• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Abortion

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Well I cannot say? I would guess 'no.' I would not try to conflate the two because there are significant differences in personal responsibility here, IMO.
If your concern is protection of life above all else (and not, say, trying to punish women for having sex that you disapprove of), why should "personal responsibility" matter?

If a pint of your blood will save the life of a stranger, is the fact that you aren't "responsible" for that other life justification for letting him die?

... but for an apples-to-apples comparison, consider a child who needs a kidney and his father, who's the only match. The father doesn't want to give up his kidney even though his child will die (for argument's sake, let's say he knows he'd lose his job during the recovery and couldn't afford to support his other kids plus medical bills for himself and his sick child while recovering).

What should happen next? The father is most certainly responsible for his son - just as much as any pregnant woman is responsible for her fetus. Do you choose the father's bodily security and let the child die, or do you deny the father's bodily autonomy and steal his kidney to save the boy?

Right now, the law in every country I know of says that the father should keep his kidney even if it kills the child.

So... as I see it, you can choose between two options:

- hypocrisy: be against abortion while also allowing people to do what they want with their organs.

- consistency, but monstrosity: be in favour of denying all people the freedom to choose what happens to their bodies.

... or you can extend the same rights to pregnant women that you (presumably) grant to everyone else.
 

thau

Well-Known Member
If your concern is protection of life above all else (and not, say, trying to punish women for having sex that you disapprove of), why should "personal responsibility" matter?

If a pint of your blood will save the life of a stranger, is the fact that you aren't "responsible" for that other life justification for letting him die?

... but for an apples-to-apples comparison, consider a child who needs a kidney and his father, who's the only match. The father doesn't want to give up his kidney even though his child will die (for argument's sake, let's say he knows he'd lose his job during the recovery and couldn't afford to support his other kids plus medical bills for himself and his sick child while recovering).

What should happen next? The father is most certainly responsible for his son - just as much as any pregnant woman is responsible for her fetus. Do you choose the father's bodily security and let the child die, or do you deny the father's bodily autonomy and steal his kidney to save the boy?

Right now, the law in every country I know of says that the father should keep his kidney even if it kills the child.

So... as I see it, you can choose between two options:

- hypocrisy: be against abortion while also allowing people to do what they want with their organs.

- consistency, but monstrosity: be in favour of denying all people the freedom to choose what happens to their bodies.

... or you can extend the same rights to pregnant women that you (presumably) grant to everyone else.

You want to point to some extreme outlier case that has some resemblance to the issue at hand as a reason to continue to allow more than 5,000 unborn babies to be killed each year that could survive outside the womb. I think the angle is insidious and inhumane. But, hey, you might win with our liberal justices.

The only humane law, at a minimum, is outlawing all late term abortions (past 24 weeks) unless it can be medically documented it is to save the health of the mother. And you or this “all wise and compassionate” administration and congress and courts cannot even go that far? You are more intent on keeping all these abortions legal than saving these lives, and charge us with being the cold-hearted hypocrites?

300 Doctors and 275 Abortion Clinics Do Abortions After 20 Weeks, Many After 24 Weeks | LifeNews.com

[Excerpt] In 1995-96, many mainstream media outlets reported as unvarnished fact the claims of pro-abortion advocacy groups that partial-birth abortions were very “rare” and performed only in acute medical circumstances. These claims were later proven false by congressional investigators and investigative journalists, and were even ultimately repudiated by the head of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers (NCAP), who described the claims as a concocted “party line.”

NCAP Executive Director Ron Fitzsimmons admitted to the New York Times that the partial-birth abortion method was used 3,000-5,000 times annually, and “in the vast majority of cases” on “a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along” (New York Times, Feb. 26, 1997).

However, the same pattern of eagerness to minimize painful late abortions is found in some recent media coverage surrounding the Gosnell trial and revelations regarding other late-abortion practitioners. News stories often assert that late abortions are “rare” and sometimes assert that late abortions usually involve serious medical problems of the mother or fetus. Yet these “facts” are not supported by hard data, and indeed run contrary to much of the evidence that is available.
 

