Abortion, Again

Status
Not open for further replies.

DM

Ce soir, on va danser.
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Senior Staff Member Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnus
As a staunch pro-choicer, I'll present my answers. I just wish there weren't 20 questions, I'm so lazy.

Well, at what point do you think that a human being, with human rights, comes into existence? Is it at birth, or earlier? If the fetus could live on its own if it were removed from the mother/born ahead of schedule, it has become its own entity. Until that point, it is entirely dependent on the mother and is merely an extension of her.

what keeps us from legalizing infanticide? This question is ridiculous. Infanticide is murder; to commit murder, you must kill a PERSON. Before the third trimester, a fetus is not a person in any sense of the word.

Why is this argument any more, or less, reasonable than the argument that:"There is a lack of consensus about when human life begins; therefore, abortion should be allowed throughout pregnancy?" It isn't. This assumes that as a pro-choice person, I automatically hold invalid anything a pro-life person says, and that just isn't true. Their arguments are just as valid as mine.

What do you think about cases where the woman's conscience tells her that abortion is not a good thing--because she thinks she is killing her baby--but she wants an abortion anyway. Why should these abortions be allowed? ...Because it's her right??? I do tons of things in my every day life that I don't think are good, but I have to do them to ensure my future success. Nothing on the level of abortion, but you get the idea.

Did Roe v. Wade merely open up a space for a view that had no standing before--the view that abortion is in some circumstances permissible--or did it completely replace one view, the pro-life view, with some other view opposed to it--so that pro-life people could complain, with justice, that some alien and unjustified view has been imposed upon them? Roe v. Wade should never be brought up in an abortion debate, save by Constitutional Law experts. I have not read the decision, so I will not comment on it, neither should anybody else. 95% of the people who argue for or against it don't actually know what the holding is and what the case actually does for the Constitution.

How should we regard a forced abortion of a pro-life woman's fetus? That would be medical malpractice, and she'd have one fucking hell of a lawsuit.

Why is it only the female parent's opinion which determines the status of the child? What a chauvinistic question. In a perfect world, the man has input on whether the abortion happens, but in the end, that's her body and her decision. The government needs to stop telling women what they can and can't do with their own bodies.

why aren't such images shown to woman, as part of informed consent preceding abortion? That is no different than showing a woman a picture of an aborted fetus before allowing her to get an abortion. It's propaganda, it's blatantly biased, and it is entirely irrelevant to her decision. Women aren't stupid, when they go to a doctor about the baby the doctor will tell them "in the first trimester, the fetus will look like blah blah blah." There is no actual need to show her with an ultrasound unless they're actively trying to persuade her not to abort.

If you think abortion should be allowed, can you consistently maintain that there any human rights at all? In this country? No, not right now. But the fetus isn't a person yet, it's a goddamn fetus, it doesn't have any rights. Even, for the sake of argument, supposing it does have rights, those rights given to an unborn thing that can't live without mom until the third trimester sure as shit don't trump mom's.

Does the following seem to you a reasonable statement of the pro-choice view? Jesus, what a fucking logical fallacy. Slavery is completely inapposite to abortion in every possible way, you can't do this and expect to be taken seriously.

Does anyone wish that his mother had chosen abortion for him? And, if not, then how can he consistently wish that any mother choose abortion for anyone else? I'm sure there are self-loathing individuals out there who wish they never had been born. Next question.

As a consequence, even though it may not be consciously recognized or understood, it must be practically impossible that people who are pro-choice regard the following generation as equal in dignity and worth to them. Well, there is no Question 12, but I'll respond to this sentence and say: yes, that's absolutely true. Our country is going down the tubes in general, so yes, I think I'm better than everyone coming after me. It has nothing to do with abortion.

Why isn't legal abortion outright discrimination? Because fetuses aren't a class. Silly question. If you wanted to talk about discrimination, you should've mentioned the disparity in the amount of minorities who get abortions. Next question.

wouldn't legal abortion be contrary to responsible principles of decision under uncertainty? This question is premised on the idea that pro-choicers don't "know when life begins". Yes, we do. A fetus is a life. But that life does not take precedent over the mother, simple as that.

No one would want to treat a small kitten or puppy in that manner, nor does the law allow to do so, so why should we allow anyone to treat immature human beings in that way? "Immature" human beings. Cute. We don't treat kittens or puppies in that way because they are already born, and that would be animal abuse of the worst kind. Try comparing apples with apples next time.

If the fetus really is just a clump of tissue, why should there be any fuss about abortion? See: religion.

Why is it that doctors are allowed to do abortions? This is just stupid. Who else would be qualified to perform this procedure??? And don't give me that "contrary to the aims of the practice of medicine" garbage, you're still saying a fetus is more important than a woman.

Should this practice be made illegal? I'm fine with it. I have no problem admitting that I would seriously consider aborting a child if I was given a 90% chance that the child would be mentally retarded and require special care for its entire life. We can't start putting qualifiers on abortion, it's either all or nothing. The reasons behind the decision don't make a difference.

Suppose the Supreme Court had decided in Roe v. Wade that the Constitution states that abortion must be illegal, that any law which allowed abortion was unconstitutional. What would your reaction have been? I don't know, I haven't read this hypothetical decision. I would need to see what constitutional arguments they made, but chances are I wouldn't agree with it.
 

