Abortion

[Cephus]

I think you need to address how one might find oneself in a car accident as opposed to an accident, and the reality you are denying--that if someone understands how pregnancy is achieved, they are giving consent unless they are raped to both sex and procreation unless they use contraception--and even that isn't 100% unless they are sterilized.

Intent is what matters. A person getting into a car does not intend to get into an accident, any more than a person who engages in sex might intend to get pregnant (they certainly can but we'll assume they do not). Birth control fails regularly and is often difficult to get, due to the religious campaigning against that as well. In any situation where the victim did not intend the consequence, we allow them to get help and reverse the consequence as much as possible. Abortion isn't an exception to that rule.

 

[Cephus]

Perhaps, as long as people call pregnancy an accident rather than a blessing. I have two children, not two accidents, not two curses, not two burdens. The furthering of the latter concepts makes children angry and resentful, as does the fact that 1/3 of our children are obviously, truly not loved or wanted.

That's because you WANTED them. I have two kids too. I wanted them both. Some people do not. You cannot assume that everyone wants to be a parent. Further, children born to unwilling parents are much more likely to be abused, both physically and sexually and emotionally. Is that what you want?

 

[Cephus]

Suppose Mary decides to drive her car to the store. She has other options, stay home, walk, ride with someone else. But knowing what the possibilities are she chooses to drive.

None of that changes the possibilities. If she walks, she can get run over. If she drives with someone else, she can still be involved in an accident.

If she hits a pedestrian the responsibility is hers. It doesn't matter that she was being careful or if she was drunk. The pedestrian had no choices about her decision, but is now in a really bad way. Non-viable so to speak, unless they get a great deal of help.

We're not talking about her hitting someone, we're talking about someone hitting her.

The pedestrian is the victim here, not Mary.

We're not talking about her hitting someone, we're talking about someone hitting her.

Similarly, if Mary decided to have PiV sex, knowing that pregnancy is a very possible outcome, she has some responsibility. She had other options, from abstinence to oral sex to gay sex. But she chose the one that is well known for creating new humans.

Everyone has options. If Mary decided to walk down the street and gets hit by a car, or if she decides to drive with someone else, they get distracted and ram into a tree, is Mary responsible for these accidents? She didn't intend for them to happen, any more than Mary intended, in this case, to become pregnant. All actions have some risk associated with them.

The fetal human is the victim here, not Mary.

They have no legal rights. A fetus is worth less than a dog in legal terms. You might not like that but that's how it is in the real world.

There are many other ways that this metaphor is irrelevant to pregnancy. One big one is this:
Under any circumstances other than pregnancy, having someone else take care of the problems is the best thing. You just pay. The pedestrian can't expect you to set their broken bones or cover for them at work. You must pay other people to do it. Fetal children don't come with that option. Nobody can provide a healthy gestation period except your mother. So the mother has the obligation and it is not transferable. So in that regard no other responsibility is quite like procreation.

Nope, sorry. You are asserting obligation that simply doesn't exist. A woman has no obligation to continue an unwanted pregnancy, no matter how much you kick and scream and hold your breath until you turn blue. Therefore, she can go to a doctor and pay for an abortion, just as she can do for any other unintended and unwanted consequence. There's no difference here, you're just picking one that you personally don't like the outcome for and declaring it different.

 

[columbus]

We're not talking about her hitting someone, we're talking about someone hitting her.

No, you are changing the metaphor into something that is irrelevant to the ethics.
Two motorists hitting each other is irrelevant.
A motorist hitting a pedestrian is relevant.

See how stupid you look?
Tom

 

[columbus]

They have no legal rights. A fetus is worth less than a dog in legal terms. You might not like that but that's how it is in the real world.

This is exactly what I want changed.
It is a high mountain to climb. But during my own lifetime gay people mostly climbed it. Well within living memory black people did. Women before that.
I believe that fetal humans will also gain some rights, someday. I'm not holding my breath or anything. The USA is very big on sexual freedom, much bigger than human rights. And obviously the two are in conflict.

But human rights have always been in conflict with human interests. Slavers thought they had a right that superceded black peoples right to autonomy. Straight people thought they had rights that gay people don't have.
Parents think that they have a right to sex that supercedes the right to a healthy gestation period. I believe that eventually that mistake will be set right.
Tom

 

[JoStories]

I can't hold that what you know of God is untrue since I do not know what you know of God. I will not hesitate, however, to help you understand God better, if I may. I'm sure you would do the same.

PS. God is not limited to one religion only. Did I say that?

My apologies then. I had assumed you were Christian and most of those firmly believe in the 'one true God' going as far as telling me I don't know God at all, or that mine is delusion on my part. Thank you for clarifying.

 

[SomeRandom]

I never said all Nazis are inherently bad, although I believe in the reality of universal human imperfection and sin.

But if you agree that not all abortion is bad, we agree that some abortion is bad. So what are we going to do about it? How will we rescue some pregnancies and families from bad abortions? (And of course, I'm not thinking merely of extra-dangerous, illegal abortions.)

