And yet you feel justified in playing God with someone else’s life. For shame.
Besides, nobody is demanding your death, or even approving of it. Your personal desires may be at stake, but your life is not.
Only if that is the matter under debate. In this thread, however, catsix et al. are arguing that killing the fetus would be justified despite its humanity.
My ten-year-old granddaughter is approaching menarche and lives with her parents in a city where rape and coercive sex is not at all uncommon – and there’s a history of child sexual abuse on her mother’s side of the family. I’m fairly confident of her parents’ ability to protect her, but I guarantee if she were compelled to have sex (forcibly or coercively) and became pregnant as a result she has not “donated” her body for anything – and I would be extremely irate at anyone who said that she was legally obligated to become a twelve-year-old mother (and possibly have only the one child, since pregnancy that young can damage girls) as a result of that coercion.
I’m with Goo all the way on this issue – can anyone on the pro-life side not see that what may or may not constitute a moral duty is not necessarily something that need be mandated by legislation?
Naturally, but that doesn’t mean that a particular moral duty should not be mandated by legislation. In other words, not all moral responsibilities must be legislated, but some of them should be – ESPECIALLY where the protection of human life is involved.
In fact, we already do such things. We have a moral responsibility not to commit rape, and this is mandated by legislation. We have a moral duty not to defraud, and this is ensconced in the law as well. And so forth, and so on.
Sorry about the delayed response. I did intend to be back long before this, but real life kinda got in the way. Hoo-boy, there’s a lot of responses. I’ll try and respond to the ones that were discussing my OP, if I miss anyone, please let me know and I’ll respond.
We obligate them because they have taken on that obligation by deciding to keep their children. They would be under no obligation to care for their children if they give them up for adoption or abandon them at an anonymous baby-drop-off centre. A parallel to my OP would be continuing a pregnancy but harming the child through (for example) drug use, as opposed to refusing to continue the pregnancy.
Yes, abortion does result in the death of the child. From my point of view, it is ceasing to keep the child alive against the woman’s will. The same as if she refused to keep the child alive by daily blood donations from her to her child. She is withdrawing the use by another human (her child) of her uterus. I feel that every woman should be aware of this before she chooses to abort. I don’t think she should have to donate the use of any part of her body, whether or not that means the death of her child.
By the same token, I would have no objections to someone else keeping the child alive, should it be at a stage where technology can gestate it the rest of the way. IOW, hopefully abortion will not include ‘dismemberment’ in the future, and will instead only constitute ‘removal’ but until then, it is still the woman’s choice on whether she would rather deliberately dismember the child, or let it continue to use her body. Similarly, it wouldn’t matter how painful or horrific the hypothetical two year old child’s death would be, the mother still can decide to donate the use of her body parts or not.
Ben, I think we are looking at this from opposite sides (to point out the obvious ;)). I see abortion as the withdrawal of permission from the woman for the child to use her body. With current technology, that also entails the death of the child.
On that note, why isn’t there a procedure to abort a late-term fetus that doesn’t entail it’s death ? Is the cost or premature care too high ?
I can see where you are coming from with this, Apos. Yes, this is closer to reality than my analogy. I would change it slightly though. I would hold that it is more like the kidney was given to the child against the woman’s will and she, as the rightful owner of said kidney, wants it back. The fact that the kidney is the only thing keeping the child alive is important, but does not override the fact that it is her organ. You just can’t take someone’s kidney against their will and not expect them to take it back. She may also have a change of heart and give the child her blood as well, or she may just let the child use her kidney as long as it’s needed (crummy analogy to the choices to keep or adopt), but it’s still her kidney, IMO.
I’m sorry you find this discussion far-fetched. This is exactly my view on abortion. You obviously have a different view. I offer you the decency of not stating that your views are far-fetched but instead treat them as if they are your honest views. It would be kind to return that decency.
I do not consider the act of sex to be equivalent to accepting a child. Our opinions differ on this, I see. I don’t see how either of us can approach a middle-of-the-road view and actually agree since our views are poles apart, though I am open to that possibility as always. Sex is a lot of different things to a lot of different people. For some it’s about procreating, it’s about fun, it’s about an expression of love, it’s about power, it’s about control, it’s about natural release… and for most people it is about lots of different things at different times. For me, it’s about sharing my love for my husband and as another dimension of physical expression towards each other. And it’s fun 
I honestly feel it’s not for me to tell others what sex is about for them, though I respect the fact that sex may mean something entirely different for other people.
