Real arguments for abortion?

[CompSciGuy]

Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy

Wrong. Pregnancy is the natural consequence of sex. Therefore, if you consent to sex, you are, whether you realize it or not, consenting to its natural consequence.

but even if it was, consent can also always be revoked.

Wrong again. The moment that the child is conceived in your womb, you become a parent. As a parent you are morally responsible for the well-being of your child until it is given over to another’s care (perhaps by adoption). The consent part doesn’t apply because the child did not choose to be conceived in your womb, you chose to conceive the child when you had sex. And now that child is a new life, and it is your responsibility. You have no more right to kill a child in utero than you would if it were a toddler.

It is my assertion that not wanting to be pregnant is good enough reason to have an abortion.

It is my assertion that not wanting to be pregnant is no more a good enough reason to kill your child than not wanting to be married is a good enough reason to kill your husband.

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.

Terrible argument. Once again, you are the parent of the unborn child, it is there because of a decision that you made. You are responsible for its health and well being. The dead person, who has no relation to that child whatsoever, does not necessarily have a moral obligation to help it (though it would be cruel not to).

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

Again, terrible argument. Giving blood is an extraordinary means by which people keep other people alive. To choose not to give blood is a passive decision. The child inside the womb will more than likely live and be born if allowed to come to term. Abortion is not a passive denial of service to the child, it is an direct act of violence resulting in the deliberate demise of the child.

That is your opinion.

And it is your opinion that abortion is both legal and morally OK. There are a lot of opinions. Do you believe in objective morality? If not, what is your basis for what’s right and wrong?

There are many of us who believe that human life is important and needs to be protected. If this is true, then abortion should be illegal, regardless of peoples’ opinions.

 

[Loly_Maria]

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

I do think that it is morally acceptable to kill a mentally ill person who was raping someone.

 

[Loly_Maria]

Wrong. Pregnancy is the natural consequence of sex. Therefore, if you consent to sex, you are, whether you realize it or not, consenting to its natural consequence.

I disagree. When I consent to sex I do not consent to pregnancy. And consent is ongoing and can be revoked at any time regardless.

Wrong again. The moment that the child is conceived in your womb, you become a parent. As a parent you are morally responsible for the well-being of your child until it is given over to another’s care (perhaps by adoption). The consent part doesn’t apply because the child did not choose to be conceived in your womb, you chose to conceive the child when you had sex. And now that child is a new life, and it is your responsibility. You have no more right to kill a child in utero than you would if it were a toddler.

Consent does apply because the child is using my body.

It is my assertion that not wanting to be pregnant is no more a good enough reason to kill your child than not wanting to be married is a good enough reason to kill your husband.

My husband isn’t using my body in order to survive.

Terrible argument. Once again, you are the parent of the unborn child, it is there because of a decision that you made. You are responsible for its health and well being. The dead person, who has no relation to that child whatsoever, does not necessarily have a moral obligation to help it (though it would be cruel not to).

The dead person may be the mother of the child which they are refusing to donate their organs to. I am no obligated to give blood in order to keep my baby alive, and I am not obligated to continue a pregnancy if I choose not to.

Again, terrible argument. Giving blood is an extraordinary means by which people keep other people alive. To choose not to give blood is a passive decision. The child inside the womb will more than likely live and be born if allowed to come to term. Abortion is not a passive denial of service to the child, it is an direct act of violence resulting in the deliberate demise of the child.

Continuing a pregnancy is also a means by which we keep someone alive. It is a denial of service - I no longer want to continue the pregnancy and so I am refusing to let it use my body.

And it is your opinion that abortion is both legal and morally OK. There are a lot of opinions. Do you believe in objective morality? If not, what is your basis for what’s right and wrong?

There are many of us who believe that human life is important and needs to be protected. If this is true, then abortion should be illegal, regardless of peoples’ opinions.

I do think that abortion is legally and morally okay.

I believe that my right to not have my body used without my consent is more important than the protection of human life.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Let’s just look at the argument: “if you consent to sex, you consent to pregnancy”. The pregnancy for many people is an unwanted and undesirable by-product of having sex. Especially if precaution is taken to prevent it. Pills, barrier methods, etc.

