Real arguments for abortion?

[CompSciGuy]

Unfortunately all too true. I tend to view pro-lifers as generally being more level headed, but that might be because I’ve never been on the other side and the power imbalance forces pro-lifers to be more cautious.

But the thing is, the Internet is a place where you get to see a wealth of different viewpoints. College is another one of those places. In college and on the Internet I have been around a lot of Christians (obviously) and a lot of atheists, a lot of pro-lifers (obviously and a LOT of pro-choicers, a lot of traditional marriage advocates and a LOOOT of gay marriage advocates. And every time, I will hear the other side accuse us of being bigoted, self-righteous, and hateful (these accusations are usually sandwiched between insults against our faith beliefs, our intellectual capacity, our understanding of science, the state or country we live in and/or our alleged breeding habits). The thing is, the times that I see a Christian who is being genuinely hateful are so extremely rare, versus I see almost nothing but hate from atheists, especially on the Internet. The hypocrisy of online social justice warriors is so astounding as to render me speechless. I think that in general practicing Christians who care about other people’s souls and their own as well have this expectation to be charitable and to self-examine and prayerfully approach difficult topics, whereas the overwhelmingly atheistic social justice warriors who really don’t care about changing people’s hearts and minds, have nothing but their anger and have no guilt in making false accusations, lame excuses, and incredibly hurtful/hateful insults against others.

 

[CompSciGuy]

This is another way of saying that most people who are sexually active are idiots. I simply do not believe that any such person exists (unaccompanied by a 24/7 psychiatric health aide that is). At best there are people who may have convinced themselves that sex is totally free from any and all consequences, but if questioned closely will be forced to admit that they in fact do know of the potential for pregnancy.

You may be correct in that most people would agree, when you really ask them, that the biological purpose of sex is childbirth. But the fact of the matter is, western secular culture tries so, so hard to separate sex from childbirth (have sex without kids, and kids without sex) that the separation is real in the minds of many people. When a person goes to a strip club, a brothel, or even just a party for a hookup, I can assure you that the last thing on their mind is “oh, what woman do I want to impregnate today?” In fact pregnancy has come to be thought of largely as the unwanted consequence of “unsafe” sex more than the natural consequence of a healthy sexual relationship. I think this is what we mean when we say that people don’t see babies as the consequence of sex.

 

[MatthewTrainor]

In fact pregnancy has come to be thought of largely as the unwanted consequence of “unsafe” sex more than the natural consequence of a healthy sexual relationship. I think this is what we mean when we say that people don’t see babies as the consequence of sex.

Back when I was in school we called that “thinking with the little head.” The results were pretty much the same, but it seems a larger segment of the population is thinking that way today.

 

[Loly_Maria]

Main argument is that refusing an abortion is giving a fetus more rights than someone who has already been born (including giving them more rights than the mother). I’m glad that abortion is legal so it is there if I ever want one in the future.

 

[Stephen_says]

Main argument is that refusing an abortion is giving a fetus more rights than someone who has already been born (including giving them more rights than the mother). I’m glad that abortion is legal so it is there if I ever want one in the future.

Is it giving the pre-born more rights, or is it giving them the same amount of rights as the already-been-born? I mean, you were born, so wouldn’t that mean that a child has the same right to be born that you have, or nah?

 

[Loly_Maria]

Is it giving the pre-born more rights, or is it giving them the same amount of rights as the already-been-born? I mean, you were born, so wouldn’t that mean that a child has the same right to be born that you have, or nah?

No born person has the right to live off of my body without my permission or even the right to touch me in a lot of situations. Even a dead person has the right to refuse to donate blood or organs even if someone desperately needs them to survive. We shouldn’t give pregnant women less rights than dead people.

 

[MatthewTrainor]

Main argument is that refusing an abortion is giving a fetus more rights than someone who has already been born (including giving them more rights than the mother). I’m glad that abortion is legal so it is there if I ever want one in the future.

I’m finding this hard to understand. The pro-life position is that both mother and child have the right to remain alive. This coupled with the fact that the mother also has the right to refrain from activity that is necessary to create a child in the first place it seems to me that the mother has more rights than the child, even if abortion is unavailable. Am I missing something?

 

[Loly_Maria]

I’m finding this hard to understand. The pro-life position is that both mother and child have the right to remain alive. This coupled with the fact that the mother also has the right to refrain from activity that is necessary to create a child in the first place it seems to me that the mother has more rights than the child, even if abortion is unavailable. Am I missing something?

