Would this Change your Position on Abortion?

[Thanda]

Um, no. I support it because of the autonomy of a person. I thought I said that.

That it's possible is incidental.

Autonomy of a person for what? We're all autonomous so I don't really understand what rights our autonomy bestows.

 

[Thana]

Yes, throughout this conversation you've shown how much you really care about unborn babies and their fathers.

I insult your core belief system but you're so busy being self-righteous you don't even feel the need to defend yourself, you just attack. That's frightening....

 

[Willamena]

Autonomy of a person for what? We're all autonomous so I don't really understand what rights our autonomy bestows.

Autonomy for its own sake. It's a principle thing.

 

[Willamena]

Autonomy of person is the right to be what you are, which means to think what you think, believe what you believe, and do what you do.

 

[Thanda]

Autonomy for its own sake. It's a principle thing.

I understand but I want to know if your idea of autonomy knows any limits. If a way is available for a woman to no longer have to carry a baby that doesn't involve killing it, what role does autonomy play in her still being allowed to kill it anyway.

Because the implication for that would be that if a woman has a child she can decide to stop feeding it instead of giving it up for adoption.

 

[FTNZ]

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?

I think I've already made it clear enough that I'm against women being forced to have a procedure they don't agree to (or being denied a procedure they want).

 

[Thanda]

I insult your core belief system but you're so busy being self-righteous you don't even feel the need to defend yourself, you just attack. That's frightening....

I am not easily moved by insults. I have asked for consistency and all you have seen is an attack on women and their rights. You seem blind to how this issue affects others and you have openly declared that you do not care.

 

[Thanda]

I think I've already made it clear enough that I'm against women being forced to have a procedure they don't agree to (or being denied a procedure they want).

So this isn't really about their bodies is it? It is about their right to kill.

 

[fantome profane]

The man would also be waiving responsibility for the fetus. It would be the women's choice and responsibility to make the fetus a child.

No, let's be clear here, because I think there is some confusion. When you talk about a man waiving responsibility before the child is born, you are talking about him making a declaration of his intention to waive his responsibility to the child. He is making this declaration of his intent before the child is born, but his responsibility is to the child after it is born. The man has little or no responsibility to the fetus (none that I can particularly think of). The man has a responsibility to the child after the birth.

So to answer your question it would be irrelevant what the woman who raped a man decided to do with the baby. The man would have the right to waive responsibility for raising the baby and the woman would have to decide whether she wanted to carry the baby to term or not.

So the man would not have the right to end the pregnancy in the case of rape, but the woman would have the right to end the pregnancy in the case of rape. Is that an inconsistency? Yes, it is an inconsistency, but it is a reasonable one given the inconsistent situation of natural biology. And I agree with you here.

The critical issue is who must raise this child if it gets born? That is why women get abortions - it's not because it is hard being pregnant, but it is because it is hard and inconvenient raising a child. So that is the critical issue. So women are able to avoid having to raise a child by having an abortion (which is an artificial allowance we have given them). On the other hand we have given nothing for men to avoid having to raise a child they do not want.

No, that is not the critical issue. You identified the critical issue yourself in the op. It is hard being pregnant, it is a burden, and we cannot force a woman to continue with this if she choices not to. That was the whole point of your op. Did you forget?

 

[Willamena]

I understand but I want to know if your idea of autonomy knows any limits. If a way is available for a woman to no longer have to carry a baby that doesn't involve killing it, what role does autonomy play in her still being allowed to kill it anyway.

Because the implication for that would be that if a woman has a child she can decide to stop feeding it instead of giving it up for adoption.

I wouldn't know, because I wouldn't exercise that right in regards to myself. But I would allow it for others because it's a way the world should be.

 

[Thana]

I am not easily moved by insults. I have asked for consistency and all you have seen is an attack on women and their rights. You seem blind to how this issue affects others and you have openly declared that you do not care.

My brother is a good man. A good man who made a mistake and fell for a bad woman, and got her pregnant twice. She abused him, physically and emotionally, refused him the kids, dated men that were bad to his kids, just an all around terrible person and mother. And my brother couldn't do anything, because she was the mother and had all the rights.

I do understand it's hard for men. I do understand that it's not fair. And I don't care about any of it when it comes to using it as a way to impede womans rights. Life isn't fair, but I'll be damned if I'm going to let people say what I can and can't do with my own bloody body. You want to fight for mens rights, For childrens rights? Then do it, but if you try and do it at the expense of women's rights then that is where the problem lies.