Fabbles

LN_Slayer
is a Contributor Alumnus
what keeps us from legalizing infanticide? This question is ridiculous. Infanticide is murder; to commit murder, you must kill a PERSON. Before the third trimester, a fetus is not a person in any sense of the word.
I haven't fully formed my opinions on abortion yet, but when considering the topic of abortion you must clearly define what you mean by person - you may think this is a straightforward answer, but it is not at all. I suggest anyone who is forming their opinions about abortion and similar topics to research the topic of personhood and how it can be defined.

For example, what defines a person? What makes humans - human? Is it merely being alive and having a heartbeat? If so then a five week old fetus fits under this category, for by the fifth week it has a heartbeat. Should personhood be defined as being fully autonomous and being able to think rationally? If so, then even young children would not fit under this definition of personhood. Some have argued that it is perfectly moral to kill young children in cases where they are mentally retarded or have some other serious impairment for the children are not truly persons.

Instead of giving answers to quite frankly dumb questions it is better to examine the principles that are influencing how we think about abortion. The definition of personhood is one of those principles.
 
With regard to the 'does anyone wish that his mother had chosen abortion' question...

Frankly, up to a certain point in my life, I hadn't done anything at all, and had I died, the only value that my life had was the intrinsic value of life, whatever that is. Now I'm twenty years old, have experiences, knowledge, friends, and other cool stuff that gives my life real value - if it were possible to abort me today then I'd be pissed off.

But I suppose I would fit under those people that the article accuses of lacking confidence in my beliefs - what do I know about the intrinsic value of life, or when a human life actually starts? I'd rather be pro choice because being pro choice doesn't force the beliefs that I don't have confidence in onto others. Unless of course, question 6...

How should we regard a forced abortion of a pro-life woman's fetus?

Does that actually happen? If so, I'm against it. No one should be forced to have an abortion. Being pro-choice doesn't mean 'kill as many babies as possible', as some might have you believe. Being forced to have an abortion takes away your choice. That would actually be the definition of anti-choice.

On the other hand, the questions for pro-lifers are conveniently arrogant and flawed. It almost reminds me of this story, where the writer makes up arguments against him that he can easily and eloquently defeat.
 
For example, what defines a person? What makes humans - human? Is it merely being alive and having a heartbeat? If so then a five week old fetus fits under this category, for by the fifth week it has a heartbeat. Should personhood be defined as being fully autonomous and being able to think rationally? If so, then even young children would not fit under this definition of personhood. Some have argued that it is perfectly moral to kill young children in cases where they are mentally retarded or have some other serious impairment for the children are not truly persons.
You're missing something here.

I would guess that DM is not discussing full independence here, what I consider the point is not being entirely reliant on one single specific person (in the case of pregnancy its mother) in order to continue living. As a fetus cannot breathe (and thus cannot be saved in the event of premature birth, incidentally) of its own accord until well into the pregnancy it is still entirely reliant on said single specific person.

A 2 week old baby may need parents of some form, but it doesn't need a single specific person to keep it alive.
 

Myzozoa

to find better ways to say what nobody says
is a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
Well, at what point do you think that a human being, with human rights, comes into existence? Is it at birth, or earlier?
I could ask the question more concretely of you yourself: you have human rights--did you acquire them only when you were born? Surely you must have had them earlier, since premature babies are human beings with human rights, and the only difference between, say, a baby who is born prematurely by two weeks, and one who is still in the womb two weeks before term, is that the one is inside its mother, and the other is not; and the one that is inside, if taken out, will live just as much as the one born prematurely.
It is at birth, this is a classic strawman argument, the baby born prematurely has human rights because it is not a parasite on the mother's body. The one inside the womb is still in such a state hence it is subject to the will of the mother. I can't believe Columbia lets people get away with such false logic. The premature baby may need other courses of medical treatment, but that is entirely separate from my stance, Which is that once the baby is outside the mother's body she may no longer terminate.

what keeps us from legalizing infanticide?

See I'm not even going to argue this question because the author is cleverly trying to use diction to frame his debate. He has used the word infanticide separately from abortion, but with intent of connecting the two actions. My response would be that a fetus is no different than a cancer or parasite. I can connect two ideas with as much skill as the author can, and I know better than to be fooled by this sillyness. It's another slippery slope: the author goes on to talk about cultures that have condoned human sacrifice and slavery. It is important to note that in this section he avoids the question of the right to choose. Perhaps he implies the right to choose and concludes that the choice to terminate pregnancy is immoral or at least lacks morality.

Now let me go back to what I was saying before, that the point of no return is when the baby is outside of the mother's body. This second question is merely a slippery slope fallacy. What keeps us from legalizing infanticide is the idea that killing is wrong. A fetus is not a human, and I have no doubts that the author will fail to recognize this distinction because if he were to recognize it he would fall apart. The same principles that we use when we decide to remove cancers in are body are used to justify terminating a fetus.

Question 3 continues to ignore the woman's right to control her own body. But anyway : What do you think about cases where the woman's conscience tells her that abortion is not a good thing--because she thinks she is killing her baby--but she wants an abortion anyway. Why should these abortions be allowed?

