Are we talking past each other on abortion? What is your understanding of the issues?

Simply state what you think are the underlying arguments in the abortion debate.

Tags: abortion, abortion ad nauseum

Views: 238

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Jason how much financial or material goods(?) you invest in something is ethically irrelevant. A right to life has nothing to do with it.
Nonsense. Parental investment has everything to do with it. How much one values a fetus or a baby is dependent precisely on how invested they are in that being (financially, materially, and in the sacrifice of time and health). And that is exactly what we are talking about here: The aggregate relative worth of fetuses, babies, and functioning adults to all parties concerned. It's got nothing to do with rights, personhood, humanity, etc, except insofar as those things add to or subtract from the net present value of the being in question. Abortion is an accounting problem. I know it sounds harsh, but it is.

Fundamentally, we are talking about the survival of genes. There are lots of different survival strategies and tactical approaches. It may be in the best interests of the mother's genes to lose the battle with a particular fetus or baby in order to win the war. Just as the SEC regulates corporate financial statements (when they bother to, but that's another story), society tends to set up rules about how to do the cost/benefit analysis inherent in abortion. Different factions argue for the supremacy of different costs or benefits, but they're all engaged in the same kind of calculations.
The difference between an infant, who must be cared for by *someone* and a fetus, who must be cared for by *the pregnant woman* (not "someone" but HER or ME) should be obvious. It is one thing to say "Children should be given good homes, education, etc." and quite another to say, "YOU there - you give this child a home, education, etc."
Yes one thing to be made to give support to a stranger but it seems to be a moral norm that you are expected to care for your children. The thing is you arbitrarily preference the post partom offspring which aren't persons but will ignore and kill your unwanted offspring.

& many will then deny some women the right to abort unwanted late term foetuses or unwanted prenates which by your own raesoning have no moral value, they aren't persons.

& pls don't bother with viability it changes nothing, as it doesn't address the moral value grounded in being a person. & since we aren't made to foster or pass on kittens that are also viable, the whole thing falls flat.

That is why even the majority of Liberal Pro-Choice philosophers won't have a bar of viability.
What is your understanding of the issues?

There are people like you who want to impose their pro-life beliefs on others and there's people like me who realize my beliefs should not be imposed on anyone.
Then don't tell those that believe infanticide isn't wrong what to do.
*buzzer*

Oh, sorry, but an infant is an independent being with its own blood supply and a developing mind and can be cared for by any adult. A fetus must parasitize its mother to survive, thus violating the mother's rights if she does not want to keep the fetus.

Therefore abortion does not equal infanticide. It is just the same as why killing in self-defense is not murder: one is justified and the other is not. As soon as you can have an abortion without killing the baby, and with no additional risk to the woman then the legal standing changes I would think.

Additionally, you seem to be arguing whether someone should have an abortion...but do you think they should have the choice to do so? I agree, I'd like to see no more abortions, but I would also like to see no more killing in self-defense. Does that mean we should make it illegal? Statistics tell us that won't work.
But the argument says to have existential rights you need to be a person and it isn’t a person.

Secondly if indeed the foetus could be argued to have moral rights one can easily argue that the mother made it dependent and therefore must pay compensation and the only relevant compensation is the right to continue to exist.

Only a choice for rape victims they had no causal reponsibility therefore no need to pay compensation and since we aren't in general required to donate blood to others a rape victim doesn't either.

We won't stop murder either should we change that law?
But the argument says to have existential rights you need to be a person and it isn’t a person.

Except I'm not using that argument. To me, all life has rights. As a Jain you should get that.

Secondly if indeed the foetus could be argued to have moral rights one can easily argue that the mother made it dependent and therefore must pay compensation and the only relevant compensation is the right to continue to exist.

Wrong. You are leaving out the mother's rights. She has the imminent right to her body. I don't have a right to her kidneys to save my life, even if my kidneys were stolen by her.

We won't stop murder either should we change that law?

