Abortion

[Illyricum]

What are you thoughts/opinions on abortion?

[Tigerlilly]

A baby and young child outside of it's mother cannot sustain itself either.

The difference between a child and a fetus is that the fetus cannot sustain itself without living in and using the mother's body. The child can.

[dangerdan]

Ho-lly COW! How did I miss this thread?!!

The mother had sex, did she not? It is like playing with fire, and then suing it because you were burned.

Hmmm, I think this attitude is unfortunately common amongst pro-life people. You may think I’m being a bit soft, but I feel perhaps situations can arise that are extremely complex and can’t merely be seen as “pfft, you had sex, so have the baby!”. Rape being a notable example on the extreme end of the spectrum.

Can we all agree that abortion is not seen as a “quick fix”? I would doubt whether women that have had abortions are proud of this fact, at the risk of stating the obvious. I imagine it’s quite a traumatic decision and experience. I doubt whether any of these women would say “bah, I had an abortion before lunch, then I went and got some McDonalds.”

I’ll have to read up on both sides and hopefully I can add some value to this debate, if it’s not already too dead.

[chrispalasz]

dangerdan: Hmmm, I think this attitude is unfortunately common amongst pro-life people.

And unfortunately uncommon amongst pro-abortion people.

dangerdan: Can we all agree that abortion is not seen as a “quick fix”?

No. In many many cases, abortion is a quick fix. Your examples are quite extreme, though. Most women that have abortions end up having more than one. Having one abortion makes it more likely for that person to have another one when the time comes. It's ridiculous.

But even if we ignore the quick fix factor... having a single abortion in most cases is just sick, thinking the human life of a child is a "choice".

It's not a choice.
It's a child.

[mrmufin]

Apparently the fetus does not have everything it will ever have, for it does not have the ability to sustain itself --or be sustained-- outside of the woman. While a newborn is still highly dependent on others, the dependency of the newborn is transferable. Whether you call the fetus a child doesn't change the fact that it may be occupying a woman's body against her will and it is wholly dependent upon her for its sustenance.

A baby and young child outside of it's mother cannot sustain itself either. It still needs someone to take care of it and get food for it. This, however, has not stopped people from giving rights to children, has it?

Did you gloss right over about the part where dependency of a fetus is not transferable, while the dependency of a child is transferable? Newborns are dependent, as are many of the elderly, and those with certain handicaps; but unlike a fetus --which is wholly depemdemt upon a specific woman-- the dependency of the others can be transfered.

Then why should the "miniature version" be granted rights unavailable to those who are born, such as the right to occupy and alter a woman's body against her will? Other than an unwanted pregnancy, can you name any other examples where a person (regardless of their size) has the legal right to occupy a woman's body and alter her body chemistry against her will? Why should the woman's rights be secondary to those of the fetus that occupies her?

The mother had sex, did she not? It is like playing with fire, and then suing it because you were burned.

Consent to have sex does not equal consent to get pregnant, just as consent to drive the car does not equal consent to have an automobile accident. Can you name any other examples where a person has the legal right to occupy a woman's body and alter her body chemistry against her will?

Regards,
mrmufin

[DOuCwhatIsee]

Just wanted to add my thoughts. You'll have to excuse my ignorance but the phrase "occupying a woman's body against her will " is fairly new to me. It could also be considered an oxymoron when you think about the natural design and function of a woman's body. A womans body instinctively tries to become impregnated when all the conditions are right for it to happen. Even though the woman may not want the baby her body, by nature, does even though the body sometimes will not carry the baby full term. With this in mind how can you compare being pregnant to a hostile takeover? Technically when a woman aborts a fetus, baby or whatever you want to call it she is not simply removing this foreign thing that has no right to be inside her but she takes away her body's right to do what it was created to do. Pregnancy is not like cancer but I think that people have tried to make that comparison in an attempt to make the decision of abortion easier. Comments.

[mrmufin]

Welcome to the DC&R forums, DOuCwhatisee!

You'll have to excuse my ignorance but the phrase "occupying a woman's body against her will " is fairly new to me.