No one argues that a fetus (notice how the author continually uses the word baby' he is trying to frame the discourse in his favor) has the potential to become a human being. Just as a sperm or an egg does. Again, the women has a choice about what happens in Her body. If a woman is being tortured does she not have the right to strike out and kill her attacker? Personally if such a thing happened to me, I would experience great guilt from killing my torturer (probably only doing his job and couldn't help it anyway) just as some women who terminate their pregnancies feel. That does not make the decision immoral, it just means that it is acceptable to think "what if" or to imagine with guilt what could have been.

question 5 is reminiscent of a Deck Knight post. ignored.

question 6: he describes a scenario in which the right to choose has been taken away, either by a forceful boyfriend or violent attack. I am pro-choice if the right to choose has been taken away that is abhorrent to me. However the attacker should not be charged with murder, and a supreme court saying such is again failing to recognize that a fetus is not a human.


question 7: Why is it only the female parent's opinion which determines the status of the child?

simple, because it's her fucking body. I'm sure that there are examples of rural christian families forcing their daughters to have children when they would prefer abortion, but the author would never dare mention that. perhaps the next thing the author will assert is that sperm donors should have custody rights. Abortion is an issue of control of one's body against invasion by parasite as I will continue to state. Hence it is the woman's choice of how to regulate her body. There are certainly health consequences to pregnancy, eventually the woman will make a full recovery, but our society doesn't forgive rapists if their victims make a full psychological recovery.

On everything about slavery:

1. A child born still has to wait 18 years to enjoy their full human rights, thus he is unequal still as the slave is. The author ignores this and it is an important response to the analogy. A child born is an indentured servant then I suppose. Waiting to be free of oppression. So logically if we are to ban abortion on these grounds we also should immediately emancipate all children as well. or maybe the analogy falls apart.

2. The analogy falls apart again: a fetus cannot be free. It literally cannot be free to pursue it's own wishes. By definition it cannot.

Now I am done with this at this point because it is so silly to me so let me state the crux of this:

In our society we constantly deny people rights. It is the basis of freedom and justice. We do this all the time when two sets of rights conflict with one another. Abortion is such an issue: the women has a right to regulate her body as she chooses, and the fetus is infringing on it. Remember that a fetus is a bunch of cells without a persona. The author mentions that he has never heard of anyone wanting to be aborted, the fetus has no 'I' or 'you' it cannot want anything.
 
DM pretty much answered (in a far more eloquent way I might add) my views on the subject. I'll chime in my response to the last one though since he didn't really go into it:

Suppose the Supreme Court had decided in Roe v. Wade that the Constitution states that abortion must be illegal, that any law which allowed abortion was unconstitutional. What would your reaction have been?

Personally? I'd respect the court's decision and accept it as the law for now. Still wouldn't change my views on pro-choice though, and it still wouldn't prevent the many illegal abortions out there; if anything, those would increase and even more women would be at risk for harm and injury because they're forced to use Dr. Nick Riviera over Dr. Hibbert.
 

verbatim

[PLACEHOLDER]
is a Smogon Discord Contributoris a Battle Simulator Moderatoris a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnus
How should we regard a forced abortion of a pro-life woman's fetus?

Does that actually happen? If so, I'm against it. No one should be forced to have an abortion. Being pro-choice doesn't mean 'kill as many babies as possible', as some might have you believe. Being forced to have an abortion takes away your choice. That would actually be the definition of anti-choice.
Short story: Yes

Medium story: Google Chinese Forced Abortions

Long story: 35,000 Forced Chinese Abortions a day
 

LonelyNess

Makin' PK Love
is a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
One question I have for people anti-abortion is the following:

If we define a fetus to be a human, then it is given all of the same rights of a living human... so how do we handle cases of miscarriage when the Mother could potentially be at fault?

Let's say the Mom is a smoker... is she guilty of manslaughter if the baby dies before it's born?

What about something as simple as "she doesn't eat right" or "she doesn't take prenatal vitamins".... is that grounds for reckless endangerment of a child? What about speeding, or walking too fast which causes her to trip and fall on her stomach...

These seem nonsensical, but start giving living human rights to a fetus and these issues will come up.
 
I skipped two or three questions. I find that the latter questions sort of assume that the previous questions were answered in a matter beneficial to his argument, and they are increasingly lunatic as a result.

Well, at what point do you think that a human being, with human rights, comes into existence? Is it at birth, or earlier? I consider that in order to even argue that an entity has human rights, an entity needs at least one (I did not say all - I said *one*) of many properties: a human-like form, human-level cognitive abilities, viability outside of the womb, or the affection of fellow humans. I consider that an embryo, right after conception, obviously has none of these properties - not to any significant extent. Conversely, a baby is obviously viable, which is already enough to argue for giving it rights.

Therefore, a human being gains "rights" somewhere between conception and birth. When exactly is impossible to define objectively. Basically, a seconds-old embryo is obviously worthless; for at least as long as it stays obviously worthless, abortion should be permissible. Anytime in the first three months (embryonic development) seems acceptable, after that I don't know. Personally, I don't give a damn if it's done anytime before birth - most of a person's worth comes from his or her interaction with the outside world, not from some sort of inherent qualities they have.

what keeps us from legalizing infanticide? Children are viable, but I see that's not really the question. The question is more along the lines of "why shouldn't we kill infants with Down's Syndrome"? The question is not entirely illegitimate - if a child is condemned to a life of misery, and is obviously not old enough to decide for themselves, we might want to consider killing them, and that would be for their own sake. Children already have different rights than adults since they need time to develop the ability to take care of themselves, so presumably if we consider that the best thing that could happen to them is death, we might want to do it. In any case, this is not at all the same thing as abortion.

