Real arguments for abortion?

[Mary_Gail_36]

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?

Sex causes pregnancy.

And I will be painfully blunt, it is irresponsible to engage in an activity that causes a third party to come into existence (sex) and then decide that the third party should be killed because of the right to “privacy” according to Roe, or the more nuanced “Right to bodily autonomy”.

The baby did not will himself into existence.

If I left my front door open, and set out a picnic in my home for a homeless person to come and eat, and then decided, “Oh well I revoke consent for the homeless person to eat at my home, so I’ll kill him.”

Sex is not just a feel good bonding experience. Babies happen because of it.

 

[DCNBILL]

The right to choose not to donate blood is above the life of the person who needs the blood.

I would not necessarily make that statement, it would seem that in the case of a rare blood type and with a limited pool of donors, I would place the life of the patient above the donors right not to donate and would hope that the donors would choose the good. Obviously there would be those that would refuse, but a reward may be used to encourage them. Human life is sacred and should be treated as such.

 

[Loly_Maria]

I would not necessarily make that statement, it would seem that in the case of a rare blood type and with a limited pool of donors, I would place the life of the patient above the donors right not to donate and would hope that the donors would choose the good. Obviously there would be those that would refuse, but a reward may be used to encourage them. Human life is sacred and should be treated as such.

So you think that if there is a limited number of donors, they should be forced to donate?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I would not necessarily make that statement, it would seem that in the case of a rare blood type and with a limited pool of donors, I would place the life of the patient above the donors right not to donate and would hope that the donors would choose the good. Obviously there would be those that would refuse, but a reward may be used to encourage them. Human life is sacred and should be treated as such.

Fortunately the law disagrees with this sentiment. So much so, that the right of bodily integrity continues even when the person has passed away. You cannot carve up the corpse to save the life of someone. Whether this is a rational idea or not could be debated, but for the time being law protects the body of a deceased person. Naturally it is commendable to become an organ donor, but no one should be forced to become one.

 

[Rau]

…Does Prolife enforce the law for MEN to support the child?

If an adult woman decide to abort her pregnancy because the man refuse to support her/ refuse the responsibility, what is catholic position regarding the man’s culpability of the murder of the fetus?

Where I live, the law of the land enforces the man’s obligation toward the child. And no one objects to that! Abandonment is plainly a great wrong, but it is distinct from murder. Each is responsible for the wrongs he or she commits, and God assesses culpability of each. And even a murderer may have lessened culpability in extreme circumstances.

 

[NovusFidem]

So you think that if there is a limited number of donors, they should be forced to donate?

Sorry for butting in, but I see some differences between the situation you two are discussing and abortion. In this case, the person has the option “not to help” someone else; in abortion, the person has the option “to kill” another person.

It just doesn’t seem these situations can be compared at all. A better comparison would be between “forcing” a woman into keeping the baby (until birth, at least) and forcing a prospective murderer to drop the gun (until the victims are in a safer place, at least). It is an insulting comparison for some, but makes a bit more sense…

But to force someone into donating blood is like forcing a doctor to practice medicine, or a fireman to save people. It is expected that they would do this without convincing, so being in a situation where they won’t do it is a little concerning, but nothing we can truly force them into (say, if the fireman is suddenly traumatized, or the doctor doesn’t think he has the competence to help).

 

[jilly4ski]

I don’t understand the phrase “consent to pregnancy.” Since when is pregnancy something you can “consent to?” That is like walking into a hay field and as a separate action consenting to or not consenting to sneezing. Pregnancy is not something a person can control, thus we can have no explicit powers of consent over it. Of course if I know I will sneeze if I go into a hay field, I can avoid the hay field. But if I wander freely through it, then the probability that I will sneeze has gone up, regardless of whether or not I have consented.

 

[jilly4ski]

I don’t understand the phrase “consent to pregnancy.” Since when is pregnancy something you can “consent to?” That is like walking into a hay field and as a separate action consenting to or not consenting to sneezing. Pregnancy is not something a person can control, thus we can have no explicit powers of consent over it. Of course if I know I will sneeze if I go into a hay field, I can avoid the hay field. But if I wander freely through it, then the probability that I will sneeze has gone up, regardless of whether or not I have consented.

 

[Loly_Maria]

Sorry for butting in, but I see some differences between the situation you two are discussing and abortion. In this case, the person has the option “not to help” someone else; in abortion, the person has the option “to kill” another person.

It just doesn’t seem these situations can be compared at all. A better comparison would be between “forcing” a woman into keeping the baby (until birth, at least) and forcing a prospective murderer to drop the gun (until the victims are in a safer place, at least). It is an insulting comparison for some, but makes a bit more sense…

Or the mother has the option ‘not to help’ the fetus any longer.

