Prolifers, in what situation is it morally acceptable for a woman to abort pregnancy?

[threemae]

Inspired by this thread:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=291701

So, pro-lifers, in what situations does a woman have a right to obtain an abortion? I'll agree that cases where the safety of the woman is at stake should certainly be okay. And of course, rape and incest. But what about inconvenient or simply unplanned pregnancy? What if this child has the potential to catastrophically affect the woman's future educational, earning, achievement, and social potential?

What if the woman just flat doesn't want the kid?

Frankly, I'm guessing that most people that call themselves pro-life believe that the choice should ultimately lie with the woman to carry the pregnancy to term or not, and I agree with this viewpoint. But I also believe that men should have the ability to terminate their parental rights and responsibilities completely in the same way that men can. Yet, in that thread, even in GQ, people had a thinly veiled disgust for his attempts to shirk his parental responsibility. The only person that even brought up or entertained the thought that the situation was unfair to males was Carnac the Magnificent.

So, why the double standard?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Once the kid is born, the woman can't terminate any responsibility. A pregnancy is not a child, and if it's terminated, then there never was a child to be responsible for.

Once the kid is born, it's a whole different ballgame and both parents are on the hook. A man is responsible for his own sperm. I can't believe that anyone would suggest that it's acceptable for a man to abandon his own children.

[Tamerlane]

Originally Posted by threemae

So, why the double standard?

As has been said on this topic many times before - it's just biology. If we were seahorses it might not be as much of an issue, but unfortunately we're not ( oh, to be a seahorse, delicately floating amongst the kelp fronds! ). The woman carries all of the physiological burden and risk of bringing a child to term and thus gets ( and absolutely must have ) an unequal say in termination. Once the child is born, the welfare of the child now becomes paramount and both parents, willing or not, are on the hook.

Sucks, perhaps, but there 'tis.

- Tamerlane

[Nobody]

Of course a woman who has a child she doesn't want could also give it up for adoption once it's born.

[davenportavenger]

Originally Posted by Master Control

Of course a woman who has a child she doesn't want could also give it up for adoption once it's born.

Pregnancy carries with it many health risks, including the risk of diabetes, permanent back problems, infertility from an infection or botched delivery, and hormonal changes, which can take several years to go back to "normal" (pre-pregnancy levels). Also, there is often a hormone-influenced bond that forms between the mother and the baby once the baby is born, which inhibits adoption. Carrying a baby to term is a much bigger investment than, say, leaving a cake in the oven the full twenty minutes.

[curly chick]

Originally Posted by threemae

Frankly, I'm guessing that most people that call themselves pro-life believe that the choice should ultimately lie with the woman to carry the pregnancy to term or not, and I agree with this viewpoint.

If that was the case, how could anyone ever call themselves pro-life? What you are describing sounds to me like pro-choice, rather than pro-life.

Anything I've ever read or heard about the pro-life point of view is that the woman never has any right to terminate a pregnancy and that the right of the unborn to be born is the only right that there is.

[kanicbird]

My quick $0.02 is that as long as the adoption system is not overburdened, there is no need to kill our offspring.

In cases where the fetus would kill or seriously damage the mother, besides 'normal' childbirth 'damage', I think that person should be able to chose to kill their child. Well I really think it should be the parents who make that call together.

In cases of serious fetal problems, again I would leave that up to the parents.

In the case of rape, absolutley not, you don't kill an innocent 3rd party (child) you kill the rapist, well after he/she pays 18 yrs of child support.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

You would force a 14 year old girl to endure a pregnancy caused by a rape?

[kanicbird]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

You would force a 14 year old girl to endure a pregnancy caused by a rape?

You would kill a baby because the mother was raped?

[El Zagna]

Originally Posted by threemae

And of course, rape and incest.

Of course? Why "of course"? If life begins at conception then it begins at conception from rape and incest as well. The fetus/child is not a party to whatever activity that led to its existence.

I have always found the rape or incest exception to be philosophically troubling. Indeed it seems to me to give lie to the claim of pro-lifers that it's all about the innocent unborn child. When you invoke the rape or inceat exception what you seem to be saying in effect is "Well, the mother wasn't an immoral slut so she shouldn't be punished for having sex." While that's over the top, it's really what it comes down to, isn't it?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally Posted by kanicbird

You would kill a baby because the mother was raped?

Of course not.

[catsix]

Diogenes said:
Once the kid is born, the woman can't terminate any responsibility.

