Real arguments for abortion?

[Stephen_says]

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.

Well, that seems like a very arbitrary argument to me.

 

[Loly_Maria]

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.

When you consent to giving money, it ends when you have made the deal, not when the horse loses.

Plus, I disagree that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy. And even if it were, losing money is not comparable to using someone’s body. If I have one operation, I am not consenting to further operations even if they are necessary.

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.

But, we don’t consider that in other cases of autonomy because it is irrelevant. A dying child also has their life at stake, but they can’t take any organs from a dead person even if it meant that they would survive. The dead person’s rights are more important than the child’s life.

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

Mothers don’t have the right to use someone else’s body without their consent.

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?

I’m not sure I understood this properly, but I think that the patient wouldn’t be able to take the organs from the donor. This is different from abortion because the donor is not using the body of the patient.

If it was different and the donor was surviving by using the patient’s blood, and the patient was ill because of it, then the patient would be able to cut off the donor’s blood supply and let them die in order to recover from their condition.

 

[Loly_Maria]

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?

A parent is able to give their child away if they choose to. I am not able to ask another person to take over my pregnancy for me.

I also don’t agree that pregnancy is easier than raising a child. It depends on the individual.

 

[Stephen_says]

A parent is able to give their child away if they choose to. I am not able to ask another person to take over my pregnancy for me.

I think this is the whole point of the discussion. You can perhaps refuse to care for a post-born child without killing it, but you cannot refuse to care for a pre-born child without killing it, therefore, abortion is immoral.

 

[thinkandmull]

I have met pro-choice people in person and on the Internet, but I have never met someone who gave a real moral argument for abortion. When I witness debates (especially on the Internet) the pro-choicers I witness usually resort to straw-men, name-calling, ad-hominem attacks or even personal insults. Some of the typical responses I hear are, for example,

“you are a man, you have no say in the matter,”
“if you are against abortion, you hate women and are at war with women,”
“leave your religion out of women’s issues (even though the abortion is not a religious matter but a human rights matter),”
“you just want to control women’s sexual habits,”
etc.

I have also seen a lot of people accuse pro-life activists of having no confidence in science, even though they (the pro-choicers) offer nothing scientific to support their own view, nor do they offer examples of pro-lifers being anti-science.

When life issues are brought up, 90 percent of the time they are ignored or dismissed. On the rare occasion where pro-choicers are willing to address this matter, it usually amounts to “an undeveloped human of X weeks does not constitute a real person,” often with no explanation as to how he/she determined X (and X varies pretty wildly from person to person). When an explanation is given, a lot of times it has to do with the ability to feel pain or cognitive developments, which have obvious counter arguments (you can anesthetize an adult human before killing them and that still would be unethical, or you could kill an incapacitated adult human and that would also be unethical).

I wish I could hear just one solid argument for abortion. There must be some reason why so many people support it.

As soon as the major organs start function, there can be no real argument for killing the baby in the womb. (Before that moment non-Catholics have their disagreements) Arguments like “the experience of being born, understood Freudian or otherwise, is what starts a person’s humanity” can be used to kill and enslave people; look how the South used Darwin’s then recent discoveries to justify slavery. Functioning organs is the a sound solid argument. Someone can appeal to other cultures (Jews saying that the baby in the womb is water for 40 days than an “arm” of the mother) or religions, heck someone might even appeal to Augustine who said that unbaptized baby deserved and receives eternal torment, but the basic argument or functioning organs stands against all those arguments, which also just lead to relativism

 

[Loly_Maria]

I think this is the whole point of the discussion. You can perhaps refuse to care for a post-born child without killing it, but you cannot refuse to care for a pre-born child without killing it, therefore, abortion is immoral.

We also can refuse to use our bodies for the purpose of carrying a child, therefore abortion is moral.

 

[Midwest88]

The only “real” ones that make me sympathetic are rape, incest and dangerous birth (causes mother to have high blood pressure to such a degree that it can cause death or future health problems).

The whole body sovereignty and choice is secularism, really. It’s the worship of self. It’s a despicable reason to support abortion.

 

[Midwest88]

If you want to hear a legitimate reason for abortion you will spend the entirety of your life being disappointed, because one doesn’t exist. No justification could outweigh the reality that an abortion is the brutal murder of an innocent human being. There are -no- legitimate reasons for it, only irrational, baseless assertions that can be easily overturned by anyone with an ounce of logical reasoning and intellectual integrity.

Pretty much this.