This is akin to saying “if you consent to drive a car, you consent to an accident”. An accident is an unwanted and undesirable by-product of driving a car. Especially if proper care is taken to prevent it. Seat belt, defensive driving, etc.

What a joke it would be to tell someone who just suffered an accident: “well, you consented to be in the car, you consented to have an accident”. Instead of trying to remedy the results of the accident, you now have to live with it all your life… What? You mean you want an operation to fix your broken arm and leg? Nonsense. Live with the consequences of your decision.

Sure, you could say that if you don’t want pregnancy, do not have sex… Likewise you could say that if you want to avoid accidents, do not get into a car…

Both of these arguments are ridiculous.

The whole argument against abortion would be much more credible and respectable, if the opponents of abortion would vigorously support all the preventive methods, so that unwanted pregnancies would be rare.

 

[on_the_hill]

What you are missing is that the unintended consequence of sex is the creation of a human. The unintended consequence of an accident is an injury. Are humans really the equivalent of injury? I’d like to think my life is worth more than a broken leg.

And no, the objective isn’t the end of abortion and the solution isn’t the endorsement of contraception. The objective is to have everyone appreciate the value of human life and the ultimate responsibility we, as people, have to protect it and nurture it.

Personally, I don’t want us to have laws against abortion. I want abortion to be so tremendously abhorrent from a moral standpoint that no one would ever conceive of having one.

 

[Theo520]

What you are missing is that the unintended consequence of sex is the creation of a human. The unintended consequence of an accident is an injury. Are humans really the equivalent of injury? I’d like to think my life is worth more than a broken leg.

And no, the objective isn’t the end of abortion and the solution isn’t the endorsement of contraception. The objective is to have everyone appreciate the value of human life and the ultimate responsibility we, as people, have to protect it and nurture it.

Personally, I don’t want us to have laws against abortion. I want abortion to be so tremendously abhorrent from a moral standpoint that no one would ever conceive of having one.

And the ‘injury’ came from repeatedly jumping off a three story building onto a pile of empty boxes so Jackass would share your video, not from slipping while walking down the street.

I don’t have sympathy for the kids on jackass, they’ve earned their injuries.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

What you are missing is that the unintended consequence of sex is the creation of a human. The unintended consequence of an accident is an injury. Are humans really the equivalent of injury?

For some it might very well be an injury or even a disaster. But the point is that some people want to argue about a general principle: “If you consent to an activity ‘X’, which MIGHT have an unintended consequence of ‘Y’, then you consented to the unintended consequence, too”. I simply wanted to point out the irrationality of this proposition. Now, if the consequence is an unavoidable logical or physical corollary, then consenting to ‘X’ also consents to ‘Y’. But that is not the case with sex → conception.

And no, the objective isn’t the end of abortion and the solution isn’t the endorsement of contraception.

And that is the problem. Contraception is the obvious way of enjoying the unitive part of sex without the unwanted procreative part. There is absolutely no reason to be “open” to procreation in each and every case of sex.There is no rational argument to stay chaste unless people want to stay chaste. And that will never happen on a large scale because there is no reason for it. Not to mention that there are ways and means to give and accept love without the slightest possibility of mishap in the form of unwanted pregnancies. But those methods are “forbidden”. When you look at the whole question with unbiased preconception it is obvious that there is no reason to “shun” purely unitive sex.

The objective is to have everyone appreciate the value of human life and the ultimate responsibility we, as people, have to protect it and nurture it.

Personally, I don’t want us to have laws against abortion. I want abortion to be so tremendously abhorrent from a moral standpoint that no one would ever conceive of having one.

It would be ideal if there would never be a need for abortion, in that we are in agreement. But unfortunately ideal situations don’t happen frequently.

 

[Theo520]

This is akin to saying “if you consent to drive a car, you consent to an accident”. An accident is an unwanted and undesirable by-product of driving a car. Especially if proper care is taken to prevent it. Seat belt, defensive driving, etc.