She can in Pennsylvania. This is a 'Safe Harbor' state, meaning that a woman or girl can drop her newborn off at any hospital, no questions asked, and never see the kid again. She doesn't have to give her name or any identifying information of any kind. So say all the flyers that are located on the front 'flyer table' of the building I work in describing the Safe Harbor program.

kanicbird said:
You would kill a baby because the mother was raped?

Rape is far and away traumatic enough without adding yet another injury by forcing someone to endure 40 weeks of a constant, 24/7 reminder that they were attacked. Hell no I would never, ever force someone to endure a pregnancy caused by rape.

[kanicbird]

Of course not.

Then Diogenes the Cynic are you OK with your money going to pay a hitman to kill that baby because the mother was raped?

Remember the OP is about morallity, not law. People commit immoral actions all the time, including aboutions. Morally speaking there is very little reason to kill (or hire to kill) one's offsrping.

[El Zagna]

Originally Posted by catsix

Rape is far and away traumatic enough without adding yet another injury by forcing someone to endure 40 weeks of a constant, 24/7 reminder that they were attacked. Hell no I would never, ever force someone to endure a pregnancy caused by rape.

Life is full of traumas, big and small. Are you advocating a trauma exception to the rape or incest exception?

What if a married couple conceives a child, but shortly after that the father is killed in an automobile accident, and the mother has no way of providing for the child by herself. Is that a big enough trauma? What if prenatal testing shows that the fetus will be born with some terrible birth defect that will require constant care and will certainly kill the child in a few years? The mother will have "to endure 40 weeks of a constant, 24/7 reminder" of the hopeless situation she is in. Have we crossed the trauma threshold yet?

On the other hand what if the rape leading to a pregnancy is one of those if-she-says-no-it's-rape kind of things? Does that really reach the level of trauma to justify ending an innocent child's life?

[Jillyvn]

Originally Posted by bnorton

Life is full of traumas, big and small. Are you advocating a trauma exception to the rape or incest exception?

What if a married couple conceives a child, but shortly after that the father is killed in an automobile accident, and the mother has no way of providing for the child by herself. Is that a big enough trauma? What if prenatal testing shows that the fetus will be born with some terrible birth defect that will require constant care and will certainly kill the child in a few years? The mother will have "to endure 40 weeks of a constant, 24/7 reminder" of the hopeless situation she is in. Have we crossed the trauma threshold yet?

On the other hand what if the rape leading to a pregnancy is one of those if-she-says-no-it's-rape kind of things? Does that really reach the level of trauma to justify ending an innocent child's life?

Your two hypothetical situations are completely different. In the first one, comparing a woman's grief over the death of her husband, with whom she lovingly spawned a child, to a woman who has been violated is offensive.

Second, if prenatal testing shows such a defect, I would advocate the mother's right to chose to abort.


I'm going to ask for some clarification on this point:

"-she-says-no-it's-rape kind of things? "

My understanding is, if a woman says no, and the guy proceeds to have sex with her in spite of her refusal, that IS rape.

[kanicbird]

Yes, I don't buy the trauma arugment, live is full of them, deal w/ it.

There is an old Indian (Native American) saying, which I don't recall the exact words, which I'm sure are translations anyway. "When you ask the Great Sprit for strenght, He (or She) sends you hardship and trauma as that will strenghten you."

Your two hypothetical situations are completely different. In the first one, comparing a woman's grief over the death of her husband, with whom she lovingly spawned a child, to a woman who has been violated is offensive.

In the case of the father dieing, adoption is a very good option.

I'm going to ask for some clarification on this point:

"-she-says-no-it's-rape kind of things? "

My understanding is, if a woman says no, and the guy proceeds to have sex with her in spite of her refusal, that IS rape.

Legally you are correct, but this op is about moriallity, and in that respect it's not so cut and dry. Also the word rape has been diluted so much as when I hear the word, I have to ask for clarification, which is a shame.

When I hear rape now, several things go through my mind as to the possibilities, including the violent type where one does not know the rapist, or knows them, to date rape, both violent and a type where one says no at 1st but then seems to go along w/ it, to regretting sex after it happens. This doesn't even include statuatory rape where the victiom could be technically be one day younger then the rapist.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally Posted by kanicbird

Then Diogenes the Cynic are you OK with your money going to pay a hitman to kill that baby because the mother was raped?

