How important are abortion rights?

[DianaG]

@Paul_in_Qatar

While I appreciate the desire for a simple answer, it seems to me you are taking an absolute position because you are unwilling to face the moral issues at hand. Further, by rejecting agreement with others, you ensure endless conflict.

I have considered the moral issues at hand, and am confident in my conclusion. I don’t require your agreement, since my conclusion allows everyone to decide for themselves. It’s the people who wish to enforce their conclusion on everyone who ensure endless conflict.

So Chinese women sometimes make unwise and immoral decisions but all other women must be allowed to do as they choose? How remarkably … well let me not resort to name-calling.

Actually Chinese women must be allowed to do as they choose as well. ALL women must be allowed to do as they choose. And feel free to call me whatever you like, your opinion of me isn’t exactly something I lose sleep over.

(It is now nap time.)

This is the single most well-considered thing you’ve said in this conversation.

[irishgirl]

Barkis is Willin’
Women are NOT always in control of their fertility.
Some women cannot access woman-controlled contraception- either because of financial or logistical barriers, or because of family and societal pressures.
Some women have sexual partners who refuse to use barrier contraception even when that is the only contraceptive method available to them.
Rape and sexual assault happen.
Contraception (every method, including sterilisation) has a failure rate.
Post-coital contraception fails too, so even if a woman uses Plan B it still might fail.

Saying that I believe women should be able to have abortions if they get pregnant because of a failure or birth control or an inability to access and use birth control, is NOT the same as saying I am in favour of using abortion * as* birth control, although would I prevent a woman who had become pregnant when not using contraception from accessing an abortion- no.

[Paul_in_Qatar]

That is to say that given complete freedom, Chinese women make poor choices but other women make wise ones? You have a remarkable thought process.

So you refuse to discuss your conclusion? I am sure you will not mind when the rest of us assume you do this because you are incapable of defending it. Further when those of us who do discuss this issue make decisions, I am sure you will have no problem abiding by them.

==This was directed at DianaG’s post==

[DianaG]

When given freedom, some people make wise choices and some people make poor ones. This is hardly a remarkable conclusion to arrive at.

I have discussed my conclusion. I’ve defended it. I’ve even provided visual aids. And I do, in fact, abide by the decisions that have been made about abortion. It’s the anti-choice people who refuse to abide by the decision that has been made. They lost, and they can’t just let it go.

[purplehorseshoe]

@Whack-a-Mole

… So, we do the thought experiment (read that again some of you before flying off the handle) and figure 10 seconds before birth the unborn is not different in its personhood than it is 10 seconds after birth and killing it after birth is deemed murder…

Your “thought experiment” kinda sucks, since several women have pointed out already that the difference between 10 seconds before and 10 seconds after birth is the fact that before birth, the fetus is 1) inside the woman’s body and 2) attached to her and dependent in every conceivable way. After birth, neither of those very important distinctions is true. So there’s nothing to “walk backward” from, thus invalidating your little thought experiment.

While the issue at hand is still wholly inside the woman’s body, it is a personal medical matter between her and her doctor. I’m not the first one to say that here. Won’t be the last, either, I’m sure.

[emacknight]

@Paul_in_Qatar

There are lots of good arguments on each side of this issue.

No there aren’t. You should stop repeating this.

[emacknight]

@Paul_in_Qatar

Australia has a long history of judging people based on their worth. Even when I was a kid, they had a ‘White Australia’ policy. In even more modern times, they adopted Aboriginal babies so they could be raised in White families. Let us not forget their mistreatment of British children displaced there during the war.

Better to live in a world where every life is valued than one where the value of every life is measured.

Okay, then flip this around. How would you explain a country where abortion is outlawed, but life is not valued?

You should also brush up your Australian history.

[emacknight]

@Whack-a-Mole

The question I am exploring is whether the unborn has any rights whatsoever and when those rights accrue to it? In particular that must fundamental of rights which is a right to life.

An infant’s right to life isn’t a normal situation. It exists solely at the discression of its host (ie the mother). Its very existance is dependent on her. If she chooses not to have sex, if she chooses not to be pregnant, that child never “is.” And so, that child’s rights are limited to the extent that the mother grants. If she wants it to live, it has rights, if she doesn’t it won’t.

This is why we end up with the strange cases of murder charges when someone causes a woman to loser her pregnancy. I don’t have the right to take that child, or kill it, against her wishes. Until birth, that fetus is an extension of the mother. Its rights are an extension of her’s. She has the right to life, which means you can’t kill her. And if you do, you will also kill the fetus, and thus be liable for the death of two. No one has rights over that child except the mother. We can’t force her to take prenatal vitamins, go on bed rest, or stop smoking crack.

