Would this Change your Position on Abortion?

[Thanda]

And now, @Thanda , permit me to ask you the following: For what reasons might a girl/woman choose abortion over the Thanda-option?

As a method of birth control. They didn't want the baby but the baby came anyway. Now to save themselves the hardship (and raising a baby, when done right, always involves significant hardship) of raising the baby to full adulthood they choose to kill the baby instead.

As it happens I was listening to a show a couple of days ago and apparently there are a lot of women (in South Africa atleast) who kill their babies soon after their born for similar reasons - note this is separate from post natal depression: this is people who don't want to have to raise the baby. They were talking about how they need to let more women know that adoption is an option.

But in any case we can see that there are plenty of women who are willing kill their babies even when they are no longer in their bellies (and the question of bodily autonomy is no longer relevant) if it will save them having to raise the baby. That is why I have always maintained that the bodily autonomy argument is merely a ruse - it isn't about bodily autonomy. It is about the right to avoid responsibility even if it means ending someone's life.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

And now, @Thanda , permit me to ask you the following: For what reasons might a girl/woman choose abortion over the Thanda-option?

As a method of birth control. They didn't want the baby but the baby came anyway. Now to save themselves the hardship (and raising a baby, when done right, always involves significant hardship) of raising the baby to full adulthood they choose to kill the baby instead.

You have not answered my question. Again: For what reasons might a girl/woman choose abortion over the Thanda-optiongiven that both options would "save themselves the hardship ... of raising the baby to full adulthood"?

 

[Thanda]

You have not answered my question. Again: For what reasons might a girl/woman choose abortion over the Thanda-optiongiven that both options would "save themselves the hardship ... of raising the baby to full adulthood"?

My option wouldn't save them from that hardship. My option simply saves them from having to carry the baby to term. You see abortion is touted as an expression of a women's freedom and bodily autonomy. The argument for it isn't that a woman has a right to birth control (at least that is not why it is allowed in law) but rather that no woman should be forced to support another life in their own bodies. The Thanda-option then allows a woman to avoid that without using that "right" as a birth control method.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The being part is not as relevant. Do you consider a unborn baby to be have a life worth protecting whenever possible?

No, I believe that a fetus has life worth valuing.
Tell me, @Thanda , how would you answer your question? What is your view on early abortion in the case of rape and incest?

I wonder why we are so casual about the life of the most innocent and defenseless - unborn babies.

I wonder why you resort to despicable slander. Don't do that again.

Okay. So you are saying you wouldn't support the right to abortion if there was an option for women to rid themselves of the burden of pregnancy without having to kill the baby?

No.

Again I'm just struggling to reconcile your two positions.

Given the above, you are also struggling to understand and honestly represent them.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

My option wouldn't save them from that hardship. My option simply saves them from having to carry the baby to term. You see abortion is touted as an expression of a women's freedom and bodily autonomy. The argument for it isn't that a woman has a right to birth control (at least that is not why it is allowed in law) but rather that no woman should be forced to support another life in their own bodies. The Thanda-option then allows a woman to avoid that without using that "right" as a birth control method.

So, in the case of rape or incest, you would argue for using technology to support the fetus for much of its development and then return the baby to the mother to raise?

 

[Thanda]

No, I believe that a fetus has life worth valuing.
Tell me,@Thanda , how would you answer your question? What is your view on early abortion in the case of rape and incest?

For rape I have some sympathy - clearly the women didn't voluntarily do anything for the baby to come and clearly that episode is something quite traumatic - I imagine it is well nigh impossible to heal from it while still carrying a growing reminder. It isn't a cut and dry thing for me but I can see myself making an allowance.

As for incest my position is not well formed. But thinking about it my first thought would be whether it is possible to run any tests to see whether the baby will be healthy or whether it will have serious complications.
Should it turn out that the baby will be fine (according to these tests I'm not even sure exist) then I think the baby should come into being without hassles. Should there be evidence of deformity that this falls into the question of whether it is right to abort a baby based on it being likely to have some sort of handicap or deformity - personally I am not yet convinced it is.

I wonder why you resort to despicable slander. Don't do that again.

You are not really answering any of my points and you have just jumped to assuming slander? To point 1 you have already answered that an unborn baby's life is worth valuing (and saving if possible I assume). I have now pointed out to you what we as people have put in place for the preservation of the lives we value - human beings who have already been born. You cannot kill someone because they are or will be an inconvenience to you. You can only kill someone under specific circumstances which have been spelled out. And even if you kill them under those circumstances there will still be an investigation done to ensure that your version of events corresponds to the evidence. And if the investigation team is not satisfied they may even take the case to trial.
That indicative of the seriousness with which we treat the taking of a human life.
On the other hand, what do we do when the life of an unborn baby is taken? What investigations do we make? What laws do we have in place for their protection?