What a joke it would be to tell someone who just suffered an accident: “well, you consented to be in the car, you consented to have an accident”. Instead of trying to remedy the results of the accident, you now have to live with it all your life… What? You mean you want an operation to fix your broken arm and leg? Nonsense. Live with the consequences of your decision.
.

Where’s my free Govt car insurance, and I’d like a new car as well.

I am consenting to the risk of an accident when I drive a car. I’m fully responsible for my actions and possible injury to myself and another. That the accident is a low probability doesn’t change that I’m responsible.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I am consenting to the risk of an accident when I drive a car. I’m fully responsible for my actions and possible injury to myself and another. That the accident is a low probability doesn’t change that I’m responsible.

Sometimes you do, sometimes you don’t. Keeping with the analogy, if there is an oil slick on the road, then you are not held responsible for the accident. Nevertheless, accepting the POSSIBILITY of an accident does not mean that you consent to live with the outcome of that accident. When the accident happens, you try to remedy the results, and if a bystander says: “you took the risk, so you MUST live with the consequences”, then you can use a few simple words to tell him off.

 

[Theo520]

Sometimes you do, sometimes you don’t. Keeping with the analogy, if there is an oil slick on the road, then you are not held responsible for the accident. Nevertheless, accepting the POSSIBILITY of an accident does not mean that you consent to live with the outcome of that accident. When the accident happens, you try to remedy the results, and if a bystander says: “you took the risk, so you MUST live with the consequences”, then you can use a few simple words to tell him off.

If the condoms have holes in them, then yes you can sue Trojan. An oil slick shouldn’t cause an accident if you are going the speed limit and not tailgating.

But if you neglect to use a rubber in your excitement or forget to take the pill, it’s like driving through red lights without stopping or looking for traffic - chances of an accident increase dramatically and you are responsible.

 

[CuriousMike]

And that is the problem. Contraception is the obvious way of enjoying the unitive part of sex without the unwanted procreative part. There is absolutely no reason to be “open” to procreation in each and every case of sex.There is no rational argument to stay chaste unless people want to stay chaste. And that will never happen on a large scale because there is no reason for it. Not to mention that there are ways and means to give and accept love without the slightest possibility of mishap in the form of unwanted pregnancies. But those methods are “forbidden”. When you look at the whole question with unbiased preconception it is obvious that there is no reason to “shun” purely unitive sex.

I’ll have to chime in on this, because as an asexual I find it incredibly annoying that people insist sex “has” to be a part of a “normal, healthy relationship.” Reason being is when you tell people that you aren’t interested, in results in all manner of shunning and belittling. There are also plenty of other ways one can show faithfulness, afterall, if sex is supposedly so “unitive,” how is it that such a huge number (I think over 80%) of teenage and young-adult relationships end after about 18 months?

We have been led to believe that sex in relationships is a “must.” It isn’t.
Our world is hugely oversexed, and that is evident in the types of clothing being advertised as “sensible,” in the TV programs being aired (both in clothing, and how often everyone sleeps with every) and so on. We have an epidemic of STI’s, despite all these protective devices being available. The burden to the health system from this “sexually liberal” society is probably growing, as the encourage comes from society to sleep around and “get in there.”

Over many years, particularly before divorce became a done-thing, many people ended up in very unhappy marriages because they (perhaps) decided sex was a “necessary” part of their relationship.
Of course, that is only a simple side of the story, but it is nonetheless one reason why we see very short time between marriage and childbirth, historically (even amongst very conservative Christian groups).

As for being Chaste, well the huge benefit in staying so is that you aren’t promoting today’s scandalous lifestyle, avoiding the spread of common and possibly dangerous infections, diseases and viruses and you are leaving sex either altogether OR leaving it until a time that you are welcoming towards both a marriage and conception of a child.

