Abortion

[LuisDantas]

It's disanalogious because it's like this:
The argument against abortion is even if the women doesn't consent to letting the fetus use her body she doesn't have the right to remove the fetus because murdering the fetus is wrong. But the obvious solution is to tweak the way we do abotions where we don't actually murder the fetus, then the women' rights to bodily autonomy takes president.

I don't quite see how that is relevant to discussing abortions, but if you say so.

I don't see how your analogy relates to this situation since there isn't an analogous situation where the fetus is acting immorally to the women.

Neither do I see why that would be useful, either.

 

[McBell]

Ah jeez.

how would it not be self defense?

 

[Penumbra]

I am constantly coming across real life situations that contradict scientific 'findings'. One recent example is that a friend of mine's sibling gave birth to a five month old baby. Generally this is a very serious situation, but the baby survived and is very healthy. It was conscious, felt pain etc.

So yes, you are right and scientists have done a lot. But they don't know everything.

I just gave an example on the previous page about the baby that was born after only 5 months. It was a healthy baby.

Penumbra,
just to clarify, the baby was born at five months but of course it was kept in the NICU until it was safe to take him home.

Forgive me if I'm a bit skeptical of that statement.

If this is the case, it may be tied for the world record of known premature living births.

iParenting.com - preconception, pregnancy, baby names, newborns and parenting articles, expert advice and community

This baby was born at 21 weeks, and supposedly is the first known baby born before 23 weeks to survive.

To get the baby to live, it required:
-steroids to build the lungs
-four month hospital stay
-use of an oxygen machine even after those 4 months
-to be on 15 different medications at the time of leaving the hospital
-laser surgery to correct detaching retinas

So when someone claims to have the world record birth, I'd need a bit more than a claim online. It's not that I think you are being deceitful, it's just that I have doubts the math is correct.

Karma is very complicated. In a sense you are correct. Yes, it's the person's karma to die. But it was not your karma to kill it. The death becomes your responsibility and through the act, you become karmically linked with this person.
But to use the argument that their karma would kill them anyway is not good enough. It is like saying, well it's ok if I shoot this person or make them suffer terribly because it's their karma anyway.

I cannot give you a definitive answer for your last question because every individual thing that happens is a result of a series of previous karmas/actions. One miscarriage might occur for one reason that is completely different to why is happened in another situation. Maybe one miscarriage occurred because that individual aborted a baby in its previous life. Maybe it is karma to the woman who desperately wants a baby but cannot due to her previous bad choices. Maybe the baby and mother are linked up karmically with the abusive man who beats the woman frequently, causing the miscarriage. But this is all speculation.

I do believe in God, but I am not a dualist. God is not a distant being who decided to create us with a purpose in mind. The material universe is a part of God's very Self. Material nature and the laws of science are part of God's very self. Us individual souls are part of God's very Self. None of this has ever not existed and thus was never 'once created'. And so karma is a natural part of existence rather than a set up by God who wanted some system of justice. It's the laws of cause and effect that extend to a metaphysical plane of existence.

In other words, our morality is not based on what we think God will do to us or think of us (or a plan that he has for us). Our actions result from two prominent places- our awareness of karmic reaction and how selfish/selfless we are.

These examples don't cover the majority of miscarriages. Most miscarriages happen within days due to chromosome abnormalities. The mother is often not even aware, so it's not even punishment for anyone. It's like saying Karma caused a fly to land on a person and then fly away before they ever knew it was there.

 

[Slightly Educated]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I see abortion as a way for people to have sex without worrying about the consequences, it serves as a scapegoat for people just in case something does go awry. I may just be a biased christian, but I posted here to debate.



- Respectfully,
Slightly Educated

 

[Meow Mix]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I see abortion as a way for people to have sex without worrying about the consequences, it serves as a scapegoat for people just in case something does go awry. I may just be a biased christian, but I posted here to debate.



- Respectfully,
Slightly Educated

I don't see anything wrong with that if it's a last ditch measure where contraceptives failed and pregnancy wasn't discovered until after it was too late for morning-after pill... especially if the would-be mother imbibed alcohol or took prescription drugs unaware of the pregnancy (heck, or even nonprescription drugs).

