What is your thoughts on Abortion?

[columbus]

So you’re pro choice?

I am very pro-choice.
I think everyone should be free to choose against potentially fertile sex when they are not in a position to provide even the most basic of needs to a child.
Like a gestation period.
Tom

 

[Valjean]

I am very pro-choice.
I think everyone should be free to choose against potentially fertile sex when they are not in a position to provide even the most basic of needs to a child.
Like a gestation period.
Tom

That sounds fine, in theory, but it falls apart in practice. People don't always behave ideally or consider long-term consequences. It's not in our genes.
Sometimes sex can be an irresistible urge and we chance it.

Some seek laws to ameliorate the bad effects of rash decisions. Others seek to punish those decisions, placing their vindictiveness over ameliorating consequences.

 

[SomeRandom]

I am very pro-choice.
I think everyone should be free to choose against potentially fertile sex when they are not in a position to provide even the most basic of needs to a child.
Like a gestation period.
Tom

I don’t know if I agree with that. Sex is a healthy release and a normal part of life. When you stifle “potentially fertile sex” in people, unhealthy consequences seem to follow. Not mentioning any names *cough* the Catholic Church *cough*
Poor people still have needs. Use a condom, get tested, use UDIs, know and embrace your sexuality. Take charge of your own sexual health. But to choose to remain abstinent is a bit impractical and one could argue rather unhealthy. I mean sexual frustration is a thing. And aren’t there studies that suggest it’s beneficial for mental health to have a satisfying sex life? That shouldn’t be put on hold just because someone is between jobs or in a bad financial position. Sex is a better outlet than other avenues one might be tempted to use in such situations. Just saying.

 

[Ponder This]

Taking a life--of an unborn child to me is immoral. I understand the justifications. I mean, I understand why people want to give a murderer the death penalty because he took a life. To me, two wrongs don't make a right.

I don't know the terminology. I feel it's immoral to stop the growth of child. Criteria of morality is not taking a life.

Hmm. So what is the moral option? Let the mother die or let the child die? Or are you saying that the moral option is to not personally take actions to intervene (even if one or both of them die)? And if there is no moral option, then is morality irrelevant?

I think that morality has to consider the reasons for actions. It's not enough to say a certain action or inaction is immoral.

If - for reasons that escape me - we grant the fetus all the rights of a person, then the situation is analogous to organ or tissue donation: we always have the right to deny others the use of our bodies. Anyone can refuse to donate an organ, bodily fluids, or tissue. This is still true even if the recipient will certainly die without it. This is still true even if the person refusing is the parent of the person who need the organ/blood/etc.

Do you think that people need to "explain their right" to not be forced to donate a kidney?

I think you make an good point, but organ donation is really not the same sort of thing.
If parents refused to feed their children and let them starve to death, then the parents would be abandoning their obligation to care for their children. A mother is not donating an organ (such as a kidney, heart or lung) to her fetus. She is sustaining them and that sustenance is not an unnatural extraction of vital tissues from her body.

I think that the point you are trying to make is that a mother has a fundamental right to her body, but I don't think that idea is in conflict with the notion that she may also have an obligation to the well-being of a fetus residing within her.

What responsibility does she have to a foetus? What characteristics does a foetus have that gives it a claim to moral consideration?

The fact that she is in control and the fetus is not is what gives her the responsibility to the fetus (by definition of responsibility). A fetus is a living organism that can give rise to a fully grown human being. Therefore, it deserves moral consideration regardless of whether you believe it constitutes a 'person'.

Because the born have characteristics that entitle them to moral consideration -- which a foetus lacks. A baby is a person, a foetus is not.

Certainly a baby is not the equivalent of a fully grown adult... yet. If we considered babies as if they were adults many laws would be different. Babies do have in common with fetuses that they are not fully grown adults. Why is a baby a person and a fetus not a person when the only difference between the two might be that one is in the womb of the mother and the other is not?

