Would this Change your Position on Abortion?

[Thanda]

I actually agree with your sentiment here. If the man doesn't want the kid, the woman does, and is willing to pay for the abortion, at the very least it should be possible for the man to be exempted from child support payments and such.

It's all about being consistent and fair.

 

[Mister Emu]

Don't you think that you are basically denying a woman the right to determine whether or not to go through pregnancy?

Well, fundamentally I guess so. I don't believe such a right exists at all. (not to pull off topic) Just as I don't think the state has a right to execute criminals. I don't believe anyone has a right to kill except in defense.

How is a fetus before the point of viability outside the womb a life at all?

This question doesn't make sense to me. It is a living human, that is biology. How is it not a life?

 

[Thanda]

Remember since most of the issue with abortion is the viability of the baby (hence the limit on when an abortion can be done) then if it becomes possible for a foetus of only a few weeks to be viable outside the mothers womb, then clearly if we are consistent we should not allow a woman to abort a child that could perfectly survive outside her body.

 

[Nietzsche]

It's all about being consistent and fair.

No argument from me here. Though I will say that the logistics of this issue are quite a bit more complicated on the woman's side.

No problem then I will rephrase if it suits you - I am comparing a woman killing a foetus to a man beating his wife.

But that still isn't comparable. Depending on the stage of development, a fetus can be little more than a microscopic clump of cells. Until you get late, late into pregnancy, you can't compare a fetus to even a small child because the child is, at least. aware of themselves and their surroundings.

 

[Nietzsche]

Remember since most of the issue with abortion is the viability of the baby (hence the limit on when an abortion can be done) then if it becomes possible for a foetus of only a few weeks to be viable outside the mothers womb, then clearly if we are consistent we should not allow a woman to abort a child that could perfectly survive outside her body.

Are we to assume that other individuals or groups will step in to pay for this?

 

[Thanda]

The other issue is that while bodily autonomy and the risks and pains of pregnancy are often brought up as then reason why women should be allowed to have abortions the truth is that a very large number of abortions are not motivated by a woman's desire to not have a foetus troubling her body. In fact the reasons for abortion in order of popularity are as follows:

• Birth control (contraceptive) failure. Over half of all women who have an abortion used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant.2
• Inability to support or care for a child.
• To end an unwanted pregnancy.
• To prevent the birth of a child with birth defects or severe medical problems. Such defects are often unknown until routine second-trimester tests are done.
• Pregnancy resulting from rape or incest.
• Physical or mental conditions that endanger the woman's health if the pregnancy is continued.

http://www.webmd.com/women/tc/abortion-reasons-women-choose-abortion

I would hazard a guess that the first three reasons account for over 70% of all abortion cases. So clearly it isn't their bodily comfort that most women are worried about when they abort but rather their lifestyle comfort.

 

[Thanda]

Are we to assume that other individuals or groups will step in to pay for this?

I'm sure there would be no shortage of groups willing to pay to make sure abortion stops. So I think it would be heavily subsidized. But this is not just a question of money it is also a question of law. Currently the law doesn't allow abortion beyond a certain point since the baby has developed to a point where it could be viable outside the womb. The question is, therefore, if science makes it possible for a baby to be viable outside the womb much earlier than the 20 weeks (or however long it is) - let's assume from 6 weeks - would you be in support of banning abortions after 6 weeks.

 

[Timothy Bryce]

I've been thinking: if I understand correctly the main argument behind abortion is the bodily autonomy of a woman. Basically the thought process is that a woman shouldn't be forced to house another human being in her body.

In line with this thinking is the belief that if a child relies on a woman's body to live then they are not actually fully human yet and she should be allowed to cease supporting the child's existence by having an abortion.
Now as technology develops it may become possible for fetuses to be transferred from the earliest stages (a few weeks) to some machine that can help the fetuses develop into a fully viable baby.

