Pro-Life by most really mean Pro-Birth

[Shiranui117]

The mother has already controlled these things through her DNA contribution. And it's a moot point anyway since the fetus cannot sustain it's own existence ... just like my arm can't.

By that logic, you as a fully-formed adult are just part of your mother. Also, none of us can sustain our own existence if we are put into a hostile environment and deprived of our normative means of acquiring sustenance. If I removed you from your current environment and put you in the Sahara desert hundreds of miles away from water or people or game, you would quickly die. Heck, statistically speaking, I doubt your ability to even produce or find your own food without other humans providing it for you in neat little packages. A fetus is the exact same as us, just temporarily operating within a different set of constraints.

If she doesn't take care of herself what happens to the fetus' health and growth?

Yes, the mother has some indirect control over the nutrients shared with the baby by controlling her own nutrient intake, but she has no direct power over how the fetus grows. She cannot dictate to the fetus when it should develop lungs or a heart the way her nervous and endocrine systems tell her own body's cells when to undergo mitosis, build tissue, deconstruct tissue or anything else.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

I am totally good with putting the onus on men for supporting the mother throughout pregnancy and the child for about 2 decades.

Well you know men, sometimes they don't take responsibility for their actions and some even tend to just walk away and disappear from the lives of the women and girls they impregnate. If we were serious about ending abortion we would make laws that make it illegal for a man to ejaculate into an unprotected vagina if he has no intentions of taking responsibility for the results of his irresponsible actions. Since men have shown themselves to be irresponsible we should legislate that all men get mandatory vasectomies which can be reversed when they sufficiently demonstrate that they can and will be responsible for the results of their sexual activity.

If we did all this, I bet abortion would become a rarity. If you don't like abortions then tell the men to keep it in their pants or force them to since some of us believe we should force pregnancy on women. Fair is fair.

 

[Rival]

Well you know men, sometimes they don't take responsibility for their actions and some even tend to just walk away and disappear from the lives of the women and girls they impregnate. If we were serious about ending abortion we would make laws that make it illegal for a man to ejaculate into an unprotected vagina if he has no intentions of taking responsibility for the results of his irresponsible actions. Since men have shown themselves to be irresponsible we should legislate that all men get mandatory vasectomies which can be reversed when they sufficiently demonstrate that they can and will be responsible for the results of their sexual activity.

If we did all this, I bet abortion would become a rarity. If you don't like abortions then tell the men to keep it in their pants or force them to since some of us believe we should force pregnancy on women. Fair is fair.

Or you could just socialise healthcare and give girls the pill for free.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

Because women aren't mindless chattel?
They are competent human beings, who can make choices for themselves?

Are the men mindless balls of hormones who can't keep it in their pants? Can't men make responsible choices like using condoms or getting a vasectomy?

 

[PureX]

Yes, the mother has some indirect control over the nutrients shared with the baby by controlling her own nutrient intake, but she has no direct power over how the fetus grows. She cannot dictate to the fetus when it should develop lungs or a heart the way her nervous and endocrine systems tell her own body's cells when to undergo mitosis, build tissue, deconstruct tissue or anything else.

Like it or not, a fetus is not an autonomous human being. That means that the autonomous human being upon which it relies for it's existence gets to decide it's fate until it becomes an autonomous human being, itself. And you have no right to intervene in this responsibility because you are not able to take on the responsibility upon yourself.

And at this point the discussion is over.

When you can take the fetus from her womb, and put it in your own for gestation, then you can decide it's fate until it becomes an autonomous human being, itself. At which point it gets to decide it's own fate (to the degree that we are each able to). A child born, can be taken from a mother that does not want to raise it to be raised by someone else. But a fetus in the womb cannot. So until the child is born (and thereby becomes an autonomous human being) it's fate remains the mother's responsibility. A responsibility that none of the rest of us is even able to take upon ourselves, let alone have the right to do so.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

Or you could just socialise healthcare and give girls the pill for free.

Why should the responsibility of birth control be placed on the woman alone, men did to step up and start taking responsibility for their own birth control.

 

[Rival]

Why should the responsibility of birth control be placed on the woman alone, men did to step up and start taking responsibility for their own birth control.

Because right now the pill is the easiest option. It's simple, it's effective and easily made. It involves no surgery or such intervention and if the desire for a baby comes along, is simple to stop.

 

[columbus]

Well you know men, sometimes they don't take responsibility for their actions and some even tend to just walk away and disappear from the lives of the women and girls they impregnate.

