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: 245

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

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.)
Simon sez:"A baby cannot care for itself and is dependent on caregivers, the only difference that care is internally for one but external for ther other."

This seems to be one of your primary arguments, yet as others have pointed out, you seem to answer challenges to its validity by not answering and changing the topic. Either:

A) There is a way to remove a 3-month fetus from a woman's womb with no more medical risk than the act of physically handing someone an infant, from my arms to yours.

B) No such procedure exists, in which case abortion is not 'exactly the same' as infanticide.

A or B Simon. Pick one. And if it's A, please include supporting evidence.

Answer this and then we can move on to the flaws in your it's-the-woman's-own-damn-fault-she's-pregnant argument.
That's a fairly good point. Maybe instead of researching mechanical incubators, we should be researching male-hosted incubators. If women don't want to carry their fetuses to term, a male anti-abortionist should be required to host the fetus to term. Let's see how many male anti-abortionists would sign up for that duty.
It probably wouldn't even be that hard to do. There's a big empty space in the head of anti-abortionists which would do nicely. And their mouths are plenty big enough for a birth canal.
I really really hate it when whether or not a fetus is "alive" gets brought into the argument, and yes it's a nitpick, but it's something that people seem to avoid talking about.

There is no biological basis for saying a fetus is less alive than a baby.
The egg was alive.
The sperm was alive.
The fertilised egg was alive.
The 2 cell zygote was alive.
All of the cells between that stage and delivery are alive.

But then again, so is the freaking placenta, and people eat that. A 4-cell zygote is arguably more alive than blood is.
And slime mould and mildew and a roach are all alive too. And the thousands of organisms that get killed, directly or indirectly, everytime a new subdivision goes up.
The discussion can not revolve around whether the fetus is alive, it has to revolve around when we decide it's a person.

Personally, I think individuals extend personhood well beyond when most philosophers would grant it. People talk and sing to their babies months before birth, and conceptualise them as tiny people who are paying attention and are just waiting to finish being baked.
Which I think makes the emotional issues more complex.
Is this where the song "Every sperm is Sacred" enters into the conversation?
"Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great,
If a single one is wasted, god gets quite irate!"

It comes down to what people value, and why they value it. You want to say "all life is sacred" thats FINE. You go right on ahead. Now stop brushing your teeth and washing your hands and cleaning your kitchen counter (exercises specifically designed to end bacterial life which humans don't value) and then maybe I'll listen to you.
You want to say "all human life is sacred", thats fine too. And when you give a significant fraction of your disposal income and spare time to charities to stop war, famine and disease I might even pay attention to you.
I'm delighted for you to say "the idea of a baby dying squicks me out and I don't know how to deal with it"; I'll applaud your honesty but tell you to stay the hell out of my uterus.

It comes down to what people value, and why they value it. You want to say "all life is sacred" thats FINE. You go right on ahead. Now stop brushing your teeth and washing your hands and cleaning your kitchen counter


And if you want to look at it like that you should stop eating anything too...

I think all life has value, but that doesn't mean EQUAL value. Why is that so hard for people to understand? We all do it, and your examples are evidence for it.
Because it doesn't fit into a headline, or a soundbite. Because people like dividing themselves over issues.

Because my stance of abortion is "it should be a last ditch proceedure for those that really don't want children/can't medically handle a pregnancy because they were using contraception and it failed them, or those who were inpregnated against their will [*], but that people should be responsible and use contraception in the first place because contraception is SO much easier on the body than an invasive medical proceedure; and god-damn it, if you're not with-it enough to use contraception what the hell are you doing having sex anyway and I'm not sure I want you contributing to the gene pool [**] BUT although I don't think I could ever get an abortion, I'm not going to try to make that decision for other people in situations I can't comprehend"

but I can't explain that to people who see things in black and white and so I'm forced to define myself as "pro choice".

[*] up to and including sabotaging contraception
[**] it's one of life's great ironies that being too dumb to use a condom is more than smart enough to breed. More proof Darwin was wrong! :D
I'll bet smart amoeba's live longer. :D

Context is always crucially important in evolution. When your context is a 15 story hotel complex, the intelligence to understand the physics of jumping off balconies into swiming pools is crucial! :D

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Supporting Membership

Nexus on Social Media:

© 2015   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service