The prospective murderer’s victims are not depending on that person’s body to survive and are not potentially causing the murderer a lot of distress/pain. If they were doing either of those then it would be legal to kill them in a lot of cases.

 

[Rau]

Or the mother has the option ‘not to help’ the fetus any longer.

Actioned by attacking the child, not with a gun, but with a toxic drug, or a knife.

 

[NovusFidem]

Or the mother has the option ‘not to help’ the fetus any longer.

The prospective murderer’s victims are not depending on that person’s body to survive and are not potentially causing the murderer a lot of distress/pain. If they were doing either of those then it would be legal to kill them in a lot of cases.

No, she is pretty much killing the baby.

Say, I have a boat. The boat is mine, and I have these people on my boat. In the water we have a lot of famished sharks; falling on the water is surely to kill anyone.

If suddenly I decide, by whatever right I believe I have, to simply push them out of MY boat into sea… did I just decide to ‘not help’ them any longer? Or did I do something obviously… bad?

Same logic applies to the mother: she is actively pushing the baby into the water full of sharks…

 

[Rau]

No, she is pretty much killing the baby.

Say, I have a boat. The boat is mine, and I have these people on my boat. In the water we have a lot of famished sharks; falling on the water is surely to kill anyone.

If suddenly I decide, **by whatever right I believe **I have, to simply push them out of MY boat into sea… did I just decide to ‘not help’ them any longer? Or did I do something obviously… bad?

Same logic applies to the mother: she is actively pushing the baby into the water full of sharks…

And incredibly, the baby is (in general) brought to existence through the knowing acts of the mother. To continue your analogy, the mother through her acts, enables a baby to enter “the boat” in full knowledge that if that happens, eviction to shark infested waters will follow. It is mind-blowing indifference.

 

[Loly_Maria]

No, she is pretty much killing the baby.

Say, I have a boat. The boat is mine, and I have these people on my boat. In the water we have a lot of famished sharks; falling on the water is surely to kill anyone.

If suddenly I decide, **by whatever right I believe **I have, to simply push them out of MY boat into sea… did I just decide to ‘not help’ them any longer? Or did I do something obviously… bad?

Same logic applies to the mother: she is actively pushing the baby into the water full of sharks…

A boat isn’t a body.

And even if they were in any way comparable, it would be legal for me to push them off the boat if they were threatening me. Yet the Catholic Church teaches that pregnant women who are at risk of dying as a result of the pregnancy are still not allowed to have abortions.

 

[Rau]

A boat isn’t a body.

And even if they were in any way comparable, it would be legal for me to push them off the boat if they were threatening me. Yet the Catholic Church teaches that pregnant women who are at risk of dying as a result of the pregnancy are still not allowed to have abortions.

Your argument has been consistently that you may enable the pregnancy, knowing in advance that, should it happen, you may murder the child at will. No reason required.

The Catholic Church teaches that murder of the innocent is always wrong.

 

[NovusFidem]

A boat isn’t a body.

Still, it’s MY boat, MY rules. Right?

And even if they were in any way comparable, it would be legal for me to push them off the boat** if they were threatening me**. Yet the Catholic Church teaches that pregnant women who are at risk of dying as a result of the pregnancy are still not allowed to have abortions.

The Catholic Church teaches that, in case of danger for the health of the pergnant woman, she may engage in whatever medical practice that might save her life, EVEN if it puts the life of the child at danger.

But you know what abortion DOESN’T do? Save lives.

As a nurse, I can speak with some authority: no pregnancy, by itself, kills a mother. This is a fact. What kills a pregnant woman:

Cancer: treated with chemotherapy and radiotherapy, which may affect the baby. The Church allows a mother to be treated: if the baby survives the treatment, all the better. If not, at least the woman did not commit any serious crime against her child. I have yet to see an abortion curing cancer, so I’ll give this one the benefit of doubt.

Blood clots: treated with medication. Also caused by most oral contraceptives, which shows that the presence/absence of the baby doesn’t change the survival rates of the mother. So, abortion won’t help in removing the blood clot.

Post-partum infections and Post-partum bleeding: dealt with medical intervention and medication (to stop the bleeding and/or infection). Funny enough, you can’t “abort the baby” to help the woman on this one, as the baby is already out.

Obstructed labour: in which we try to remove the baby, but can’t. As we are already trying to take the kid out, I don’t see how abortion would be of any help. Unless you think it is more humane to decapitate the child in order to remove the body more easily, just to lessen the risks for the woman. Seems like abortion is no good at this one too.

