The Abortion Debate

Politics and religion
41

[quote=““Kalle””]

I agree with this, but I feel using the logical extremes to examine this issue is not really a simple logical examination. I believe the issue has too many specifics and nuances to be broken down the way it often is.

Quite a lot, I’d suspect. There is far more to read than the extreme example I gave here, she also takes up the question of why women should be able to have abortions even if they willingly had sex for instance. I probably should have spelled it out more clearly, but the example given is the introductory example where Thomson takes on the most extreme anti-abortion advocates and their view that abortion is always impermissable. She takes on the more moderate anti-abortionists later on, do not think that the example I gave is the culmination of her essay because it is not.

I agree that I could probably get something from reading the paper, and having not read it, I can’t really take much of a position criticizing it. I’d be interested in seeing her arguments against moderate anti-abortionist stances.

Beliefs you cannot defend are pointless. Yes, you can feel whatever you want on any given matter, that is your right, but if you want to say that you have a certain set of beliefs that guide your actions you should be willing and able to defend those beliefs or acknowledge that your actions are just arbitrary I-do-what-feels-best-at-the-moment actions.

Beliefs have to be defended at some level, you should have some reason why you believe such things, but logic exercises are designed to discover a logical truth which I don’t feel truly applies to the abortion issue. The hard core right and left sides of this issue have severe logical inconsistencies and suffer a moral hypocrasy, which is why I feel both positions are untenable. Here I think logic is a good tool to demonstrate that the abortion issue shouldn’t be treated as an either/or, yes/no type question, but I don’t think it really helps establish where lines should be drawn. That’s what I was trying to say earlier, near the beginning of the thread.

I personally feel a woman has a right to choose, regardless, although I disagree with the choice unless she is a victim of rape. If the people willingly had sex, I would like to see them keep the baby even if they put it up for adoption. I also strongly disagree with abortions that aren’t done very early in the term (unless for medical reasons - welfare of the mother, so on…). I also believe the violinist has no right to the kidnapped kidneys, which I believe goes along with the abortion is acceptable if you’re raped.

Abortion is an issue that I feel is full of exceptions and special circumstances. I’m not sure a concrete, acceptable answer is possible so I would tend to err on the side of the mother’s rights. I’m also anti-capital punishment because I would rather err on the side of prisoner’s rights.

I find this discussion far more useful and interesting than debating the actual issue of abortion. I hope I have not offended anyone during this.

42

So, if it were possible to develop a foetus outside the womb, and the procedure to remove the foetus was just as cheap and convenient as it is to get an abortion…would you then agree with making abortion illegal?

If there were a method of contraception just as easy and foolproof as it is to get an abortion, would you agree that it is a woman’s responsibility to avoid conceiving an unwanted child in the first place?

At some point the argument has to shift from killing an unborn child, to the prospect of bringing an unwanted child into the world and then placing them in less than ideal circumstances. The focus must be on avoiding unwanted conception in the first place, because once an unwanted child is conceived all solutions are less than ideal.

43

Sing it with me:

Every sperm is sacred
Every sperm is great
If a sperm is wasted
God gets quite irate

Let the heathen spill theirs
On the dusty ground
God shall make them pay for
Each sperm that can’t be found

Every sperm is wanted
Every sperm is good
Every sperm is needed
In your neighborhood

Peace out. :lol:

44

Yes. If such an option is available abortion would not be justified, given that the consequences for the mother are the same.

If there were a method of contraception just as easy and foolproof as it is to get an abortion, would you agree that it is a woman’s responsibility to avoid conceiving an unwanted child in the first place?

It is her responsibility, but even should she forget about protection and get preganant then a child has no right to a womans body against her will.

At some point the argument has to shift from killing an unborn child, to the prospect of bringing an unwanted child into the world and then placing them in less than ideal circumstances. The focus must be on avoiding unwanted conception in the first place, because once an unwanted child is conceived all solutions are less than ideal.

I agree that avoiding conception in the first place is preferable by far to abortion, but when an unwanted pregnancy takes place a woman must have the right to decide who is to make use of her body.

45

What about a man’s right to an abortion? Not an actual uterus scraper, but - should he decide within the first trimester that he’s not ready for the life-changing responsibility of parenthood - that he would have the option to wash his hands of any legal responsibility for the child. Without stigma or apology.

46

What about a man’s right to an abortion? Not an actual uterus scraper, but - should he decide within the first trimester that he’s not ready for the life-changing responsibility of parenthood - that he would have the option to wash his hands of any legal responsibility for the child. Without stigma or apology.

This I agree with, but it’s certainly not without problems. And the “without stigma and apology” part is just wishful thinking.

47

Weird. To me, the very opposite of this statement is axiomatic.

Furthermore, I think the violinist deserves to live as well.

You can’t erase responsibility for something that has already occurred by killing someone, as if by destroying the evidence you have undone the act. It has already happened.