Why is this argument any more, or less, reasonable than the argument that:"There is a lack of consensus about when human life begins; therefore, abortion should be allowed throughout pregnancy?" Both arguments are idiotic: human life obviously begins *after* conception, and *before* birth, so any reasonable threshold, even if you don't know it exactly, has to be somewhere in the middle.

What do you think about cases where the woman's conscience tells her that abortion is not a good thing--because she thinks she is killing her baby--but she wants an abortion anyway. Why should these abortions be allowed? If you have the right to do something, you have the right to do it. It doesn't matter whether you think it's right or not. We're not going to have some kind of thought police here.

How should we regard a forced abortion of a pro-life woman's fetus? As whatever crime is appropriate in the circumstances. For instance, in the example where the husband hits his wife's belly with a baseball bat to kill their unborn child, that would be battery. Whether the woman is pro-life or pro-choice does not matter.

Why is it only the female parent's opinion which determines the status of the child? Because she is the host, and as such she has final jurisdiction on what is going on inside her body.

why aren't such images shown to woman, as part of informed consent preceding abortion? That's kind of like emotional blackmail. I think it would be fine for doctors to propose it, but the woman should have the right to refuse to see such images.

If you think abortion should be allowed, can you consistently maintain that there any human rights at all? Of course I can, this is a silly question. I believe that in order to qualify "human rights", an entity must be biologically human AND (have high intelligence OR be viable OR have high subjective worth for some other humans). A fetus does not qualify as having human rights according to my definition. Babies do, children do, adults do, even brain-dead people do.

Does the following seem to you a reasonable statement of the pro-choice view? No. Slaves are biologically human, are often just as intelligent as their masters (education notwithstanding), are viable and have high subjective worth for many others. My definition gives them human rights not once but four times.

Does anyone wish that his mother had chosen abortion for him? And, if not, then how can he consistently wish that any mother choose abortion for anyone else? I'm glad I was not aborted, but that doesn't mean I would have forbidden my mother from having an abortion. It was her choice at the time to keep me and I'm grateful, but that's hardly a pro-life argument. Do note, in some cases, women get an abortion because they are not ready to have children *yet*, and then when they are ready they have a child. If you were that child, wouldn't you be *glad* she aborted the first time around?

Why isn't legal abortion outright discrimination? A fetus is in a position where its existence may clash with the fundamental rights of its host, and that's why its existence might be terminated at the host's discretion. A woman might elect to get rid of *anything* in her body, and if it can't survive outside of her, too bad. I don't see how this could possibly be discrimination.

wouldn't legal abortion be contrary to responsible principles of decision under uncertainty? No, because we are certain that a fetus is worthless in the first three months of pregnancy. There is no uncertainty about this.

No one would want to treat a small kitten or puppy in that manner, nor does the law allow to do so, so why should we allow anyone to treat immature human beings in that way? Neither kittens nor puppies are inside the body of a woman, nor do they require to be there in order to live. If, somehow, a kitten was grafted inside a woman's uterus, I don't think anybody would oppose ripping it out. Besides, nice appeal to emotion. Let's see how well it flies if we replace kittens and puppies by spiders and centipedes.

If the fetus really is just a clump of tissue, why should there be any fuss about abortion? Because some people are retarded.

Why is it that doctors are allowed to do abortions? Because they are qualified.

Should this practice be made illegal? No. If you want to select your child's orientation, gender, etc. go right ahead.
 
I'm staunchly pro-life, myself. The moment fertilization happens, you've created something, a life (or the potential for life). How people can say "oh well it's a parasite onto its host, and its not a sentient being yet" is pretty ridiculous when you consider that no matter what, a baby that could have been is being denied life. The "all or nothing" argument is the same thing. Are the majority of aborted babies honestly from cases where the mother would be in danger? the baby would be retarded? there's complications? No, probably not.

They're from women who have the common sense of a bean pole. I've known a few girls to get abortions through high school, and all of them gave the same story. "Oh, me and so-and-so had sex but I wasn't on birth control!" It's probably women like that who infuriate me the most. Having sex has consequences, and if you aren't prepared to live with those consequences, you have no business having sexual relations with anyone.

Maybe I'm being selective, but putting restrictions on abortions I'd be all for. Medically speaking, if the mother would be in danger, or the baby itself would be born with no way of living, those are situations you can put exceptions upon. Otherwise, I don't condone them.
 

LonelyNess

Makin' PK Love
is a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
I'm staunchly pro-life, myself. The moment fertilization happens, you've created something, a life (or the potential for life). How people can say "oh well it's a parasite onto its host, and its not a sentient being yet" is pretty ridiculous when you consider that no matter what, a baby that could have been is being denied life. The "all or nothing" argument is the same thing. Are the majority of aborted babies honestly from cases where the mother would be in danger? the baby would be retarded? there's complications? No, probably not.

They're from women who have the common sense of a bean pole. I've known a few girls to get abortions through high school, and all of them gave the same story. "Oh, me and so-and-so had sex but I wasn't on birth control!" It's probably women like that who infuriate me the most. Having sex has consequences, and if you aren't prepared to live with those consequences, you have no business having sexual relations with anyone.

