YAAQ (Yet Another Abortion Question)

This kind of argument is so off-base I don’t know where to begin.

The notion that anyone has this kind of free-from-all autonomy, and that if it were to be violated in the slightest a great injustice will have been done, has no philosophical or historical validity whatsoever. This notion also stands in stark contrast to many other aspect of our (and any country’s, for that matter) culture, in which you can’t take any drug you want, do not have complete control over your body (you can’t cut off your hand just because you feel like it, for example), and are hemmed in on all sides by laws telling you how to live and how not to.

I’m not saying that all that is good; but not all of it is bad, either. We are not autonomous creatures. We live both for our own good and the good of society, the species as a whole. Those who say otherwise will be the fools of history.

Sorry, I didn’t type as rigorously as I should have.

Obviously women get abortions to remove ectopic pregnancies, etc. I meant “women kill healthy fetuses because…”

It’s not just that, either. You act like women LIKE going out and having abortions.

Some women are on medications that they cannot stop taking, but would harm the fetus. Women get raped. Birth control falls.

Now, I’m with you on ELECTIVE late-term abortions, if they occur. From what I understand, that’s extremely rare.

An early term abortion does not bother me. The woman comes first. Period.

I’ve said before that if the fetus could theoretically be removed intact then that should be the first option. I believe a woman’s right is basically to get the thing out of her body in the safest way possible.

Unfortunately, an intact live extraction is simply not available except for very late term pregnancies. If it were possible, though, I’d be all for it. The woman gets to end an unwanted pregnacy. The taxpayers get to raise a bunch of orphans. Everybody’s happy

Aeschines, there is no such medical procedure as “partial-birth abortion.” That is a political term not a medical term. The correct term is “intact dilation and extraction” (D&X) and it’s a procedure which is almost always used in the second trimester (before the fetus is “viable” outside the uterus).

Third trimester abortions are extremely rare (a fraction of one percent of all abortions) and they are virtually never elective. They are performed only for extremely compelling medical reasons. (life of the mother, severe fetal deformity or an already dead fetus)

The cartoon image of demonic “abortionists” seizing full term babies with forceps and gleefully plunging scissors into their skulls is a fantasy of the anti-abortion movement, not a medical reality.

See, the horrible thing to me is that women like aruvqan end up feeling like they have to defend their position on abortion because others call it stuff like “malevolent” and “evil.” In reality, NO ONE should have to excuse making their own decisions. For whatever their case maybe, it’s between them and if they believe in a higher power.

Because there are all kinds of scenarios that aren’t covered in the two listed by Aeschines or others by Guin. Some women realize they aren’t emotionally capable of caring a child after they’ve already become pregnant. In my case, I have lots of mental health issues and at one very deluded (insane?) moment in time, I thought having a baby might actually help to save my life, or at least prevent suicide in the form of me needing to be a mother to my offspring.

So, me and the soon-to-be ex-husband gave it a go or three and thank goodness, I didn’t end up pregnant. And it’s not just because of the example I outlined above. It’s also because, if in my moments of weakness and lack of critical thinking skills, I’d been able to conceive, having the availability of adoption wouldn’t have been either a solution for me, nor a balm for my soul. For my child would probably end up plagued with the same seemingly never-ending problems I have (going on close to 10 years now). Therefore, I won’t ever try again where I’d have to supply my own eggs. (I wouldn’t be opposed to surrogation though, but that’s tangential.) I can’t trust the chance, be raising s/he myself or someone else. It’s too much hell to ‘spin the bottle’ on fate over.

Does that make sense? Not every need explain. And let me tell you, if even there only reason is they just don’t wanna, then I believe that’s fine too. For I’d much rather be aborted, to be born to a parent who potentially hates, abuses or neglects me. Furthermore, although I think adoption is one of the most beautiful things in the world, it doesn’t always turn up roses and sunshine. You roll the dice and hope for the best, yet plenty of biological parents are awful, I’m sure they’d end up being more than a few that had to pay for the privilege.

What of the rights of said baby too? If they end up with a loving couple eager to add them to their family, how will they deal with what’s happened? I’ve had a couple of adopted friends and despite the wonderful environment and unconditional love surrounding them, they had a TON of questions and problems to work through. I’m sure that’s not true of all of them (or not even half, perhaps), but again, I do not understand someone else’s desire for another person to have a child that the first person has absolutely nothing to do with (except from a commentary type position) and the latter doesn’t want, regardless of cause.