Readily available cheap contraception of all varieties. Mandatory comprehensive safe sex education for everyone at school level, with abstinence as an option if you prefer. I don't care either way, to be honest. (And I'm talking BEFORE the ages of like 14, 15 or 16. You need to do that before they're sexually active not when they're most likely sexually active. Then it's too late.)
You know? Those efforts already aimed at reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies and by default abortions?

 

[JoStories]

I never said all Nazis are inherently bad, although I believe in the reality of universal human imperfection and sin.

But if you agree that not all abortion is bad, we agree that some abortion is bad. So what are we going to do about it? How will we rescue some pregnancies and families from bad abortions? (And of course, I'm not thinking merely of extra-dangerous, illegal abortions.)

There are no bad abortions, IMO. It is the right of the woman to have one if she wishes. Period. Men have no right whatsoever to dictate what a woman can do with her body.

 

[columbus]

There are no bad abortions, IMO. It is the right of the woman to have one if she wishes. Period. Men have no right whatsoever to dictate what a woman can do with her body.

You are quite wrong here.
All potential parents have the right to avoid pregnancy, by whatever means they choose. There are ways to reduce the chance to zero if a pregnancy is absolutely not supportable.
But nobody has the absolute autonomy of choosing death for another human being for any or no reason. Period.

There is a huge range of reasons for an abortion. Some are dire medical emergency, ectopic is one obvious example. Others are legal homicide, I could tell you some stories about those. I know a woman who lied to her boyfriend about birth control, assuming he would marry her if she got pregnant. He was thrilled to be a father, but still wouldn't marry her. She waited until the last days of 2nd trimester to give up on her plan and abort their child. That is her version of the story, I never met the father.

I see the issue as extremely complicated with no simple absolutes in the way of answers or resolutions. So I see your absolute answer as wrong, just as I see the religious "no abortion ever" absolute is wrong.

And I don't think RvW has struck the best balance for the 21st century USA.
Tom

 

[JoStories]

You are quite wrong here.
All potential parents have the right to avoid pregnancy, by whatever means they choose. There are ways to reduce the chance to zero if a pregnancy is absolutely not supportable.
But nobody has the absolute autonomy of choosing death for another human being for any or no reason. Period.

There is a huge range of reasons for an abortion. Some are dire medical emergency, ectopic is one obvious example. Others are legal homicide, I could tell you some stories about those. I know a woman who lied to her boyfriend about birth control, assuming he would marry her if she got pregnant. He was thrilled to be a father, but still wouldn't marry her. She waited until the last days of 2nd trimester to give up on her plan and abort their child. That is her version of the story, I never met the father.

I see the issue as extremely complicated with no simple absolutes in the way of answers or resolutions. So I see your absolute answer as wrong, just as I see the religious "no abortion ever" absolute is wrong.

And I don't think RvW has struck the best balance for the 21st century USA.
Tom

You are correct and I am wrong. There are times when an abortion would be called wrong. I admit that. However, even in the case of that woman, she had the right to abort. I would be hard pressed to agree with late term abortion as I don;t see the need, save medical emergency but she still had the right. Its not up to me to judge her Tom. Nor you. We can agree it was truly stupid but its still her choice.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I agree with your opinion on the matter, and I think it can be supported. And, the holocaust was a specific historical event. So, saying that it is "wrong" is not quite the same as claiming, generally, that "abortion is wrong" absolutely. Racism, evolutionary superiority in Nazism, etc. are very bad for society and create a plethora of harmful issues. If you want to claim that this means they are "wrong", I would agree, but that still doesn't say anything as to whether there are moral absolutes.

You are merely trying to claim that it just "feels wrong" or "seems terrible" to not claim that these things are absolutes, but you haven't provided ANY supporting evidence for your claim. "Don't you think this is absolutely wrong" doesn't speak to the question at hand. You have to provide evidence of this absolute existing apart from societal harm, which, imho, is the reason we have become so disgusted with the examples you provided.

The results are not anecdotal, but actual. You may not see an immediate effect from abortion--may not have encountered many people who've had an abortion. As with all wrongs, those who choose elective abortions eventually suffer fallout.

Also, the Nazis were against life for many. They were for compulsory sterilization for many. There is a connection--wrong to wrong.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That's because you WANTED them. I have two kids too. I wanted them both. Some people do not. You cannot assume that everyone wants to be a parent. Further, children born to unwilling parents are much more likely to be abused, both physically and sexually and emotionally. Is that what you want?

No. A child has inherent value without being "wanted" as does the pre-born child. But we HAVE to apply labels like "unwanted" to children we want to terminate. To salve our conscience. Unfortunately, our collective conscience has grown more and more numb since Roe v. Wade in the USA and elsewhere.

