How to respond to this pro-abortion argument?

[Armyvet007]

That’s not true. A newborn child can be breast fed by any other lactating woman, or can be fed artificial food – virtually by anyone. A newborn can be separated from mother, provided someone else cares for him.

A pre-viability fetus on the other hand, is dependent on mother’s body not only for food, but also for oxygen – because it has no (functioning) lungs. It cannot be separated from mother without dying.

That’s the difference.

Which is an artificial condition placed on the argument. The child is as dependant on the mother for life after birth as it is prior to birth. You are trying to add in community/medical/unnatural food sources [formula] into the equation. You are also ignoring the fact that said child’s digestive system and immune system are designed around [digestive] and further developed/protected [immune] by breast milk [which is naturaly developed by the mother’s body for that purpose].

We then go into who has the legal responsibility for caring for the child. According to the law, its the biological parents. Said parents can be jailed for not caring for the child. A nursing mother can’t successfully argue in court that she let her child starve because other people should have taken over her responsibility for feeding it.

Now, let’s get into viability. Do you really want to hinge your argument on such a changeble variable? A viable child today could very easily have been considered non-viable 100 years ago. A non-viable child today could very easily be considered viable 100 [most likely less given the rate of advancement in medical technology] years from now. Additionly, if one’s right to life is based on one’s viability [here implied by you as living without aid], that would mean anyone who is reliant on a dialysis machine or pace maker has no right to live.

Either a person always has a right to life, regardless of their condition/developmental stage, or they never do.

 

[kama3]

Which is an artificial condition placed on the argument.

The standard counterargument to abortion is that if a woman doesn’t want to raise the child, she can put the child up for adoption. The possibility of adoption relies on the very fact, that a child can be cared for by someone else. So adoption protects conflicting interests of child and mother: the child gets to live, and woman gets to avoid child raising.

However, if someone is unwilling (or unable) to carry the pregnancy to term (which the OP is really about) then the argument does not apply, because adoption of fetus is technically impossible. Hence, the conflict between the rights of the woman and the rights of the fetus cannot be resolved:

• either woman’s right to decide over her body has priority, which means that she can kill the fetus
• or fetus’ right to live has priority, which means that a pregnant woman has no right to decide about her own body

A counter-argument can be made here, that a woman having sex gives an implicit consent for the potential fetus to use her body. However, that argument breaks down in case of rape, as rape, by definition, does not involve consent. Another (much weaker) opposition is that if woman is contracepting, then she obviously does not consent.

However, legislating that fetus’ right to live unconditionally (i.e. in case of rape) overrides the woman’s right to decide about her body, is not much different from legislating that a patient with defunct kidneys can be legally hooked to someone else’s kidneys against their will.

A non-viable child today could very easily be considered viable 100 [most likely less given the rate of advancement in medical technology] years from now.

Precisely. Note, that if we had artificial uterus, then adoption of a fetus would become technically possible. And there would be no reason to differentiate between the legal status of born and unborn. But while we don’t…

Additionly, if one’s right to life is based on one’s viability [here implied by you as living without aid], that would mean anyone who is reliant on a dialysis machine or pace maker has no right to live.

Straw man.

Most premature (yet viable) babies only survive, because they are hooked to equipment, just like people with pacemakers.

Being hooked to equipment is fundamentally different to being hooked to a person. Requiring care by someone is something else than being hooked to a particular person. The former does not infringe on someone’s rights, the latter does.

 

[edwest2]

“A fetus’s right to live is dependent solely on the mother. What happens to the mother, happens to the fetus. The right to life does not guarantee the right to be allowed the continuous use of another person’s body. It would be nice if the women did allow it but, she has no obligation to allow it.”

I’m not sure how to deal with this, as this is the first “pro-choice” person I’ve met to actually acknowledge that an unborn child has a right to life.

This person is saying the mother is not obligated to allow the baby to be born. She states the developing baby is using someone else’s body as if it were a parasite. That is just not true. The mother to be has a choice to make, and that statement simply boils down to: only the mother gets to decide if the baby is born or aborted, which ignores the physical reality that the developing baby is a unique person and is part of the mother.

