Would this Change your Position on Abortion?

[Thanda]

Sounds like a recipe for disaster.

Perhaps. But my concern is about consistency. If we don't see forcing children upon fathers who do not want them as a recipe for disaster then we should not look at forcing children upon both mothers and fathers as a recipe for disaster.

 

[Jumi]

Perhaps. But my concern is about consistency. If we don't see forcing children upon fathers who do not want them as a recipe for disaster then we should not look at forcing children upon both mothers and fathers as a recipe for disaster.

So this was about "men's rights" not to pay for their kids in your country instead?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

Incorrect. The argument says that even if the fetus was fully human, the woman would still have the right to end her pregnancy.

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?

How are you defining "abortion": aborting the pregnancy or aborting the fetus?

 

[Yerda]

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?

Oh, good question.

If it was somehow beneficial to transfer the foetus to a machine then I would support that and would not support abortion. I can't really see the potential benefits of preserving very immature foetuses but with a foetus that is in the range of safe birth this could be more humane.

In the interests of a purely hypothetical, this does change my position.

 

[Thanda]

So this was about "men's rights" not to pay for their kids in your country instead?

Nope it is about consistency. I don't believe in lifestyle abortions and I believe once a child is born both parents have a responsibility to put their interests aside and do what is best for their baby. But currently this is not how things are and I am merely making a commentary on the inconsistency of the current situation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I still having difficulty find the sense in that question. It is undeniably alive and human, and therefore a human life.

Your "therefore" doesn't follow. Any (living) human tissue is undeniably alive and human, but this doesn't imply that any random collection of human tissue is *a* human life.

Yes, a zygote is assuredly (assuming of course that it isn't dead) alive.

It's alive, but only in the same sense that, say, stomach lining cells are alive... i.e. not in a way that confers rights.

 

[Thanda]

Incorrect. The argument says that even if the fetus was fully human, the woman would still have the right to end her pregnancy.


How are you defining "abortion": aborting the pregnancy or aborting the fetus?

Abortion - if it is about a women's bodily autonomy - should have as its goal only the aborting of the pregnancy. What is your opinion?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Abortion - if it is about a women's bodily autonomy - should have as its goal only the aborting of the pregnancy. What is your opinion?

There are many arguments for abortion rights. The bodily security argument is just one of the most compelling.

The bodily security argument basically says "even if you grant a fetus all the rights of an actual person, the woman's right to bodily security should still win out any time that this right comes into conflict with the 'rights' of the fetus."

Your hypothetical scenario I think is intended to get rid of the conflict between the woman's bodily security and the "interests" of the fetus, but you still haven't established:

- that the woman has no other rights or interests that could justify the right to choose to abort, or
- that the fetus has rights.

Actually, now that I think more about it, your hypothetical doesn't properly address bodily security. The fact that a woman might consent to one procedure (some particular type of abortion) does not necessarily imply consent to a different procedure ("fetus retrieval").

I mean, one implication of what you're suggesting is that you'd tell a woman who could get a chemical abortifacient at her pharmacy that if she wants to end her pregnancy, now she has to visit some sort of clinic, maybe take preparatory drugs, and experience an invasive, intimate surgical procedure... right?

 

[Jumi]

Nope it is about consistency. I don't believe in lifestyle abortions

Do you believe in lifestyle of having kids, but not caring for them? Because that's what forcing parents to keep any pregnancy will end up with. State Orphanages would be a better solution if we forced them to have kids.

Not all parents would afford to care for them, are we counting poverty as lifestyle choice? Should we pay more taxes so people who don't want kids can raise them or should we let the kids go poor and malnourished?

I believe once a child is born both parents have a responsibility to put their interests aside and do what is best for their baby.

That sense of responsibility should be required from anyone willing to be a parent. It's a lifechanging decision. The sense responsibility is completely missing in many people, including many of those who are raped or have kids because of insufficient sexual education.

But currently this is not how things are and I am merely making a commentary on the inconsistency of the current situation.

Forcing complex situations to be consistent isn't easy.

 

[Thanda]

- that the woman has no other rights or interests that could justify the right to choose to abort, or

The women's other rights and interests are no different from the rights and interests of men. And we currently (rightly I believe) give men no "out" with regards to an unwanted pregnancy.

- that the fetus has rights.

Firstly let's note that a woman doesn't wish a baby into being - it takes two to tango. So the issue here is that the women's rights are not the only matter in the equation. So, for example, in my hypothetical situation a woman may well decide she no longer wants to continue with the pregnancy. This woman would still be as well within her rights to that in that scenario as she is now. But currently before a certain point it is impossible for a fetus to survive so the method a woman chooses for aborting the pregnancy is a non-issue. This is why we currently have no ethical dilemma about whether the fetus is taken out and allowed to die or whether it is killed while in the mothers womb.