[size=1]Edited for clarity[/size]

48

Except that the vast majority of pro-choicers think first-term abortion doesn’t kill anyone. So there’s your impasse.

49

Hence the first sentence in my post: “Weird.”

50

Exowombs would really fuck with the fabric of the family and the concept of a working woman.

51

Weird. To me, the very opposite of this statement is axiomatic.

Furthermore, I think the violinist deserves to live as well.

You can’t erase responsibility for something that has already occurred by killing someone, as if by destroying the evidence you have undone the act. It has already happened.

[size=1]Edited for clarity[/size][/quote]

It is one thing to say, the violinist deserves to live, it is another to say that the violinist has the right to use another persons body against their will to preserve his life.

The right to life does not supercede your own right to your body, ever. It is not erasing responsibility, it is enforcing your own rights to something that no one else can demand of you.

52

500 years from now, people will say “Can you believe that there was a time when women carried children around in their bellys for 9 months? How barbaric.”.

53

Yes, I heard you the first time. We simply disagree at a fundamental level.

In the story, the violinist did not ask to be attached to the kidney donor (attached to me if you prefer) and everyone agrees that given the opportunity to make a decision beforehand, this should not have happened. Unfortunately, it already has happened and cannot be made to have not happened. In the story, my own life is not in danger, right? I just have to be attached to this violinist for nine months and then we go our separate ways or not, by mutual choice, right?

To disconnect the violinist now and condemn him to death would be murder, plain and simple. His right to life absolutely trumps my desire for normal comfort for nine months. If I insisted that he be disconnected so that I could walk around at the expense of his own life, I would expect to be charged with and convicted of Murder One. (If you don’t think that this is murder, what would you call it?)

In any case, my main point was with your statement that an unborn child “has no right to a womans body against her will.” I disagree with that statement completely.

Of course the child has every right to use the mother’s womb during gestation! To me, this is so transparently, so self-evidently true that I find it strange that anyone would think otherwise.

That’s what makes the world an interesting place. :)

54

Ok. What if you, instead of being told that you had to be attached to the violinist for 9 months, were told that you had to be connected to the violinist for 9 years? Would that seem unreasonable to you?

Would you be willing to stay fettered in bed for 9 years against your will because a stranger is making use of your body and you cannot disconnect him because, as you say, that would be murder and the violinists right to life overrides your right to your body? And if you are willing to accept staying connected to the violinist for nine years, would you be willing to stay connected to the violinist for 50 years? Or is there some point in time where you decide that you would able to cut off the violinist?

In any case, my main point was with your statement that an unborn child “has no right to a womans body against her will.” I disagree with that statement completely.

Of course the child has every right to use the mother’s womb during gestation! To me, this is so transparently, so self-evidently true that I find it strange that anyone would think otherwise.

That’s what makes the world an interesting place. :)

Indeed. :)

55

I’ll post the Orthodox Jewish viewpoint on this, because I think it’s one interesting way of bridging the gap. Not so much because I think it’s the best answer possible (it’s probably not), but because people so often get caught up in the “it’s a person!”/“it’s not a person!” debate, without thinking that there may be other places to go on the abortion question.

So, without further ado… This position was more-or-less formally enunciated by Maimonides way back when, and is close to being a fundamentalist Jewish framework for the question.

The fetus is alive, and there are rules against harming it (for example, someone who punches a pregnant woman in the stomach, causing her to miscarry against her will). However, if it threatens the mother in some way, it falls into the category of a rodef, which is essentially a person who pursues another with intent to harm them. A person is allowed to kill a rodef in self-defense, and so abortion is permitted if it’s essential to the mother’s well-being.

The tricky part is determing what defines well-being. Some would say that only physical health counts, while others would say that the strain on the mother from a case of rape would be so great as to put her well-being in question. (This answers Jason’s question earlier of how one could make an exception in the case of rape or incest). Essentially, though, these things come down to a matter of personal judgement, not a hard-and-fast rule.

Gav

56

Crafty! I like it.

57

That was really interesting, Gav.

58

A bit of a tangent here, but aren’t there many cases where we have person A’s life versus person B’s comfort and we essentially say that person A’s has no just claim on person B, so A is out of luck?

In this example the violinist needs your kidneys to stay alive, but what if it was just your life savings? If the connection is indirect or not one to one, is it then OK to allow someone to die by not giving up something of your own?

Hey, it’s not like I know the answer to these things, I’m just looking to avoid sending my savings to starving people worldwide.

59

Ok. What if you, instead of being told that you had to be attached to the violinist for 9 months, were told that you had to be connected to the violinist for 9 years? Would that seem unreasonable to you? [/quote]

Changing the time frame is immaterial because…

You keep talking about pregnancy like it’s a completely random and hostile act, and this completely invalidates your argument in my mind.

Brad Grenz

60

Brad: What about pregnancies allowed by condom or birth control failure? Is it okay to abort those, since the sex partners took all reasonable precautions?