Natural Sex, without any intervention, is not a purely unitive act. The child that comes with it brings a great enjoyment to parents, and sex is “only the beginning.” God made it good (I won’t say it isn’t, as I have not partaken of it myself) to ensure the drive would remain to reproduce and ensure our very survival. The reason why we use contraception is because we seem to think that sex should be like “money for nothing,” unfortunately, it is destructive to humanity as it cannot procreate to reproduce the population (as seen in many Western nations where population growth is now entering negative figures).
It is only because of Original Sin that we wish to pervert its meaning and intended purpose.

Pregnancy is NOT a mishap of sex. It is the consequence of it; and what would happen in times before contraception was devised.

The driving example above, I feel, is a good one. Yes, YOU are in control, of your own vehicle, but you also accept the fact that not everyone else may be, and could pose a risk to you on the road. No one goes driving expecting that every is a great driver, and follows every rule to the letter.

 

[Loly_Maria]

I’ll have to chime in on this, because as an asexual I find it incredibly annoying that people insist sex “has” to be a part of a “normal, healthy relationship.” Reason being is when you tell people that you aren’t interested, in results in all manner of shunning and belittling. There are also plenty of other ways one can show faithfulness, afterall, if sex is supposedly so “unitive,” how is it that such a huge number (I think over 80%) of teenage and young-adult relationships end after about 18 months?

We have been led to believe that sex in relationships is a “must.” It isn’t.

I don’t think anyone has said that it has to be a part of a healthy relationship, just that it is a part of a lot of people’s healthy relationships.

Also, I believe that Catholics do consider sex a must within marriage. Not being ‘open to life’ or ever ‘consummating the marriage’ is reason for annulment.

 

[CuriousMike]

I don’t think anyone has said that it has to be a part of a healthy relationship, just that it is a part of a lot of people’s healthy relationships.

Also, I believe that Catholics do consider sex a must within marriage. Not being ‘open to life’ or ever ‘consummating the marriage’ is reason for annulment.

Inside of marriage, I find it acceptable - because the man and woman have agreed to become one under God. People called to marriage are called to procreate. To not do so is perversion, if I recall correctly.

What I was getting at was the 21st Century idea of sexuality; and making sex part of every relationship, whether “one night stands” or semi-serious relationships between couples.

Come to mention it; people consider “one night stands” as sex without love. So I fail to see any unifying aspect other than two people being in close proximity to one another, and basically using one another for their own selfish gains.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I’ll have to chime in on this, because as an asexual I find it incredibly annoying that people insist sex “has” to be a part of a “normal, healthy relationship.”

I explicitly pointed out that if someone wishes to stay chaste, it is their own business. If someone wishes to be a vegetarian or Vegan, it is their own business. They will miss out on the taste of a good steak, but why should anyone care? If people wish to use sex for solely entertainment purposes, it is also their own business. If you find it scandalous, that is also your business - or problem. I do not describe your asexual attitude with derogatory adjectives, so why do you call other people’s behavior “scandalous”?

Pregnancy is NOT a mishap of sex. It is the consequence of it; and what would happen in times before contraception was devised.

Whether it is a mishap or not depends ONLY on the intent of the participants. And don’t kid yourself, contraception is as old as humanity, though it was not as effective as it is today. Unfortunately it is still not 100% effective.

 

[CompSciGuy]

I disagree. When I consent to sex I do not consent to pregnancy. And consent is ongoing and can be revoked at any time regardless.

Consent does apply because the child is using my body.

My husband isn’t using my body in order to survive.

The dead person may be the mother of the child which they are refusing to donate their organs to. I am no obligated to give blood in order to keep my baby alive, and I am not obligated to continue a pregnancy if I choose not to.

Continuing a pregnancy is also a means by which we keep someone alive. It is a denial of service - I no longer want to continue the pregnancy and so I am refusing to let it use my body.

I do think that abortion is legally and morally okay.

I believe that my right to not have my body used without my consent is more important than the protection of human life.

I noticed that you didn’t actually address anything that I was saying, you just repeated yourself from previous posts, which I have addressed. You realize then that I would be forced to assume that you have no real argument for abortion.

 

[CompSciGuy]

Whether it is a mishap or not depends ONLY on the intent of the participants.