 

[FTNZ]

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

Medical abortion is less risky than surgical abortion, so that is a factor you haven't taken into account so far. The law you are referring to is US law - there is a range of legal settings around the world. Yes, I am against any law that deprives women's rights based on a claim that a fetus is a legal person, when it is not. The vast majority of abortions take place in early pregnancy, anyway. If you support amending the law so that abortions were no longer permissible from an earlier age, would women be allowed to have them if their health/life was in danger? Are you aware that where abortion is not legal, many women die from attempting to end their pregnancy without proper medical care?

I also think those advocating against abortion choice should show exemplary support for accurate and widely accessible sexuality education, easy access to affordable contraceptives, education programs that increase contraception use, and excellent health and welfare programs to support women who continue with an unplanned pregnancy. However the opposite is usually that case in the US, with many states allowing counter-productive abstinence only sex education and laws that make it difficult for people to access contraceptives.

 

[FTNZ]

So this isn't really about their bodies is it? It is about their right to kill.

I'm not sure why you aren't understanding basic information. You have a right to bodily autonomy, and I have a right to bodily autonomy. It's not any more complicated than that. I fully support your right to have any medical procedure you want, that is legal and not medically contraindicated for you.

 

[Willamena]

I wouldn't know, because I wouldn't exercise that right in regards to myself. But I would allow it for others because it's a way the world should be.

To be more clear, I would fully expect other people to treat me this way. Hence, I treat them this way.

 

[Thanda]

No, let's be clear here, because I think there is some confusion. When you talk about a man waiving responsibility before the child is born, you are talking about him making a declaration of his intention to waive his responsibility to the child. He is making this declaration of his intent before the child is born, but his responsibility is to the child after it is born. The man has little or no responsibility to the fetus (none that I can particularly think of). The man has a responsibility to the child after the birth.

And as I have pointed out it is not the responsibility and difficulty of being pregnant and giving birth that inform that vast majority of abortions. It is the responsibility and difficulty of raising a child - a responsibility women share with men. The statistics prove this and pretending that the reason that woman are having abortions in their millions each year is because of the difficulty of birth rather than the difficulty of raising a child is disingenuous to say the least.

So the man would not have the right to end the pregnancy in the case of rape, but the woman would have the right to end the pregnancy in the case of rape. Is that an inconsistency? Yes, it is an inconsistency, but it is a reasonable one given the inconsistent situation of natural biology. And I agree with you here.

It is also a trivial inconsistency. The concern with cases of rape is a woman having to be reminded about traumatic situation by having the baby in her stomach and eventually having to raise the baby. The since the man is not the one pregnant with the baby a simple waiving of responsibility will ensure he will never have to be reminded about the traumatic experience. So we have consistency of outcome even if we don't have consistency of method. And throughout this thread I have only asked that whatever rights we bestow upon women we find a way (it may not be the exact same way) to bestow similar rights to men as well.

No, that is not the critical issue. You identified the critical issue yourself in the op. It is hard being pregnant, it is a burden, and we cannot force a woman to continue with this if she choices not to. That was the whole point of your op. Did you forget?

That is the critical issue. The OP was a test to see what the real underlying reason for being pro lifestyle abortion. Ostensibly it was about the women's body and how unfair it is to force her to carry a baby in it if she didn't want. And since a baby can't develop outside a woman's body before a certain stage abortion is looked at as the only solution. I then added the option of removing the baby and allowing it to develop elsewhere. This possibility should have removed support for abortion if the original reason was in fact the true reason. But it didn't.

This clearly shows that the abortion issue is actually not about the physical burden women go through during pregnancy but rather their emotional and financial burden of raising a child. But women are not unique in these considerations as they affect men too. So if we want to provide a way for women to escape these difficulties we should also provide a way for men. But if we like, Thana, feel men should simply suck it up and take responsibility...well then so should women.

 

[Thanda]

My brother is a good man. A good man who made a mistake and fell for a bad woman, and got her pregnant twice. She abused him, physically and emotionally, refused him the kids, dated men that were bad to his kids, just an all around terrible person and mother. And my brother couldn't do anything, because she was the mother and had all the rights.