Peace,
Ed

 

[seekerz]

Which is an artificial condition placed on the argument. The child is as dependant on the mother for life after birth as it is prior to birth. You are trying to add in community/medical/unnatural food sources [formula] into the equation. You are also ignoring the fact that said child’s digestive system and immune system are designed around [digestive] and further developed/protected [immune] by breast milk [which is naturaly developed by the mother’s body for that purpose].

We then go into who has the legal responsibility for caring for the child. According to the law, its the biological parents. Said parents can be jailed for not caring for the child. A nursing mother can’t successfully argue in court that she let her child starve because other people should have taken over her responsibility for feeding it.

Now, let’s get into viability. Do you really want to hinge your argument on such a changeble variable? A viable child today could very easily have been considered non-viable 100 years ago. A non-viable child today could very easily be considered viable 100 [most likely less given the rate of advancement in medical technology] years from now. Additionly, if one’s right to life is based on one’s viability [here implied by you as living without aid], that would mean anyone who is reliant on a dialysis machine or pace maker has no right to live.

Either a person always has a right to life, regardless of their condition/developmental stage, or they never do.

Your argument seems a bit flawed. I agree that dependence on the mother should not limit a child’s right to life but it is incorrect to say that a baby is as dependent for life on the mother after birth as before. That’s simply biologically inaccurate. Viability is a real concept - and it is not quite as changeable as you imply. Biologically, unless artificial lungs or wombs are invented, there is a lower limit to the age before which a baby is unable to survive outside the womb. If that were not so, then the whole problem of abortion could be solved by the passage of time and the development of technology, because viability is what differentiates abortion from premature delivery.

 

[seekerz]

The former does not infringe on someone’s rights, the latter does.

You seem to be comparing the baby’s right to life to the mother’s rights to her body and in my book that’s a fallacious argument. Since no other right exists without the right to life, that takes pre-eminence in any conflict between the rights of two individuals. It follows then that the only right which can be legitimately balanced against an individual’s right to life, is another’s right to life, as sometimes happens with pregnancy complications.

It seems that you are also forgetting that the baby was conceived through voluntary decisions of its parents (except in the case of rape, which I dealt with in an earlier post), therefore the question of it infringing on anyone’s rights seems irrelevant.

 

[WesleyF]

"A fetus’s right to live is dependent solely on the mother.

That’s not accurate. A baby’s life is dependent on the mother, not his/her right to life.

“…they are endowed by their Creator (not their mother) with certain unalienable rights” (American Declaration of Independence)

It would be nice if the women did allow it but, she has no obligation to allow it."

Do we respect human life or not? No baby in the mother’s womb want’s to use the mother’s body because it is selfish, but rather it is because that’s how we are designed by nature.

Every woman, who thinks of aborting her baby, herself survived in another woman’s (her mother’s) womb for 9 months. If she was allowed to feed and nourish on another woman’s body for free, is it too much if another such innocent human life depends on her?

 

[hazmat]

Your assuming that people have a right to have sex without the “threat” of pregnancy. In my opinion that is an absurd notion. The woman made her choice when she decided to have sex. Your argument would only apply in cases of rape, where the woman had no choice in whether she wanted to have sex or not. Even then though, you end up comparing a woman’s right to the pursuit of happiness to the right of the child to life. Life wins out.

The underlying problem to this whole discussion though is that you are operating under a false notion of “fairness”. Is it “fair” that women are the ones who have to give birth to children every time? Why don’t men and women trade off? I would bet you would be very tempted to say that isn’t fair at all. That of course is the position of someone who has left reality though in my opinion.

no, i never assumed that. choosing to have sex=/=choosing to have a baby. maybe you only have sex to have babies, but thats definitely not what most people have sex for. life wins out in that scenario? as evidenced by all the legal abortions performed everyday…

 

[Nate13]

no, i never assumed that. choosing to have sex=/=choosing to have a baby. maybe you only have sex to have babies, but thats definitely not what most people have sex for. life wins out in that scenario? as evidenced by all the legal abortions performed everyday…

Haha of course who would ever connect two things like having sex and babies. Complete opposites. How long do you think it will take before the medical community renames the “reproductive system” to “pleasure center” or something?