Maybe I'm being selective, but putting restrictions on abortions I'd be all for. Medically speaking, if the mother would be in danger, or the baby itself would be born with no way of living, those are situations you can put exceptions upon. Otherwise, I don't condone them.
I would genuinely like to hear a reply about my question from you, then, since you're pro-life.
 

Fishy

tits McGee (๑˃̵ᴗ˂̵)
dm has excellently and succinctly expressed the views of most pro-choice users here, but I just want to respond to the questions that particularly touched a nerve.

There is a lack of consensus about when human life begins; therefore, abortion should be allowed throughout pregnancy? - this logic is obviously flawed, but flawed two-fold in that to agree would be highly impractical. there is a reason why abortion is not recommended much time past the first trimester - therein lies more potential complications for the mother's survival during/after the procedure. it is not a question of allowing abortion throughout the pregnancy. it's ultimately concern for the mother's health and well being, which is of the utmost importance regardless of any other circumstance during a pregnancy.

What do you think about cases where the woman's conscience tells her that abortion is not a good thing--because she thinks she is killing her baby--but she wants an abortion anyway. Why should these abortions be allowed? This is one of the dumbest questions I've ever heard regarding abortion. It implies that the mother must either be an idiot or a murderer, being well-aware of what she is doing to her unborn child and yet going through with the procedure. Any woman getting an abortion is fully aware OR informed of the procedure, possible complications, the state of the fetus at the time of abortion, etc. Again, not a matter of something that should be "allowed" to happen or not - the decision is only "allowable" by the person making it.

How should we regard a forced abortion of a pro-life woman's fetus? Everyone should regard this as a terrible misuse of political policy (China) and blatant abuse of human rights in general. But, if only opposing it the mere idea were enough to force change.

Why is it only the female parent's opinion which determines the status of the child? Ultimately it is the woman's decision, but it's not as if every girl who wants to get an abortion completely ignores whatever the man has to say about it. Even so, it is absolutely selfish for a dude to think he has any right to control what a chick does with her body - he already fucked her, and if she doesn't want the consequences of said action than the ball is in her court.

Why aren't such images shown to woman, as part of informed consent preceding abortion?Why on earth should they be? It is precisely propaganda, as DM said. It is not at all an easy decision to choose abortion - if seeing little fetuses suck their thumbs and wiggle their toes in an ultra sound is the breaking point for a potential mother and her decision to get an abortion… how dare you toy with her in such a way. The average woman, PERSON, has seen enough imagery and real-life experience to imagine what a newborn baby looks like, and an unborn fetus in an ultrasound. Thrusting these ideas at her when she is already making a difficult decision is cruel, and can indeed make the decision infinitely harder. "You want an abortion… but just in case you had NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE ABOUT TO DO, here are some images of the thing you're about to destroy." Seriously, who in the fuck would advocate doing such a thing?

If you think abortion should be allowed, can you consistently maintain that there any human rights at all? Yes, of course. A better question is why abortion isn't labeled murder in the first place. Hmm…

Does anyone wish that his mother had chosen abortion for him? And, if not, then how can he consistently wish that any mother choose abortion for anyone else? At the first part - some people enjoy living, some wistfully wish they had never been born. It's a dumb question at all, but, some people still answer it. As for this son wishing that any other mother choose abortion for their potential sons - get over yourself. It's none of your business, it's not anyone's business but the mother's. I think in this case the term "mother" is being used to accentuate the maternal feel that a mother SHOULD have… and what mother would ever want to kill her baby? Sigh, shut up.

No one would want to treat a small kitten or puppy in that manner, nor does the law allow to do so, so why should we allow anyone to treat immature human beings in that way? They are born and living of their own accord - fetuses are not. This question should say "well if we want to abort fetuses then maybe we should abort the fetuses of dogs and cats, too!" Equally ridiculous, no?
 
Maybe I'm being selective, but putting restrictions on abortions I'd be all for. Medically speaking, if the mother would be in danger, or the baby itself would be born with no way of living, those are situations you can put exceptions upon. Otherwise, I don't condone them.
So, you would be perfectly fine if a mother without any sort of financial means was forced to keep her baby? Do you think that not being able to properly care for the child would be better than not having it? At best, the mother would immediately put the baby up for adoption, but even that doesn't always have positive results on the child's development. If a child is unable to be adopted quickly, they spend years without any real parental attention to help their social and moral development.
 
If we define a fetus to be a human, then it is given all of the same rights of a living human... so how do we handle cases of miscarriage when the Mother could potentially be at fault?

I have to ask you how a fetus is NOT a human. It begins by human conception, it grows isnide of a human, it develops as a human, it is born a human. Just because it relies upon its mother to survive its development, doesn't make it a human? We all began in this manner, and we're all humans, so it's a little silly to me not to call a fertilizied fetus a "human" just because it doesn't look like one or can subsist on its own.

Miscarriages themselves are a little more tricky, I will admit. I've had one myself, and can say they can be damaging to the mother. I think on the subject of smoking and drinking, yes, I think the mother should have some responsibility. It's clearly known that engaging in these activites is dangerous for a developing baby; hell it's right there on the bottle and the pack. Doing either of these, and the baby lives, can cause birth defects and mental retardation. Hell, I've read of cases where people try to drink as much as they can to achieve a miscarriage since they couldn't afford an abortion.