Yes I do.
That's exactly what my own biological father did.
I refer to him as "sperm donor". At least, that's as close as the RF language filters allow.

If we were serious about ending abortion we would make laws that make it illegal for a man to ejaculate into an unprotected vagina if he has no intentions of taking responsibility for the results of his irresponsible actions. Since men have shown themselves to be irresponsible we should legislate that all men get mandatory vasectomies which can be reversed when they sufficiently demonstrate that they can and will be responsible for the results of their sexual activity.

If we did all this, I bet abortion would become a rarity. If you don't like abortions then tell the men to keep it in their pants or force them to since some of us believe we should force pregnancy on women. Fair is fair.

You just described why I am such a prude.

Except that I don't think that women are as incapable and stupid as you seem to think.
Awhile back, here on RF, I suggested that abortions should be free and secret provided that the person seeking it was also sterilized. Much hilarity and outrage followed.

Tom

 

[The Reverend Bob]

Because right now the pill is the easiest option. It's simple, it's effective and easily made. It involves no surgery or such intervention and if the desire for a baby comes along, is simple to stop.

The pills can cause health problems for a woman or girl and sometimes the pill is not covered by insurance and can be expensive. The easiest option is either men keep in their pants or use a condom with spermicide. It is healthier, effective and there are plenty of condoms available in assorted textures and colors and you can buy them just about anywhere even at Walmart

 

[Shiranui117]

Like it or not, a fetus is not an autonomous human being. That means that the autonomous human being upon which it relies for it's existence gets to decide it's fate until it becomes an autonomous human being, itself. And you have no right to intervene in this responsibility because you are not able to take on the responsibility upon yourself.

And at this point the discussion is over.

When you can take the fetus from her womb, and put it in your own for gestation, then you can decide it's fate until it becomes an autonomous human being, itself. At which point it gets to decide it's own fate (to the degree that we are each able to). A child born, can be taken from a mother that does not want to raise it to be raised by someone else. But a fetus in the womb cannot. So until the child is born (and thereby becomes an autonomous human being) it's fate remains the mother's responsibility. A responsibility that none of the rest of us is even able to take upon ourselves, let alone have the right to do so.

If you want to argue that the unborn are essentially exclusive property of the mother that she can dispose of at her leisure, I suppose that's one way to put it. It would at least have legal precedent throughout world history if we were to look at slavery and indentured servitude. But for the most part, even slaves and indentured servants had some forms of legal protection.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

Except that I don't think that women are as incapable and stupid as you seem to think.

I don't believe women are stupid, I just believe we don't hold men responsible enough. When it comes to birth control we need to hold men responsible for it then we will reduce unwanted pregnancies.

 

[columbus]

Are the men mindless balls of hormones who can't keep it in their pants? Can't men make responsible choices like using condoms or getting a vasectomy?

Can you respond to something I actually post, instead of creating all these strawman arguments?
Tom

 

[columbus]

I don't believe women are stupid, I just believe we don't hold men responsible enough. When it comes to birth control we need to hold men responsible for it then we will reduce unwanted pregnancies.

I am totally good with holding both men and women responsible for their choices to have sex.

I am quite the prude!

Why do you think that only men should be held to that standard? Are women obviously incompetent as human beings?
Tom

 

[The Reverend Bob]

I am totally good with holding both men and women responsible for their choices to have sex.

I am quite the prude!

Why do you think that only men should be held to that standard? Are women obviously incompetent as human beings?
Tom

Are men? Shouldn't they be responsible for birth control too or just the women?

 

[columbus]

Are men? Shouldn't they be responsible for birth control too or just the women?

Which part of:

I am totally good with holding both men and women responsible for their choices to have sex.

was beyond your ability to understand?

I agree, that biology makes this a complex moral problem. I would definitely support more hard edged efforts to hold irresponsible fathers accountable for their choices.
But that isn't the same as agreeing that we can never hold a female parent accountable for anything, because male parents get away with immoral stuff.
Tom

 

[The Reverend Bob]

Which part of:

was beyond your ability to understand?

I agree, that biology makes this a complex moral problem. I would definitely support more hard edged efforts to hold irresponsible fathers accountable for their choices.
But that isn't the same as agreeing that we can never hold a female parent accountable for anything, because male parents get away with immoral stuff.
Tom

I am not talking about holding men responsible after the fact I am talking about them being responsible before the fact just like we hold women responsible for birth control

 

[PureX]

If you want to argue that the unborn are essentially exclusive property of the mother that she can dispose of at her leisure, I suppose that's one way to put it. It would at least have legal precedent throughout world history if we were to look at slavery and indentured servitude. But for the most part, even slaves and indentured servants had some forms of legal protection.