Should such a system become available would you, if you currently support abortions, cease to support them as the baby is now no longer solely dependent on the mother's body for survival but the baby now has an option to develop independently from the mother through science?

Yes, I would absolutely still support abortion.

I disagree that the main argument behind abortion is the bodily autonomy of a woman - I would argue that it has far more to do with basic human decency and consideration of a woman's own prerogatives.

I've never known a woman who has had an abortion who didn't subsequently endure some emotional/psychological turmoil as a result.

The last thing these women need are some ******** parading child-size coffins around clinics.

 

[FTNZ]

Ah I see, you have weighed up the rights and have found one to be more important than the other. Tell me, how did arrive at the conclusion that the women's right to not undergo a relatively painless procedure outweighs a man's right to not have his genetic material used for another human being who he may one day be forced to support for many years?

You are shifting the goalposts. Child support law is irrelevant. I agree that CS law in the US is a joke and should be changed. But these issues do not make forced procedures moral. It's assault, pure and simple. And, as a woman, I don't appreciate you claiming to be able to assess the implications of gynecological procedures. Pain is not the only issue, there is also risk. Bottom line: my body, therefore not your business.

 

[Thanda]

Yes, I would absolutely still support abortion.

I disagree that the main argument behind abortion is the bodily autonomy of a woman - I would argue that it has far more to do with basic human decency and consideration of a woman's own prerogatives.

I've never known a woman who has had an abortion who didn't subsequently endure some emotional/psychological turmoil as a result.

The last thing these women need are some ******** parading child-size coffins around clinics.

Prerogatives about what exactly?

 

[freethinker44]

You are shifting the goalposts. Child support law is irrelevant. I agree that CS law in the US is a joke and should be changed. But these issues do not make forced procedures moral. It's assault, pure and simple. And, as a woman, I don't appreciate you claiming to be able to assess the implications of gynecological procedures. Pain is not the only issue, there is also risk. Bottom line: my body, therefore not your business.

Assuming this technology existed it would be the same procedure as an abortion, but instead of killing the fetus it would preserve it. So, are you against the procedure of extracting a fetus from a woman, or are you against preserving her "genetic material" against her will?

 

[Thanda]

You are shifting the goalposts. Child support law is irrelevant. I agree that CS law in the US is a joke and should be changed. But these issues do not make forced procedures moral. It's assault, pure and simple. And, as a woman, I don't appreciate you claiming to be able to assess the implications of gynecological procedures. Pain is not the only issue, there is also risk. Bottom line: my body, therefore not your business.

There is risk with abortion and there would be risk with transferring the fetus. Both are risky, but currently the law stipulates that a woman loses her right to abort her baby when the baby reaches a point where it could be viable outside birth. Are you against this law?

If not then would you not agree that the implications of supporting this law is that if it became possible for a fetus to exist outside a woman's body at an earlier age than it currently can, that it would be right to amend the law so that abortions were no longer permissable from an earlier age.

Note that in this scenario a woman would not be forced to carry the baby if she doesn't want to but would be able to have it removed instead of having it killed

 

[Timothy Bryce]

Prerogatives about what exactly?

The privilege and empowerment for a woman to decide whether or not her socio-economic circumstances are necessarily appropriate for her to raise a child or feel comfortable with giving a child up for adoption.

Children being raised in terrible circumstances and homes often result in a long, generational problems that could have easily been prevented by having an abortion at an appropriate time. You'd be surprised at how many parents actually regret having children at certain points in their lives or with certain people - they just don't talk about it because all it does is compound the issue.

 

[Thanda]

Assuming this technology existed it would be the same procedure as an abortion, but instead of killing the fetus it would preserve it. So, are you against the procedure of extracting a fetus from a woman, or are you against preserving her "genetic material" against her will?

Thank you for getting it!

 

[Thanda]

The privilege and empowerment for a woman to decide whether or not her socio-economic circumstances are necessarily appropriate for her to raise a child or feel comfortable with giving a child up for adoption.