Some folks play the anti choice hard line, I play the pro choice hard line. A fetus does occupy a woman's body and it does alter her body chemistry. When this occupation and alteration is against her will, I assert that she has the right to return her body to its regular state.

It could also be considered an oxymoron when you think about the natural design and function of a woman's body. A womans body instinctively tries to become impregnated when all the conditions are right for it to happen.

Now all you have to do is explain why anyone other than the woman responsible for supporting the fetus gets to determine "when the conditions are right for it to happen." It is similar in principle to the fact that even though the "natural design and function" of a woman accommodates and supports sexual intercourse, the woman gets some say in "when the conditions are right for it to happen." When sexual intercourse happens against the will of one of the participants, I call it rape. When a pregnancy occurs against the will of the woman, I call it an unwanted fetus. I support the right of a woman to terminate an unwanted pregnancy for one of the same reasons that I support her right to fight off a sexual attacker: we all have the right to defend ourselves from unwanted occupation and usage.

Even though the woman may not want the baby her body, by nature, does even though the body sometimes will not carry the baby full term. With this in mind how can you compare being pregnant to a hostile takeover?

She doesn't want the baby, but her body does? I never compared being pregnant to a hostile takeover. In the case that a woman is pregnant and does not want to be she has the right to terminate the pregnancy because it is her body alone that is being occupied by the fetus. I never implied any hostility at all on the part of the fetus, just that its occupation is unwanted.

Technically when a woman aborts a fetus, baby or whatever you want to call it she is not simply removing this foreign thing that has no right to be inside her but she takes away her body's right to do what it was created to do.

Not unless you confuse her body's ability to perform a certain function with her will to perform the function. Because a woman has the ability to bear children says nothing of her will nor obligation to do so. Some women might not like the suggestion that they were created to bear children.

Pregnancy is not like cancer but I think that people have tried to make that comparison in an attempt to make the decision of abortion easier. Comments.

I know that I never made the comparison to cancer, nor did I say anything about the ease (or lack thereof) involved in deciding whether or not a fetus should be aborted. I simply assert that the woman has the final say as to whether or not she wants to carry a fetus to term, for it is her body that is being used entirely to support the fetus; it is her body chemistry that is being altered; it is her body that is being occupied by the fetus. A woman is unable to transfer the dependency of the fetus to any other party. To make abortion illegal means that the rights of the fetus --despite its complete dependency-- take precedence over the rights of the woman supporting it.

Regards,
mrmufin

[Tigerlilly]

Personally, I agree with some ethicists when they say that the mother has the right to escape future duties and burdens against her will during pregnancy. The Father has the right to escape future duties against his will according to the principle of Equality.

The mother can get an abortion to satistfy her desire to avoid the future duty of motherhood, which is one reason they do it, and the Father can excercize the right to refusal any time during which a woman would engage in Abortion.

There must be equal faciliites to exercise these rights. Women already have a way of getting out of parenting duties if they feel it is against their will and a burden, so men should have the right to refusal.

Men already have it worse. Pregnancy doesn't last for too long, only a period of 9 months. The responsibility of the father lasts for about 18 years. That's about 27 times longer than the mother. During which, he must contribute huge sums of money to the upkeep of the child, even if he isn't there.

DUring pregnancy, it doesn't matter what the Father says, so if the mother doesn't want to get an abortion, and he does, he can leave with no responsibility, much like if the mother gets an abortion, and the father doesn't want to, he has zero say.

[DOuCwhatIsee]

[

quote]Now all you have to do is explain why anyone other than the woman responsible for supporting the fetus gets to determine "when the conditions are right for it to happen." It is similar in principle to the fact that even though the "natural design and function" of a woman accommodates and supports sexual intercourse, the woman gets some say in "when the conditions are right for it to happen." When sexual intercourse happens against the will of one of the participants, I call it rape.

You're right that you did not say that you compared pregnancy to a hostile takeover but here you compared it to rape. I believe one big difference is that it's not against the law for a woman to ovulate and rape is. I think you're refusing to accept the fact that there are some things we can't control without taking specific steps to do so (i.e. birth control) and when those steps are omitted then according to Murphy "everything that can go wrong will go wrong". It's what some call being responsible. It's pretty much the same principle as making the DECISION not to drink and drive. Question: If I have to much to drink and get drunker than I want to be and end up getting sick "against my will" what are my options?