If you’re a secularist or socially liberal then there isn’t much of a reason to be given. The main reason for abortion is #choice. That’s how the modern mind works when it comes to these types of issues. It doesn’t matter the reason.

 

[MatthewTrainor]

When you consent to giving money, it ends when you have made the deal, not when the horse loses.

One could just as easily say that when someone consents to coitus it ends once they have made the deal, not when they discover they’re pregnant.

If I have one operation, I am not consenting to further operations even if they are necessary.

Are you saying that if you were to consent to a routine operation, like a minor hernia repair, and there is a complication while you are under anesthesia and the doctor discovers that you have a major artery occlusion and if he doesn’t act fast you’ll die right there that you want him to let you die because you didn’t give him prior consent to the additional operation?! Of course the answer is no because in many human transactions there is implied consent. Having sex is inviting pregnancy. Your body is designed to get pregnant when you engage in intercourse. It’s like leaving the front door or your house wide open with a sign that says “if anybody’s hungry come on in and have some of my food” and then arresting any people you find in the house for trespass.

But, we don’t consider that in other cases of autonomy because it is irrelevant. A dying child also has their life at stake, but they can’t take any organs from a dead person even if it meant that they would survive. The dead person’s rights are more important than the child’s life.

Not sure how things are in the UK, but in the USA it is the next of kin who decides if a recently deceased’s organs are donated to someone in need. Even if someone signed a sworn document in front of a judge and two dozen witnesses that he absolutely refused to have any of his organs donated to anyone at all for any reason, as soon as he dies his next of kin can release any organ they please. When a person dies all their rights die with them. (Of course they could put in their will “If my son donates my organs he is completely disinherited” which would be upheld in probate court, but the organs would still be in another person’s body)

Mothers don’t have the right to use someone else’s body without their consent.

I think that the patient wouldn’t be able to take the organs from the donor. This is different from abortion because the donor is not using the body of the patient.

If it was different and the donor was surviving by using the patient’s blood, and the patient was ill because of it, then the patient would be able to cut off the donor’s blood supply and let them die in order to recover from their condition.

So I see now that it is the “unauthorized” use of the mother’s body that really is your sticking point. I should note that in a fairly recent survey done here in the US, 0% of the respondents asserted the “unauthorized use of my body” as a reason for getting an abortion. The vast majority sought an abortion because they wanted to avoid raising the child. (source) Would you agree that the choice those women made was clearly immoral?

I really do appreciate your willingness to engage me. Your argument has been very logical and consistent, but you have more than once avoided answering a question that I have posed a couple of ways so I am going to try one more time.

Who suffers the greater loss, the mother who, not because she wants to but only for the sake of the child, endures for nine months whatever hardship the pregnancy brings her, or the unborn child whose entire life is snuffed out by abortion?

 

[Loly_Maria]

One could just as easily say that when someone consents to coitus it ends once they have made the deal, not when they discover they’re pregnant.

We won’t agree on this, because you think that consent to sex equals consent to pregnancy, and I think that they are separate. Although, it still doesn’t make sense why a rape victim shouldn’t be allowed to have an abortion, since they didn’t consent to sex or pregnancy.

Are you saying that if you were to consent to a routine operation, like a minor hernia repair, and there is a complication while you are under anesthesia and the doctor discovers that you have a major artery occlusion and if he doesn’t act fast you’ll die right there that you want him to let you die because you didn’t give him prior consent to the additional operation?! Of course the answer is no because in many human transactions there is implied consent. Having sex is inviting pregnancy. Your body is designed to get pregnant when you engage in intercourse. It’s like leaving the front door or your house wide open with a sign that says “if anybody’s hungry come on in and have some of my food” and then arresting any people you find in the house for trespass.

If I was awake then I would be allowed to tell the doctor to stop. Pregnant people are awake.

Even if there was implied consent, consent can still be revoked. If I invite people into my house, I can still tell them to leave at any time. If they don’t leave then I can arrest them for trespass.

Not sure how things are in the UK, but in the USA it is the next of kin who decides if a recently deceased’s organs are donated to someone in need. Even if someone signed a sworn document in front of a judge and two dozen witnesses that he absolutely refused to have any of his organs donated to anyone at all for any reason, as soon as he dies his next of kin can release any organ they please. When a person dies all their rights die with them. (Of course they could put in their will “If my son donates my organs he is completely disinherited” which would be upheld in probate court, but the organs would still be in another person’s body)

As far as I know, the next of kin is asked about the wishes of the person who has died. I assume that it’s because the organs have to be taken quickly and it might cause the family distress. It doesn’t change the fact that consent is necessary, even if the organs might save another person’s life. It goes without saying that the next of kin should respect what their relative decided.