Your second argument is thorny. We might have a valid argument if the child was 100% likely to be abused. I had children and like even those parents who are billionaires or kings, cannot guarantee their financial and physical futures. You have a slippery slope there--"child 10% more likely to be abused, terminate." Do you hear the argument you are making? It is a spiritually empty one. I'm not saying that to shame you but be aware. Please.

 

[leibowde84]

The results are not anecdotal, but actual. You may not see an immediate effect from abortion--may not have encountered many people who've had an abortion. As with all wrongs, those who choose elective abortions eventually suffer fallout.

Also, the Nazis were against life for many. They were for compulsory sterilization for many. There is a connection--wrong to wrong.

So, are we discussing elective abortions or abortions in general? How are you limiting the notion of elective abortions? How are you using that term?

 

[columbus]

I would be hard pressed to agree with late term abortion as I don;t see the need, save medical emergency but she still had the right. Its not up to me to judge her Tom. Nor you. We can agree it was truly stupid but its still her choice.

My point here was not judging her (although I certainly have an opinion).
It was discussing the premise that abortion is an absolute human right. At the moment, RvW gives that right to early term pregnant women. Sometimes it is needed. But sometimes it is sweeping dysfunctional behavior under the rug where it won't get dealt with. And sometimes it is homicide.
So I don't think that the absolute right to an abortion can possibly exist. The right to personal autonomy does not trump every other moral consideration. Abortion is a matter of life and death, not just a birth control method.
Tom

 

[leibowde84]

My point here was not judging her (although I certainly have an opinion).
It was discussing the premise that abortion is an absolute human right. At the moment, RvW gives that right to early term pregnant women. Sometimes it is needed. But sometimes it is sweeping dysfunctional behavior under the rug where it won't get dealt with. And sometimes it is homicide.
So I don't think that the absolute right to an abortion can possibly exist. The right to personal autonomy does not trump every other moral consideration. Abortion is a matter of life and death, not just a birth control method.
Tom

Bodily autonomy doesn't speak to morality. It prevents legislation that outlaws abortion before the fetus becomes viable.

 

[JoStories]

My point here was not judging her (although I certainly have an opinion).
It was discussing the premise that abortion is an absolute human right. At the moment, RvW gives that right to early term pregnant women. Sometimes it is needed. But sometimes it is sweeping dysfunctional behavior under the rug where it won't get dealt with. And sometimes it is homicide.
So I don't think that the absolute right to an abortion can possibly exist. The right to personal autonomy does not trump every other moral consideration. Abortion is a matter of life and death, not just a birth control method.
Tom

I respect that you have that opinion Tom but I strongly disagree. Abortion is legal, whether a matter, for you, of life and death is frankly up to the woman. I agree its lousy birth control but that is still not up to me.

 

[Cephus]

No. A child has inherent value without being "wanted" as does the pre-born child. But we HAVE to apply labels like "unwanted" to children we want to terminate. To salve our conscience. Unfortunately, our collective conscience has grown more and more numb since Roe v. Wade in the USA and elsewhere.

Says who? You make a lot of claims, you don't back any of them up. Your opinion is that they have inherent value. You're entitled to your opinion. An unjustified, unsupported opinion is pointless in debate.

Your second argument is thorny. We might have a valid argument if the child was 100% likely to be abused. I had children and like even those parents who are billionaires or kings, cannot guarantee their financial and physical futures. You have a slippery slope there--"child 10% more likely to be abused, terminate." Do you hear the argument you are making? It is a spiritually empty one. I'm not saying that to shame you but be aware. Please.

You're misrepresenting what I said, of course, which is no surprise. Your argument is an emotional, not an intellectual one. I didn't say they are more likely to be abused, therefore kill them. I stated that it was a proven fact that unwanted children perform worse and are more likely to be abused than children who are wanted and that goes across all socioeconomic boundaries. Please do learn to read and at least try to be honest.

 

[BilliardsBall]

So, are we discussing elective abortions or abortions in general? How are you limiting the notion of elective abortions? How are you using that term?

I've already said, as have most born again Christians, that life of the mother is an exception.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Bodily autonomy doesn't speak to morality. It prevents legislation that outlaws abortion before the fetus becomes viable.

But bodily autonomy implies a moral stance, as do many other laws. Bodily autonomy can be used for a variety of anti-family measures like no fault divorce, children divorcing from their parents and abortion on demand.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Says who? You make a lot of claims, you don't back any of them up. Your opinion is that they have inherent value. You're entitled to your opinion. An unjustified, unsupported opinion is pointless in debate.



You're misrepresenting what I said, of course, which is no surprise. Your argument is an emotional, not an intellectual one. I didn't say they are more likely to be abused, therefore kill them. I stated that it was a proven fact that unwanted children perform worse and are more likely to be abused than children who are wanted and that goes across all socioeconomic boundaries. Please do learn to read and at least try to be honest.

I am being honest and I am doing so. You said, "these kids will be abused, is that what you want?" and I replied, "is an enhanced statistical likelihood of abuse cause to terminate?"

Well, is it?