Eclampsia: dealt with medication and intensive care, in order to save both child and mother. If you simply “remove” the child, the mother is still at serious risk of death. What saves the mother is not getting rid of the baby, but treating the illness. Again, abortion is no help.

And, last but not least:

Abortion: which is the cause of the problem, so abortion wouldn’t be a solution for this one either.

The Church allows treatment to save the mother, even if it may harm the baby. However, you’ll find out if you ask any DECENT doctor, abortion is not a treatment. Period. Abortion is removing the baby from a safe place. Abortion won’t cure cancer, it won’t remove blood clots, it won’t treat infections, and it won’t lower the pressure of the mother.

Abortion is no treatment for anything since pregnancy is not a disease, so that argument falls short.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Let’s consider a possible scenario. Due to some unfortunate accident someone puts another person into a situation, where ONLY blood transplant could save the him and the one who “caused” the situation happens to be the only one who has the proper blood type. Even in that case there is no legal obligation to donate blood. (Some might argue that there is a moral obligation, but that is a different ballgame).

The wish of the potential donor trumps the need of other person. As I said before, our right to maintain our bodily integrity is so strong that it cannot be violated even in the case of death. Our body cannot be carved up to help other people to survive.

Let’s suppose that it was the outright negligence of the woman which resulted in the conception, and not just unwelcome event due to unlucky chance. Even in this case you cannot force the woman to “donate” her body as an incubator.

You can dramatize the issue with moaning about “slaughter of an innocent child” all day long. The emotional “blackmail” of “murder” does not constitute an argument. The potential use of a morning after pill simply prevents the pregnancy, prevents the zygote/blastocyst (not a baybee) to attach itself to the uterus wall. In such a case it will follow all the other zillions of zygotes, which fail the implantation process and get “flushed out” of the woman’s system. There is no pregnancy, no abortion, only a “No Trespassing” sign in the uterus.

Your emotional appeal would be more credible if you strongly advocated all the prevention methods. As it is now, your whining is not credible. A zygote or a blastocyst is not a human being. In the eyes of the law even a fully grown fetus - one day before birth does not have the right to inherit. In the eyes of the law it is not human being. Once it leaves the birth canal, and starts its biologically independent existence, THEN it will become a human being with all the rights attached to it.

One more observation. The definition of “murder” is the unlawful taking the life of a human being who does not consent to it. In all those countries, where abortion is legal, the procedure is NOT a “murder”.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Abortion is no treatment for anything since pregnancy is not a disease, so that argument falls short.

It is not a “disease”, it is a very unhealthy condition. Just like a broken hipbone is not a “disease”. Much more unhealthy than terminating it in the early stages of pregnancy, and before the pregnancy even occurs. There is no pregnancy until the blastocyst is embedded in the uterus. As a nurse you surely know that.

 

[jilly4ski]

It is not a “disease”, it is a very unhealthy condition. Just like a broken hipbone is not a “disease”. Much more unhealthy than terminating it in the early stages of pregnancy, and before the pregnancy even occurs. There is no pregnancy until the blastocyst is embedded in the uterus. As a nurse you surely know that.

How do you define “unhealthy.” Surely propagation of the species and one’s own genes is considered the height of health for a species and individual.

The definition of a “pregnancy” is a slippery thing. Did you also know that it is standard practice to date a pregnancy from the beginning of a woman’s cycle, 2 weeks or more before the woman actually conceives. So how do you reconcile the definition that the pregnancy doesn’t occur until implantation (of an already living homo sapien) and the practice of dating a pregnancy almost 4 weeks prior to that event?

Interestingly enough even though standard practice is to give the gestational age of the fetus by the first day of the cycle, some pregnancy websites give the alternative gestational age based on conception, none give it from implantation.

 

[Loly_Maria]

Your argument has been consistently that you may enable the pregnancy, knowing in advance that, should it happen, you may murder the child at will. No reason required.

The Catholic Church teaches that murder of the innocent is always wrong.

I do believe any reason for an abortion is fine. It wasn’t me that brought up throwing people out of boats. I was just pointing out why the argument didn’t make sense with Catholic beliefs.

Still, it’s MY boat, MY rules. Right?

A boat is not a body.

The Catholic Church teaches that, in case of danger for the health of the pergnant woman, she may engage in whatever medical practice that might save her life, EVEN if it puts the life of the child at danger.

But you know what abortion DOESN’T do? Save lives.

As a nurse, I can speak with some authority: no pregnancy, by itself, kills a mother. This is a fact. What kills a pregnant woman:

Cancer: treated with chemotherapy and radiotherapy, which may affect the baby. The Church allows a mother to be treated: if the baby survives the treatment, all the better. If not, at least the woman did not commit any serious crime against her child. I have yet to see an abortion curing cancer, so I’ll give this one the benefit of doubt.