As long as it is inside her and dependent on her, she is in control. That includes the moment sperm enters her body, right up until that umbilical cord is cut. Potential life, the possibility of being human, doesn’t not trump the rights of an actual living person.

Your throught experiment fails when you realize that if you start from birth and work backwords, you’ll be forced to keep going, to the moments before implantation, before conception, before intercourse, in fact you’ll be forced to go all the way to the point where her mitosis in her ovaries changed to miosis and began producing oocyctes. You’ll need to ask if at that point a woman is still in control over her body and reproductive system. That point when cells start dividing is just as relavant as the seconds before birth.

So here is a better thought experiment. After the baby is born, doctors find that is has a rare form of cancer that only the mother’s blood and cure. I saw this on House so I know it’s real.

Is the mother still in control of her body? Can she decide to let the infant die? Or should we as a society be very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, careful deciding if she can be trusted to make the right choice? I heard of a woman in China that didn’t make the right choice.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@purplehorseshoe

Your “thought experiment” kinda sucks, since several women have pointed out already that the difference between 10 seconds before and 10 seconds after birth is the fact that before birth, the fetus is 1) inside the woman’s body and 2) attached to her and dependent in every conceivable way. After birth, neither of those very important distinctions is true. So there’s nothing to “walk backward” from, thus invalidating your little thought experiment.

While the issue at hand is still wholly inside the woman’s body, it is a personal medical matter between her and her doctor. I’m not the first one to say that here. Won’t be the last, either, I’m sure.

And they ignore their responsibility that if it got to that point, in the US at least, it was because of their decision to do so. This also ignores the notion that at that late point the unborn has any right to life. It is a human being even if it is living in her womb (again note at that late point, things are different early in the pregnancy).

You may argue it is hers to kill or do with as she wants but it is a morally bankrupt and insupportable position by any measure.

We all have various rights. Those rights are not supreme to the exclusion of all others.

[emacknight]

@Whack-a-Mole

And they ignore their responsibility that if it got to that point, in the US at least, it was because of their decision to do so.

Who cares? It’s her decision to make. Maybe a day after the specified time you grant her your permission she loses her job, her house, her family, and all the reasons for having a baby. She doesn’t want it inside her any more. That’s all there is to it.

If there is an option to get it out alive, she might consider that. Otherwise, tough beans.

@Whack-a-Mole

You may argue it is hers to kill or do with as she wants but it is a morally bankrupt and insupportable position by any measure.

That’s your opinion based on what you think is and is not moral. I think lording that over someone is morally bankrupt. I think sitting on the other end of an internet connection passing judgement is morally bankrupt. I think that taking a woman hostage, and torturing her for 9 months is morally bankrupt. That’s why we don’t make laws based on what you think is or is not moral.

@Whack-a-Mole

We all have various rights. Those rights are not supreme to the exclusion of all others.

In the case of pregnancy, the rights of the mother trump those of the fetus. Her body, her choice. It is dependent on her for life, and thus dependent on her for rights.

Here’s another thought experiment for you. Let’s say someone takes you hostage and tortures you. Do you think the police have the right to kill your capture in order to save your life? Who’s rights are more important, yours or the your capture’s?

[Whack-a-Mole]

@emacknight

Who cares? It’s her decision to make. Maybe a day after the specified time you grant her your permission she loses her job, her house, her family, and all the reasons for having a baby. She doesn’t want it inside her any more. That’s all there is to it.

If there is an option to get it out alive, she might consider that. Otherwise, tough beans.

That’s your opinion based on what you think is and is not moral. I think lording that over someone is morally bankrupt. I think sitting on the other end of an internet connection passing judgement is morally bankrupt. I think that taking a woman hostage, and torturing her for 9 months is morally bankrupt. That’s why we don’t make laws based on what you think is or is not moral.

Unless you want to argue that killing another human at a whim is moral then you are full of it.

If you think me making a judgment on people who kill another human being on a whim is immoral you likewise are full of it.

No one is taking the woman hostage. She is choosing to carry the child to term. That choice has certain obligations attached to it. Just because she finds it now burdensome and changes her mind does not erase her obligations.

If she gives birth to the child you have already stipulated that killing the child at that point would be murder. That child is dependent upon an adult (usually its mother) for survival every bit as much as when it was in the womb. Indeed caring for it may even be more onerous at that point upon the mother.

She can give it up for adoption, yes. But lets equate it with a woman who chooses to carry to term and then changes her mind.

Say the woman gave birth and takes the child home. It is reliant upon her, 100%, for its survival. Some months down the road she decides this is too much trouble and wants to put it up for adoption. She is still liable for the baby’s well being till such a time as she manages to give it to someone else to take responsibility for it. It was her choice and has become her responsibility till she can guarantee someone else will care for it. Any disagreement with that?

