Would this Change your Position on Abortion?

[Thanda]

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.

Okay so you are okay with people allowing their defenseless children to die through neglect?

 

[fantome profane]

In what way did I deny the significance?

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.

 

[FTNZ]

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.



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



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.

The fact you use the term "lifestyle abortion" tells me everything I need to know about your approach to human rights and women's rights. Not that it's relevant to the human rights issue at stake, but in almost all cases, the woman would rather not have found herself in this situation, which often comes about because contraception simply does not work 100% of the time. But why let facts get in the way of a needlessly judgmental, emotive line of argument.

Abortion is not an "ugly" part of life IMO. It's a medical procedure like any other. I agree that a fetus can be considered a parasite, in practical terms.

What I think really is ugly and immoral are the attempts of some people to infringe on others' right to bodily autonomy. Especially when those people can never be in the situation of needing to exercise their rights in this way.

 

[Thanda]

Are you conflating emotional and psychological effects of a normal pregnancy through consensual sex with those of a pregnancy resulting from rape?

 

[fantome profane]

Are you conflating emotional and psychological effects of a normal pregnancy through consensual sex with those of a pregnancy resulting from rape?

Pregancy can be difficult in any number of ways for any number or reasons. I do not believe that women choose to get an abortion unless the alternative is traumatic in some way.

 

[Thanda]

The fact you use the term "lifestyle abortion" tells me everything I need to know about your approach to human rights and women's rights. Not that it's relevant to the human rights issue at stake, but in almost all cases, the woman would rather not have found herself in this situation, which often comes about because contraception simply does not work 100% of the time. But why let facts get in the way of a needlessly judgmental, emotive line of argument.

Abortion is not an "ugly" part of life IMO. It's a medical procedure like any other. I agree that a fetus can be considered a parasite, in practical terms.

Well you agreement with the use of the word parasite to describe an unborn child (a woman's own child not some other creatures - which is what a parasite actually is) tells me everything I need to know about your regard for human life.

I understand poverty as I've lived through it - but I firmly believed then as I do believe now that not everything we do can be justified by pointing to how difficult our life is. I am not being judgmental I am being honest. Yes women have rights but like everyone else's rights their rights should have limits - and that limit should be when those right unduly impose on others.

It seems to me that some people would like a situation where we can make a long list of rights women should have. And then afterwards every else's rights - men, children (born or unborn) and society should fit their rights around those of women. But that is not how societies are built. They are built on compromise.

What I think really is ugly and immoral are the attempts of some people to infringe on others' right to bodily autonomy. Especially when those people can never be in the situation of needing to exercise their rights in this way.

Bodily autonomy cannot be the stick that is used to beat down all other rights and considerations. It is important but it is not unassailable.

 

[Thanda]

Pregancy can be difficult in any number of ways for any number or reasons. I do not believe that women choose to get an abortion unless the alternative is traumatic in some way.

I agree. Yet men are also likewise traumatised by the idea of getting an unwanted child. So that consideration is not unique to women. Women are simply given an option to avoid that impending trauma while men are not.

 

[fantome profane]

I agree. Yet men are also likewise traumatised by the idea of getting an unwanted child. So that consideration is not unique to women. Women are simply given an option to avoid that impending trauma while men are not.

yep.

 

[FTNZ]

Well you agreement with the use of the word parasite to describe an unborn child (a woman's own child not some other creatures - which is what a parasite actually is) tells me everything I need to know about your regard for human life.

I understand poverty as I've lived through it - but I firmly believed then as I do believe now that not everything we do can be justified by pointing to how difficult our life is. I am not being judgmental I am being honest. Yes women have rights but like everyone else's rights their rights should have limits - and that limit should be when those right unduly impose on others.

It seems to me that some people would like a situation where we can make a long list of rights women should have. And then afterwards every else's rights - men, children (born or unborn) and society should fit their rights around those of women. But that is not how societies are built. They are built on compromise.



Bodily autonomy cannot be the stick that is used to beat down all other rights and considerations. It is important but it is not unassailable.

I have immense regard for human life. The fact remains that in the battle between fetus and woman, woman wins (where laws allow) because woman is a legal person.

You are arguing that a being that is not a legal person should have more rights than a being that is a legal person. This is nonsensical.

Your last paragraph is just a strawman argument.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Bodily autonomy cannot be the stick that is used to beat down all other rights and considerations. It is important but it is not unassailable.

I highly disagree with this. It is no stick because nobody else has the right, or should have a right, over body autonomy. And no considerations which would change that to me.

Take for example a situation where someone has died and there is a dire need for their organs to save multiple lives. But the person who died didn't sign a donor card, and expressed clear wishes to be buried whole. Even though you could argue that once you die the harm to you is inconsequential compared to the harm it would inflict on others, I would still fight to preserve the will of the deceased to not have their body used against their wishes. Even if more people die because of it.