Blood clots: treated with medication. Also caused by most oral contraceptives, which shows that the presence/absence of the baby doesn’t change the survival rates of the mother. So, abortion won’t help in removing the blood clot.

Post-partum infections and Post-partum bleeding: dealt with medical intervention and medication (to stop the bleeding and/or infection). Funny enough, you can’t “abort the baby” to help the woman on this one, as the baby is already out.

Obstructed labour: in which we try to remove the baby, but can’t. As we are already trying to take the kid out, I don’t see how abortion would be of any help. Unless you think it is more humane to decapitate the child in order to remove the body more easily, just to lessen the risks for the woman. Seems like abortion is no good at this one too.

Eclampsia: dealt with medication and intensive care, in order to save both child and mother. If you simply “remove” the child, the mother is still at serious risk of death. What saves the mother is not getting rid of the baby, but treating the illness. Again, abortion is no help.

And, last but not least:

Abortion: which is the cause of the problem, so abortion wouldn’t be a solution for this one either.

The Church allows treatment to save the mother, even if it may harm the baby. However, you’ll find out if you ask any DECENT doctor, abortion is not a treatment. Period. Abortion is removing the baby from a safe place. Abortion won’t cure cancer, it won’t remove blood clots, it won’t treat infections, and it won’t lower the pressure of the mother.

Abortion is no treatment for anything since pregnancy is not a disease, so that argument falls short.

I think that these are very good reasons to have an abortion if it is the mother’s preference. I think that it would be very stressful to go through cancer while also being pregnant, for example.

I know of a woman who had pre-eclampsia and had an abortion because she was at serious risk if she continued the pregnancy. There have also been cases in Ireland where women have died after being denied abortions.

You also didn’t include mental illness.

 

[NovusFidem]

Due to some unfortunate accident someone puts another person into a situation, where ONLY blood transplant could save the him and the one who “caused” the situation happens to be the only one who has the proper blood type. Even in that case there is no legal obligation to donate blood. (Some might argue that there is a moral obligation, but that is a different ballgame).

…]

Let’s suppose that it was the outright negligence of the woman which resulted in the conception, and not just unwelcome event due to unlucky chance. Even in this case you cannot force the woman to “donate” her body as an incubator.

Using your example of the blood donation: the one who caused the situation is already at wrong. Not helping at all only makes it worse.

Same for the woman: her carelessness is one wrong. Her lack of cooperation only makes things worse.

Are we looking for the best solution for these situations or just doing whatever requires less of our attention?

As it is now, your whining is not credible. A zygote or a blastocyst is not a human being. In the eyes of the law even a fully grown fetus - one day before birth does not have the right to inherit. In the eyes of the law it is not human being.

Soo, if the law allows, it is alright? That is moral relativism, as I am sure you are aware.

Some cultures allow, by law, genitalia mutilation of young women, even against their will. Some cultures say, by law, that non-virgin unmarried girls are to be sold into prostitution. I guess that, by your logic, since the law says so, then it is all right to do those things.

One more observation. The definition of “murder” is the unlawful taking the life of a human being who does not consent to it. In all those countries, where abortion is legal, the procedure is NOT a “murder”.

I am well aware of the definition of murder, thank you very much. However, I’d like to bring your attention to the fact that **1) **as this is a Catholic page, I am using the Catholic definition of murder in this case; 2) I am Brazilian, the law says abortion is murder (you have no obligation to know this, but this is just to remember that we are discussing the general idea of abortion, not what happens here or there); 3) the very definition of human life is still open to debate if science has any validity on their claims. And it is not the law that will decide when life starts: that is a job for science, biology or philosophy, tops.

Science, in fact, is often on the opinion that life starts at conception. From a Metabolic perspective, if a cell functions, it is alive. Both sperm and egg are live cells, but are not human - which brings us to the Genetic perspective: while sperm is not genetically human, a fertilized human egg is, as it hosts a complete human genome.

Embryology is a bit more forgiving for your views, at it believes that life begins at gastrulation, which puts us at 14 days - a time by which the woman won’t even know she is pregnant. At most, she’d use the after-day pill, which counts as abortifacient.

Neurology, which is the ONE definition “law” uses, is the only one to consider life to start when one has neural capacity. Which, while making sense in our current society, is absurd when one considers Biology (bios=life, logia=study of), as things like plants are considered alive, yet have no neural capacity at all. It’s science against science…

Also, please refrain from criticizing my argument as “whining”, as it adds nothing to the discussion. You are better than that, and I deserve your respect as much as you deserve mine. Thank you very much.