JRMcC

Active Member
Em. I kind of did know what you meant by saying you were making a distinction between life and LIFE. But then you said bacteria is alive, but not in the same what as a human teenaer is.

As a biologist I must ask you, with all respect, to please tell me what you mean by this?

I mean that complex language combined with intelligence like ours gives rise to something incredible. Do you know what I'm talking about? I couldn't be telling you this without the incredible :D
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Well I cannot say? I would guess 'no.' I would not try to conflate the two because there are significant differences in personal responsibility here, IMO.

I mean, if you made that a law, then I think it should follow all citizens have to donate their organs once they pass, if those organs can be reasonably harvested.
If they are dead, then bodily autonomy is not at issue. This would only apply to living adults forced to donate their organs to save children. It is pretty much the same issue ... being forced to give up the use of one's body to another against their will. I cannot fathom how having sex would qualify as a legally binding acceptence of responsibility, but you are more than welcome to argue that. But, it would have to confine to "acceptences" of different natures and precedent.
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Who are you quoting? Plato? Jesus? The Supreme Court?

Bodily autonomy means not much to me personally. Not when there is another life / person inside of you who also should be respected with the value of a human person, and has dignity and rights. No other case resembles this if you are going to use some bodily autonomy argument.

Speaking of autonomy, a person does not have the right to kill themselves (except now with these bizarre assisted suicide advocacy groups for the terminally ill). But no healthy adult can swallow 50 sleeping pills and we are allowed to ignore it. We have an obligation to have them medically saved, their "rights" do not trump our laws. So at a minimum, no mother should have the right to terminate the life an unborn that could reasonably survive outside the womb. Yet, that is not the case or even the law in many states or countries.
When it comes to viability, I agree with you. Once the fetus is viable outside the womb, I think it is a debateable issue for sure. I am not speaking to that specific aspect of aboriton rights though. I am speaking to them in general. Of course there are aspects that I agree should probably change.

But, legally speaking, the issue cannot be dumbed down to a simple moral decision. Our legal system just doesn't work like that. The state cannot force a woman to give up the use of her body against her will, no matter what is at stake. The fetus' rights/interests surely matter as well, but the fetus has no cause to argue bodily autonomy, because the fetus is physically and directly dependent on the mother, not the other way around.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
You want to point to some extreme outlier case that has some resemblance to the issue at hand as a reason to continue to allow more than 5,000 unborn babies to be killed each year that could survive outside the womb.
Just under 8,000 people in the US doe every year waiting for an organ. The scale is similar... though I would agree that "pointing to some extreme outlier case" is a good description of your focus on late-term abortion.

I think the angle is insidious and inhumane. But, hey, you might win with our liberal justices.
I hope so. I want to have a say in what happens to my organs.

The only humane law, at a minimum, is outlawing all late term abortions (past 24 weeks) unless it can be medically documented it is to save the health of the mother. And you or this “all wise and compassionate” administration and congress and courts cannot even go that far?
I can't justify the slavery of pregnant women, no. However, you should realize - as I think I've said in this thread a few times - that the bodily security argument is only about ending the pregnancy, period. If it can be ended by inducing a live birth, so be it.

You are more intent on keeping all these abortions legal than saving these lives, and charge us with being the cold-hearted hypocrites?
I never said you were cold-hearted.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
@thau - I'd appreciate an answer to my question from before:

If your concern is protection of life above all else (and not, say, trying to punish women for having sex that you disapprove of), why should "personal responsibility" matter?

You spoke of "differences in personal responsibility". What differences justify letting someone die because you aren't "personally responsible" for them?
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
But I would legalize drugs because it's safer for the majority. Yes, a black market will always exist. But you can cripple it.
I would both make recreational drugs illegal and cripple the black market. If legalizing drugs in general is a good idea why has prohibiting at least some of them been the virtual universal response by society?


I'm good with that.
The goal here is not to base laws on what your good with. It is to based laws on what is morally justifiable. What you or I personally prefer is no really important.

What is important is basing ethical prohibitions on either subjective but rational foundations in a secular world view, or on objective moral facts in a theological world view.