(Also, not sure you can dump your kids anytime you want…recently a state passed a law allowing mothers to drop their kid off with no repercussions for the state to take care of…the law was poorly written and grown kids were being dropped off. The state changed the law right-quick which leads me to believe at some point you have taken responsibility for the kid and cannot dump it if you change your mind. So again, early on you have a choice, once made and after some time has passed it is your responsibility and not easily walked away from.)

So, a woman gets pregnant and decides she wants to carry it to term. Eight months into it she changes her mind. Why is it wrong to think, because of the decision she made freely, that she should not be responsible for the baby’s well being till such a time when someone else can take responsibility for it?

Also, most states have laws that would make me guilty of murder if I do something to cause a pregnant woman to miscarry. So, it is human enough that I can be charged with murder (and all that entails) but not human enough that the mother can end it whenever she wants? That makes sense to you?

Yes, the woman has rights but a right to life is fundamental. Once the unborn is past a certain stage it is a human being. Where that stage is I do not know but so far everyone here has assiduously avoided that discussion and are instead retorting that pregnancy is the torture of women and it is a hatred of women and so on.

[emacknight]

@emacknight

Here’s another thought experiment for you. Let’s say someone takes you hostage and tortures you. Do you think the police have the right to kill your capture in order to save your life? Who’s rights are more important, yours or the your capture’s?

You still haven’t answered my question. It’s just a thought experiment.

[DianaG]

This again ignores the distinction between “kill it” and “get it out of me”. It’s been acknowledged repeatedly that no doctor is going to abort a healthy 8 month fetus, they’re going to deliver it.

Do you feel that a woman doesn’t have the right at ANY point in the pregnancy to decide she wants it out of her? Because that’s what it’s all about.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@emacknight

Here’s another thought experiment for you. Let’s say someone takes you hostage and tortures you. Do you think the police have the right to kill your capture in order to save your life? Who’s rights are more important, yours or the your capture’s?

@emacknight

You still haven’t answered my question. It’s just a thought experiment.

Because it is a dumb analogy.

The people keeping you hostage and torturing you are committing a violent crime. Are you suggesting the fetus is committing a violent crime? If so why aren’t they arrested when they are born?

A more apt analogy would be me leaving my child with you while I head off on a six month solo sailing trip around the world. After a few months you decide the kid is a bother. It’s your house, your rights in your house so you shoot and kill the kid. That ok by you?

[emacknight]

@Whack-a-Mole

Unless you want to argue that killing another human at a whim is moral then you are full of it.

If you think this has any place in this discussion, you are full of it.

You know what, the rest of your post was equally full of crap and not worth responding to. If you can’t grasp the simple fact that a fetus is inside a woman, and reliant on her for survival, there is nothing left to discuss. Either you get that or you don’t. Take some time, think about the fact that the fetus is inside the woman, stealing her nutrients, using her oxygen, filling her with toxic chemicals, and causing her physical distress. Here is a nice little graphical representation for you to contemplate:

(killable)
( ) not killable

[Whack-a-Mole]

@DianaG

This again ignores the distinction between “kill it” and “get it out of me”. It’s been acknowledged repeatedly that no doctor is going to abort a healthy 8 month fetus, they’re going to deliver it.

Do you feel that a woman doesn’t have the right at ANY point in the pregnancy to decide she wants it out of her? Because that’s what it’s all about.

You note that doctors will not abort a late term fetus. Why do you think that is?

[Whack-a-Mole]

@emacknight

You know what, the rest of your post was equally full of crap and not worth responding to.

So you’ve got nothing and are taking your ball and going home.

Got it.

[emacknight]

@Whack-a-Mole

Because it is a dumb analogy.

The people keeping you hostage and torturing you are committing a violent crime. Are you suggesting the fetus is committing a violent crime? If so why aren’t they arrested when they are born?

The mother chooses not to press charges, so no arrest is made.

@Whack-a-Mole

A more apt analogy would be me leaving my child with you while I head off on a six month solo sailing trip around the world. After a few months you decide the kid is a bother. It’s your house, your rights in your house so you shoot and kill the kid. That ok by you?

You really think that’s a more apt analogy?

If the child is causing me harm, and a potential threat to my life, do I have to continue to provide for it?

[emacknight]

@Whack-a-Mole

So you’ve got nothing and are taking your ball and going home.

Got it.

(killable)
( ) not killable

What is it you don’t get.

[emacknight]

@Whack-a-Mole

You note that doctors will not abort a late term fetus. Why do you think that is?

Because they are under no obligation to do it. If they want to they will, if they don’t they won’t.