I don't like the prospect of abortion being used as first-effort birth control, so we might agree on that point. I think it's a good safety net though for surprises where reasonable measures have been taken but something went wrong.

It's also acceptable to me in cases of rape or where the life of the mother is in danger, or if a couple's financial, emotional, or physical situation has changed drastically and they no longer have an intent to carry to term.

 

[Atomist]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I see abortion as a way for people to have sex without worrying about the consequences, it serves as a scapegoat for people just in case something does go awry. I may just be a biased christian, but I posted here to debate.

Mmmmm so? This feels like a COMPLETE red herring

Is this your reasoning?
1) people who have sex should realize that they could get pregnant
2) abortion is a convenient cop out to stop the pregnancy and not keep the child
3) Therefore abortion should not be allowed

Seems like a complete non-sequitur.

I also want to address it this way:
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but I see hospitals as a way for people to act recklessly without worrying about the consequences, it serves as a scapegoat for people just in case something does go awry."

 

[Slightly Educated]

People should realize sex leads to pregnancy, and yes it may be a cop out, but you misunderstand where I was trying to go. The fact that abortion or the morning after pill kills the baby is why i disagree. Now whether you believe human life starts at conception or some other date is something I don't know.A fetus will grow into a human eventually, the fact that we have the capability to squelch out life before a set point does not change that.

I'd liken that to a person planting a seed, later finding it had taken root and then digs it up because it has become precisely what he planted. I find that slightly foolish.

-Respectfully
Slightly Educated

 

[Atomist]

People should realize sex leads to pregnancy, and yes it may be a cop out, but you misunderstand where I was trying to go. The fact that abortion or the morning after pill kills the baby is why i disagree. Now whether you believe human life starts at conception or some other date is something I don't know.A fetus will grow into a human eventually, the fact that we have the capability to squelch out life before a set point does not change that.

I'd liken that to a person planting a seed, later finding it had taken root and then digs it up because it has become precisely what he planted. I find that slightly foolish.

So your saying the farmer shouldn't have the right to be foolish and unroot the plant that he/she planted?

Besides... just because it has the potential to be a human that doesn't mean we should protect it at the expense of the women's rights

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm fairly certain that the responsibility of raising a child goes way beyond simply carrying a pregnancy to term. In fact, that is the deciding factor for the very existence of intentional abortions.

I don't know why some people act like abortions would cease to happen if the law forbade them. It just does not work that way.

Abortions are very sad occurrences, and nearly everyone takes them seriously enough already. They should be avoided, for sure... but certainly not by way of laws, that would be just wrong and blind.

Abortions are just a dramatic result of a far bigger problem, and they can only be avoided legitimaly by attacking that bigger problem. That means improving sexual education, taking measures to reduce extreme poverty , giving young parents better (and more mature) support, encouraging adoptions, and above all else it means removing the stigma that brands carriers of unplanned children. It is neither fair nor realistic to actually expect a mother-to-be to prefer to carry to term no matter what. Births are very important and influential events when they are welcome - and just as important and influential when they aren't welcome.

 

[Slightly Educated]

-Why shouldn't we protect the rights of the potential human?
-The woman has adoption as an alternative, and it doesn't impede on her rights.
-Why is abortion a right?



-Respectfully,
Slightly Educated

 

[Atomist]

-Why shouldn't we protect the rights of the potential human?
-The woman has adoption as an alternative, and it doesn't impede on her rights.
-Why is abortion a right?

-Why should we protect the rights of a potential human over the rights of an actual human?
-A person should have the right to not have their body used against their will therefore abortion should be a right.

 

[Slightly Educated]

Also I never talked about rights, more the morality of abortion. But thats besides the point.


Respectfully,
Slightly Educated

 

[Slightly Educated]

"-A person should have the right to not have their body used against their will therefore abortion should be a right."

-Against their will? If they were having sex how is that not their will?
May not be the "intent" but sex is here so we can multiply

"-Why should we protect the rights of a potential human over the rights of an actual human?"
All humans have equil rights, but I guess that may not apply to future humans

 

[LuisDantas]

-Why shouldn't we protect the rights of the potential human?