I'm not going to argue "secular vs religious morality" with you again. You reject all morality except that which comes from your God. There is no point in arguing it if you flat-out reject any other notion of morality except that which you claim your God(and no one elses') has given.
There is nothing there that is accurate.

1. We have not been arguing theological morality versus theological morality here.
2. I in fact accept the moral prohibitions that have no theological basis.
3. I did not claim hat no moral theories exist without God. I in fact claimed the exact opposite.
4. I said subjective moral conclusion do exist without God, but that no objective moral facts exist or ever could without God.
5. My faith specific commands me to obey my government even if 100% secular unless those laws contradict God.



No, just pointing out the absurdity of the cancer-cure argument.
What? Do you deny that it is possible that with millions of abortions we have not killed in the womb people that would have done great good? If you not denying that then where does my claim break down?




I fully cop to being a selfish prick. I don't have any problems with it. However, I still find it to be more moral to argue from a stance of personal liberty. Again, no one is obligated to keep anyone else alive. You are not obligated to give a piece of your liver to your brother. A father or mother is not obligated to give any of their organs to their child. Therefore, a mother is not obligated to give her entire body to a fetus she has no intention of raising.
You like most do not have a problem with your own selfishness, but have all kinds of problems with others selfishness. Societies must therefore make laws which attempt to modulate or equalize our collective selfishness.

It is not the problem that in your selfishness you determine you may do X. The problem is that in your selfishness you deprive another of X. In this case it is every single X that other person might have or ever would have. Not only are you making others pay for your own preference, but your suggesting we al should do so. You want to abort yourself have at it, that is your right, aborting another is a right you so far cannot demonstrate, and the effort to universally validate us all doing the same is well beyond any pretense at a defense.
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
I would both make recreational drugs illegal and cripple the black market. If legalizing drugs in general is a good idea why has prohibiting at least some of them been the virtual universal response by society?
Is this a serious question/point, or are you being facetious? The obvious answer is that society in general has used extremely poor methods and ideas to combat drugs throughout the years that have repeatedly backfired on them. That is why we are seeing most of the Western World rethink their stance on drugs in general.
 

Nietzsche

The Last Prussian
Premium Member
I would both make recreational drugs illegal and cripple the black market. If legalizing drugs in general is a good idea why has prohibiting at least some of them been the virtual universal response by society?
Right, and Prohibition was a resounding success by all meanings of the word.


The goal here is not to base laws on what your good with. It is to based laws on what is morally justifiable. What you or I personally prefer is no really important.

What is important is basing ethical prohibitions on either subjective but rational foundations in a secular world view, or on objective moral facts in a theological world view.

There is nothing there that is accurate.

1. We have not been arguing theological morality versus theological morality here.
2. I in fact accept the moral prohibitions that have no theological basis.
3. I did not claim hat no moral theories exist without God. I in fact claimed the exact opposite.
4. I said subjective moral conclusion do exist without God, but that no objective moral facts exist or ever could without God.
5. My faith specific commands me to obey my government even if 100% secular unless those laws contradict God.




What? Do you deny that it is possible that with millions of abortions we have not killed in the womb people that would have done great good? If you not denying that then where does my claim break down?
Do you deny it is possible that with millions of abortions we have not killed in the womb people that would have done great acts of horror? You don't get this both ways.




You like most do not have a problem with your own selfishness, but have all kinds of problems with others selfishness. Societies must therefore make laws which attempt to modulate or equalize our collective selfishness.

It is not the problem that in your selfishness you determine you may do X. The problem is that in your selfishness you deprive another of X. In this case it is every single X that other person might have or ever would have. Not only are you making others pay for your own preference, but your suggesting we al should do so. You want to abort yourself have at it, that is your right, aborting another is a right you so far cannot demonstrate, and the effort to universally validate us all doing the same is well beyond any pretense at a defense.
How is abortion any different from refusing to give up an organ to someone? Do you believe a fetus is more valuable than someone already born? Because I'll go ahead and say yes, I think a fetus is indeed worth less than someone who's been born and who has a life.