No born person has the right to live off of my body without my permission or even the right to touch me in a lot of situations. Even a dead person has the right to refuse to donate blood or organs even if someone desperately needs them to survive. We shouldn’t give pregnant women less rights than dead people.

 

[MatthewTrainor]

No born person has the right to live off of my body without my permission or even the right to touch me in a lot of situations. Even a dead person has the right to refuse to donate blood or organs even if someone desperately needs them to survive. We shouldn’t give pregnant women less rights than dead people.

Ok, this is a little more concrete, but I see a couple of issues. First there is implicit permission in consenting to the sexual act that cannot be evaded by simply denying the fact. Sex makes babies, everybody knows it and every form of birth control has a failure rate so pregnancy is always a possibility.

That aside, is it your assertion that a mother’s right to avoid the temporary discomfort of pregnancy supersedes the child’s right to life? All pregnancies come to a natural end within roughly 9 months, while average life expectancy is over 78 years. Even if a mother considered that 9 months a total loss out of her life the aborted baby’s loss will literally be over 100 times greater. Is 9 months so much to give to save another person’s life?

 

[DCNBILL]

No born person has the right to live off of my body without my permission or even the right to touch me in a lot of situations. Even a dead person has the right to refuse to donate blood or organs even if someone desperately needs them to survive. We shouldn’t give pregnant women less rights than dead people.

It would seem from this frame of thinking that all babies should be killed upon conception?

It is a mournful situation when mothers want to kill their children.

 

[Loly_Maria]

Ok, this is a little more concrete, but I see a couple of issues. First there is implicit permission in consenting to the sexual act that cannot be evaded by simply denying the fact. Sex makes babies, everybody knows it and every form of birth control has a failure rate so pregnancy is always a possibility.

That aside, is it your assertion that a mother’s right to avoid the temporary discomfort of pregnancy supersedes the child’s right to life? All pregnancies come to a natural end within roughly 9 months, while average life expectancy is over 78 years. Even if a mother considered that 9 months a total loss out of her life the aborted baby’s loss will literally be over 100 times greater. Is 9 months so much to give to save another person’s life?

Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, but even if it was, consent can also always be revoked.

It is my assertion that not wanting to be pregnant is good enough reason to have an abortion. Pregnancy also isn’t just ‘discomfort’ to a lot of people - it would cause me and others a lot of distress. If a dead person can refuse to give their organs to their dying child, then I can refuse to continue a pregnancy.

It would seem from this frame of thinking that all babies should be killed upon conception?

It is a mournful situation when mothers want to kill their children.

No, not if the mother decides she wants to continue the pregnancy. Same way that we can choose to donate blood or not.

That is your opinion.

 

[Stephen_says]

It would seem from this frame of thinking that all babies should be killed upon conception?

It is a mournful situation when mothers want to kill their children.

I don’t think this is a fair assessment of what she is saying…She is merely saying that in certain situations when the mother refuses permission, the baby may be removed from touching her.

 

[Stephen_says]

Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, but even if it was, consent can also always be revoked.

And that is what the world has lead a lot of people to believe, but from the beginning, it has been so.

It is my assertion that not wanting to be pregnant is good enough reason to have an abortion. Pregnancy also isn’t just ‘discomfort’ to a lot of people - it would cause me and others a lot of distress. If a dead person can refuse to give their organs to their dying child, then I can refuse to continue a pregnancy.

To be fair, a dead person cannot refuse anything, it is the Live person that makes the decision to prevent FUTURE use of their body.

 

[MatthewTrainor]

Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, but even if it was, consent can also always be revoked.

That’s like saying that people can’t take my money without my consent. Then I bet it all on a horse race and lose and say, oh well I now revoke my consent to the race track taking my money. The time to revoke consent is before sex, not after.

It is my assertion that not wanting to be pregnant is good enough reason to have an abortion. Pregnancy also isn’t just ‘discomfort’ to a lot of people - it would cause me and others a lot of distress.

Let’s say for the purposes of our discussion that during the 9 months of pregnancy the mother is as good as dead. Pregnancy is still a temporary condition, abortion is permanent. Isn’t the cost of abortion to the child substantially greater than the cost of pregnancy to the mother?

 

[DCNBILL]

Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, but even if it was, consent can also always be revoked.