As for "eating right" and all that, a mother has that responsibility, but it's a little different from taking in dangerous drugs and failing to take a vitamin. It's so diverse a subject, since there are women who can eat anything they want and have a healthy pregnancy, while others do everything the doctor tells them and lose the baby. That's your body's physiology, which a lot of times during pregnancy, is hard to control regardless. So, no, I don't believe persecuting a mother when she miscarries due to nutrition would be right.

Your last scenario seems a little silly to me. Engaging in day to day life is certainly different from shoving a heroin needle in your veins. While it's unfortunate to trip and fall on your belly, that's accidental on the part of the mother, so there's no fault towards her.


EDIT: Why would any person with a shred of sense that was in a financial situation be pregnant in the first place? Why should this be an excuse to deny a child LIFE, at the fault of their parents?
 

Fishy

tits McGee (๑˃̵ᴗ˂̵)
I'm staunchly pro-life, myself. The moment fertilization happens, you've created something, a life (or the potential for life). How people can say "oh well it's a parasite onto its host, and its not a sentient being yet" is pretty ridiculous when you consider that no matter what, a baby that could have been is being denied life. The "all or nothing" argument is the same thing. Are the majority of aborted babies honestly from cases where the mother would be in danger? the baby would be retarded? there's complications? No, probably not.

They're from women who have the common sense of a bean pole. I've known a few girls to get abortions through high school, and all of them gave the same story. "Oh, me and so-and-so had sex but I wasn't on birth control!" It's probably women like that who infuriate me the most. Having sex has consequences, and if you aren't prepared to live with those consequences, you have no business having sexual relations with anyone.
i always hate writing up a big post to see there have been new posts in my stead, heh.

tayla, i totally feel you - i've known plenty of girls that have gone through abortions in high school, the 'easy way out' to them because they weren't using protection and were unfit to be parents. these type of girls cheapen the value of life, ONE, and the severity of abortion in general, two. If a baby is going to be conceived, born and raised, then the man and woman must be aware of the responsibility of their actions, and the life-long consequences should a child actually be born.

however

regardless of any intrinsic value of life, the circumstances of conception which may lead to an uneducated or easy-out abortion, and any other 'excuses' people may support their abortion plans with - it's still none of your business. As humans that are already alive and well, we know what life is like. We understand the joys and pains of living, and can both sympathize and empathize with those less fortunate, including those that do not get the chance to live at all. Abortion is only taking away that chance - it is not actually taking away a life already living.

so tayla, I completely agree with you. A fetus has the undeniable potential for life, and should two people deliberately or accidentally conceive a fetus, they must be responsible for it. choosing to abort a fetus is one way of being responsible for their actions. again, abortion is not an easy procedure to endure, and further inhibits your ability to have children when you DO want them. The real problem is not abortion itself, but irresponsible people who take for granted creating life and nurturing a could-be little human.
 

LonelyNess

Makin' PK Love
is a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus

As for "eating right" and all that, a mother has that responsibility, but it's a little different from taking in dangerous drugs and failing to take a vitamin. It's so diverse a subject, since there are women who can eat anything they want and have a healthy pregnancy, while others do everything the doctor tells them and lose the baby. That's your body's physiology, which a lot of times during pregnancy, is hard to control regardless. So, no, I don't believe persecuting a mother when she miscarries due to nutrition would be right.


It's not different at all. Do you even KNOW what manslaughter is? It's when you accidentally kill someone due to negligence.

Yes, smoking and drinking are certainly MORE negligent, but not eating right / malnutrition is still bad for a fetus and can cause a miscarriage. You don't get to decide HOW negligent a mother can be to a person with ALL OF THE SAME RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES OF A HUMAN BEING. Negligence is negligance, plain and simple, and if your negligent actions caused miscarriage, however minor you may think they are, you are guilty of involuntary manslaughter. You only get to define whether or not a fetus is eligible to receive these rights, not how to apply them.
 
PURPOSEFULLY being negligent, yes that is different. Sometimes there is simply nothing that can be done about the nature of the pregnancy and your own body. Do you not see the difference in persecuting a woman for how her body is made versus a woman who shoots, or drinks, or smokes?

Take murder for example, if you shoot someone in your own home, when they are threatning you or attempting to harm you, it is still technically murder. So who got to define that? You have NO control over daily life, or how your body will adapt to pregnancy, so unless you purposefully starve yourself, then no, I don't think the mother should be charged with manslaughter.
 
I'm staunchly pro-life, myself. The moment fertilization happens, you've created something, a life (or the potential for life). How people can say "oh well it's a parasite onto its host, and its not a sentient being yet" is pretty ridiculous when you consider that no matter what, a baby that could have been is being denied life. The "all or nothing" argument is the same thing.
This raises other problems of consistency. If you take a sperm cell, and an ovum, and stick them together in some agar and create an artificial womb, you've done exactly the same thing. Should that double-cell zygote be given the same legal status as an unborn child at the same developmental stage.

The life-in-potentia-equals-life argument falls down quite fast for that reason - Given the number of pregnancies that fail to carry to term, particularly. The more philosophical life-in-potentia arguments are actually even worse, since they can be logically extended to say "Why should a baby be denied the chance at a life because the potential parents never had sex? Why should the millions of sperm wasted in every ejaculate not have been implanted into a bunch of eggs, why didn't those potential babies deserve a chance at life, etc. etc.