I wouldn’t not want to be wanted. (Eek! That sounded grammatically terrible!)

[Aside: aruvqan, I’m so sorry you had to share your story to illustrate a concept to folks that don’t seem to grasp the fact that no matter how clearly defined the issue is, it’ll never come even close to black and white. Shades of gray, maybe, but I can’t ever see it being any better than that. But my biggest condolences go out to you for having to endure such difficulties. I hope, that in someway, your heart’s desire is fulfilled.]

Now, back on topic (hopefully). :cool: In the OPs idea, I see nothing technically wrong with it, except it has that Jack Chick feel to the whole “but if you’d rather let it live and we’ll keep it” theory that the mother would have never considered before. I’m certain that anyone in that position has weighed all possibilities and is making the correct choice for all parties (present and future) involved. 'Cause I think, by picking that option, it’s basically the same as what else is currently available. And if that isn’t viable to her, I can’t imagine that this would do the trick either. Just MHO.

On the other hand, I do agree that if the only issue is a women’s right to control her own body via that conclusion, then I don’t see how this idea couldn’t help. Unless the doctor used manipulation while offering other alternatives (like those places that supposedly do abortions end up being really a service that’s only aim is prevention, rather than education or assistance), then I’d say whatever she needs.

Last of all, back to my original hijack :wink:Aeschines, you’re painting with a mighty wide brush there. Projecting on to ‘pro-choice’ advocates some of the adjectives that you’ve thrown around certainly won’t convince others to come over to your point of view or to challenge their own. Instead, they may just dismiss you as rabid (because of all the way over-the-top hyperbole) or very out of touch with reality. You came across, at least to me, as one who stereotypes without forethought. The labels you use are so pejorative, that it sounds almost obsessive.

Of course, this could be just the one hot button debates in your life and you aren’t coming across necessarily well in a written medium and I’m possibly reading more into than there is. But, I think one can have an opinion without denigrating or invalidating another’s choice by your own hang-ups, morals and judgment. If you really want to do well by children (and I’m not saying that you aren’t already, or haven’t, or will soon), then lend a hand once they’re here. THAT is when they need it most. Just give some respect and space to those faced with nearly impossible resolutions that will maybe never leave them completely at peace. That and try to hold back a bit on making it appear to be some vast conspiracy to encourage it as an alternative to other forms of birth control or something. I’m sure those operations are infinitely more expensive than a monthly prescription and are only used as a final resort. No one takes abortion lightly, most especially those who (have/have had/will have to) choose this preference over “life.”

I mean, it still carries a pretty huge stigma and it can be, as bombings and murders have shown, extremely dangerous. I can’t fathom a person who plans out an abortion just because they “don’t want to be responsible.” That sort of logic is reprehensible to me, although I’m sure there is a small percentage who fall into every category, making nothing unique. They may be out there, but I’d come closer to believing that’s an extremely tiny amount.

One more side of the coin to ponder. :slight_smile:

This is unacceptable.

And you obviously know it’s unacceptable. The apology is meaningless, because you still clicked submit.

Don’t click submit. Especially if you’re posting in a thread which you know is a hot button issue for you, preview every post; type it out in a word processor first, then copy and paste, so you have another step before you click the submit button. (No aspersions on your grammar or the server’s reliability, but those are both good ideas anyway.) If you still have to flame somebody, open a new thread–in the Pit.

(The above paragraph is general advice for everyone, not just aruvqan.)

You’re not going to be banned for losing your temper once, but you will be banned if you make a habit of it.

For those who, given the scenario in the OP, still think that the woman has the right to choose an abortion based on the “it’s my body” argument, how about the following case:

Assume that in the future artificial wombs become commonplace and reliable, and that a majority of couples decide, voluntarily, to transfer the fetus from the mother to the artificial womb when the fetus is about a week old.

They may do this for a few reasons, for example, the woman doesn’t want to go through 9 months of pregnancy, or because of health issues related to the mother or the baby, or simply because the artificial womb results in significantly less misscarriages.

In any case, the majority of fetuses are transfered to artificial wombs at about 1 week old.

Now, around 3 or 4 weeks or later, the mother decides she doesn’t want a baby after all (for whatever reason).