Remember the OP is about morallity, not law. People commit immoral actions all the time, including aboutions. Morally speaking there is very little reason to kill (or hire to kill) one's offsrping.

Can you read? I said I do NOT think a baby should be killed because its mother was raped.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally Posted by Kanicbird

Yes, I don't buy the trauma arugment, live [sic] is full of them, deal w/ it.

You can't make the trauma go away by saying you "don't buy" it.

Forcing a victim to endure a pregnancy caused by a rape is cruel and inhumane to the pont of being sociopathic. It shows an utterly depraved lack of human compassion or empathy.

[catsix]

bnorton said:
Life is full of traumas, big and small. Are you advocating a trauma exception to the rape or incest exception?

I'm not advocating for 'exceptions' because I am not a pro-life person who believes abortion should be illegal.

The mother will have "to endure 40 weeks of a constant, 24/7 reminder" of the hopeless situation she is in. Have we crossed the trauma threshold yet?

What I'm saying is that a rapist has already victimized a rape victim. Why should that rapist be further victimizing that woman by having to carry his child?

What good do you see in forcing someone to carry the pregnancy of a rapist? I see nothing but destruction.

Rebekkah said:
In the first one, comparing a woman's grief over the death of her husband, with whom she lovingly spawned a child, to a woman who has been violated is offensive.

It's certainly not the most apt comparison in the world. The woman who chose with her husband was certainly not victimized by her husband and isn't continuing to be victimized by him because he died. If anything, as in the case of a former coworker of mine, the child becomes a way for part of that deceased husband to live on. When Sandra (not her real name) found out that her husband had died in a tragic accident while she was pregnant with their daughter, she chose to name the daughter after the husband as a way of keeping part of him with her always. It would've been far more traumatic to her to lose that baby.

kanicbird said:
Yes, I don't buy the trauma arugment, live is full of them, deal w/ it.

Dealing with it? One way to 'deal with it' is to not allow yourself to be further traumatized so that you can begin the healing process. Yes, life is full of trauma. Why extend a person's suffering needlessly to 'protect' one that doesn't exist?

You could tell her to just give the kid up for adoption. Have you considered the devastation that could be caused to both the woman and the kid when he or she shows up at her door 18 or 20 years down the road to find his or her 'birth parents' and discovers that he or she was the product of a rape and that the only reason he or she exists is because the state forced his or her mother to give birth?

[AHunter3]

[GQ mode]
Anyone have a ready cite on a case where an unmarried father took custody after the baby was born and then had the state impose child support payments to be taken from the mom over her objections?

[/GQ]

[Mr. Moto]

Diogenes, you're saying a baby isn't a baby until it's born, and basing all of your arguments off of that rather facile definition. I can understand why you do so. It certainly simplifies matters and makes the moral lines very clear.

However, this definition id problematic to say the least.

You have kids. I'm guessing you saw them on the ultrasound screen. Did the ultrasound tech point to the screen and invite you to look at your fetus?

When your wife felt kicking, did she say the fetus was doing it?

I'm guessing no, because there's a common sense definition of "baby" at work here. This definition I'm sure you use IRL, though, is suddenly jettisoned when you have to defend your pro-choice views.

I don't buy it for a second, and I'm calling you on it.

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Forcing a victim to endure a pregnancy caused by a rape is cruel and inhumane to the pont of being sociopathic. It shows an utterly depraved lack of human compassion or empathy.

Unless a viable fetus is a separate human life, in which case you could only kill it for reasons that would equally justify killing a newborn, or a minor child.

If a viable fetus is a separate human life, then the suffering of the mother during a rape-induced pregnancy does not justify killing the fetus - unless other forms of suffering equally justify killing a new born.

If you read the first word of the thread title, you will better understand the parameters of the debate.

Regards,
Shodan

[kanicbird]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

You can't make the trauma go away by saying you "don't buy" it.

You are correct, but is trauma suppose to just dissappear? I'm not saying to take the trauma away, but that we all have trauma's in our lives, and it is part of who we are. If there is a way to remove all trauma from humanity, would we be better off. I don't have the answer, but I suspect no.

Forcing a victim to endure a pregnancy caused by a rape is cruel and inhumane to the pont of being sociopathic. It shows an utterly depraved lack of human compassion or empathy.

And it seem like a ancient sacrificial ritual to kill an innocent baby as a result of a crime of another.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally Posted by Mr. Moto

Diogenes, you're saying a baby isn't a baby until it's born, and basing all of your arguments off of that rather facile definition. I can understand why you do so. It certainly simplifies matters and makes the moral lines very clear.

