Yet another abortion thread.

For the purposes of this thread, I’d like to set one rule.

  • the fetus is a living human being

Whether or not you are pro-life or pro-choice, the above holds true for this discussion. I’d like to avoid this thread being hijacked into yet another debate on whether or not it is a human, and at what point it becomes human, so let’s just assume it is a living human being from the moment fertilisation is completed. FTR, I am pro-choice and I do believe the rule I’ve set down.

I hold that a person can not be forced to safe another’s life. They are able to withhold blood, organs, tissue and even their uterus, even though this action may ensure the other person will die.

A mother’s two year old may desperately need a kidney, or a section of liver, or some blood. The mother may be the only compatible person known. I contend that the mother cannot be forced to provide whatever tissue the toddler needs against her will. I also hold that you may think whatever you like about the mother, feel she is completely immoral and even say so, but the fact still holds that if she does not wish to donate her blood, tissue or organs, even if doing so saves a life, she is under no legal obligation to do so.

I also hold this same position for the pregnant woman. She is under no legal obligation to donate the use of her uterus to a fetus/baby. By all means, if the fetus is viable, other people can save it once it’s removed from the uterus, but if the woman no longer wishes to have her uterus used by another human being, she is under no obligation to do so. If it’s too early to save the fetus, unfortunately it will die. If it is viable, others who feel the urge to save it can.

Why do we obligate parents to care for their children, and prosecute them for child endangerment when they starve their children to near death?

If you hold parents to a standard of care for their born children, why do you change your mind with regardin to unborn children, which you admit are persons?

More may be found here: How I Became Pro-Life: Remarks on Abortion, Parental Obligation, and the Draft by Doris Gordon (entered into the Congressional Record by the Hon. Ron Paul, Rep. of Texas

In addition, abortion isn’t merely a failure to care for one’s children. It is the active and deliberate dismemberment of those helpless individuals, which goes far beyond merely refusing to care for them.

And getting pregnant while raped is like “inviting someone into your home”? What fucking crap. There is no comparison between a real live outside womb human being and a small bunch of cells, a “pre-child.”

All these abortion threads recently have really made me even more strongly pro-choice, in the main because the anti-abortion arguments are so fking poor.

Wait a minute. Are you saying that you still think the fetus is nothing but a small bunch of cells?

Even professional pro-choice debaters have long abandoned that argument, especially now that fetal photos and ultrasound images are so terribly commonplace.

Did istara actually read the entire OP?

It sounds like the OP wasn’t interested in debating that particular point in this thread…so I wonder why istara would deliberately do that then?

Well said, I think. This sums it up nicely.

Yes - I read the OP. My issue wasn’t with the OP, but that ridiculous quote.

And no - except for the very early stages - I am aware that it isn’t “just a little bunch of cells.”

I wrote that in anger, but I am still angry with what I perceive (perhaps wrongly) with the lack of sympathy towards raped women demonstrated by the quote.

I agree with the OP as it happens. My god, I hope I never live in a country where women are forced to go back to knitting needles and throwing themselves down stairs. Your body is your sovereign body, it is for you alone, and it is your right what should happen to it and who should make use of it.

That right does not exist currently, not in the U.S. anyway. One does not have an unencumbered right to do as one pleases with one’s body. Does your support of “sovereignty” extent beyond abortion rights?

As Bob Cos said, this simply isn’t true. You cannot sell your body for sex no matter how much you want to without getting arrested for it. You also cannot partake of illegal drugs. Like it or not, your sovereign body is subject to the laws of the land.

That is absurd and clearly not what I meant. It is not about using your body for illegal activities. It is about no one else being able to use your body - for legal activities or otherwise - without your permission.

And that’s supposed to merit the death penalty? A penalty that’s administered without the benefit of due process? For an innocent who had neither choice nor complicity in the matter?

Great googly moogly.

Where did you get the impression that the author of the quote was trying to address the issue of rape? I assumed it referred to a consensual act that risked pregnancy, like all consensual sex, even protected sex, does.

Pregnancies due to rape must be dealt with by other arguments, such as a prohibition of transferring harm from one innocent victim (the raped mother) to another (the unborn baby). As a society, if we transfer harm from where it happens to fall, we only do so to a more responsible party, never to an innocent who had nothing to do with the initial harmful act.

First, it was not clear as you didn’t define sovereignty. Generally, the point still stands that you do not have the right to do as you wish with your own body. To answer your question I have to hypothetically grant that your strong view of personal autonomy is correct which is quite a stretch in itself.

Secondly, in the case of abortion there are two bodies under discussion. Not just yours.
The fetus has its own distinct genetic code and gender, blood type, and bone structure. While (through no fault of its own) it is attached to the mother it is not a part of the mothers body as you seem to be insinuating.

Yes, the mothers body is providing resources to the fetus via the placenta. Yes, there are some rather unpleasant side effects associated with pregnancy. However, the unpleasant effects felt by the woman during pregnancy pale into insignificance when held against the unpleasant effects abortion has on a fetus (it’s cognitive inability not withstanding). If we are to assume in this thread that the fetus is fully human then abortion is not justified, since no one’s right to personal autonomy is so strong that it permits the execution of others. Especially if the very existance of the “others” in question is a direct consequence of the actions of the mother (excepting pregnancies from rape).

You responded by saying the quote does not properly apply to rape, but you left other issues open. Do you then admit that the quote is quite descriptive of an abortion after one risks pregnancy through consensual sex? If not, why not? If you have a hard time answering, what does that say for the “poor” pro-life arguments.

I think the “invite” part is what shows that the quote demonstrates nothing with regard to rape victims. Failure to comment on a topic is not a lack of sympathy for a topic.

I actually agree with this 100%, perhaps even to the point of legalizing drug use and prostitution, at least one of which is against my religion and both of which I would never do. But I do recognize that my right to swing my fist anywhere ends with the beginning of your face. When more than one person are involved (e.g., mother and unborn), our right to do anything with our bodies is really only a right to take any action to which there is not an unconsenting victim. The OP states that there is an unconsenting victim to abortion–an unborn person. Thus, the issue is more complex than your immediately above quote suggests.

Many women and girls with unwanted pregnancies will choose abortion, regardless of legality. The question is, will they have access to safe abortions? Safe abortions are available to all women (including the young and the poor) when the procedure is legal. Outlaw abortion, and the result is that many women and girls with unwanted pregnancies will die and be injured from “back alley” abortions and attemps to induce miscarriage.

Restrict abortion, and whatever group* is denied the right to legal abortions will resort to back alleys and self-induced miscarriage.

*Girls under 18, women who don’t have a “good enough” reason, etc.


<<Many murderers will choose will choose to kill, regardless of legality. The question is, will they be able to safely? Safe murders are available to all murderers (including the young and the poor) when the procedure is legal. Outlaw murder, and the result is that many murderers will die and be injured from “back alley” murders and attemps to murder.>>

I’m not saying your position isn’t valid, just that this particular argument isn’t. Can you see how your argument doesn’t carry any weight with someone who believes abortion is murder? If you want to convince a pro-lifer like me, I think you should choose another tact. If you are merely preaching to the choir of pro-choicers, then you are doing fine.

Don’t get me wrong. Both sides are guilty of using arguments which preach to themselves rather than speak to the other side. Do you find it very convincing when a pro-lifer says, “God is pro-life?” I didn’t think so. Why do they find it such a great line? Because they don’t realize it only preaches to themselves, and carries no convincing value for the other side.