Wrong wrong wrong! Reproduction is the reason why sex exists in the first place. Pregnancy is the natural consequence of sex. Contraception is the attempt to remove that natural element. When contraception fails, that is actually normal, not a mishap.

And don’t kid yourself, contraception is as old as humanity, though it was not as effective as it is today. Unfortunately it is still not 100% effective.

All the more reason why it is irresponsible to treat sex like a harmless form of entertainment.

What it comes down to is this. As a society we have a huge priority problem. Since the sexual revolution we have come to view sex as a form of entertainment instead of the life-giving activity that it is. We have worked so hard to remove the reproductive element from sex. We sell sex, we worship it, but we fear and shun the responsibilities of parenting. Because sex has become such an essential focus in our society, but having kids is considered such a burden, we are willing to sacrifice human lives should contraception fail. Because our supposed “right” to do what we want with our bodies is so important that it rules out the importance of the unborn child. We try to distract from the issue of life through rhetoric because we are not willing to face our own sins as a society.

We need to change the way we look at sex! We need to see it more responsibly as something that leads to parenting instead of promoting it as entertainment and recreation. Our culture needs an overhaul. We have had a priority imbalance for way too long.

 

[CuriousMike]

I do not describe your asexual attitude with derogatory adjectives, so why do you call other people’s behavior “scandalous”?

Today’s sexual lifestyle is scandalous, because it is immoral. Look at the TV - and how people are dressed in clothing commercials.
Why is it that everyone is obsessed with sexuality and sex?
If it isn’t quite obvious we are being “forced” into this mentality… I don’t know.

Thank-you for considering my asexuality. When people ask me “if I got laid on the weekend,” if I so much as mention “I don’t want to,” (or “I’m not interested in sex”) it becomes ‘their’ business, and not in a friendly way, either.
People have been led to believe that its the best thing since sliced bread, and you can’t live without it. People like myself must come across as complete cracker-jacks or something!

Whether it is a mishap or not depends ONLY on the intent of the participants. And don’t kid yourself, contraception is as old as humanity, though it was not as effective as it is today. Unfortunately it is still not 100% effective.

While the persons engaging in such activity view it as a mishap, due to conditioning by our media and society - the fact of the matter is that those parts of the human anatomy, to which we are referring, are designed to produce two results,
-New Life and
-Pleasure

To remove “New Life” from the equation is just kidding yourself.

While I know the reference to animals may be frowned upon; Animals “do it” because of the positive reinforcement (pleasure) aspect. This drives their instinct to reproduce. And if they had contraception, well, they would die out.

Wrong wrong wrong! Reproduction is the reason why sex exists in the first place. Pregnancy is the natural consequence of sex. Contraception is the attempt to remove that natural element. When contraception fails, that is actually normal, not a mishap.

All the more reason why it is irresponsible to treat sex like a harmless form of entertainment.

What it comes down to is this. As a society we have a huge priority problem. Since the sexual revolution we have come to view sex as a form of entertainment instead of the life-giving activity that it is. We have worked so hard to remove the reproductive element from sex. We sell sex, we worship it, but we fear and shun the responsibilities of parenting. Because sex has become such an essential focus in our society, but having kids is considered such a burden, we are willing to sacrifice human lives should contraception fail. Because our supposed “right” to do what we want with our bodies is so important that it rules out the importance of the unborn child. We try to distract from the issue of life through rhetoric because we are not willing to face our own sins as a society.

We need to change the way we look at sex! We need to see it more responsibly as something that leads to parenting instead of promoting it as entertainment and recreation. Our culture needs an overhaul. We have had a priority imbalance for way too long.

That is exactly the gist of where I wanted to get at. Unfortunately, elaborating my thoughts into a well-construed sentence or paragraph is most certainly not my forte.

Thank-You.

 

[Loly_Maria]

I noticed that you didn’t actually address anything that I was saying, you just repeated yourself from previous posts, which I have addressed. You realize then that I would be forced to assume that you have no real argument for abortion.