When I say “choose” I’m not talking about mentally what they are thinking. They may not want a child at all. However some actions imply a choice and intent. It would be like if I shot a gun and then was surprised when it kicked back into me. Did I make a conscience choice that I wanted the gun to kick back into me? No, but by virtue of firing the gun I made that choice because firing a gun and that gun kicking back go hand in hand. Sex and pregnancy are the same way. Its the epitome of stupid to have sex and then be surprised when pregnancy occurs like it doesn’t belong there.

I completely agree with you that the attitude you have towards sex is the underlying factor in why you are for legal abortions. You can bask in the glory of having the culture agree with you in that right now, but it will all eventually self implode.

 

[seekerz]

no, i never assumed that. choosing to have sex=/=choosing to have a baby. maybe you only have sex to have babies, but thats definitely not what most people have sex for. life wins out in that scenario? as evidenced by all the legal abortions performed everyday…

I don’t think it’s a question of what a person has sex for, it’s simply a fact of life that the possibility of pregnancy is always associated with having sex whether we like it or not. Even proper use of contraception doesn’t decrease the chance of pregnancy to zero, therefore choosing to have sex implies acceptance of that possibility.

 

[hazmat]

Haha of course who would ever connect two things like having sex and babies. Complete opposites. How long do you think it will take before the medical community renames the “reproductive system” to “pleasure center” or something?

When I say “choose” I’m not talking about mentally what they are thinking. They may not want a child at all. However some actions imply a choice and intent. It would be like if I shot a gun and then was surprised when it kicked back into me. Did I make a conscience choice that I wanted the gun to kick back into me? No, but by virtue of firing the gun I made that choice because firing a gun and that gun kicking back go hand in hand. Sex and pregnancy are the same way. Its the epitome of stupid to have sex and then be surprised when pregnancy occurs like it doesn’t belong there.

I completely agree with you that the attitude you have towards sex is the underlying factor in why you are for legal abortions. You can bask in the glory of having the culture agree with you in that right now, but it will all eventually self implode.

no one said theres no connection. people do regard it as the pleasure center, im sure. just because the gun kicks back into you doesnt mean you cant do something to counteract the unwanted effects. the overwhelming majority of sex had by humans on planet earth does not result in pregnancy, so its not stupid to be surprised by pregnancy after having sex–it is relatively uncommon.

 

[Nate13]

no one said theres no connection. people do regard it as the pleasure center, im sure. just because the gun kicks back into you doesnt mean you cant do something to counteract the unwanted effects. the overwhelming majority of sex had by humans on planet earth does not result in pregnancy, so its not stupid to be surprised by pregnancy after having sex–it is relatively uncommon.

Uncommon is not the same as never lol. A couple using a condom and having sex 100 times a year has a 1 in 100 chance of getting pregnant assuming they use the condom perfectly. If a couple chooses to have sex while using the condom, they are choosing to accept the fact that at least 1 in 100 people a year doing the same as they are will end up pregnant. They weren’t promised perfection and they shouldn’t be surprised when they don’t get perfection. I’m sure you would agree that someone expecting perfection would be unreasonable would you not? It seems incredibly obvious to me the woman got to make a choice here and accepted it by virtue of taking the risk.

This “but I didn’t make that choice” argument doesn’t work in the stock market. Lets say you choose to buy a stock that is 99% sure to go up, but has a 1% chance of going down. If that 1% happens and the stock market goes down are not people going to look at you weird if you start claiming you didn’t have a choice? That you have a “right” to the stock market to go up?

 

[seekerz]

no one said theres no connection. people do regard it as the pleasure center, im sure. just because the gun kicks back into you doesnt mean you cant do something to counteract the unwanted effects. the overwhelming majority of sex had by humans on planet earth does not result in pregnancy, so its not stupid to be surprised by pregnancy after having sex–it is relatively uncommon.