But as soon as a fetus is no longer solely reliant on it's mother at any stage of it's development (as this hypothetical scenario proposes) then the issue is no longer so cut and dry. Now suddenly the rights of the father for the safety and well being of a fetus he has contributed to becomes a real concern. And if a painless procedure that can relieve a mother of the burden of a pregnancy is available it calls into question how ethical it would be to kill the baby and deny the father his legitimate rights.

Furthermore the question of the fetus right's (which heretofore have been moot since even if it had any rights the mother was considered to have more) suddenly come to sharper focus. There would obviously be a whole discussion whether it has right's or not and some right's might under this scenario be extended to them - this of course would not be without precedent - black people in some countries were not considered legal persons. Companies are now considered legal persons and in some countries the dead are also considered to have rights. So it is not out of the realm of possibility or even probability than under circumstances prevailing in our hypothetical scenario room would be found to confer rights to the fetus especially when those rights no longer impose as much of a burden on women as the currently do.

 

[Willamena]

You're jumping around now. I thought we were talking about a living child?

I was talking about a living person. I still am.

 

[Thanda]

I was talking about a living person. I still am.

How do you abort a living person?

 

[Thanda]

Do you believe in lifestyle of having kids, but not caring for them? Because that's what forcing parents to keep any pregnancy will end up with. State Orphanages would be a better solution if we forced them to have kids.

Not all parents would afford to care for them, are we counting poverty as lifestyle choice? Should we pay more taxes so people who don't want kids can raise them or should we let the kids go poor and malnourished?

It is not an option to not care for kids than once they come into the world. We don't give men that leeway and I believe women shouldn't haven't either. Once the baby comes both parents must do all they can to care for their children. That is where the ethics and education of a society comes to the fore. Yes have birth control available, have good sex and family planning education - but just as importantly instill in society a sense of personal responsibility and rising to challenges. It is these characteristics that make for a great nation and it is these characteristics that will also assist the poor to rise out of poverty (along with good economic and welfare policies of course).

The evil of abortion is something we should all look forward to being rid of as soon as possible.

That sense of responsibility should be required from anyone willing to be a parent. It's a lifechanging decision. The sense responsibility is completely missing in many people, including many of those who are raped or have kids because of insufficient sexual education.

And that sense of responsibility should be brought back as soon as possible. In the internet age with so much information available at a click of a button ignorance is a choice.

Furthermore not only is a lack of personal responsibility an issue that causes problem is reproductive spaces it causes problems in many other parts of society too. So it is in our best interest as a society to root it out and not let it flourish as it serves no good purpose.

Forcing complex situations to be consistent isn't easy.

And that is why we human's were given such huge brain power - we are expected to find the right solutions even if they are complex.

 

[Willamena]

How do you abort a living person?

I don't.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The women's other rights and interests are no different from the rights and interests of men.

Presumably, the difference between a chemical abortion and a "fetus retrieval" procedure would be, among other things, having an unwanted doctor in the woman's vagina. Do you really think that this doesn't have anything to do with the woman's rights?

Firstly let's note that a woman doesn't wish a baby into being - it takes two to tango. So the issue here is that the women's rights are not the only matter in the equation.

Consent to sex is not consent to unwanted pregnancy any more than consent to driving is consent to car crashes.

Now suddenly the rights of the father for the safety and well being of a fetus he has contributed to becomes a real concern.

Please justify your claim that the father has this "right".

 

[Thanda]

I don't.

I'm using the general you not the specific one.

 

[Thanda]

Presumably, the difference between a chemical abortion and a "fetus retrieval" procedure would be, among other things, having an unwanted doctor in the woman's vagina. Do you really think that this doesn't have anything to do with the woman's rights?

Women often have doctor's in their vagina's. Let's not be prudes and pretend this is a major issue.

 

[Thanda]

Consent to sex is not consent to unwanted pregnancy any more than consent to driving is consent to car crashes.

That doesn't matter. Driving drunk is not consent to killing someone but you will still be held responsible for any deaths you cause.

All humans can do is consent to actions - they cannot consent to the consequences of their actions - those follow naturally and are the responsibility of the person whose actions gave arise to them.

Please justify your claim that the father has this "right".

It has his genetic material and has thus contributed to its development. He his emotional attachment to a creature of his own body can be verified and he has a right not to go the emotional distress of losing that child.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Women often have doctor's in their vagina's. Let's not be prudes and pretend this is a major issue.

It isn't a major issue... provided the woman consents. If the woman doesn't consent, it's assault.

 

[Thanda]

It isn't a major issue... provided the woman consents. If the woman doesn't consent, it's assault.

The women would consent. It would be either she consents or she continues with the pregnancy.