OK, if you can produce some evidence that foetuses are sentient in the way you describe, I'd have to agree, but I'm currently unaware of any evidence that a foetus is aware of itself in any way, much less as an independent individual. I don't believe it has any "desire to be born."

How much of the outside world can a fetus perceive? Fetuses have demonstrated awareness, which is sentience.
You also mention self-awareness... Can give some sort of evidence that sleeping people are self-aware?
We can agree to disagree on the purposes of a fetuses activities within the womb towards the goal of being born.

This is a deontological appeal to 'rules', without consideration of facts or consequences.

If you consider divine law to be a law without consideration of facts and consequences, then, yes, sin is deontological. I agree.

The natural rights of the individual person?

Who's natural rights and which rights in particular are we considering when judging the morality?

Does a tumor or a parasite have a natural right to be supported by the mother's body?

Does a tumor or parasite have the potential to grow into an adult human being?

I agree, but wouldn't a simplistic appeal to a rule book be an abandonment of the adult responsibility to make moral judgements based on consequences and principle?

Yes, a simplistic appeal could be an abandonment of adult responsibility because adults are capable of more than simplistic appeals to a set of rules.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Hmm. So what is the moral option? Let the mother die or let the child die? Or are you saying that the moral option is to not personally take actions to intervene (even if one or both of them die)? And if there is no moral option, then is morality irrelevant?

I think that morality has to consider the reasons for actions. It's not enough to say a certain action or inaction is immoral.



I think you make an good point, but organ donation is really not the same sort of thing.
If parents refused to feed their children and let them starve to death, then the parents would be abandoning their obligation to care for their children. A mother is not donating an organ (such as a kidney, heart or lung) to her fetus. She is sustaining them and that sustenance is not an unnatural extraction of vital tissues from her body.

I think that the point you are trying to make is that a mother has a fundamental right to her body, but I don't think that idea is in conflict with the notion that she may also have an obligation to the well-being of a fetus residing within her.



The fact that she is in control and the fetus is not is what gives her the responsibility to the fetus (by definition of responsibility). A fetus is a living organism that can give rise to a fully grown human being. Therefore, it deserves moral consideration regardless of whether you believe it constitutes a 'person'.



Certainly a baby is not the equivalent of a fully grown adult... yet. If we considered babies as if they were adults many laws would be different. Babies do have in common with fetuses that they are not fully grown adults. Why is a baby a person and a fetus not a person when the only difference between the two might be that one is in the womb of the mother and the other is not?



How much of the outside world can a fetus perceive? Fetuses have demonstrated awareness, which is sentience.
You also mention self-awareness... Can give some sort of evidence that sleeping people are self-aware?
We can agree to disagree on the purposes of a fetuses activities within the womb towards the goal of being born.



If you consider divine law to be a law without consideration of facts and consequences, then, yes, sin is deontological. I agree.



Who's natural rights and which rights in particular are we considering when judging the morality?



Does a tumor or parasite have the potential to grow into an adult human being?



Yes, a simplistic appeal could be an abandonment of adult responsibility because adults are capable of more than simplistic appeals to a set of rules.

More so, I understand the justifications but that doesn't make it moral.

Killing in a war is immoral because it involves taking lives. I understand the justifications because it saves other people's lives. Two wrongs don't make a right. (Right/wrong-morals)

But sometimes we need to break our morals for the safety of ourselves and others. That's why some people are conflicted with some decisions. They believe X but if they break X then Y would benefit.

Justifications doesnt make it right. I just hope the criteria that we use for just. doesnt go overboard like cruel and unusual punishment.

 

[Valjean]

The fact that she is in control and the fetus is not is what gives her the responsibility to the fetus (by definition of responsibility). A fetus is a living organism that can give rise to a fully grown human being. Therefore, it deserves moral consideration regardless of whether you believe it constitutes a 'person'.

So you're saying that potential is a criterion of moral consideration, that a future possibility must be afforded consideration as if it were a realized fact.