Well, if you look waaaay up there to the OP you’ll notice a pro-choice person agreeing that there is no substantial difference (in terms of morality) between a fetus and an adult. Hence this discussion. You may even notice where I speak of a two-year old, which is fairly widely recognised as having the same rights and moral equivalence as an adult. The only arguments I will make in this thread will be applicable to a two-year old (in my view, I’m sure others will disagree) so I honestly do not understand the nature of your post. I hope I have misunderstood you. If you’d prefer to debate with those who don’t agree with you on the issue of fetus=adult (in moral terms), at last count there were at least three other abortion threads 
:eek: I don’t know what to say. Poly agrees with me on the topic of abortion ?!? :eek: j/k, nice to hear your input, Polycarp. While I’m fairly sure you and I differ on our views on moral duty amongst a host of other things, I’m very pleasantly surprised to hear your view, as I respect you considerably.
I hope I didn’t miss anyone. This last post of mine strayed a little from the hypothetical fetus and sick two-year old, but I truly wanted to respond to some of the posts.
Read the OP.
And if the decide not to all of a sudden? And just drop it off on the in the river in a sack where it has no chance of survival? You seem to say that law will only recognize obligation when another persson decides to accept it. In something related, that is not the case with regards to fathers.
So is the sack scenario.
And in the same instant, condemning it to death. She is not giving the child any other opportunity. In regards to the blood donation thing, lets say that a woman has to go to a hospital like place to have sex or something she desires. She knows that at this hospital that they randomly choose women to use their blood to keep other people alive. It is in the stipulation of the management that they will arbitrarily select a person after sex, or whatever, and once that person is connected to the patient that patient has a life. Whatever the patient was before, she helped creat that life, and she must keep the transfusion going for nine months or it will die. You are saying she has no obligation to that patient, even though she understood the possibilites, and accepted them before entering?
And if I see shooting my wife in her head as a withdrawel of permission for her to use my house?
And as far as your kidney analogy goes. Lets say I get into a car wreck. The doctors have to drain most of my blood, for whatever reason. Without a transfusion, my body creates the blood I need. When I wake up I realise they have given my blood to someone else to keep them alive. I want it back. I am justified to take it back, even though they don’t have the technology the extract it from that patient, and killing that person is the only way. Hey, it’s my blood.
To expect that I go through the vast majority of my life even when married without ever having sex because I don’t want kids? Yes, to me, that would be a cruel thing. How lucky I am that you don’t make those decisions for me.
It is. There are various reasons my life is at stake if someone were to attempt to force me to go through an unwanted pregnancy, one of them being that I would have to stop taking the meds that keep my immune system from causing me serious damage and otherwise that such a think would very likely cause me to be suicidal.
The bottom line is that nobody else gets to decide what risk to my body I have to undergo to continue a pregnancy I never wanted in the first place. That choice is yours when it’s your body that’ll suffer the damage, and there is damage associated with it.
Why would you presume to know that you could make a blanket, generalized law that would be what’s right for me or any other individual woman?
The irritating thing is that you talk about the fetus as if it exists in a vacuum. You’re talking about the rights of the fetus, but you ignore the fact that in order to give the fetus what you want for it, you have to ignore the personhood of the woman and turn her into an incubator.
If you’re celibate, fine, that’s your choice. I’m not, nor will I consider going through the next thirty-odd years of my life without ever making love to anyone because I don’t consent to having a kid. I may sign on for sex, but by using birth control in the proper manner, I make it pretty damn clear I didn’t sign on for a fetus. Quite frankly, whatever rights that fetus might have in your mind, they do not trump my right to decide how my body is used.
And the government is being cruel to anyone under 30 years of age? There are other ways to have sex without having semen shoot into you.
Saen:
And I should get my sex life approved by you?
I’ve already stated that I use birth control and am very careful about it.
I don’t know what you’re saying about someone ‘under thirty years of age’, though. I’m twenty-five. Given the history of women in my family, I will not reach menopause until I’m around sixty. That leaves me thirty-five more years to, in some people’s opinions, go without sex. It’s not something I consider a reasonable expectation for another person to place on me.