We should, of course. But not at any cost.

Being aborted while still an embryo (that is, with no nervous system) beats being raised by frustrated and overextended parents big time.

-The woman has adoption as an alternative, and it doesn't impede on her rights.

Actually, I don't know that to be true, not generally. Not too many families and communities know how to give such mothers (and fathers, since they are involved too) proper respect and support.

For all its many disadvantages and shortcomings, abortion is at least not as much of an hereditary, lifelong problem as its usual alternatives.

-Why is abortion a right?

Honestly, I wouldn't go quite so far as to say that it is. But it is often a lesser evil at the very least. I don't believe that we always and necessarily have a right path to follow.

 

[Atomist]

"-A person should have the right to not have their body used against their will therefore abortion should be a right."

-Against their will? If they were having sex how is that not their will?

How is having sex consenting to having a child?

If the fetus or w/e you want to call it is in the women's body as far as I'm concerned the fetus is using the women's body... now if the women decides that she doesn't want to carry the fetus, she should be allowed to get rid of the fetus... and be morally permissible... as the fetus (if it is a person) is being immoral by using the women's body against her wishes.

 

[LuisDantas]

"-A person should have the right to not have their body used against their will therefore abortion should be a right."

-Against their will? If they were having sex how is that not their will?

For one thing, maybe it was indeed against their will in the first place. It is most unfortunate, but it happens.

For another, people have been known to get carried away and acting in the spur of the moment without thinking through the consequences. It happens too, and for good or worse it is not at all rare.

But of course, the implicit argument is that an abortion is basically a decision about the body of the mother, involving her will not to have a child. As long as the abortion involves an embryo and not a diferentiated fetus, I must agree with that interpretation.

 

[Slightly Educated]

"Being aborted while still an embryo (that is, with no nervous system) beats being raised by frustrated and overextended parents big time."
-Really?

"How is having sex consenting to having a child?"
-Sex is how babies are made, not to insult you. Sorry if I come off that way.

"For another, people have been known to get carried away and acting in the spur of the moment without thinking through the consequences. It happens too, and for good or worse it is not at all rare."
-That spur of the moment is what im talking about. People shirk off the consiquences, as you said, and abortion or some other birth controll is the "easier" answer.

 

[Atomist]

As long as the abortion involves an embryo and not a diferentiated fetus, I must agree with that interpretation.

I'll even grant that the fetus is a human... I don't think it makes a difference

No human can use another human's body against their will.

Famous Violinist thought experiment:
Quote from Wikipedia

"The fetus is an innocent person with a right to life. Abortionresults in the death of a fetus. Therefore, abortion is morally wrong.

In her thought experiment we are asked to imagine a famous violinist falling into a coma. The society of music lovers determines from medical records that you and you alone can save the violinist's life by being hooked up to him for nine months. The music lovers break into your home while you are asleep and hook the unconscious (and unknowing, hence innocent) violinist to you. You may want to unhook him, but you are then faced with this argument put forward by the music lovers: The violinist is an innocent person with a right to life. Unhooking him will result in his death. Therefore, unhooking him is morally wrong.

However, the argument does not seem convincing in this case. You would be very generous to remain attached and in bed for nine months, but you are not morally obliged to do so. The parallel with the abortion case is evident. The thought experiment is effective in distinguishing two concepts that had previously been run together: “right to life” and “right to what is needed to sustain life.” The fetus and the violinist may each have the former, but it is not evident that either has the latter. The upshot is that even if the fetus has a right to life (which Thomson does not believe but allows for the sake of the argument), it may still be morally permissible to abort"

 

[Atomist]

"How is having sex consenting to having a child?"
-Sex is how babies are made, not to insult you. Sorry if I come off that way.

So what? people also have sex with no intention of having a child... it does not follow that just because you have sex you consent to a child... hence why people have abortions.

 

[Slightly Educated]

I guess what I'm trying to say is. If you don't want a child, don't have sex.
And again, sorry for my ignorance, but isn't sustaning life and living the same thing? Food and drink are needed to "sustain" life.

-Respectfully.
Slightly Educated