However, this definition id problematic to say the least.

You have kids. I'm guessing you saw them on the ultrasound screen. Did the ultrasound tech point to the screen and invite you to look at your fetus?

When your wife felt kicking, did she say the fetus was doing it?

I'm guessing no, because there's a common sense definition of "baby" at work here. This definition I'm sure you use IRL, though, is suddenly jettisoned when you have to defend your pro-choice views.

I don't buy it for a second, and I'm calling you on it.

We did and do (we have one in the oven right now) refer to the fetuses as a "babies" and speak as if they are children before they are born. That does not mean that intellectually we don't know that biologically it's not really a baby yet. It's an execrcise in preparation for parenting, an expression of anticipation and excitement, etc. It's an emotional attitude not an intellectual or ideological one.

[treis]

Originally Posted by catsix

You could tell her to just give the kid up for adoption. Have you considered the devastation that could be caused to both the woman and the kid when he or she shows up at her door 18 or 20 years down the road to find his or her 'birth parents' and discovers that he or she was the product of a rape and that the only reason he or she exists is because the state forced his or her mother to give birth?

OK say we have this hypothetical kid. At age 18 we go and tell him that he was concieved due to a rape. We also give him a gun and ask him if he would like to terminate his life at this point. What do you think he will do?

[catsix]

treis, you're presenting a false dichotomy in which the only two options are for this kid to be fine with the whole thing or commit suicide.

Finding out that he's the product of a rape and would not exist if the state hadn't forced his mother into it can completely fuck him up mentally without him killing himself.

How would you feel if you were told today that you were born solely because your mother was forced to carry the pregnancy of her rapist? Would that leave you messed up in the head and emotionally traumatized?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally Posted by treis

OK say we have this hypothetical kid. At age 18 we go and tell him that he was concieved due to a rape. We also give him a gun and ask him if he would like to terminate his life at this point. What do you think he will do?

I used to know somebody who was conceived by a rape. He was unbelievably screwed up by it and did attempt suicide multiple times.

It's not a legitimate question anyway. If the pregnancy is terminated then there never is a person who will have to deal with finding that out.

[kanicbird]

Why should that rapist be further victimizing that woman by having to carry his child?

What good do you see in forcing someone to carry the pregnancy of a rapist? I see nothing but destruction.

The rapist is not further victomizing the woman, and besides the biological material he (we're assuming he here, but this can be flipped w/ some modification) has no claim on that child though he should be finitially responsible for the child. Why do you wish to victomize the baby?

Isn't killing the baby destruction? Are you infering that this child is somehow 'bad' due to the genetics of the rapist?

Yes, life is full of trauma. Why extend a person's suffering needlessly to 'protect' one that doesn't exist?

You could tell her to just give the kid up for adoption. Have you considered the devastation that could be caused to both the woman and the kid when he or she shows up at her door 18 or 20 years down the road to find his or her 'birth parents' and discovers that he or she was the product of a rape and that the only reason he or she exists is because the state forced his or her mother to give birth?

That last part is speculation, which I would say the child may reply "thank you for not aborting me". I don't know and neither do you.

Diogenes, you're saying a baby isn't a baby until it's born, and basing all of your arguments off of that rather facile definition. I can understand why you do so. It certainly simplifies matters and makes the moral lines very clear.

One way I heard the justification is that life begins at the decision of the mother. I don't buy this, it is putting humans on the same plane of God.

[The Asbestos Mango]

When is it acceptable for a woman to have an abortion?

To save the life of the mother? Yes.

To preserve the health of the mother? Um, I'll have to give this a qualified yes. The damage caused by carrying the baby to term would have to be severe and permanent.

Rape or incest? I'm with kanicbird on this one. Really, really not a fan of killing children for the crimes of their parents.

Mother simply doesn't want to have the kid? If you don't want to have a child, keep your legs crossed. If you don't feel this is feasible, then use the "Double Dutch" method of birth control- she takes the pill, he uses a condom. Yes, even this can fail, but failure would be extremely rare. Hell, if I got pregnant under those circumstances, I would figure this child was meant to exist, and who am I to say it nay?