‘Surprised’ at getting pregnant after having sex? That’s a pretty novel concept to me. Even among contracepting adults the awareness should exist of the possibility of pregnancy.

 

[hazmat]

i said pregnancy, not the possibility of pregnancy.

 

[Nate13]

i said pregnancy, not the possibility of pregnancy.

Possibility of pregnancy infers that pregnancy sometimes occurs… This is the problem though. People use contraceptives and the chance of pregnancy is just some intangible figure up in the air, not the reality which it is. I have to ask again though. Do you still deny they have made a choice?

 

[hazmat]

Uncommon is not the same as never lol. A couple using a condom and having sex 100 times a year has a 1 in 100 chance of getting pregnant assuming they use the condom perfectly. If a couple chooses to have sex while using the condom, they are choosing to accept the fact that at least 1 in 100 people a year doing the same as they are will end up pregnant. They weren’t promised perfection and they shouldn’t be surprised when they don’t get perfection. I’m sure you would agree that someone expecting perfection would be unreasonable would you not? It seems incredibly obvious to me the woman got to make a choice here and accepted it by virtue of taking the risk.

This “but I didn’t make that choice” argument doesn’t work in the stock market. Lets say you choose to buy a stock that is 99% sure to go up, but has a 1% chance of going down. If that 1% happens and the stock market goes down are not people going to look at you weird if you start claiming you didn’t have a choice? That you have a “right” to the stock market to go up?

no one said it was. people are surprised at things that are known possibilities everyday. seems you dont understand what it means for something to be surprising. i risk getting crashed into and injured when i drive my car, that doesnt mean i cant go to the hospital afterward because i accepted that risk. lol. youre talking about some kind of guarantee, but im not.

like i said, choosing to have sex =/= choosing to get pregnant.

 

[seekerz]

i said pregnancy, not the possibility of pregnancy.

So wait, you’re not surprised it is possible but you’re surprised if it actually happens? I can sort of see the distinction, but how is that at all relevant to the fetus’ right to life? However small the chance of conception, it is one which is willingly assumed by the woman when she chooses to have sex.

 

[seekerz]

no one said it was. people are surprised at things that are known possibilities everyday. seems you dont understand what it means for something to be surprising. i risk getting crashed into and injured when i drive my car, that doesnt mean i cant go to the hospital afterward because i accepted that risk. lol. youre talking about some kind of guarantee, but im not.

like i said, choosing to have sex =/= choosing to get pregnant.

Bad analogy. Going to the hospital after a crash is not equivalent to getting an abortion after an unplanned pregnancy - that would be more like burning down the dealership where you bought your car.

 

[Nate13]

no one said it was. people are surprised at things that are known possibilities everyday. seems you dont understand what it means for something to be surprising. i risk getting crashed into and injured when i drive my car, that doesnt mean i cant go to the hospital afterward because i accepted that risk. lol. youre talking about some kind of guarantee, but im not.

like i said, choosing to have sex =/= choosing to get pregnant.

Choosing to have sex does = choosing to accept the chance of pregnancy. As I said above accepting a chance of getting pregnant means (gasp) sometimes people actually get pregnant. Thus indirectly:

choosing to have sex = choosing to get pregnant if it occurs

 

[sw85]

Ever head of a social contract?

Social contract gives NO basis for affirming anything as a right. At best it can attach impetus to whatever arbitrary configuration of things a group decides is optimal – it offers no reason or method for choosing between any given configuration. Any decision is arbitrary, including the decision to erase the made-up “right” to abortion.

 

[hazmat]

small chance of conception, sure. theres a small chance your car will be shat on by a bird, right after getting it washed. thats the risk you take by driving your vehicle outdoors. so… i guess you have to leave the bird droppings on your car, and you cant wipe it off… does that make sense to you? it shouldnt. in the case of legal abortions, fetuses dont have a right to life. people say animals have rights, but we eat them anyway; its legal.