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?

[jerickson314]

But the unwanted pregnancy is as much an "accident" from having sex as is a lung tumor from smoking. Unwanted outcomes of voluntary actions resulting in unwanted use of bodily resources. And both receive medical care to rectify the unwanted outcome and restore the person to the original state. Are you going to stop cancer surgery?

I'm sick of refuting that same weak analogy you keep using, so I'm just going to say this: cancer surgery doesn't need to be stopped simply because it doesn't cause the death of a homo sapien. If it did cause the death of a homo sapien, it would have to be banned.

[jerickson314]

But there is at least one scenario - rape - in which the fetus comes into existence against the woman's will and by no fault of her own. In that case, it's pretty hard to argue that she has any obligation to it, and it seems clear that she'd be morally justified in getting an abortion - even if we accept that the fetus is a separate, morally autonomous person.

Which means that the fetus doesn't automatically have a "right to life" that trumphs the woman's bodily autonomy.

Not necessarily, though perhaps. However, it would only be in this special situation (rape) that abortion would be justified, because there was no act of consent.

We again do have the unique situation with a fetus in that the mother is the only possible means of survival. Not so in any other situation. This could in and of itself create a situation in which the person is obligated to give bodily resources, even though it might not.

And there is, of course, no difference in a fetus conceieved through voluntary and forced sex.

What do you mean by that? There is a moral and legal difference, in that only one is the physical result of a voluntary action.

So it is the SITUATION that determines her right?

Is there something wrong with that?

[jerickson314]

Well, I think jerickson is arguing - with some merit - that if the fetus is living off the woman's body as a result of her actions, which she engaged in of her own free will, then she has a moral obligation to sacrifice some of herself to keep the fetus alive.

Do you have a moral obligation to keep a tumor alive if it arose gfrom your voluntary action?

No, because tumors are not homo sapiens and thus cannot receive rights under the law.

The fetus - which we're assuming is a person - is an innocent, brought into the mother's body not by its own volition but by the conscious act of the woman herself.

She decided to have sex, she did not decide to conceive. Sex is not consent to pregnancy, unless you outlaw all contraception (Pr. CDC data, 58% of all abortions are from couples who used contraception)

She consented to take part in an activity that created the risk of pregnancy.

For that reason, she bares some responsibility for its situation.

Nope, there is no responsibility to a non-sentient unwanted fetus.[/quote]

This is where we disagree. However, the premise of this thread is that the fetus is a person. Start another thread if you want to argue from a different stance, as you are doing here.

I don't think it's necessary for the person to exist at the time of the act for there to be responsibility, since the person's existence is the thing the woman's actions caused.

Again irrelevant, as no person has the right to use another person's bodily resources against their will anyway.

[/quote]

I've repeated myself enough times that I don't feel the need to repeat my explanation again.

[azchurchmouse]

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

In November 1996 a teenage girl and her boyfriend delivered prematurely a child in a Delaware motel, then she and her boyfriend allegedly put the baby in a plastic bag and dropped it in a dumpster.

In June 1997 a New Jersey teenager gave birth to a premature baby in a bathroom stall at her high school prom. She dropped the baby in the trash, then returned to the dance floor.

Both these were true stories.

Did these woman have the right to do this. It's their bodies, right? For those of you who answered yes, I wonder if you think these girls should be prosecuted? Tell me the difference between receiving an abortion where the doctor stops a life and what these girls did? Both did not want the baby. The girls just didn't pay the fee to have a doctor perform it.
The doctor would have sucked ripped and dismembered the fetus, these girls just disposed of it in one piece.

Their right?

Would it have made a difference had I used the word fetus in both the above scenarios?


The only way to make people feel good about abortion is to ignore or disguise what it really is.

The media does a fantastic job of doing this.
Interviews with 240 journalists and editors in the media elite indicate that a full 90% approve of abortion for any reason, a much higher percentage than the general public.

Marvin Olasky, The Prodigal Press (Westchester, Ill.; Crossway Books, 1988), 116

No wonder most the public are ill educated about what abortion really is and what some of the worlds most prominent scientists and physicians think about human life beginning at conception. Unless someone actually goes out and investigates on their own, the public will fall for the pro-choice propaganda.

Does the woman have the right to abort? NO

A body part is defined by the common genetic code it shares with the rest of its body: the unborns genetic code differs from his mothers.
Every cell of the mothers heart and lungs shares the same genetic code. The unborn child also has a genetic code, distinctly different from his mothers. Every cell of his body is HIS, each different than every cell of his mothers body. His blood type can be different and so can gender.
Just as no two people have identical fingerprints, no two people have identical genetic fingerprints. It's one body inside the other, but each has its own genetic code. There is not ONE person but two SEPARATE people.
The unborn child takes an active role in his own development controlling the course of the pregnancy and even the time of birth. The pregnant mother controls nothing, unless she makes an appointment to terminate her childs life.

Being inside something is not the same as being part of something. One body does not belong to anothers merely because of proximity. A loaf of bread is not part of the oven of which it is baked, is it? A child is NOT part of the body in which she is carried.