Severe health problems in the unborn child? In most cases, no. I would make an exception for anencephaly. In this case, the child would definitely not survive for more than a few hours after birth, and I just can't see putting a woman through a pregnancy knowing that it will end in either a stillbirth or a child who would not live much beyond drawing its first breath.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally Posted by kanicbird

The rapist is not further victomizing the woman,

No, the state is further victimizing the woman simply to further a purely religious definition of "personhood."

and besides the biological material he (we're assuming he here, but this can be flipped w/ some modification) has no claim on that child though he should be finitially responsible for the child. Why do you wish to victomize the baby?

There is no "child." There is no "baby." There is only a pregnancy.

Isn't killing the baby destruction? Are you infering that this child is somehow 'bad' due to the genetics of the rapist?

There is no baby.

That last part is speculation, which I would say the child may reply "thank you for not aborting me". I don't know and neither do you.

There is no child.

One way I heard the justification is that life begins at the decision of the mother. I don't buy this, it is putting humans on the same plane of God.

Unntil you can prove that there is any such thing as a "God" then humans have to take charge of their own lives.

[treis]

Originally Posted by catsix

How would you feel if you were told today that you were born solely because your mother was forced to carry the pregnancy of her rapist? Would that leave you messed up in the head and emotionally traumatized?

Honestly? I haven't the slightest clue how I would feel. It personally probably wouldn't bother me very much, I would rather be alive due to a rape than dead.

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

It's not a legitimate question anyway. If the pregnancy is terminated then there never is a person who will have to deal with finding that out.

It is a legitimate question. If you feel that a fetus is a human life than you cannot end that life without its consent. Age 18 is the age in this country that we deem people to become adults. If this hypothetical adult feels so horrific about his conception that he doesn't wish to be alive than so be it let him end his life. I will not make that decision for him.

[faithfool]

[Following along behind the lead of AHunter3 in GQ mode]

What if, say the woman has long since decided that she doesn't want children due to what she can/will pass on to them (IE: in my case, a very extensive family history of mental illness), yet is then raped?

In this instance, as far as I can tell, part (or most) of her dilemma is due to concern for the life of the child *after* it's born and what it will face, even in adoption by a loving, desirous family. To me, choosing to terminate the pregnancy, no matter how difficult, would be an act of love and mercy (and I know, because I would have preferred this as a fetus versus my life, but obviously, YMMV). Saving the baby from growing up with an already attached stigma, dealing with something that may be untreatable or far beyond their abilities (resulting in being disowned, suicide, etc.) and/or then eventually passing it on to *their* offspring in a view of apathy, disdain for the condition (or being traumatized/numbed against it) or not understanding the nature of the beast.

This is what I would do. Could someone help by explaining to me what is expected of a woman when she already has the best interests of the baby in mind, yet is usurped by horrible, unforeseeable circumstances? I'm just not sure I see the break-down of logic applied here.

[/end of AH3 GQ mode]

[treis]

Diogenes-

You are debating from the position that abortion is moral, life doesn't begin at conception and that a fetus has no status as personhood. This debate is about pro-lifers and if any situation is acceptable for abortion. We are debating under the assumption that abortion is wrong, life begins at conception and the fetus is a person.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally Posted by treis

Diogenes-

You are debating from the position that abortion is moral, life doesn't begin at conception and that a fetus has no status as personhood. This debate is about pro-lifers and if any situation is acceptable for abortion. We are debating under the assumption that abortion is wrong, life begins at conception and the fetus is a person.

You're right. The OP was directed at pro-lifers. I shouldn't have inserted myself into a debate I wasn't invited into. I will withdraw from the thread.

[The Asbestos Mango]

Dio I disagree with you on a lot of issues, sometimes violently, but I gotta say that was the most graceful bow-out from a thread that I've ever read.

Kudos to you for being a gentleman.

[Mr. Moto]

Same here, Diogenes. Best of luck with your new baby.

[JohnClay]

kanicbird:
Could you say how long after conception a pregnant woman has a baby (or "child")? I mean say she was raped and within a week she took a pregnancy test (or whatever the minimum time those tests work) and she found that she was pregnant, does she have a baby inside of her?

[JohnClay]

Just to add to the original post, a scenario which involves "conception" and abortion that many support (which some pro-lifers might also support) involves scientists making a sperm and an egg get together in a laboratory, then screening it for severe disabilities (there could be tradition of life-threatening hereditary problems in that family)... if the scientists found it they could kill the fertilized egg. I wonder if pro-lifers would think that is killing a human baby... - or if it is morally acceptable....