Should my birth control fail, I will do what is necessary to terminate the pregnancy because of the damage it would do my physical and mental health. This won’t change if I’m married, either.
I continue to try to get surgically sterilized; however, it doesn’t appear to be readily available at this time. Regardless, I hope I am never in the position where I will have an abortion, because I see it as an unfortunate but necessary thing in my life. Other people see it the same way, and still others don’t see it as a ‘big deal’ at all.
Do I wish that nobody had abortions? Yes, of course I do. I wish unwanted pregnancies didn’t happen, and that there was no abortion. But in realistic terms, I think it would be far, far worse to make it illegal, push it underground, and give women no alternative when, for their own reasons, they know that carrying a pregnancy would be a bad thing. If someone chooses to give birth, great, but it wouldn’t work for me. My solutions will not work for everyone, and I see trying to put the weight of law onto forcing the pregnancy to continue not as an issue of the fetus’s rights, but as ignoring the one sentient person in the equation whose life and health are most affected.
It’s up to her and those she chooses to include in the decision. Unless it’s me in those shoes, me who will have to live the rest of my life with the outcome of the decisions I made, I consider it too arrogant for me to try to make that choice for someone else. And I don’t think it’s morally right to ignore the free will and humanity of the person that fetus is inside because I’d like to see a perfect little world where there’s no abortion and no unwanted babies. It comes down to me being completely unable to look someone else in the eye and tell her ‘Your life is less important than the fetus.’
I chastised Hazel for preaching to the pro-choice crowd earlier instead of speaking in language understandable by pro-lifers (Sorry, Hazel.), so I guess it is only fair that I be even handed.
His4ever, I’m not sure it is helpful to mention God in this debate. Pro-choicers do not base their opinion on religion or God, and many of them happen to think they are in good standing with God. They look upon the mention of God in this debate as mere demagoguery, and their ears close up, and the speaker’s opinions are dismissed thereafter. At least that’s been my experience.
In my opinion, we prolifers should seak to engage pro-choicers with secular arguments for the most part. I think references to them personally being judged harshly by God for their actions are not helpful to your efforts to prevent them from being judged harshly by God. Bible quoting has an effect opposite to the desired goal.
It also makes pro-lifers appear to judge the person. I prefer to separate the action from the person. We can morally state an action is evil, but have sympathy for the person who believes they need an abortion. The more we show our real sympathy for those in abortive circumstances, the more progress the pro-life movement will make.
Again, just my opinion.
In addition to that, using god in a discussion with those who don’t believe in the same kind of god, or any god at all, has no effect on the one who does not have belief.
It’s a moot point, really, to argue by saying god will punish me. I’m a non-theist.
No one is forcing you to risk pregnancy or to get pregnant. In fact, I think all prolifers in this thread would prefer that you refrain from activities that would get you pregnant since the consequences are so severe for you. But you keep spinning the revolver cylinder, and continue to plead your lack of responsibility for any consequences that result from your spinning the cylinder.
Indeed, this is totally true in any circumstance, up until the point your decisions risk my life or the life of another. Do you agree with this statement in non-abortion contexts? If not, why not. If so, why is abortion a special case?
How could anyone ignore the plight of the mother? That is what makes this issue so difficult. You presume that the difficulties are ignored by prolifers when in fact they have been carefully considered in comparison to the right to life of the unborn. This is a decision between the lesser of two evils. Just because we make the decision in favor of the silent party does not mean we don’t hear the vocal party.
Clear to whom?
What if a woman’s partner uses a condom, and conception occurs anyway, and she has the child. Should the man be excused from his parental responsibilities because he made it “pretty damn clear” that he wasn’t signing on for child support payments?
Agreed. It only affects the other pro-life theists within ear shot, and they should not be the desired audience.
This group interested me during my non-theistic days:
In the spirit of the OP, we assume a fetus is a person. Assume for this post that a woman is raped and impregnated, and now wants an abortion.
Query: Can we ever be obligated to tolerate some injustice to ourselves in order to avoid committing injustice to others? For example, if we are forced into a position in which a withdrawal of our effort would unleash an injustice on another innocent party, are we obligated to continue the effort to some extent? Two analogies:
What if you are placed, against your will, with your hand on a button. If you ease the pressure on the button, you cut off the current that is powering an elevator’s safe descent, in which case the elevator will just drop, killing those within.