It is my assertion that not wanting to be pregnant is good enough reason to have an abortion. Pregnancy also isn’t just ‘discomfort’ to a lot of people - it would cause me and others a lot of distress. If a dead person can refuse to give their organs to their dying child, then I can refuse to continue a pregnancy.

No, not if the mother decides she wants to continue the pregnancy. Same way that we can choose to donate blood or not.

Equating these two things, in my opinion is heart wrenching. I have donated blood numerous times and i was there at the birth of my two children, there is nothing at all similar between the two decisions. To even be able to equate the two demonstrates the depth to which we have fallen.

 

[Loly_Maria]

That’s like saying that people can’t take my money without my consent. Then I bet it all on a horse race and lose and say, oh well I now revoke my consent to the race track taking my money. The time to revoke consent is before sex, not after.

Let’s say for the purposes of our discussion that during the 9 months of pregnancy the mother is as good as dead. Pregnancy is still a temporary condition, abortion is permanent. Isn’t the cost of abortion to the child substantially greater than the cost of pregnancy to the mother?

No, you can revoke consent as long as the thing you are consenting to is continuing. So if you agree to have sex, you can change your mind at any point during sex. Plus, if you are arguing that the only reason that abortion is not moral is because of consent to sex, then you would allow abortion for rape victims, but Catholics don’t allow that.

Yes, I have the right to end a temporary condition for my own well-being. Thanks to abortion, a fetus does not have more rights than I do.

Equating these two things, in my opinion is heart wrenching. I have donated blood numerous times and i was there at the birth of my two children, there is nothing at all similar between the two decisions. To even be able to equate the two demonstrates the depth to which we have fallen.

That’s your opinion. I’m glad that you had a positive experience with the birth of your children, but I don’t want children.

 

[Stephen_says]

No, you can revoke consent as long as the thing you are consenting to is continuing.

Hi!

I hope you don’t mind me asking, because I really do want to know more about this.

So, by following this logic, any parent can refuse to care for any child for any reason at any time during that child’s life post-birth as well?

 

[MatthewTrainor]

No, you can revoke consent as long as the thing you are consenting to is continuing. So if you agree to have sex, you can change your mind at any point during sex.

Yes you can revoke consent to the sex at any time, but once it has started, even it the act is not carried through to completion, pregnancy is always a possibility. (Trying not to be too graphic, but I’m sure you understand). To use the track example, I try to revoke my bet after the race has started but before my horse loses.

Plus, if you are arguing that the only reason that abortion is not moral is because of consent to sex, then you would allow abortion for rape victims, but Catholics don’t allow that.

That is not my argument. I am rebutting your argument that a pregnancy is not consensual. My argument is that the sacrifice of the mother in seeing a pregnancy to its natural end is miniscule to what the child has at stake, it’s very life. All children have a right to life, even those conceived in rape.

Yes, I have the right to end a temporary condition for my own well-being. Thanks to abortion, a fetus does not have more rights than I do.

I am still unconvinced that without abortion an unborn child has more rights than the mother.

I appreciate that you have taken the time to answer my questions. I have another hypothetical analogy for you. It’s not perfect, but I hope you’ll work with me.

A patient is informed by their doctor that they have contracted a rare condition that will cause them intense pain over the next several months. The condition is only temporary however and is guaranteed to clear up in less than a year. There is a treatment available that will alleviate the condition immediately, but it requires harvesting vital organs from a close relative (the science behind this is very complicated and would take too long to explain). The procedure is invariably fatal to the donor. The law allows the patient to unilaterally choose whether to undergo the procedure without consulting the selected donor first. Would it be moral for the patient to choose the treatment?

 

[Loly_Maria]

So, by following this logic, any parent can refuse to care for any child for any reason at any time during that child’s life post-birth as well?

No, because the child isn’t relying on the parent’s body anymore. After the child is born, it is more a matter of responsibility than a matter of autonomy.

 

[MatthewTrainor]

No, because the child isn’t relying on the parent’s body anymore. After the child is born, it is more a matter of responsibility than a matter of autonomy.

But the parent still has to expend time, energy and financial resources to provide for the child. If anything being pregnant is easier than raising a child since the feeding, cleaning, cradling, comforting etc all happens automatically. There are no toys to pick up no messes to clean and you don’t have to answer the never ending string of inane questions for years on end. Why are the parents not responsible to care for the child when it’s still in the womb?