These are questions I am asking you since you agree with me that the life of a baby ought to be valued.

No.

Can you please state your position so I can understand it clearly

Given the above, you are also struggling to understand and honestly represent them.

Indeed, please clarify.

 

[Thanda]

So, in the case of rape or incest, you would argue for using technology to support the fetus for much of its development and then return the baby to the mother to raise?

I have addressed this in the another post. I do want to say this though - at least 70% of abortion are what may be termed lifestyle abortions. So when we talk about either rape, incest, medical condition of the mother or baby, we are only a addressing a minority of the cases. To be clear I am not against abortion of itself - I believe it has its valid uses (including concerns about the life or health of the mother). I am merely against the carte blanche we have given women over the lives of millions of innocent babies.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

For rape I have some sympathy - clearly the women didn't voluntarily do anything for the baby to come and clearly that episode is something quite traumatic ...

So you ask ...

Do you consider a unborn baby to be have a life worth protecting whenever possible?

... while equivocating in the case of rape despite the fact that here too protecting the baby is possible. You might wish to give this more thought.

... I imagine it is well nigh impossible to heal from it while still carrying a growing reminder. It isn't a cut and dry thing for me but I can see myself making an allowance.

You imagine? You make allowances? Do you not see the arrogance and condescension here?

I am not a fan of abortion, but I choose to defer to the girl/woman rather than shackle her to your imagination and allowances.

 

[Thanda]

So you ask ...


... while equivocating in the case of rape despite the fact that here too protecting the baby is possible. You might wish to give this more thought.

Indeed, I have sympathy for it based mainly on the fact that the woman bears zero responsibility for the appearance of the child since she had no choice in the circumstances that led to the child conception. I am speaking now of the world as it is. If the Thanda-option were available though my sympathy might be less.

You imagine? You make allowances? Do you not see the arrogance and condescension here?

I am not a fan of abortion, but I choose to defer to the girl/woman rather than shackle her to your imagination and allowances.

And so? What exactly are you trying to prove with all those italics? Are you aware that every law in existence is a result of what people like you and I thought was right or wrong? Are you willing to lesson your arrogance and condescension and allow men to rape whomever they like and to kill when they find it convenient - without consequence?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Are you willing to lesson your arrogance and condescension and allow men to rape whomever they like and to kill when they find it convenient - without consequence?

Is that rhetorical slander? I think this discussion with you has come to an end.

 

[Thanda]

Is that rhetorical slander? I think this discussion with you has come to an end.

It seems so - I have no idea why you assumed arrogance and condescension of me in a respectful discussion. I feel like I have wasted a few minutes of my life as this discussion has unfortunately been quite useless, apart from your original post, since you have actually failed to address any issues I have raised.

 

[BilliardsBall]

After my father lost consciousness for the last time, the doctor pulled my mother, my sister, and me aside into a private room. He told us that my father would never wake up again and gave us two options:

- we could have his life support, IV, etc. taken away and he would die of dehydration in a few days.
- we could leave these things attached wait a few weeks until the lymphoma that had taken his faculties and consciousness grew to the point that life couldn't be sustained.

We had no third option: to give him something to end things peacefully without watching him waste away even further from either dehydration or cancer.

My basis for what I said comes from watching my mother wrestle with the two awful options she was given.

I'm sorry you had to go through that heart-wrenching dilemma. I think you made a wise moral choice.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm sorry you had to go through that heart-wrenching dilemma. I think you made a wise moral choice.

I didn't tell you what choice I made. I only told you that the moral choice - to end things peacefully right then - was denied to us.

Thankfully, the law in Canada has recently changed and assisted dying is now available to terminally ill people for those who choose it.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I didn't tell you what choice I made. I only told you that the moral choice - to end things peacefully right then - was denied to us.

Thankfully, the law in Canada has recently changed and assisted dying is now available to terminally ill people for those who choose it.