Certainly a baby is not the equivalent of a fully grown adult... yet. If we considered babies as if they were adults many laws would be different. Babies do have in common with fetuses that they are not fully grown adults. Why is a baby a person and a fetus not a person when the only difference between the two might be that one is in the womb of the mother and the other is not?

But that's not the only difference. A foetus lacks self-interest, even self-awareness. It has neither an awareness of nor a stake in the future. It's not even aware of futurity. It doesn't care if it ceases to be.

How much of the outside world can a fetus perceive?

Fetuses have demonstrated awareness, which is sentience.
You also mention self-awareness... Can give some sort of evidence that sleeping people are self-aware?
We can agree to disagree on the purposes of a fetuses activities within the womb towards the goal of being born.

Foetuses react to sensory stimuli, but it's questionable whether this constitutes self awareness. Even the self awareness of a born infant is debatable.

If you consider divine law to be a law without consideration of facts and consequences, then, yes, sin is deontological. I agree.

A larger consideration would be whether there is divine law to begin with, or even a divinity. Cultural thoughts on these questions are all over the board.

Who's natural rights and which rights in particular are we considering when judging the morality?

The natural rights of the person.
Natural rights is an enlightenment concept from the 1700s. I use it for convenience.

Does a tumor or parasite have the potential to grow into an adult human being?

Good point, but does a potential have rights?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Abortion is very selfish IMO.

Having kids is selfish.
Nobody has kids for the benefit of giving the kids a life.
People have kids because they want to have kids. Because they wish to be a parent and have a cute baby to cuddle and love.

Talking about selfish.... this works the other way round as well.
Suppose it is known through testing that there are problems with the child. There's serious development defects meaning the child will never be able to live a normal life and spend half of its life in a hospital bed. It will depend on others full-time and will never be able to do anything on its own. It will suffer all its life because of these defects.

The compassionate and selfless thing to do, would be to make that hard decision to abort it. Which is really hard on the parents who really want to have children.

To NOT abort that, is about the most selfish thing one can do.

 

[Nakosis]

Having kids is selfish.
Nobody has kids for the benefit of giving the kids a life.
People have kids because they want to have kids. Because they wish to be a parent and have a cute baby to cuddle and love.

Talking about selfish.... this works the other way round as well.
Suppose it is known through testing that there are problems with the child. There's serious development defects meaning the child will never be able to live a normal life and spend half of its life in a hospital bed. It will depend on others full-time and will never be able to do anything on its own. It will suffer all its life because of these defects.

The compassionate and selfless thing to do, would be to make that hard decision to abort it. Which is really hard on the parents who really want to have children.

To NOT abort that, is about the most selfish thing one can do.

So you get to decide what is normal for everyone? A life that doesn't meet your standards is not worth living? Sorry, couldn't disagree more.

 

[Valjean]

So you get to decide what is normal for everyone? A life that doesn't meet your standards is not worth living? Sorry, couldn't disagree more.

How did you get this from TagliatelliMonster's post?

 

[Nakosis]

How did you get this from TagliatelliMonster's post?

Having dealt with a number of the developmentally disabled, I don't see it as my job to decide what a "normal" life is for them. They are happy, try to make you laugh. They are normal. Maybe they can't do some of the things you or I do, but it doesn't make them any less human, any less deserving of living.

 

[JChnsc19]

A woman has a right for any reason at any time. My reasoning? It’s none of your business

 

[Apologes]

But to choose to remain abstinent is a bit impractical and one could argue rather unhealthy. I mean sexual frustration is a thing. And aren’t there studies that suggest it’s beneficial for mental health to have a satisfying sex life? That shouldn’t be put on hold just because someone is between jobs or in a bad financial position.

Sexual frustration is a result of one's sex life not living up to their desires. It's not a matter of biological necessity where anyone who abstains will be plunged into depression. In fact, one can have a very active sex life and still be sexually frustrated because the quality of sex they're having doesn't match their expectations. Perhaps they're not compatible enough with their partner or perhaps they're seeking deeper bonds in a shallow context such as the hook-up culture. Sexual frustration isn't going to happen just because you abstain, granted you do so because you want to.

