a man's dick with her car... or something like that?

Honestly, though its never happened (the whole blood or kidney thing), who's to say it shouldn't? People would probably drive a lot more responsibly.
Look, you and i have been over this enough times. You know where i stand on the issue.

enharmonic · October 2006

If men could have babies, this wouldn't be an issue, because the human race would have gone extinct millions of years ago.

Abortion is a woman's right. Trying to ban it is just a man's way of showing a woman who's boss. Men want to control women, and abortion is a great way to do that. What better way to make a woman feel like a second class citizen than to take away the right to have control over her own body.

I love the ladies.

Admittedly, I don't know how I would feel if it were MY child that a woman wanted to have sucked out of her...but I hazard a guess that I would support her if that was her choice. That would probably be the end of our relationship, but I would respect her right to control her body.

In that regard, it's not a whole lot different than when I had a gf who got into drugs. I asked her to choose the drugs, or "us". She chose the drugs. I respected her right to do that, but I kicked her junkie ass to the curb the minute she made that choice.

cornnifer · October 2006

shahril wrote:

i apologise if i touched a soft spot i had no idea about your child.

?

i've been a bit confused by this for a few hours now. i don't quite understand the appology, unless i implied something that isn't true. i think you may have missed the point just a little. My seven year old is quite normal. In fact he's very handsome and exceptionally bright for his age. Even so, he hasn't yet reached the cognitive abilities of a full grown human being. Very, very few seven year olds have. To say that abortion is ethically acceptable based upon the fact that an unborn child hasn't reached a level of full cognitive abilities is a bit absurd.
As far as physical pain is concerned, there are ways of killing fully developed adults that are completely painless. That doesn't make it ethical to do so. i don't see the point.

brain of c · October 2006

abortion is easy @ 20.

not so, at forty.

cjc9 · October 2006

Abortion is a personal matter. We shouldn't need a law saying it's legal- how rediculous! It's not a life until born as far as I am concerned. I would say thought once you reach a certain point say the 7th month or whatever and it is formed and can function on it's own out of the womb then abortion would be a problem. By that point in time you may as well have it and put it up for adoption if you don't want it. And I am for the death penalty- some people will never be reformed!!

How is abortion morally ethical.....

Comments

Categories