Are you obligated to hold the button until the elevator completes it’s descent?
What if you are on a mountain, and you are attacked and thrown into a place filled with rocks that will tumble down below if given a push. “The only way you can leave that spot is by causing a landslide. On a perch below is someone else [who was] also forced there. If there’s a landslide, their perch will be destroyed and they’ll fall to their death. There is no way for your calls for help to be heard; you have to wait until you are discovered missing and a rescue party is sent. Let’s assume that you are in no danger; one of your hobbies is to be a survivalist; you know how to attract game birds. You are able to live off them until found, but that will take nine months. The other person is also able to survive because your efforts to attract birds will inevitably attract birds to their perch, too.
Does your right to liberty include a right to push the rocks out of the way and cause the death of the other person?”
(I just found these analogies here: Abortion in the Case of Pregnancy Due to Rape, by John Walker)
When it effects another person the law has certain restrictions, so in essence yes. You cannot have sex with children or animals. And you cannot have sex with someone against heir will or in public. And in some cases you cannot engage in sodomy or fellatio.
It was in refence to this:
For most of your life, you were “cruelly” stopped from having sex by law as it is.
Well, some of us do! 
I maintain that it’s the woman’s moral choice whether or not to carry the unborn to term, and that, given her authority over her own body, it’s not something that can be legislated on her. I personally feel that it’s her moral duty to another potential human life to, ceteris paribus, decide to give that potential human life a chance to live – but that she and only she has the right and responsibility to decide whether to devote a significant period of her own life to the carrying out of that choice.
So I guess those Bible quotes brought you right around to the pro-life side, eh?
I thought the pro-choice argument was about how the pre-born child isn’t a child until an X amount of days.
With that argument gone there really isn’t anything left for us pro-choice folks to fight over (I see a lot of no-choice people have been posting). I think the discussion for abortion takes a big hit with the conditions listed in the OP.
Just to add my 2 cents though (because Catsix has been fighting almost by herself).
Murder is currently illegal and yet it’s still very common in the states…so the argument about “if abortion were illegal etc” I think doesn’t fly. Think of the babies that are found each day in dumpsters and in stairwells that aren’t wanted. I predict that sort of thing will increase if abortion laws were to be repealed.
The whole “if it was illegal it wouldn’t happen as much” is a pretty weak argument I think. Selling your body for sex is illegal but it happens a lot. Smoking pot is illegal, but it happens a lot. Making something illegal doesn’t stop it. Imagine smoking were to become suddently illegal…you think that would stop everyone from smoking?
And (sorry, I’m on the second page and I can’t see the post) the argument about starving your kid is the same as withholding body parts…how is that similar? I don’t want to give you my blood (for whatever reason) is nothing like I don’t want to feed my kids. After you have kids (and you don’t put them up for adoption or something) they are your resposibility.
It’s easy to say stuff about “don’t have sex” if you can’t afford to have kids and take the moral high-ground but where I came from, that isn’t possible without a lot more education (something I think religous zealots are trying to block) in school.
Sorry I’m typing from work and getting distracted so my argument is probably full of holes.
If, for the purposes of thsi thread, you hold that life begins at fertilization, there is no ethical, moral or legal way you can justify an abortion. In fact, given those guidlines, the mother can be held accountable or liable if she had a natural spontaneous miscarriage. This is because once you hold that a blastocyst, a zygote, a fetus is alive, it carries all of the rights, liabilities, obligations that any full grown human being would have with some extras added.
A mother is obligated to care for its child. For this thread, that would also mean the 4 week old fetus. I say that because that is usually the time that a mother discovers she is pregnant. If we treat a 4 week old fetus as a child (fully alive and a person) then the mother is obligated to care for it or face child endangerment charges. If she refuses medical treatment then that could be construed as child abandonement. All parental rights are in play and custody can be adjudicated right after the pregnancy test, and contested paternity can remand the care of the “child” until such determination can be positively made.
Abortions due to rape would be unconstitutional because that would be punishing the innocent child for the crimes of the father. In fact, there would be no justification for abortion because the “child” has its own right to life, liberty and persuit of happiness regardless of its physical dependency on the mother. Aborting an unviable fetus (under 24 weeks) would be like slitting the throat of a child and asking anyone who wants it can save it. It was not the childs fault that it was made, it cannot be unmade without a court order and the courts cannot give that order.