Not unless you confuse her body's ability to perform a certain function with her will to perform the function. Because a woman has the ability to bear children says nothing of her will nor obligation to do so. Some women might not like the suggestion that they were created to bear children.

It's a scientific fact that woman have children and acknowledging that fact does not degrade them in any way nor does it negate in any way all of things that woman have accomplished and added to our society. My mentioning this fact was not intended to offend anyone but I like to think that all the people involved in this forum actually want to hear other peoples opinions and we can't do that if we bring our political correctness here. But I do thank you for cautioning me because you never know.

let me hear from ya

[mrmufin]

Now all you have to do is explain why anyone other than the woman responsible for supporting the fetus gets to determine "when the conditions are right for it to happen." It is similar in principle to the fact that even though the "natural design and function" of a woman accommodates and supports sexual intercourse, the woman gets some say in "when the conditions are right for it to happen." When sexual intercourse happens against the will of one of the participants, I call it rape.

You're right that you did not say that you compared pregnancy to a hostile takeover but here you compared it to rape.

No, I didn't really compare pregnancy to rape. I think the extent of my comparison was pretty clear in my previous response, but here it is again, with the operative words boldfaced: I support the right of a woman to terminate an unwanted pregnancy for one of the same reasons that I support her right to fight off a sexual attacker: we all have the right to defend ourselves from unwanted occupation and usage.

Whether the intent of the occupier is malicious, benign, or indifferent is irrelevant when the occupation and usage is unwanted by the woman.

I believe one big difference is that it's not against the law for a woman to ovulate and rape is.

It's not against the law to have rough sex either, but it's still against the law to rape. It's about consent. Ovulation, unlike sex, is not a volitional function involving another person.

I think you're refusing to accept the fact that there are some things we can't control without taking specific steps to do so (i.e. birth control) and when those steps are omitted then according to Murphy "everything that can go wrong will go wrong". It's what some call being responsible.

Birth control is not always effective and consent to have sex does not imply consent to bear children.

It's pretty much the same principle as making the DECISION not to drink and drive. Question: If I have to much to drink and get drunker than I want to be and end up getting sick "against my will" what are my options?

Consuming alcohol is something which you do consensually. However, if I spike someone's drink, or slip something into it which the consumer is unaware of, I am committing a crime.

Not unless you confuse her body's ability to perform a certain function with her will to perform the function. Because a woman has the ability to bear children says nothing of her will nor obligation to do so. Some women might not like the suggestion that they were created to bear children.

It's a scientific fact that woman have children and acknowledging that fact does not degrade them in any way nor does it negate in any way all of things that woman have accomplished and added to our society. My mentioning this fact was not intended to offend anyone but I like to think that all the people involved in this forum actually want to hear other peoples opinions and we can't do that if we bring our political correctness here. But I do thank you for cautioning me because you never know.

You spoke of a woman's capacity to bear children as her "body's right to do what it was created to do." Some women may simply resent the external expectation to do anything with their bodies --have sex, have children, have another drink, whatever.

One of the problems with bestowing a fetus with civil rights is that the fetus is devoid of all civil responsibility. When the fetus is unwanted and can not be aborted, its rights are being protected at the expense of the rights of the woman occupied by the fetus. If there are any other legal precedents which protect the right of one "person" to occupy the body of another person and alter that person's body chemistry against their will, please inform me.

Regards,
mrmufin

[DOuCwhatIsee]

we all have the right to defend ourselves from unwanted occupation and usage

I agree 100% but I also believe that there is always an exception to every rule. For example: murder vs the death penalty, same result from a different perspective.

One of the problems with bestowing a fetus with civil rights is that the fetus is devoid of all civil responsibility.

Pretty much every parent in the world struggles with this same issue and a lot of them probably have, lets just say, "fleeting thoughts" of madness. But what can ya do? That's just life. In life we don't get to choose the consequences for our choices, they're already set. This is no different and sooner or later everything we do catches up with us. At best all we can do choose wisely.