I’ve given my arguments and addressed what you were saying. I repeated myself because those are my main arguments and were still my answers to your questions. I don’t have to make up a new answer for every post when my point still stands.

Inside of marriage, I find it acceptable - because the man and woman have agreed to become one under God. People called to marriage are called to procreate. To not do so is perversion, if I recall correctly.

What I was getting at was the 21st Century idea of sexuality; and making sex part of every relationship, whether “one night stands” or semi-serious relationships between couples.

Come to mention it; people consider “one night stands” as sex without love. So I fail to see any unifying aspect other than two people being in close proximity to one another, and basically using one another for their own selfish gains.

Just because there can be sex without love doesn’t mean that sex cannot be positive even if it is not ‘open to life’. Sex can be a way for couples to strengthen their relationship, show love and affection, even reduce stress, ect. I don’t agree that my relationship is a ‘perversion’ just because I don’t want children.

 

[CuriousMike]

Just because there can be sex without love doesn’t mean that sex cannot be positive even if it is not ‘open to life’. Sex can be a way for couples to strengthen their relationship, show love and affection, even reduce stress, ect. I don’t agree that my relationship is a ‘perversion’ just because I don’t want children.

I was speaking in terms of Catholicism; not in terms of what others may think, or what the Baptist Church teaches.

However, personally, I don’t believe that there is a positive side to sex without procreation, and also feel the reasons you list are born from the “sexual revolution,” and could be dealt with via other means.
That is just my obnoxious opinion, so are completely free to disagree with that, too.

While a lot of people want to and/or like to disagree, sex exists for procreation and the drive for sex is driven by the pleasure brought from it. As all Christians are well aware, there are good and bad pleasures.
If sex is not viewed in a way that is open to life, then it is taking away from its original intention and using it as a means of getting pleasure relatively easily, thus perverting it.*

(*If I am not mistaken, I believe the Church teaches this. However, its time I got to bed, and so I can’t back that claim up at this point in time.)

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Wrong wrong wrong! Reproduction is the reason why sex exists in the first place. Pregnancy is the natural consequence of sex. Contraception is the attempt to remove that natural element. When contraception fails, that is actually normal, not a mishap.

Just because sex is necessary for procreation it does not mean that the reverse is true. Procreation is NOT necessary for sex.

Eating is necessary to maintain our body. But from that it does NOT follow that every food we consume MUST be “open” to provide nutrition. It is perfectly fine to consume foods and drinks that provide NO calories, that only satisfies our palate. Eating for pleasure is perfectly acceptable.

The point is very simple. An average couple has 2 or 3 children in their lifetime. On the other hand they have sex thousands of times. It is totally irrational to expect to be “open” to procreation every time. If there would be a conception every time, it would be a disaster. And that is not the end of the irrationality. It is asserted that all those people for whom conception is impossible (removed ovaries and/or uterus) should “pretend” that conception is possible and they should be “open” to it. This is not simply hypocrisy, but outright stupidity.

Today’s sexual lifestyle is scandalous, because it is immoral. Look at the TV - and how people are dressed in clothing commercials.
Why is it that everyone is obsessed with sexuality and sex?

Only according to your definition of “immoral”. But let’s face it, even if it would be immoral, it is none of your business. They do not come into your home and force you to watch it, or participate it. If you don’t like it, turn the TV off.

There is no “obsession” with sex in the normal world. Only the ultra-conservatives are “obsessed” with sex - especially with other peoples’ sex life. Do you know the definition of “puritanism”?

Puritanism is the haunting fear that someone, somewhere might have fun.

While I know the reference to animals may be frowned upon; Animals “do it” because of the positive reinforcement (pleasure) aspect. This drives their instinct to reproduce. And if they had contraception, well, they would die out.

You forget that the higher apes are exempt from the restrictions imposed by the estrus. They are able and eager to have sex whenever they feel like it. Some of them alleviate the frustration by engaging in sex. They follow the wonderful slogan: “Make love not war”. Very sensible and civilized.

I was speaking in terms of Catholicism…

And we simply offer a criticism of that teaching.