I'm sorry I misread your last note, and that the law caused you distress.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

I actually think the abortion question is more of a heart issue than a head issue. Defenders of abortion think they've made their decisions based on reason and intellect. I'd argue that it's a hardened heart that is at the root of it all. I can't provide a mathematical formula that explains that when a sperm and egg meet life created. Because I can't provide it give the abortion activists a window to hide behind the whole 'see you can't prove its really life'. This is a matter discerned by a conscience unimpeded by the desire to use sex like its a toy and not deal with the consequences

 

[Valjean]

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.

I don't think this is the main argument for abortion. The argument I've heard is that the foetus/baby is part of the woman, and that the woman should have the right to do what she wants to with her own body. This assumes the foetus is not a separate being, has no self-interest, and may be treated as any other unwanted growth.

 

[psychoslice]

My mum had two abortions, if its good enough for her then its good enough for me.

 

[Valjean]

For rape I have some sympathy - clearly the women didn't voluntarily do anything for the baby to come and clearly that episode is something quite traumatic - I imagine it is well nigh impossible to heal from it while still carrying a growing reminder. It isn't a cut and dry thing for me but I can see myself making an allowance.

A foetus produced by rape would be as blameless and innocent as a foetus conceived by love. The crime of rape does not redound to the foetus. They are morally indistinguishable. If abortion be a crime, it's a crime against the foetus/baby. The convenience of the mother is not relevant.
You can't object to aborting a foetus "for convenience" yet condone the abortion of the product of a rape -- it is just another kind of convenience.

You cannot kill someone because they are or will be an inconvenience to you. You can only kill someone under specific circumstances which have been spelled out. And even if you kill them under those circumstances there will still be an investigation done to ensure that your version of events corresponds to the evidence.

This is inconsistent with your sympathy for aborting the product of rape. How does the distress of raising an innocent product of crime trump the misery of a mother and child forced into a life of poverty by an unwanted birth?

Innocents are killed, knowingly and casually, all the time; by the military and by persons acting on behalf of corporate interests. There's rarely any investigation. No-one questions the morality of political or corporate killings.
Why the special interest in abortion?

On the other hand, what do we do when the life of an unborn baby is taken? What investigations do we make? What laws do we have in place for their protection?

Is it a baby or a foetus? What qualities entitle an organism to moral consideration? Are those qualities present in a foetus?

 

[Thanda]

I don't think this is the main argument for abortion. The argument I've heard is that the foetus/baby is part of the woman, and that the woman should have the right to do what she wants to with her own body. This assumes the foetus is not a separate being, has no self-interest, and may be treated as any other unwanted growth.

You've basically repeated the bodily autonomy argument. I see no difference.

A foetus produced by rape would be as blameless and innocent as a foetus conceived by love. The crime of rape does not redound to the foetus. They are morally indistinguishable. If abortion be a crime, it's a crime against the foetus/baby. The convenience of the mother is not relevant.
You can't object to aborting a foetus "for convenience" yet condone the abortion of the product of a rape -- it is just another kind of convenience.

You may have missed the part where I said it isn't cut and dry.

This is inconsistent with your sympathy for aborting the product of rape. How does the distress of raising an innocent product of crime trump the misery of a mother and child forced into a life of poverty by an unwanted birth?

Innocents are killed, knowingly and casually, all the time; by the military and by persons acting on behalf of corporate interests. There's rarely any investigation. No-one questions the morality of political or corporate killings.
Why the special interest in abortion?

This is irrelevant. There are women currently suffering in poverty with their children right now - should we allow them to kill their children so they and children can be free of poverty?

Is it a baby or a foetus? What qualities entitle an organism to moral consideration? Are those qualities present in a foetus?

You can call it whatever you wish, but it is a human in a certain stage of development - just as a 1 year-old is a human in a different stage of development than a 25 year-old.

 

[Valjean]

You've basically repeated the bodily autonomy argument. I see no difference.

Big difference. Foetus as a growth/tumor vs foetus as separate individual.
DNA analysis: Separate individuals.

You may have missed the part where I said it isn't cut and dry.

But it is cut and dry. The status of all foetuses (foeti? foetia?) is the same regardless of their origin.

This is irrelevant. There are women currently suffering in poverty with their children right now - should we allow them to kill their children so they and children can be free of poverty?

You're conflating foetus with child, The abortion of an unwanted foetus could allow the woman and any future children to escape poverty and live productive contributing lives.

You can call it whatever you wish, but it is a human in a certain stage of development - just as a 1 year-old is a human in a different stage of development than a 25 year-old.

We're not talking about humans. It's not our species that entitles us to claim moral consideration. We're talking about persons and the constellation of qualities that define personhood.
Person does not equate to human.