[faithfool]

Originally Posted by treis

It is a legitimate question. If you feel that a fetus is a human life than you cannot end that life without its consent. Age 18 is the age in this country that we deem people to become adults. If this hypothetical adult feels so horrific about his conception that he doesn't wish to be alive than so be it let him end his life. I will not make that decision for him.

Last of all, why is there a presumption that everyone would have chosen life versus abortion if given the opportunity in the womb? I know *I* wouldn't have. But it doesn't matter, because saying that if they feel ".... so horrific about his conception that he doesn't wish to be alive than so be it let him end his life." is naive at best. Perhaps they've been raised with a moral ideology that prevents them from suicide. Or they just can't bring themselves to go through with it, much like you saying that you "will not make that decision for him." Or any of a thousand different scenarios that we can't fathom unless we know after the fact about the circumstances surrounding what happened before our mother became pregnant.

I just don't see how one can claim that this side is 'playing God' by choosing termination and not feel that *they* are doing exactly the same thing, but only *after* birth and for the rest of this person's existence. It confounds me and sometimes I loathe/detest/resent/can't fathom why over the long term that my mother for picking the option that she did. It was the easy way out for her and *I* pay the penalty. I'm not in the least appreciative. But there you go. Another side to the coin that's very rarely mentioned.

Whoops. Upon preview I see that someone has pointed out this was a Pro-Life debate only. My apologies as well. I, too, will take myself out of this thread and my big ol' mouth elsewhere. Again, I'm so sorry.

[kanicbird]

No, the state is further victimizing the woman simply to further a purely religious definition of "personhood."

Yes Thanks DtC, for a bow out, but I must address this as it is important to clarify. The OP is about morality, not legality. We as have free will and are able of doing immoral actions.

Could you say how long after conception a pregnant woman has a baby (or "child")? I mean say she was raped and within a week she took a pregnancy test (or whatever the minimum time those tests work) and she found that she was pregnant, does she have a baby inside of her?

I have to say I don't know. I have come up with several theories, such as since life ends w/ the stop of brain activity, so life begins w/ it. Life begins the moment the sperm and egg combine, or at the 1st cell division, life has begun before the woman's body recognizes the pregnancy.

All are separate theories I hold, and I don't know which one is the true one, but I personally think I am on safe ground is that human life begins or has already begun at the point that brain activity begins. I also feel pretty safe to say that when sperm and egg are not combined there is no separate human life.

So somewhere between conception and brainwaves, including the limits.

again this is how I see it, and feel it in my heart.

[kanicbird]

Just to add to the original post, a scenario which involves "conception" and abortion that many support (which some pro-lifers might also support) involves scientists making a sperm and an egg get together in a laboratory, then screening it for severe disabilities (there could be tradition of life-threatening hereditary problems in that family)... if the scientists found it they could kill the fertilized egg. I wonder if pro-lifers would think that is killing a human baby... - or if it is morally acceptable....

This goes into another sub-debate. If a fetus is fully human, Does a fetus have a right to use that womb as long as s/he does not cause excessive damage in the process?

[Lord Ashtar]

Originally Posted by bnorton

Of course? Why "of course"? If life begins at conception then it begins at conception from rape and incest as well. The fetus/child is not a party to whatever activity that led to its existence.

I have always found the rape or incest exception to be philosophically troubling. Indeed it seems to me to give lie to the claim of pro-lifers that it's all about the innocent unborn child. When you invoke the rape or inceat exception what you seem to be saying in effect is "Well, the mother wasn't an immoral slut so she shouldn't be punished for having sex." While that's over the top, it's really what it comes down to, isn't it?

I've been struggling with this a lot recently as well. It always seems to be an afterthought, especially for politicians (but should I be expecting any different?). The Republicans are usually "pro-life, except in cases of rape and incest". I just don't get why it's morally okay to kill a baby if the mother was raped or got pregnant from her brother/father/uncle.

[Ludovic]

The "biological burden" argument is right on, dude! After all, the burden of childbirth is why women live such shorter lives than men.....

(Not saying men should necessarily not have fiscal responsibility for a baby, just that in the balance of things, women having the upper hand in deciding if there will be a fiscal burden rings hollow when faced with overall lifespan rates.)

Oh, and I have a hormonal bonding issue with a girl I knew in high school. If I didn't suck it up and realize I have to live my own life I'd be described as "creepy". Come to think of it, the various women who carried a child for someone else per a legal contract, then decided to keep it for themselves aren't completely lacking creepiness.