So I see now that it is the “unauthorized” use of the mother’s body that really is your sticking point. I should note that in a fairly recent survey done here in the US, 0% of the respondents asserted the “unauthorized use of my body” as a reason for getting an abortion. The vast majority sought an abortion because they wanted to avoid raising the child. (source) Would you agree that the choice those women made was clearly immoral?

I think that the choice they made was moral. I think that any reason is a good enough reason for an abortion because of unauthorised use of the body.

I really do appreciate your willingness to engage me. Your argument has been very logical and consistent, but you have more than once avoided answering a question that I have posed a couple of ways so I am going to try one more time.

Who suffers the greater loss, the mother who, not because she wants to but only for the sake of the child, endures for nine months whatever hardship the pregnancy brings her, or the unborn child whose entire life is snuffed out by abortion?

I don’t think it matters who suffers the greater loss. If we made decision in that way then everyone would be forced to become donors after death, donate blood while they’re alive, ect.

 

[PaulWeb]

Contraceptives are the reason that abortion is deemed necessary. When contraceptives fail, then abortion is considered the back-up plan.

 

[MatthewTrainor]

We won’t agree on this, because you think that consent to sex equals consent to pregnancy, and I think that they are separate.

We’ll agree to disagree then.

Although, it still doesn’t make sense why a rape victim shouldn’t be allowed to have an abortion, since they didn’t consent to sex or pregnancy.

If the rapist doesn’t get the death penalty for the rape, then why should an innocent child be put to death? Is that justice?

If I invite people into my house, I can still tell them to leave at any time. If they don’t leave then I can arrest them for trespass.

If you invited someone to live in your house for almost a year and they bring a lot of their possessions with them and then after they have just settled in you revoke your consent to stay, would it be reasonable to have them arrested when they haven’t removed all of their possessions in 3.5 seconds? Of course not, it’s totally unreasonable to force someone out without giving them a reasonable amount of time to safely leave.

With a pregnancy, the child will leave its mother’s womb in less than 9 months from the time she first realizes that she’s pregnant. I’ll propose a compromise. Whatever your opinion is on whether consent to sex is implied consent to the pregnancy, you can’t deny that sex invites pregnancy. Pregnancy is the primary purpose of copulation. After inviting the child to take up residence within her body it is only reasonable that the mother give it a reasonable amount of time to leave. Could you agree that the child should be given the time it reasonably needs to leave? That is until it becomes viable (able to live outside the womb), even if it has to be kept in an incubator in a pediatric intensive care unit?

It goes without saying that the next of kin should respect what their relative decided.

Maybe they should, but legally they are not required to.

I think that the choice they made was moral. I think that any reason is a good enough reason for an abortion because of unauthorised use of the body.

But no one ever objected to the use of their body. As far as we know they may have expressly authorized the child to use their body for life support, but wanted it killed so they wouldn’t have the responsibility to raise it. You can’t substitute your own reasons to justify their decision after the fact.

I don’t think it matters who suffers the greater loss. If we made decision in that way then everyone would be forced to become donors after death, donate blood while they’re alive, ect.

You have already established that situations where two people are not already physically connected that there is no obligation to donate body parts/fluids, I haven’t challenged that assertion so why does it become relevant now? Is it that you don’t want to admit which sacrifice is so obviously the greater? If we want to truly make a moral choice, we have a responsibility to weigh the full measure of the consequences of all possible decisions.

 

[Loly_Maria]

If the rapist doesn’t get the death penalty for the rape, then why should an innocent child be put to death? Is that justice?

It’s not being put to death in the same way as the death penalty. It’s being removed from another person’s body which results in its death.

If you invited someone to live in your house for almost a year and they bring a lot of their possessions with them and then after they have just settled in you revoke your consent to stay, would it be reasonable to have them arrested when they haven’t removed all of their possessions in 3.5 seconds? Of course not, it’s totally unreasonable to force someone out without giving them a reasonable amount of time to safely leave.

It would be reasonable to ask them to leave very quickly, especially if they were causing you distress.