  • Does she still have the right to demand termination of the fetus?
  • Even if someone else volunteers to raise the baby?
  • What about the father? If the fetus is not in the mother’s body, I would say that
    he has exactly the same rights as the mother in determining the future of the
    fetus.

If you do say “yes she does have to right to demand termination”, on what do you base this right? Where does it stem from?

I’m sure people can think of some reasons why the parents should be allowed to request termination. None of those reasons will be “it’s my body”. It is my opinion that the reasons people come up with under this scenario are the *real * reasons people should be arguing for abortion in today’s abortion debates.

For example, if in the scenario I just set up, someone says that the parents have the right to terminate the baby because of psychological damage to the parents if they don’t want a baby and the baby is born and raised by someone else, then this could be a valid point.

More importantly, though, this is a valid point even in today’s world, where there are no artificial wombs.

So, I’d rather see these types of arguments in today’s debates, because I think they get closer to “real” reasons than the “it’s my body” argument.

(BTW, it’s clear that many people have abortions for health or mental health reasons. However, there are about 850,000 abortions per year in the U.S, according to the CDC. I don’t think all 850,000 thousand of them had health or mental health reasons. What I’m trying to address in this thread are the ones who decide to have an abortion for any reason other than health or mental health.)

Why? In “today’s” abortion debates, there are no magical fetus incubators. In today’s debate, it is about a woman’s body and nothing else. You can’t divorce the woman’s body from the debate. Sorry.

It seems to me like you’re trying to manipulate the debate to artificially remove a variable which you don’t like. The reality is, that variable cannot be removed, so your hypothetical is useless from a practical standpoint.

Act like it? He’s saying it.

I’ve seen some unsupported and malicious bullshit on this board, but this is breaking new territory. Aeschines, what colour is the sky in your world?

I’m pro-choice with very few reservations, but the right, which I consider an inherent unalienable right of women, is the right to cease being pregnant at will; the killing of the embryo or fetus is a (currently) necessary corollary to becoming nonpregnant and if you separate the two issues, no, there is no inherent right to kill an embryo or fetus.

If pro-life folks support putting their piece of the public tax money into operating & maintaining life-support machinery to keep them alive until they can survive on their own, I’ll be fine with chipping in my share as well.

Here, I understand neither the utterly arbitrary choice of conception as “human” versus separate sperm/egg as “non-human”, nor the contention that it is a woman’s right to treat the foetus as surgical waste having as much ‘right to life’ as the chicken I ate for dinner.

The law is currently such that anyone, not just women, can legally end the life of plants, insects and animals under certain conditions. Whether that life could be continued via some kind of technology is irrelevant. The law thus considers foetuses to be plants, ethically speaking - a position I agree with wholeheartedly.

Thanks for making my point.

Your argument (lets call it “argument #3 for a woman’s right to choose an abortion”) is that “a woman can choose to have an abortion because I consider foetuses to be plants, ethically speaking”. There is no “because it’s her body” in that argument.

So, this argument holds whether or not the fetus is in the mother’s womb or in an artificial one. These are the kinds of arguments I find more useful in debating abortion, because the “it’s my body” argument ignores the status of the fetus in our society. Once you decide on its status, then that is more important than the “it’s my body” issue.

If the status of the fetus is like a plant, or even like any lifeless material, then the right to choose abortion is obvious whether the fetus is in its mother’s womb or in an artificial one. So, in this case, the “it’s my body” argument is irrelevant.

If the status of the fetus is anything above that, then things get more complex, and using the simple “because it’s my body” argument seems callous.

As an aside, let me ask you a question SentientMeat: Since you consider fetuses as plants, ethically speaking, then if a couple are raising a fetus in an artificial womb and you go and destroy it, should your punishment be the same as if you destroyed one of the plants that belong to the couple?

Yes, I am. Not just me, but lots of conservatives point to the weird rhetoric and posturing that the ultra-pro-choice people exhibit. (Note: I am not a conservative.) These people get into it.
[/quote]

I’ll admit I haven’t supported it with cites–fair enough. This isn’t one of my big issues, actually, and I usually try to avoid threads like this. Unlike most pro-life people, I don’t have any easy answers as to what to do about the interlinked problems (abortion, poverty, our approach to sexuality in this culture) that result in so many abortions being performed.

Malicious? I don’t think my other comments in this thread support that view. By the way, the ones I think are evil are the abortionists themselves and the propagandists, not the healthy women with healthy fetuses (and no mental problems, etc. etc.) who are encouraged/forced/duped into abortion.