Children being raised in terrible circumstances and homes often result in a long, generational problems that could have easily been prevented by having an abortion at an appropriate time. You'd be surprised at how many parents actually regret having children at certain points in their lives or with certain people - they just don't talk about it because all it does is compound the issue.

No problem, do you agree men should have the exact same right?

 

[Timothy Bryce]

No problem, do you agree men should have the exact same right?

In the hypothetical that you've presented in this thread; possibly. But I would be leaning more towards "no". Women seem to have certain biological characteristics regarding their own children that men don't which have serious implications on a woman's mental health and wellbeing.

In all other cases: a resounding "no". It sets an ugly and dangerous precedent.

 

[freethinker44]

In the hypothetical that you've presented in this thread; possibly. But I would be leaning more towards "no". Women seem to have certain biological characteristics regarding their own children that men don't which have serious implications on a woman's mental health and wellbeing.

In all other cases: a resounding "no". It sets an ugly and dangerous precedent.

It's a really sad world where preserving a life sets an ugly and dangerous precedent.

 

[fantome profane]

I've been thinking: if I understand correctly the main argument behind abortion is the bodily autonomy of a woman. Basically the thought process is that a woman shouldn't be forced to house another human being in her body.

In line with this thinking is the belief that if a child relies on a woman's body to live then they are not actually fully human yet and she should be allowed to cease supporting the child's existence by having an abortion.
Now as technology develops it may become possible for fetuses to be transferred from the earliest stages (a few weeks) to some machine that can help the fetuses develop into a fully viable baby.

Should such a system become available would you, if you currently support abortions, cease to support them as the baby is now no longer solely dependent on the mother's body for survival but the baby now has an option to develop independently from the mother through science?

I think the situation you are describing is much more science fiction then you perhaps realize (and bad science fiction at that). It is not just a question of technology, but frankly it is a question of money. I know that I must come off as the worst kind of monster to talk of money when we are talking about human life, but it is a reality that must be acknowledged. Do some research and see how much money, time and effort goes into taking care of children who are born very premature. And see how often these children still die despite all the effort. So I feel the need to point out that your hypothetical question is not reasonable.

However, that being said, if I can imagine this fantasy sci-fi idea, my position would only change under the following circumstances.

1. The procedure of this "transfer" can be showed to pose less risk to the mother than a proper abortion.

2. 100% effective and 100% risk free birth control is provided to everyone 100% free of charge.(100% effective and 100% risk free birth control does not currently exist, but this is a fantasy scenario)

3. There are no longer people living anywhere on this planet who lack sufficient food, access to clean water, free and adequate medical care, and free education. And there are no longer human rights violations anywhere on the planet. Until this is true the money would be better spent on these causes then your baby machine.

And then even if these fantastical conditions are met, I would still allow exceptions in the case of rape (which would probably not exist the utopia I describe, but I mention it anyway).

So If this is the scenario you propose, then yes. That would change my mind about abortion. But I think you will agree that this is not realistic.

 

[Thanda]

In the hypothetical that you've presented in this thread; possibly. But I would be leaning more towards "no". Women seem to have certain biological characteristics regarding their own children that men don't which have serious implications on a woman's mental health and wellbeing.

In all other cases: a resounding "no". It sets an ugly and dangerous precedent.

Just to be clear I'm not suggesting a man should have the right to force a woman to have an abortion. I'm asserting that if a woman is allowed to avoid the trials and troubles of raising a child by killing the fetus, shouldn't a means be provided for men avoid the trials and troubles of raising a baby? Would this not be fair?

Personally I'm against lifestyle abortions but all I'm looking for is consistency - if a woman has the right should we not provide a similar right for men?

 

[Nietzsche]

It's a really sad world where preserving a life sets an ugly and dangerous precedent.

No one should be obligated to keep someone or something else alive against their will.