With a pregnancy, the child will leave its mother’s womb in less than 9 months from the time she first realizes that she’s pregnant. I’ll propose a compromise. Whatever your opinion is on whether consent to sex is implied consent to the pregnancy, you can’t deny that sex invites pregnancy. Pregnancy is the primary purpose of copulation. After inviting the child to take up residence within her body it is only reasonable that the mother give it a reasonable amount of time to leave. Could you agree that the child should be given the time it reasonably needs to leave? That is until it becomes viable (able to live outside the womb), even if it has to be kept in an incubator in a pediatric intensive care unit?

No, because I don’t need to give it that time. Plenty of women are happy to do so, and that’s great for them, but I don’t want to be pregnant for any longer than I need to be.

Maybe they should, but legally they are not required to.

Hopefully a better system will be put in place soon.

But no one ever objected to the use of their body. As far as we know they may have expressly authorized the child to use their body for life support, but wanted it killed so they wouldn’t have the responsibility to raise it. You can’t substitute your own reasons to justify their decision after the fact.

They objected to the use of their body because they didn’t want the child anymore, which I think is a good reason.

You have already established that situations where two people are not already physically connected that there is no obligation to donate body parts/fluids, I haven’t challenged that assertion so why does it become relevant now? Is it that you don’t want to admit which sacrifice is so obviously the greater? If we want to truly make a moral choice, we have a responsibility to weigh the full measure of the consequences of all possible decisions.

It is relevant because it is another situation where one person’s sacrifice is considered greater than another’s, but it is still moral to have the choice.

It doesn’t matter to me which sacrifice is greater. I think that it is very subjective. Maybe it is the fetus that sacrifices the most, but I could argue that a potential lifetime of suffering for the mother is worse than a quick death. Plus, if abortions were immoral because of the weight of the sacrifice, then Catholics would allow abortions in cases where it was clear that both mother and child would die, but they don’t allow that. Isn’t it less sacrifice to abort the baby and let the mother live?

 

[on_the_hill]

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?

Actually, yes. A parent can do this and take the child to a drop-off point like they have in some hospitals. Or a parent can release a child to the foster-care system or adoption.

It becomes criminal in cases of neglect, when the parent abandons the child outside of the system.

So it seems what we need is a technology wherein the child, from the moment of conception, can be safely moved to an incubator.

 

[on_the_hill]

It’s not being put to death in the same way as the death penalty. It’s being removed from another person’s body which results in its death.

No, I’m pretty sure the doctor kills the baby before he or she removes it.

But the method of death is irrelevant in either case. You could just the same say, “The condemned rapist isn’t being killed in the gas chamber. We’re simply removing him from society by replacing the breathable air with poison gases.”

 

[Loly_Maria]

No, I’m pretty sure the doctor kills the baby before he or she removes it.

But the method of death is irrelevant in either case. You could just the same say, “The condemned rapist isn’t being killed in the gas chamber. We’re simply removing him from society by replacing the breathable air with poison gases.”

If there was a reasonable way to remove it without killing it then I think that a lot of people would choose to do that.

It’s not the same because the rapist isn’t physically relying on someone else’s body. A rape victim can morally kill a rapist while they are being raped. A pregnant woman can morally kill a fetus while it is using her body.

 

[DCNBILL]

No, I’m pretty sure the doctor kills the baby before he or she removes it.

But the method of death is irrelevant in either case. You could just the same say, “The condemned rapist isn’t being killed in the gas chamber. We’re simply removing him from society by replacing the breathable air with poison gases.”

That is true, they are not allowed to remove the baby alive they have to kill the child first usually by cutting the baby apart in the womb.

 

[on_the_hill]

If there was a reasonable way to remove it without killing it then I think that a lot of people would choose to do that.

It’s not the same because the rapist isn’t physically relying on someone else’s body. A rape victim can morally kill a rapist while they are being raped. A pregnant woman can morally kill a fetus while it is using her body.

But the rapist chooses to attack the victim. The baby doesn’t get a choice to not be conceived, doesn’t have the ability to leave the situation, or defend himself. Maybe if the baby somehow had the ability to kill the mother the fight would be more fair.

 

[Loly_Maria]

But the rapist chooses to attack the victim. The baby doesn’t get a choice to not be conceived, doesn’t have the ability to leave the situation, or defend himself. Maybe if the baby somehow had the ability to kill the mother the fight would be more fair.

I don’t think it matters. If a rapist didn’t know what they were doing, it would still be moral to kill them during the attack.

 

[on_the_hill]

I don’t think it matters. If a rapist didn’t know what they were doing, it would still be moral to kill them during the attack.

Would it? What you’re saying is that it’s morally acceptable to kill a mentally ill person who is committing a crime.