Reducing the number of abortions

[mrmufin]

Otseng has mentioned this topic a few times, and I think it's worthy of discussion:

How can the number of abortions be lowered?

Remember, folks: this forum is for discussion toward a common objective, not for debate on the issue of abortion...

Regards,
mrmufin

[BeHereNow]

(Sorry for the hyperlink failure.
I'll have to reenter.)

Forced sterlization is also very effective for reducing abortions.
If we are going to control people's bodies. . .
I personally don't favor this choice any greater than making them illegal.

[NaturalWay]

Always given to extremes, eh? Why not suggest genocide? That would surely reduce the number of abortions as well. What happened to your Middle Way?

I wouldn't want to control anyone's body.

[BeHereNow]

How is it that forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term is not controlling her body?

[NaturalWay]

First, I've already tried to establish that it is a demonstrably separate body-- not her body. Now, don't go down the road I predict you might, that it is entirely dependant on her for everything. Not only would it be irrelevant, but opens up the ethical possibility of infanticide, which would be a completely new topic.

Second, it is not force. For example, I almost always drive without a seatbelt. I do this even though it is illegal. (Sometimes I even drive above the posted speed limit Isn't the seat belt law an attempt to control my body? It fails to do so. Let's not lose sight of the putative "goal" here-- reducing the number. There is precedent in civilised countries for such laws. Forced sterilazation is a barbaric, monstrous suggestion because it preempts the event of the pregnancy.

Assume for the sake of argument that that the fetus is a person that owns its own body and has a fundamental right to life. Do you actually propose that it is ethically equivalent to violate a person's right to procreate (let's assume that is a fundamental human right as well for the moment) in order to guarantee another person's right to live? I suggest that my solution violates no human rights whatsoever.

[BeHereNow]

Here is a placed to discuss your first three points.

[BeHereNow]

NaturalWay: Assume for the sake of argument that that the fetus is a person that owns its own body and has a fundamental right to life. Do you actually propose that it is ethically equivalent to violate a person's right to procreate (let's assume that is a fundamental human right as well for the moment) in order to guarantee another person's right to live? I suggest that my solution violates no human rights whatsoever.

Assume for the sake of argument that the fetus is not a person, and has no rights which trumps the woman’s rights. Do you actually purpose that it is ethically equivalent to violate a person's right to not remain pregnant (let's assume that is a fundamental human right as well for the moment) in order to guarantee the continuation of non-human (since it has no personhood) life? I suggest that my solution violates no human rights whatsoever.

[NaturalWay]

Ok, so now I see clearly where we differ:

I can prove that the fetus is a distinct human being using science and assert, on the basis that every human being own its own body, that it has a right to life.

Now you say:

>>>Assume for the sake of argument that the fetus is not a person, and has no rights which trumps the woman’s rights.

I will indeed assume the second part, but not the first. I have already adequately explained the logic of why the fetus is a "person". Of course it has no rights that trump the woman's right! On this we are in full agreement.

Where we differ then, is on the question of whether a woman has a "right to not remain pregnant", as you say. You have not offered any theory from which such a right can be established. Now who sounds like they're being emotional?

[otseng]

Here is a placed to discuss your first three points.

Thanks for creating a new thread to debate this (btw, I've moved it to the Philosophy subforum since it seems more like a debate topic).

As stated earlier, the purpose of the subforum is an attempt to do the opposite of debating. That is, instead of approaching problems from different sides, we should try to come up with commonly accepted ideas on how to solve problems. Of course, this might not be possible, but who knows?

NaturalWay, I agree with you that making it illegal would be a good approach, however, it would not be something that most can accept. Can you think of other ways to reduce the number of abortions that all parties could possibly agree on?

[NaturalWay]

I can. Most of these have been tried, some of them have not.

We could advance the science the proves the point the unborn is a human being separate from its mother using advertising.

We can resist the proposal of any programs that would use tax dollars to pay for abortions.

------

I understand the purpose of this forum and have offered my best ideas. I feel that I was engaged in debate and the proposals of others were disingenous.

[blondiefreak890]

One way is u can teach children around the 5th or 6th grade about not haveing sex of if they do to always use protection.the 5th or 6th grade is good because thats around the time kids hormones start flaring up and boys and girls become intrested in one another.U should impress upon the children not to have sex until ur married or doing it w/ protection.