I do understand it's hard for men. I do understand that it's not fair. And I don't care about any of it when it comes to using it as a way to impede womans rights. Life isn't fair, but I'll be damned if I'm going to let people say what I can and can't do with my own bloody body. You want to fight for mens rights, For childrens rights? Then do it, but if you try and do it at the expense of women's rights then that is where the problem lies.

Is something still a right even when it hurts others?

 

[fantome profane]

And as I have pointed out it is not the responsibility and difficulty of being pregnant and giving birth that inform that vast majority of abortions. It is the responsibility and difficulty of raising a child - a responsibility women share with men. The statistics prove this and pretending that the reason that woman are having abortions in their millions each year is because of the difficulty of birth rather than the difficulty of raising a child is disingenuous to say the least.



It is also a trivial inconsistency. The concern with cases of rape is a woman having to be reminded about traumatic situation by having the baby in her stomach and eventually having to raise the baby. The since the man is not the one pregnant with the baby a simple waiving of responsibility will ensure he will never have to be reminded about the traumatic experience. So we have consistency of outcome even if we don't have consistency of method. And throughout this thread I have only asked that whatever rights we bestow upon women we find a way (it may not be the exact same way) to bestow similar rights to men as well.



That is the critical issue. The OP was a test to see what the real underlying reason for being pro lifestyle abortion. Ostensibly it was about the women's body and how unfair it is to force her to carry a baby in it if she didn't want. And since a baby can't develop outside a woman's body before a certain stage abortion is looked at as the only solution. I then added the option of removing the baby and allowing it to develop elsewhere. This possibility should have removed support for abortion if the original reason was in fact the true reason. But it didn't.

This clearly shows that the abortion issue is actually not about the physical burden women go through during pregnancy but rather their emotional and financial burden of raising a child. But women are not unique in these considerations as they affect men too. So if we want to provide a way for women to escape these difficulties we should also provide a way for men. But if we like, Thana, feel men should simply suck it up and take responsibility...well then so should women.

You acknowledge the traumatic situation of having a "baby" in her "stomach" (both terms show your level of biological understanding), and then in the next breath deny the significance of that potentially traumatic situation.

 

[Thanda]

Medical abortion is less risky than surgical abortion, so that is a factor you haven't taken into account so far.

It is interesting to note how abortion works. Even though abortion is ostensibly about a women not having to house another human being in her body most abortion don't consist of the fetus being taken out of the woman's body and allowed to die. Instead it is killed while it is in the body. If it was done in the former way then it would be easy to conclude that should it be possible to for fetus to survive outside a woman body then she should not be allowed to abort it - this is because the procedure for abortion and for transferal of the fetus would remain exactly the same and the only difference would be what happens to the fetus after it is removed - whether it is left to die or placed somewhere for development. And the woman would obviously have no choice on the matter since once the fetus is out of her body she no longer has a say it what happens.

The law you are referring to is US law - there is a range of legal settings around the world. Yes, I am against any law that deprives women's rights based on a claim that a fetus is a legal person, when it is not. The vast majority of abortions take place in early pregnancy, anyway. If you support amending the law so that abortions were no longer permissible from an earlier age, would women be allowed to have them if their health/life was in danger? Are you aware that where abortion is not legal, many women die from attempting to end their pregnancy without proper medical care?

I am only against lifestyle abortions. Do you feel it is immoral to place time limits on lifestyle abortions?

I also think those advocating against abortion choice should show exemplary support for accurate and widely accessible sexuality education, easy access to affordable contraceptives, education programs that increase contraception use, and excellent health and welfare programs to support women who continue with an unplanned pregnancy. However the opposite is usually that case in the US, with many states allowing counter-productive abstinence only sex education and laws that make it difficult for people to access contraceptives.

I would fully support that as the better alternative. Abortion is an ugly part of human life as can be evidenced by a poster here who descended to calling a human being developing in their mothers womb a parasite.

 

[Thanda]

You acknowledge the traumatic situation of having a "baby" in her "stomach" (both terms show your level of biological understanding), and then in the next breath deny the significance of that potentially traumatic situation.

In what way did I deny the significance?

 

[Thanda]

I'm not sure why you aren't understanding basic information. You have a right to bodily autonomy, and I have a right to bodily autonomy. It's not any more complicated than that. I fully support your right to have any medical procedure you want, that is legal and not medically contraindicated for you.

So if a fetus is removed from a women body she has technically had her abortion right? Then whether that fetus is left to die or it is place in life supporting machinery should be none of her business right?