[threemae]

Damnit, damnit, damnit! I really put my mouth into my foot on this one. I meant pro-choicers, NOT pro-lifers. How could I screw that up?

What I was really asking is why women have an absolute right to terminate their parental rights/obligations while men don't have the same rights. I'm refering to uncomplicated pregancy in healthy individuals where the main objection to the pregnancy is convenience factors.

Uhhg, why can't you people read what I mean instead of reading what I say?

[Essured]

Originally Posted by threemae

Damnit, damnit, damnit! I really put my mouth into my foot on this one. I meant pro-choicers, NOT pro-lifers. How could I screw that up?

Maybe email a mod and ask them to fix it?

What I was really asking is why women have an absolute right to terminate their parental rights/obligations while men don't have the same rights. I'm refering to uncomplicated pregancy in healthy individuals where the main objection to the pregnancy is convenience factors.

Before answering this, I'd really like to know what you mean by "convenience factors". If you think an unwanted pregnancy is 'inconvenient', then there's not much I can say, since I know many people who would kill themselves before continuing a pregnancy, if nothing else worked. That would indicate that for them pregnancy is quite a bit more than just 'inconvenient'.

And why does the woman have the absolute right? Because biology makes it so. Unfortunately, the female of the species has to endure any emotional and physical consequences of aborting or continuing a pregnancy. This is why the choice is hers. It's a better situation if both female and male discuss and agree (even better if they do so prior to having sex) on what to do, but if there's a disagreement, the tie breaker is the woman's since she'll be the one undergoing the actual procedure (birth or abortion).
Once the child is born, it needs to be cared for. This may be by the biological parents, or may be by adopted parents, however unless someone else legally accepts the rights and responsibilities of the child, the financial responsibility belongs to the two who created it.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally Posted by threemae

Damnit, damnit, damnit! I really put my mouth into my foot on this one. I meant pro-choicers, NOT pro-lifers. How could I screw that up?

What I was really asking is why women have an absolute right to terminate their parental rights/obligations while men don't have the same rights. I'm refering to uncomplicated pregancy in healthy individuals where the main objection to the pregnancy is convenience factors.

Uhhg, why can't you people read what I mean instead of reading what I say?

Terminating a pregnancy is not a termination of parental obligations. She never was a parent.

[faithfool]

Oh good then. So we can participate. Do I need to reiterate my questions or do they stand well enough as they are now? Or we can just pretend they're not there and ignore my muddle-headedness. (Ya know, since I'm usually afraid of venturing into GD territory and I'm more than a little worried about coming across as a ignorant dolt.)

[Abbie Carmichael]

Originally Posted by Ludovic

the burden of childbirth is why women live such shorter lives than men.....

Say what?

In all developed countries and almost all underdeveloped ones, women outlive men.

[Ludovic]

Originally Posted by Abbie Carmichael

Say what?

In all developed countries and almost all underdeveloped ones, women outlive men.

Whoooooosh!

[treis]

I guess now I don't qualify for the thread but I'll respond anyway.

Originally Posted by faithfool

Last of all, why is there a presumption that everyone would have chosen life versus abortion if given the opportunity in the womb? I know *I* wouldn't have. But it doesn't matter, because saying that if they feel ".... so horrific about his conception that he doesn't wish to be alive than so be it let him end his life." is naive at best. Perhaps they've been raised with a moral ideology that prevents them from suicide. Or they just can't bring themselves to go through with it, much like you saying that you "will not make that decision for him." Or any of a thousand different scenarios that we can't fathom unless we know after the fact about the circumstances surrounding what happened before our mother became pregnant.

I agree that its a sticky situation but I don't think the solution is to kill the fetus. I would hope that the child would get counseling and therapy it could have a somewhat happy life. I don't claim to have all the answers but I can't see how killing is the best solution.

Originally Posted by faithfool

I just don't see how one can claim that this side is 'playing God' by choosing termination and not feel that *they* are doing exactly the same thing, but only *after* birth and for the rest of this person's existence. It confounds me and sometimes I loathe/detest/resent/can't fathom why over the long term that my mother for picking the option that she did. It was the easy way out for her and *I* pay the penalty. I'm not in the least appreciative. But there you go. Another side to the coin that's very rarely mentioned.

Well I don't think I am playing God. I am not the rapist I just want to protect innocent life.