Sex is a better outlet than other avenues one might be tempted to use in such situations. Just saying.

What avenues? If we're talking about health benefits you'll be better off just training, eating well and sleeping well. Sex is cool, but let's not pretend that it's a miracle for health when everything significant it has to offer can be found in much better form in other activities.

OT: Strongly oppose abortion in almost all circumstances. None of the arguments typically offered for abortion (most of which just boil down to sugar coating the issue) have been persuasive and the recent behavior of abortion advocates such as the recent law allowing for extremely late term abortions for spurious reasons only makes their agenda of tarnishing life in favor of a shallow and misguided concept of freedom more apparent.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am very pro-choice.
I think everyone should be free to choose against potentially fertile sex when they are not in a position to provide even the most basic of needs to a child.
Like a gestation period.
Tom

That's not pro-choice. That's the same attitude toward consent as a rapist: "she invited me up! What did she think was going to happen? Once I was there, it was too late for her to say no."

Consent to sex is not consent to becoming pregnant.

Consent to becoming pregnant is not consent to remaining pregnant.

Consent to remaining pregnant at one point in the pregnancy is not consent to remaining pregnant at all points in the pregnancy.

 

[ACEofALLaces]

A woman has a right for any reason at any time. My reasoning? It’s none of your business

I couldn't agree more!.....who am I to object to what a woman wishes to do with her body?

However, if one wishes to judge this from a purely Biblical perspective, they should consider that God Himself had no problem with having a sword run through the bellies of pregnant woman, thereby dashing the unborn fetus' upon the rocks.

 

[Valjean]

I couldn't agree more!.....who am I to object to what a woman wishes to do with her body?

This is a common argument, to be sure, but both biology and the religious crowd sees the foetus as not, exactly, part of a woman's body. It's growing in a parasitical relationship, as a genetically separate organism.

However, if one wishes to judge this from a purely Biblical perspective, they should consider that God Himself had no problem with having a sword run through the bellies of pregnant woman, thereby dashing the unborn fetus' upon the rocks.

Good point. Those early biblical peoples were aggressively tribal, certainly had little respect for life, and, apparently, God approved.

So what's the biblical message here? Ignore God? Do as Jesus says -- not as God does?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is a common argument, to be sure, but both biology and the religious crowd sees the foetus as not, exactly, part of a woman's body. It's growing in a parasitical relationship, as a genetically separate organism.

It's her body that's providing the environment for the fetus. She should be allowed to refuse to provide it.

Edit: ...similar to how someone is allowed to refuse to provide a blood, tissue, or organ donation.

 

[Valjean]

It's her body that's providing the environment for the fetus. She should be allowed to refuse to provide it.

Edit: ...similar to how someone is allowed to refuse to provide a blood, tissue, or organ donation.

Now this is a better argument. I've heard it cited by right to life Christians, but didn't follow their refutations carefully.

 

[ACEofALLaces]

This is a common argument, to be sure, but both biology and the religious crowd sees the foetus as not, exactly, part of a woman's body. It's growing in a parasitical relationship, as a genetically separate organism.
Good point. Those early biblical peoples were aggressively tribal, certainly had little respect for life, and, apparently, God approved.

So what's the biblical message here? Ignore God? Do as Jesus says -- not as God does?

I would personally start with ignoring ANY bible message on this particular issue, as anyone with a brain SHOULD realize the bible is the creation of a patriarchal society, where a woman's rights are never considered important.

Next, I would ignore God, as time and time again this God is characterized as a "Do as I SAY and NOT as I DO" kind of God.

I got nothing to say about Jesus, except to let bygones be bygones.

 

[Curious George]

For goodness' sake, if people are going to keep bumping this thread will a mod please change the "is" in the title to an "are," or remove the "s" from thoughts?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Explain your reasoning

It's a reality of nature.