Making abortion illegal just ends with more bitter people. The mother, who was forced to have the child(and forced to pay for the medical bills), and the child itself who has to grow up in foster care. And you aren't even willing to fund either of them(medical bills or foster-care/orphanages). If you're going both invite & involve yourself in the decision-making regarding someone elses' body the least you can do is help pay for the thing you're forcing them to go through.
 

thau

Well-Known Member
If they are dead, then bodily autonomy is not at issue. This would only apply to living adults forced to donate their organs to save children. It is pretty much the same issue ... being forced to give up the use of one's body to another against their will. I cannot fathom how having sex would qualify as a legally binding acceptence of responsibility, but you are more than welcome to argue that. But, it would have to confine to "acceptences" of different natures and precedent.
Well as soon as the child is born it becomes a legally binding acceptance of responsibility for the parent. It is not illogical to me to think it is a responsibility as well earlier than that. Of course we disagree. --- On some law forcing a father to give up his kidney, no, it is not the same as a cadaver, but why would there be a law and not one for the less intrusive departed’s organs? Here again, though, I doubt I could win this argument either, i.e. if a father does not have to surrender his organ to save his child then why should a mother be forced to do something with her body? Fine, if that logic carries the day then a society that demands abortion deserves abortion.

But, legally speaking, the issue cannot be dumbed down to a simple moral decision. Our legal system just doesn't work like that. The state cannot force a woman to give up the use of her body against her will, no matter what is at stake. The fetus' rights/interests surely matter as well, but the fetus has no cause to argue bodily autonomy, because the fetus is physically and directly dependent on the mother, not the other way around.
Again you are probably right, your side will prevail. The courts cannot rule by moral concerns because it must be too subjective? Only by “legal fairness” I guess. At least on this matter.
 

thau

Well-Known Member
Just under 8,000 people in the US doe every year waiting for an organ. The scale is similar... though I would agree that "pointing to some extreme outlier case" is a good description of your focus on late-term abortion.
If 8,000 die each year waiting for an organ, how many die because a member of the immediate family refuse to help out? 5? 10? That is what I was referring to as a rare extreme case.

I hope so. I want to have a say in what happens to my organs.
Yes, you do. But the insidious remark was in reference to using the father who will not give up his kidney for his son as a defense for why a mother should not have to carry a child to term even if it is its later stages.

I never said you were cold-hearted.
No, you did not, my apologies. I just threw that in there for effect. : )

If your concern is protection of life above all else (and not, say, trying to punish women for having sex that you disapprove of), why should "personal responsibility" matter? You spoke of "differences in personal responsibility". What differences justify letting someone die because you aren't "personally responsible" for them?
As I just said to Leibowde above, maybe your argument would prevail, but I don’t like it. An extreme rare case where a parent would refuse to donate their organ to save their child is your basis for saying if you cannot force that parent to do that then neither can you force a mother to carry her unborn to term, even in the child is viable outside the womb. I do not find that nearly strong enough to convince anyone to deny the rights of a viable fetus. Now if you are talking about an early pregnancy then maybe. Pro-life positions barely have a leg to stand on now, as it is, without even having to drag that one in.

I still say the “personal responsibility” differs because no one has to die in the case of a pregnant mother if she has the child and gives it up for adoption. But I will grant you your argument that the personal responsibility is not that much different at all if in both cases we are talking about a parent and their child. If it’s a cousin or a neighbor who is the match, then the responsibility would not be as strong or expected.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
On some law forcing a father to give up his kidney, no, it is not the same as a cadaver, but why would there be a law and not one for the less intrusive departed’s organs?

Here is why that argument fails. It doesn't take in to account why the child has kidney failure. Here is the argument:
"... but for an apples-to-apples comparison, consider a child who needs a kidney and his father, who's the only match. The father doesn't want to give up his kidney even though his child will die (for argument's sake, let's say he knows he'd lose his job during the recovery and couldn't afford to support his other kids plus medical bills for himself and his sick child while recovering).

What should happen next? The father is most certainly responsible for his son - just as much as any pregnant woman is responsible for her fetus. Do you choose the father's bodily security and let the child die, or do you deny the father's bodily autonomy and steal his kidney to save the boy?