I’m certain there are still those who are “forced” into abortion (IE: underage girls with strict parents), but I don’t understand why it’s bad to “encourage” someone to consider something that may be the best thing for them and the potential child. As far as “duped”, I am totally lost. How can that happen? I won’t go into ridiculous scenarios, but could you further clarify what you meant? I’d really like to understand that concept.

And if a person is performing something totally legal, viable and necessary (in the mind of whoever is having the procedure done), why does that make them “evil”? They are doctors who uphold their creed, same as everyone else in that field, exception possibly being more long-reaching outcomes rather than immediate (for just one example, an obvious need to abort the baby of someone addicted to crack – she shouldn’t care for the child and the inherent problems arising from the condition of the mother, would make life hell for s/he growing up and any adoptive parents).

Lastly, when you use the word “propagandists,” is this inclusive across the board? IME, most (although I’m sure not all) pro-choice facilities present all alternative. The ones I’ve been around have, but that’s a pretty small sample size. :slight_smile: However, there are tons of “outreach” programs around here (east Texas) that are nothing more than mere covers for pressuring frightened women into ONE decision only and that’s against abortion. I think that’s disingenuous at best and taking advantage of distress, confusion and fear at worst.

Guess that’s all I’d like cleared up. Thanks.

That’s a wonderful excuse. “Other people say what I’m saying, so it’s not vicious, rude and hurtful, really!”

As soon as you start talking about propagandists, women getting tricked, and the mythical ‘women who think you’re not a feminist unless you’ve had an abortion,’ I think malicious is a fine word for it. You’ve displayed a total contempt for feminists, women and doctors, and you’ve created such vivid strawman that I wouldn’t be surprised if it started singing “If I Only Had a Brain.” :stuck_out_tongue:

As a bunch of other people have said, this is a reason, not the reason.

Yes. Women not only have to give birth, but the majority of the time, they are responsible for most of the care involved in raising a child. I doubt this would change in this sci-fi scenario. It’s more than a woman’s body that we’re talking about. Even once you get past the health issues and the medical bills (would a woman have to pay for this procedure?). A child has effects on the rest of the woman’s life, her career, etc. I continue to insist that a woman shouldn’t be forced to accept that.

In the case that somebody else raises the child… well, who, and how does this work? We’ve had debates like this before. I’m all for social programs, but if you’re talking about creating a whole mess of children the state will pay for and take care of, I think that’s going to cause a lot of problems. I don’t like that. And I still think that a woman shouldn’t be denied the option to end a pregnancy even if she’s not raising the child. Not just because of the health effects and the psychological effects, but because I think that’s wrong.

Why is it wrong? And why does the woman’s right to end up wth a dead fetus take precedence over the man’s right to end up with a live child? She’s ending the pregnancy whether the fetus is disposed of or placed in an artificial uterus- once it’s out of her body, she ain’t pregnant. And while I certainly agree it should be her choice to end the pregnancy, that doesn’t answer the question of what happens to the fetus after the pregnancy has ended.

Agreed.

I consider a foetus to be a treasured part of the woman’s body, rather like a hand, say. I believe the punishment for killing a foetus should be proportional to, say, chopping off the woman’s hand. In this instance (and the equivalence is becoming very strained*) I believe the punishment should be proportional to destroying a replacement hand being grown in a vat.

Is there an official (or even an unofficial) rule as to when you stop calling a fetus a fetus? At birth? But what is “birth” if the baby developed in an artificial womb?

What if a woman gives birth prematurely? 8+ months after conception, is the only difference between a fetus and a baby whether or not it has come out of the woman’s uterus? Is it just a matter of location?

Viability outside the womb, usually.

(Bolding mine)

In your opinion. The status of the fetus does not override the “it’s my body” issue in other’s opinions.

It may seem callous to you. To others, allowing a human being to be subjugated to another is more callous. I personally don’t care if the human being is 2 months post-conception, 2 months post-birth, 2 years old, 20 years old, 80 years old, etc. It has no claim to use another person’s body without that person’s consent. I maintain the woman has the right to withdraw her consent, so the status of the fetus is irrelevant to the “it’s my body” argument, from that viewpoint.

Once it is out of her body, the issue is a different one entirely, and her opinions/rights/needs rank no higher than the man involved, and/or what we as a society choose to do about the hypothetical artificial fetus incubator situation.