Another Abortion Thread

[keltzkroz]

Hi everyone! This topic came up in the Abortion/parental fairness thread. We have gone off topic so I'm starting this one.

The question seems to be pretty simple, or perhaps not so simple. IF the fetus is a person, is abortion ok?

[MagusYanam]

Guy Smiley, welcome to the forum!

I agree with you heartily in that I don't think the argument over abortion is a moral one (we all agree that killing people for convenience is wrong) but rather a conceptual one (what comprises a person?). I would postulate that personhood, being dependent on rationality, should be likewise dependent on when brain activity and sensory function begin.

As to how to get a usergroup label to appear in your profile, there ought to be a tab in the 'profile' section labelled 'usergroups', from which you can select groups to join: 'atheist', 'agnostic', 'Christian', 'Catholic', 'Judaist' et cetera. Hope this helps!

[Guy Smiley]

Hey thanks Magus!

I agree with you heartily in that I don't think the argument over abortion is a moral one (we all agree that killing people for convenience is wrong) but rather a conceptual one (what comprises a person?).

Yep. I hear ya. I feel like I have to leave it to the community of scientific/medical experts to answer that one (what comprises a person), to the best of its ability anyway. I don't know of any better alternative.

[steen]

Anyway, I just wanted to say in regards to the original post that yeah, presuming the premise (that the fetus is an actual person), then abortion is immoral, in my humble opinion. I'd be quite surprised if the majority of pro-choicers didn't agree.

I am not quite sue I follow you here. Are you saying that a PERSON has the right to use another person's bodily resources against that person's will?

If I am dying from kidney failure, can I take your extra kidney for my survival even against your will?

After all, if I am a person, do I have the right to another person's bodily resources against their will?

[steen]

Yep. I hear ya. I feel like I have to leave it to the community of scientific/medical experts to answer that one (what comprises a person), to the best of its ability anyway. I don't know of any better alternative.

"Person" is a legal term, so scientific/medical experts don't have much to say in that area.

[Guy Smiley]

I am not quite sue I follow you here. Are you saying that a PERSON has the right to use another person's bodily resources against that person's will?

Nope. (A) I have a right that people not use my kidneys, but also, (B) a person has a right to live. So if (A) and (B) are in conflict, well then you have to make a judgment call.

Since in a pregnancy, this "person" is using my kidneys only as a direct consequence of something I did, I think (B) wins.

[steen]

I am not quite sue I follow you here. Are you saying that a PERSON has the right to use another person's bodily resources against that person's will?

Nope. (A) I have a right that people not use my kidneys, but also, (B) a person has a right to live. So if (A) and (B) are in conflict, well then you have to make a judgment call.

Since in a pregnancy, this "person" is using my kidneys only as a direct consequence of something I did, I think (B) wins.

So it is not a matter of life and right to life, but rather a matter of FAULT?

If I share a rare blood type with somebody and stab them, then they have a right to be transfused with my blood; I can be forced to give blood?

[keltzkroz]

If I share a rare blood type with somebody and stab them, then they have a right to be transfused with my blood; I can be forced to give blood?

It's your fault that the person got stabbed, so you will be responsible for the crime. But its not your fault that you have the same blood type, so no, you will not be forced to give blood.

It is somebody's 'fault' that a person is growing in their body, so they are responsible for it.

[Guy Smiley]

So it is not a matter of life and right to life, but rather a matter of FAULT?

Not fault necessarily, but responsibility, sure.

If you pose crazy hypotheticals, realize that the answers will inevitably be a little crazy too . But yeah, if you stab someone, and your blood is the only way to save them (I'm modifying your hypothetical a little...), then you should be forced to give your blood.

Actually that kinda seems obvious to me. Could you explain why you think your right to your bodily resources trumps his right to live in that situation? I mean, you tried to kill the guy for pete's sake, you cold, heartless murderer.

[Vianne]

Hi everyone! This topic came up in the Abortion/parental fairness thread. We have gone off topic so I'm starting this one.

The question seems to be pretty simple, or perhaps not so simple. IF the fetus is a person, is abortion ok?

I haven't read any of the other replies yet, so forgive me if I'm barging into an established dialogue.

Yes, it's okay. The fetus is not yet a functioning, interacting member of society in the way that a born infant, child, teen, or adult is. I believe it is irresponsible to bring a child into the world when you are not willing or financially/emotionally capable of doing so. Every child *should* be wanted.

[Vianne]

I am not quite sue I follow you here. Are you saying that a PERSON has the right to use another person's bodily resources against that person's will?

Nope. (A) I have a right that people not use my kidneys, but also, (B) a person has a right to live. So if (A) and (B) are in conflict, well then you have to make a judgment call.

Since in a pregnancy, this "person" is using my kidneys only as a direct consequence of something I did, I think (B) wins.

And yet, not everyone did it willingly. Should the rapist make the decision as to the welfare of the unborn child he fathered in the woman he raped? After all, it resulted as a direct consequence of something he did, right?