Right now, the law in every country I know of says that the father should keep his kidney even if it kills the child."


What this argument carefully avoids is the question about how the kids organs came to fail.
Suppose the child's kidneys failed permanently because his dad wanted to start another family and found that child support inconvenient. So he poisoned his son. But the child clung to life and now requires a kidney for survival. Only the father's will work.
In this freakishly implausible scenario I would have no trouble strapping the would be murderer down and removing the kidney with a rusty hacksaw. I would feel bad if he died, but not real bad.

And the difference is that he chose putting the child in the predicament necessitating the use of a kidney. When he made that Choice he gave up his bodily autonomy.
This frequently made hypothetical is a strawman argument that is not relevant to the issue of abortion. Because the choice that created the problem is always left out. It is presented as a random health disaster.
Tom
 

Marisa

Well-Known Member
Well as soon as the child is born it becomes a legally binding acceptance of responsibility for the parent. It is not illogical to me to think it is a responsibility as well earlier than that. Of course we disagree. --- On some law forcing a father to give up his kidney, no, it is not the same as a cadaver, but why would there be a law and not one for the less intrusive departed’s organs? Here again, though, I doubt I could win this argument either, i.e. if a father does not have to surrender his organ to save his child then why should a mother be forced to do something with her body? Fine, if that logic carries the day then a society that demands abortion deserves abortion.


Again you are probably right, your side will prevail. The courts cannot rule by moral concerns because it must be too subjective? Only by “legal fairness” I guess. At least on this matter.
Bullpucky. Because . . . adoption. A born child requires NOTHING from the mother and ANY person can care for it.
 

Mister Emu

Emu Extraordinaire
Staff member
Premium Member
It means if you believe that god is responsible for everything that happens, then he's as responsible for the conception as he is for the spontaneous miscarriage. Be definition that makes God the most prolific abortionist ever. And if one believes that and objects to abortion because they believe God is against. Then that person does not understand what he/she believes.
It means no such thing. This merely means that you don't understand what they believe.

It may be silly and specious, but it (and your attempt at argument from absurdity) flows directly from the presumption that God is perfectly good and is therefore an example to follow.
Who says we should do as God does in every way?
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Well as soon as the child is born it becomes a legally binding acceptance of responsibility for the parent. It is not illogical to me to think it is a responsibility as well earlier than that. Of course we disagree. --- On some law forcing a father to give up his kidney, no, it is not the same as a cadaver, but why would there be a law and not one for the less intrusive departed’s organs? Here again, though, I doubt I could win this argument either, i.e. if a father does not have to surrender his organ to save his child then why should a mother be forced to do something with her body? Fine, if that logic carries the day then a society that demands abortion deserves abortion.


Again you are probably right, your side will prevail. The courts cannot rule by moral concerns because it must be too subjective? Only by “legal fairness” I guess. At least on this matter.
Legal fairness is one thing, but you have to think of our legal system as an extremely delicate balancing act, where rights are pitted against other rights constantly. There are some lines that cannot be crossed simply because it would threaten the stability of the system as a whole. There are no "one-offs" in the legal world.
 

Mister Emu

Emu Extraordinaire
Staff member
Premium Member
"In every way"? That would be impossible.
So why pretend you get to decide how and when theists should view God's behavior as exemplary versus the divine prerogative?

So you don't think that God is an example to follow? No "WWJD" bracelets allowed in your house?
I think we both know that is neither a rational conclusion nor a fair characterization of what I've said.
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
So why pretend you get to decide how and when theists should view God's behavior as exemplary versus the divine prerogative?


I think we both know that is neither a rational conclusion nor a fair characterization of what I've said.
It is a fair question. Is God a moral example for us always or only sometimes? Or, is this question unfair as we do not understand what God is dealing with at any specific period of time?
 

Marisa

Well-Known Member
It means no such thing. This merely means that you don't understand what they believe.


Who says we should do as God does in every way?
Oh one of us definitely doesn't understand what it means to make god consciously responsible for everything that happens alright. He can't be responsible for the sunshine and roses and not be responsible for the skin cancer and thorns. That type of thinking belongs on a grade school playground.
 
Top