Are the majority of aborted babies honestly from cases where the mother would be in danger? the baby would be retarded? there's complications? No, probably not.
Actually, statistics show that is the case - I think it's around 60% of abortions are performed to prevent bodily harm to the woman.

They're from women who have the common sense of a bean pole. I've known a few girls to get abortions through high school, and all of them gave the same story. "Oh, me and so-and-so had sex but I wasn't on birth control!" It's probably women like that who infuriate me the most. Having sex has consequences, and if you aren't prepared to live with those consequences, you have no business having sexual relations with anyone.
This is the "Punish women for sexuality" argument, and is inherently chauvinisitic.

Furthermore, it doesn't happen very often in terms of the number of abortions performed. Indeed, in most parts of the West where contraception is easily available, the issue arises far less commonly, and usually in cases where the person WAS using birth control but it failed, so the argument of "You were prepared to take the risk" becomes a little weaker.

The other thing to keep in mind is that whether or not teenagers are responsible enough to have sex, they're still going to have sex. Enforced or even encouraged abstinence works extremely poorly. That means you're always going to be looking for a second-best solution, so why choose a solution that makes the problem worst out of defiance for the fact you can't achieve the first-best solution?

Maybe I'm being selective, but putting restrictions on abortions I'd be all for. Medically speaking, if the mother would be in danger, or the baby itself would be born with no way of living, those are situations you can put exceptions upon. Otherwise, I don't condone them.
As I said above, the most common reason for abortion is in fact health of the mother. Adding the restrictions would only eliminate a relatively small number of abortions. In practice, adding restrictions to abortions simply makes it harder for those who need them to get them, because they have to go through invasive and time-consuming disclosure processes.
 

LonelyNess

Makin' PK Love
is a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
What about all the other questionably negligent actions that I laid out, such as driving fast, or wearing high heels and tripping or any NUMBER of any other actions that a mother can make PURPOSELY (but without the intent of killing the baby) that can end up being spun into manslaughter.

And you most certainly do have control over your own daily life. There are a TON of things you can do that empirical evidence proves decreases the chance for miscarriage. Not doing ANY of those things means that you just VOLUNTARILY increased the chance for miscarriage, which means you are being negligent with the life of another human being.

You start saying "if you are a smoker and you miscarry you go to jail for manslaughter", and it doesn't take long before you go to "if you have a high fat diet and you miscarry you go to jail for manslaughter", or "if you get in a car accident and you miscarry you go to jail for manslaughter".

The point is NONE of these actions should be grounds for involuntary manslaughter: because the fetus should not be afforded the same rights as a human being. But if it IS a human being, then all of these ARE grounds for involuntary manslaughter, or at the very least being charged for it.
 
This raises other problems of consistency. If you take a sperm cell, and an ovum, and stick them together in some agar and create an artificial womb, you've done exactly the same thing. Should that double-cell zygote be given the same legal status as an unborn child at the same developmental stage.

The life-in-potentia-equals-life argument falls down quite fast for that reason - Given the number of pregnancies that fail to carry to term
Why should consistency matter, or the mode of which it is created? That is fertilization, who cares if it's "artificial" or not? A fetus was still created, it still has potential itself.


Actually, statistics show that is the case - I think it's around 60% of abortions are performed to prevent bodily harm to the woman.
- In 2007, 84% of all abortions were performed on unmarried women
- 47% of women who have abortions had at least one previous abortion (this is pretty self explanatory. That's close to half!)
- On average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing abortion: 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about 3/4 say they cannot afford a child; and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner


This is the "Punish women for sexuality" argument, and is inherently chauvinisitic.

Furthermore, it doesn't happen very often in terms of the number of abortions performed. Indeed, in most parts of the West where contraception is easily available, the issue arises far less commonly, and usually in cases where the person WAS using birth control but it failed, so the argument of "You were prepared to take the risk" becomes a little weaker.
And how many of these people had these consequences because they didn't use it right? Contraceptives are highly effective, discounting condoms, which I think sit at 72% these days. The Pill is 99% effective, as are NuvaRing, while I think IUDs and the like are higher. The cases of TRUE birth control failure are extremely low.

The other thing to keep in mind is that whether or not teenagers are responsible enough to have sex, they're still going to have sex. Enforced or even encouraged abstinence works extremely poorly. That means you're always going to be looking for a second-best solution, so why choose a solution that makes the problem worst out of defiance for the fact you can't achieve the first-best solution?
So, the second-best solution is terminating a fetus? That doesn't sound right. How can teenagers be excused? The first thing they need to learn is responsibility through sex, why should they be excused because they just wanted to do it anyway?


EDIT: Ahhh, I should refresh before I post.

The point is NONE of these actions should be grounds for involuntary manslaughter: because the fetus should not be afforded the same rights as a human being. But if it IS a human being, then all of these ARE grounds for involuntary manslaughter, or at the very least being charged for it.
Again, how is it NOT? Some of what you say is solid, the others not so much.. Getting into an accident is exactly that, an accident. Most of the time you can't control what happens to your self when you have a car crash. You can also argue that when you drive fast, you're being negligent towards other people. You aren't persecuted for that (besides tickets, fines, etc), so why should you be if you're pregnant?
 