Is one's own body their "exclusive property"? I would say it is. And since a fetus growing inside a woman's body is not an autonomous being, but is a dependent growth within that body, the body's "owner" would then get to determine it's fate. Until it becomes an autonomous being, at which point itself or others can then take on the responsibility of determining it's fate.

I realize some people don't like this basic fact of our reality. But we humans did not design the human gestation process, or the fact that we do not become autonomous beings at "conception". And until we have the technology to redesign the process so that someone other than the host-mother can gestate the fetus/child until it gains it's autonomy, she remains the one and only person able and responsible for that fetus' fate.

 

[columbus]

I am not talking about holding men responsible after the fact I am talking about them being responsible before the fact just like we hold women responsible for birth control

Well, you didn't say that.

I'm totally about prudery. The only 100% effective method of birth control is "keeping it in your pants", which I am all about. Next most effective method of male birth control is a vasectomy. Condoms work, usually but not always.

Fact is, homosexuality works too. But, I suppose you and most guys aren't really considering that option due to your biases.

But another fact is that we don't hold women accountable the way we do men*. A woman who decides that her fetal child is a "clump of cells" can kill the child with impunity. If a man decides that he has no Choice in the matter. He can't just offer a few hundred bucks for the abortion. If the female parent decides that the baby is a "Blessed Gift from God", the father is legally stuck with years of paying the mother.
I realize that things don't always work out this way. But something else I know is that if the mother won't say who the father is, she can get both taxpayers support and also the occasional chunk from the father.
That's got a lot to do with the outrageous rates of unwed mothers.
Tom



* In the USA. Other places are decidedly different

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

When you aren't competent to take responsibility for your Choice, then you don't have the right to exercise it.

Does that apply to voting as well?

Technically, no, your arm is not a living thing, it is a part of a larger living thing

Is your arm a thing? Is it living or dead? "It's a living thing. It's a terrible thing to lose."

When it ceases being a living thing, it needs to be amputated.

It is the ethical and legal definitions of when personhood begins that we run into disagreements

Irrelevant in my moral calculus. Go ahead and call a fetus a person. For me, the morality or the immorality of abortion doesn't depend on whether anybody thinks a fetus is a person or not. Or human. It's only based on the fetus' experience being aborted, which I presume is about the same as the arm's experience being amputated, given that neither has a nervous system capable of experiencing suffering..

A fetus, however, is its own independently functioning biological system

Then it should do fine one removed from the womb, perhaps by Caesarian sectioning.

but from conception on, embryos/zygotes/fetuses engage in their own metabolic, growth and homeostatic processes that are not governed by the mother's biological systems

How is that relevant to the moral status of abortion? That simply means that they are alive. Does that alone make its abortion immoral?

Also, isn't this true for an ear of corn still on the stalk as well? Is that fact relevant to the moral status of killing an ear of corn? It is, after all, a living thing that grows, develops, metabolizes, etc,. until one kills it.

Incidentally, like a healthy arm, it is a living thing as well - until shortly after you pick it.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I will admit that in a country (USA) where about half of the people think abortion should be legal in any circumstance, where those people have no moral objections to the practice, it will be diffcult to write laws that allow it in the rare circumstances but disallow it generally. I'm Ok with abortion if the mother's life is it risk. I'm also Ok with it if medical doctors are certain that the fetus is so damaged that it will not live after birth. And if the woman or girl was raped or is the victim of incest, an abortion may be the best choice. It would be difficult to enforce a rape provision, for example. Does the woman need to report the rape to the police? Does she need to present evidence? Does the doctor need to then receive authorization from the government? Can all of this happen before the woman is now 6 months pregnant, or can it happen in a few days? If these procedures are not in place and the law simply says "if the woman tells her doctor she was raped, that's all that's needed", would every woman who wants an abortion just say this with a wink wink to her doctor. I see this as problematic. The problem is that our society is so far off base on the morality of this issue that it makes legislation tough.

I don't mean this as a personal criticism, bit how is that not you wanting to reduce women's rights?
And I would acknowledge here that 'rights' are not universally 'good'.
I don't want 8 year olds having the right to vote, for example.