Our laws are funny. The Supreme Court made it legal to obtain an abortion. Yet they turn around and affirm in July 2000 unanimously passing a bill to make it illegal to execute a pregnant woman.
They stated that a preborn child is an individual person, distinct from its mother and with his own separate right to life. ha ha

You tell me how morally consistent this is?

I will sum up here by giving this true to life scenario I just read in Randy Alcorns book, "Pro Life Answers to Pro Choice Arguments."

Two woman become pregnant on the same day. Six months later Woman A has a premature baby, small but healthy. Woman B is still pregnant. One week later both woman decide they don't want their babies anymore. Why should Woman B be allowed to kill her baby and Woman A not be allowed to kill hers? Since there is no difference in the nature or development of the two babies, why would Woman B's action be excersizing a legitimate right to choose, while Woman A's action would be a heinous crime subjecting her to prosecution for first degree murder?
It is irrational to recognize the one child as a baby and pretend the other one isn't.

In our hospitals we have premature babies being frantically saved by medical teams in one room while down the hall babies the same age are being aborted, because the woman says she has the right.

Sound logical or ethical to you?

[sin_is_fun]

I think it is not good to abort,if I were a woman I wouldnt do so,but if some women choose to do so nobody in the world has any rights to prevent her.

Even if the feutus is a person,it is dependent on its mother.A mother has to sacrifice many things in life to give birth to that child.She might lose her job in 3rd world countries if she gets pregnant,she loses her girl identity and becomes a mother.Her marriage,life all might get affected because of this.Her beauty goes away if she isnt careful-she might become obese.The trauma of pregnancy can be too much for some women to bear.After delivering the child she has to find a day care and pay around 1000$ per month for the child....

Pregnancy is painful.Women suffer a lot during the initial stages of pregnancy.They vomit a lot,cannot eat,always get tired,cannot work..

If you are willing to endure all this its fine.You are great.But if a woman isnt willing then she cannot be forced.If she thinks the pain and cost of becoming pregnant is too much,then she cannot be forced to carry a baby against her wishes.

what if she is a teen and got pregnant by not being careful?Do we force a 13 year old teen to carry a child?what about her future?what a shame will it bring to her family?She might even be stoned to death in some countries.

rights of a feutus is secondary to the rights of the mother.Childbirth and pregnancy involve payinga heavy price.A woman changes permanantly after delivering a child.She loses some of her beauty,marketability in the dating market,she lags beind her peers in the job..

she cannot be forced to pay this price.

[lifeisboring]

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?

Yes.
Person's don't have the right to use another person's bodily resources against their will, so regardless of the fetus' status, it does not hold such a right.

Yeah, but it was the parent's choice to have a baby (or they just had sex for the fun of it, but they still knew the risk). If you abort a child, it's the same as murder, just as if you kill the mom and the baby in her died too, it's second degree murder.

So basically, it's the parent's responsibility to take care of the child, as they were the ones who created it.

[lynxichan]

If she thinks the pain and cost of becoming pregnant is too much,then she cannot be forced to carry a baby against her wishes.

If she thinks the pain and cost of becoming pregnant is too much, then she shouldn't have had sex and risked getting pregnant in the first place.


And, if an unborn baby isn't a person, then if someone shoots a pregnant woman in the stomach and kills her baby, they shouldn't be charged with murder as long as the woman doesn't die. Or a woman who was forced into an abortion in order to save her life shouldn't mourn the death of her baby because she can just get pregnant again. Doesn't seem right to me...

[ENIGMA]

If she thinks the pain and cost of becoming pregnant is too much,then she cannot be forced to carry a baby against her wishes.

If she thinks the pain and cost of becoming pregnant is too much, then she shouldn't have had sex and risked getting pregnant in the first place.


And, if an unborn baby isn't a person, then if someone shoots a pregnant woman in the stomach and kills her baby, they shouldn't be charged with murder as long as the woman doesn't die. Or a woman who was forced into an abortion in order to save her life shouldn't mourn the death of her baby because she can just get pregnant again. Doesn't seem right to me...

If the unborn fetus is a person, then if the woman miscarries then she should be charged and easily convicted of involuntary manslaughter.

I'll take the lesser absurdity, thank you very much.

[steen]

If she thinks the pain and cost of becoming pregnant is too much, then she shouldn't have had sex and risked getting pregnant in the first place.

Just like the smoker who gets lung cancer, or the driver who end up through the windshield due to an accident. Taking risks, of course, is NOT the same as consenting to the riskful outcome.

And, if an unborn baby isn't a person, then if someone shoots a pregnant woman in the stomach and kills her baby, they shouldn't be charged with murder as long as the woman doesn't die.

Agreed.

Or a woman who was forced into an abortion in order to save her life shouldn't mourn the death of her baby because she can just get pregnant again. Doesn't seem right to me...

Actually, her subjective feeling are the way they are, and your view has no bearing on her. She "shouldn't" do anything, but she can do what she wants. Your view has no bearing on her reality.

[Guy Smiley]

Wow this is an exasperating thread.

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'm one of the atheists btw--can't find out how to get that in my profile )