Do I think people should be donors? Yes. Do I think people should take the precautions to prevent abortion from even becoming an issue? Yes. But I wouldn't legislate against their body autonomy.

 

[Willamena]

Okay so you are okay with people allowing their defenseless children to die through neglect?

There's nothing neglectful about abortion.

 

[Willamena]

I have immense regard for human life. The fact remains that in the battle between fetus and woman, woman wins (where laws allow) because woman is a legal person.

You are arguing that a being that is not a legal person should have more rights than a being that is a legal person. This is nonsensical.

Your last paragraph is just a strawman argument.

Yes. She's not just a legal person, she is the significant person. One or the other will be the significant person at the expense of the other--there is no alternative. It comes down to a matter of the fetus being the significant person, that says something about the other person. And vice-versa.

 

[sayak83]

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?

If the procedure is cheap, widely available and mother is free to decline any and all responsibilities for the child. Just going to the clinic, transfer the fetus and walk away, no questions asked...I would then no longer support abortion of healthy fetuses. Further, I do not see what could possibly be the reason to continue supporting abortion under such conditions.

 

[sayak83]

I highly disagree with this. It is no stick because nobody else has the right, or should have a right, over body autonomy. And no considerations which would change that to me.

Take for example a situation where someone has died and there is a dire need for their organs to save multiple lives. But the person who died didn't sign a donor card, and expressed clear wishes to be buried whole. Even though you could argue that once you die the harm to you is inconsequential compared to the harm it would inflict on others, I would still fight to preserve the will of the deceased to not have their body used against their wishes. Even if more people die because of it.

Do I think people should be donors? Yes. Do I think people should take the precautions to prevent abortion from even becoming an issue? Yes. But I wouldn't legislate against their body autonomy.

I disagree on this. I think organ donation should be opted out from by citing emotional/familial/religious objection rather than opted in. The default should be organ donation and not the other way round.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

No, because I don't support abortion or find them ethical, except in the case of medical emergencies, as it is. The idea of using an artificial womb just because you don't want to use your own womb seems quite a bit off and, at the very least, distasteful, too. Neither the child or the mother will gain the full health benefits of pregnancy that way.

 

[FTNZ]

No, because I don't support abortion or find them ethical, except in the case of medical emergencies, as it is. The idea of using an artificial womb just because you don't want to use your own womb seems quite a bit off and, at the very least, distasteful, too. Neither the child or the mother will gain the full health benefits of pregnancy that way.

What are the "full health benefits of pregnancy" for the woman?

 

[FTNZ]

If the procedure is cheap, widely available and mother is free to decline any and all responsibilities for the child. Just going to the clinic, transfer the fetus and walk away, no questions asked...I would then no longer support abortion of healthy fetuses. Further, I do not see what could possibly be the reason to continue supporting abortion under such conditions.

Because medical abortion (ie through drugs) may be preferred by the woman, and it's her body, her choice, and she's a legal person.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

What are the "full health benefits of pregnancy" for the woman?

Hormonal effects, a lowered risk of cancer, having less painful periods after being pregnant, longer lifespan (if you have a boy), etc. There's also the bio-psychological effects, such as bonding with the child, an increased confidence and awareness of her body and beneficial lifestyle changes that improve wellbeing.

 

[FTNZ]

Hormonal effects, a lowered risk of cancer, having less painful periods after being pregnant, longer lifespan (if you have a boy), etc. There's also the bio-psychological effects, such as bonding with the child, an increased confidence and awareness of her body and beneficial lifestyle changes that improve wellbeing.

Not sure I'm convinced how likely these outcomes are on average, as many of these issues are quite medically complex, such as period pain. I've never seen good evidence to support these claims. What is clear from the scientific consensus is that full term pregnancy has many risks and potential health disadvantages for a woman, and medical and surgical abortion are much lower risk for adverse effects than full term pregnancy and birth.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Not sure I'm convinced how likely these outcomes are on average, as many of these issues are quite medically complex, such as period pain. I've never seen good evidence to support these claims. What is clear from the scientific consensus is that full term pregnancy has many risks and potential health disadvantages for a woman, and medical and surgical abortion are much lower risk for adverse effects than full term pregnancy and birth.

Mammalian pregnancy evolved over millions of years. It's one of the main functions of our species. Actually, it's the main function of our species because none of us would be here without it. It would make zero evolutionary sense for pregnancy to carry higher negative risk than potential positives. That would be disadvantageous to the species' survival.

http://www.todaysparent.com/pregnancy/pregnancy-perks-the-health-benefits-for-mom/