As for statistics,

  • The overwhelming majority of all abortions, (95%), are done as a means of birth control.
  • Only 1% are performed because of rape or incest;
  • 1% because of fetal abnormalities;
  • 3% due to the mother's health problems.
So, yeah.
Source: http://www.abortiontv.com/Misc/AbortionStatistics.htm

EDIT:

Why women have abortions?
1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient)."

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

EDIT #2:

25.9% Want to postpone childbearing
21.3% Cannot afford a baby
14.1% Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy
12.2% Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy
10.8% Having a child will disrupt education or job
7.9% Want no (more) children
3.3% Risk to fetal health
2.8% Risk to maternal health
2.1% Other

Source: Wikipedia. FINE Killah

- ^ Bankole et al., "Reasons Why Women Have Induced Abortions: Evidence from 27 Countries", International Family Planning Perspectives (1998). Also see Lawrence B. Finer, Lori F. Frohwirth, Lindsay A. Dauphinee, Susheela Singh, and Ann M. Moore, "Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives", Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 37(3):110-118 (September 2005).

Lol ._.
 
Unbiased observer, formally requesting both sides post sources when they post statistics.

Statistics from supportprolife.com or Ihatebabbies.com are probably not the most reliable anyway


example from the article above:


Source:Bankole, Akinrinola; Singh, Susheela; Haas, Taylor. Reasons Why Women Have Induced Abortions: Evidence from 27 Countries. International Family Planning Perspectives, 1998, 24(3):117–127 & 152 As reported by:The Alan Guttmacher Institute Online
probably a reliable source

Source: Central Illinois Right To Life
probably not a reliable source
 

Deck Knight

Blast Off At The Speed Of Light! That's Right!
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Top CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Abortion is never medically necessary (per the American Medical Association) and always destroys a human life (per common sense). Therefore abortion is simultaneously 100% optional and 100% morally deficient.

All justifications for abortion inherently devalue the dignity of human life by setting up arbitrary standards that fall apart mostly by the progression of time. Legal personhood is an irrelevant, shifting standard, as is viability. All things being equal, any child in the womb conceived in 2012 will be born with minimal complications (depending I suppose on geographic area). Aforementioned justifications also ignore the reality that merely by engaging in the act of abortion a woman has the potential to seriously imbalance her natural processes or, if the abortion procedure is botched, render her permanently infertile. Pregnancy is not a disease - it is a natural part of the reproduction process in every mammalian species. It requires loving support, not deliberate disruption.

Further, to claim that intercourse, the sole activity which leads to pregnancy in every instance being discussed (save selective abortions after in-vitro, another procedure which treats life as a commodity rather than something with inherent value), can be separated as a distinct act from getting pregnant is scientifically and logically erroneous. Every people on earth have known that sex and pregnancy are intrinsically linked. To suggest that the choice to have sex is removed from the choice to get pregnant is ridiculous. Your right to autonomy is ceded once you create a new human life. That isn't punishment, it is respect for your life and the life of your child. Once you have created a life, you do not have any superior claim over it. Should a pregnancy endanger your life, doctors are compelled by the Hypocratic Oath to save both (or all) of your lives as is possible within the realm of applicable medicine.

Once that child is in you, claiming "it's my body" is nothing more than a combination of denial and selfishness. Yes, the child is in your body - and you know how it got there. Therefore you know that every time you engage in intercourse there is a calculable probability that you will become pregnant, and if you become pregnant, it is a complete certainly it came from your having intercourse.

The right to life supersedes all other rights - it is the foundation of them. There are remedies for each of the extreme cases routinely brought up. Pro-lifers have set up a cadre of institutions to help mothers in crisis pregnancies support, nurture, and protect their and their child's life and livelihood because we understand perfectly how difficult pregnancy, childbirth, and child rearing are.

RE: involuntary manslaughter for miscarriage

If someone smokes and burns down someone else's house by not putting out the butt, we still charge them for arson. Thus if someone smokes and it can be proven directly causal to their child in the womb expiring, they could indeed by charged with involuntary manslaughter. Rules of evidence still apply, though the question would be who has authority to bring the suit. In all likelihood it's the father.

If a woman who wants a baby still smokes, we usually call her smoking categorically dumb. If someone is smoking purposely to kill her child, then yes, involuntary manslaughter would apply. This isn't an extreme position, it's logically consistent if you consider all human life to be of the same value inherently.

The "potential life" argument holds no water. A fetus is already alive, else we wouldn't be discussing the action which prematurely terminates it. You're not guaranteed to avoid being struck by lightning as I type this MrIndigo, yet it's still illegal to harm you, even if you're standing outside in a field during the middle of a thunderstorm.
 
I would like to bring up the issue of a woman's right to work and her right to have a professional and social life equal to a man's. A man can have sex whenever they want to and a woman should as well. This is why morning after (abortion) pills exist. Women should be able to take control of their own destiny and not be at the mercy of whether their male partner wears a condom or not. They should also have equal opportunity and have the security from having unnecessary obligations hurting their chances at success. A child is a HUGE responsibility and can ruin the life of a woman who sees herself as more than just a housewife.

EDIT: I really don't want to answer those questions from the OP as they're all warped and biased one way or another. I'll just say that for most of them I would probably go Pro-Abortion as opposed to Anti-Women's Rights.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top