Murder is illegal to protect other people. You throw a murderer in jail so they won't murder again. Seems to me you are trying to argue that "abortion is murder" which in that case it shouldn't matter if rape was involved or not. Nothing should matter, as a matter of fact. They just have to have the kid.

AGAIN, I'll ask you, are you arguing that abortion is wrong, or that it should be illegal or both. By the way, I get annoyed really fast when people just ignore my questions and argue something else.
All wrong.
You can argue all life has rights but it appears you aren't saying all life has basic right to life which is the point at hand.

Well Boonin was happy with it in principle and I imagaine many other would as well if they knew they were going to die with the kidney. Have it happen to enough people and I bet things would change.

To protect other people that are both persons and non persons but why only oine has a basic right to life?

Rape? Simple it doesn't involve causal responsibility for the victim and since we don't force donation on innocents we shouldn't on her as well.

Lastly I'm dealing with multiple questions from multiple threads so I'm scanning quickly and will often miss questions. My suggestion to you is to highlight the important stuff otherwise expect to continue to be annoyed. .
Boonin? Ooh, name dropping.

Are you purposefully misunderstanding me or was I just not clear? I'll assume that I was just not clear. All life does have a right to continue to live until that life violates someone else's rights and the only way to stop the violation of the person's rights requires the ending of the violator's life. For instance, I have the right to self-defense, that is I have the right to take a life to protect my own. I do not have the right to shoot a robber that isn't trying to hurt anyone, as there are ways other than death to deal with the violation. Currently, the only way to protect the woman's right to not carry a fetus is to allow abortion.

Well Boonin was happy with it in principle and I imagaine [SIC] many other would as well if they knew they were going to die with the kidney. Have it happen to enough people and I bet things would change.

Nice argument from bald assertion based on nothing. Moving on.

Rape? Simple it doesn't involve causal responsibility for the victim and since we don't force donation on innocents we shouldn't on her as well.

And here is where you show your real hand. You don't give a shit about the life of the fetus. If abortion is okay for rape, it is okay in any situation. The fetus didn't rape her, so why should it be killed to fulfill the mother's rights? Your position is that women give up their rights to their body when consenting to sex, and that is utter nonsense.

You don't have any ground to stand on unless you argue that the fetus' right to life trumps the woman's right to her body. I reject that. You, apparently do as well, as you are okay with abortion for rape. So, why exactly, does the woman lose her right to her own body?

You know, you have a lot going on, so don't waste my time responding unless you can explain why abortion of a rape fetus is okay, but not abortion of a consensual baby from a broken condom while on the pill.
For:
Women need to be treated as indepently capable of making decisions regarding their health and bodies.
Parenting is a massive responsibility, expense, and undertaking. It should not be treated lightly.
Pregnancy is a medical condition with frequent complications and the potential for severe risks, up to and including death.
If women do not have the right to their own body, they have no rights at all, and everyone's rights are diminished.
Overpopulation is a global problem.
Some pregnancies are doomed from the start, such as ectopic pregnancies. Abortion is the safest medical procedure for the woman, and does not change the fate of the fetus one way or the other.
Victims of rape should not be forced by the government or anyone else to endure the physical assault of pregnancy and birth, as a constant traumatic reminder of the physical violation and assault done to them.
It may be kinder to abort a fetus, than to allow it to grow deformed and in constant pain, to live a short and very hard life. This may be kinder both to the fetus and the woman.


Against:
Life is important, and should not be treated casually. Where life begins is not agreed upon, and so some feel a desire to err on the side of caution or "life".
It is unfair to ask a child to die because of the actions of some other adult (be it the woman, a rapist, a lover, or a birth control pharmaceutical company). However, a fetus is not a child. Again, the human tendency towards compassion for the young can lead some people to err on the side of the young, rather than the woman.
If a woman does not want to raise a baby, she can always place it for adoption.

These are what I see as the *genuine* arguments for each side, or I guess really the arguments that I find compelling in some way. I am pro-choice, but was pro-life for most of my life. (Right up until I got pregnant, delivered a baby, and experienced homeless poverty as a single mother.)

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service