Is Abortion a right someone should have?

[James R]

Baron Max:

1. A pregnant woman is the person in the best position to decide what is best for her and her potential child.

Even if she has a mental illness? Or Downs Syndrome? Or is a cocaine(any drug) addict? Or is homeless and has no visible means of supporting the child?

Interesting that you bring this up. Right-to-lifers generally believe that abortion is wrong regardless of who has the abortion. So, while they will deny perfectly rational, healthy women the right to have an abortion, at the same time they will trust a drug-addicted, mentally ill, teenage mother to have the child they have determined she must have and support it for its entire life.

2. The law should not interfere in matters of personal autonomy unless there is a compelling reason to do so.

Well, many people, (perhaps the majority?), seem to feel tha they have that "compelling reason" to make the law. I mean, you can't just ignore all of those people, can you? ...even if you think they're nuts, or crazy, or ignorant?

Yes, I can. This isn't majority rules. It isn't even politics. It is a question of ethics. Since you don't really understand the concept of ethics, I don't really expect you to be able to appreciate this point or why it is relevant.

3. Making abortion illegal does not prevent it occurring, but rather drives it underground, ...

The same can be said of almost any human action. Murder, for example; would you say the same for murder? Or how 'bout theft? How 'bout subtle psychological abuse (Bullying?).

I agree. This argument actually isn't a very good ethical argument. Is is more of a practical argument. If you like, we can forget this one for now and concentrate on the ethical ones.

4. An unborn foetus does not have the same interests, and therefore is not entitled to the same rights as an adult, or even the same rights as a newborn child.

I think a very similar argument was used to prevent blacks from voting (and other such rights). Surely you, of all people, James, can't be advocating such an argument based on just some simple principles/beliefs, are you?

Here's something else new for you. There's an ethical principle which might be called the "principle of equal entitlement". What it says is that we should not treat different beings differently unless there is a compelling reason to do so. This can be applied to men vs. women, people of different races, or people vs. animals.

Now, I can think of a number of good reasons why an embryo ought to be treated differently from a new born baby. Can you think of any good reasons why a black person ought to be treated differently from a white person in the matter of voting rights?

5. The rights of a woman who has an unplanned pregnancy can, in some circumstances, outweigh the limited rights of an unborn child.

But also this issue of "weighing" the various rights ...how does one do that? And who does it? And is it by majority vote? And if not by vote, then how does one write such a law? ...about anything? (And isn't that a similar argument that President Bush is using to spy on telephone conversations?)

How does one weigh rights? Let's start off with what a right is. If you have a right, it means that some interest of yours will be protected against competing interests. Such protection can be partial, or total, or conditional. Thus, your right to free speech means that up to a point your right to say what you want will be protected, in this case by law. However, certain types of speech are curtailed legally (e.g. libel, slander), so you don't have an absolute right to free speech.

When two different rights are in competition, what ought to matter is which of those rights is ethically more important to protect. The process of weighing rights is often complicated, and the outcome may vary depending on the particular circumstances.

Who does this? Ethical people. They discuss the issues. Starting from a set of basic principles, they argue logically for or against the existence of particular rights. Is it a simple case of majority rules? I think you will find that most ethicists would say "no". The strength of an ethical position depends not on how many people hold to such a position, but on how reasonable it is to hold the position. That question must be answered in light of what we know of the world, and also in terms of a reasonable set of core assumptions.

How does one write a law? Well, laws are only partly based on ethics. Many laws are also a matter of practicality. For example, there may be little point in making a particular unethical practice illegal if it is impossible to police the illegal acts. (Note: this is not always the case.)

Geez, I don't know, James ...perhaps you can clear up some of my points.

I doubt you'll understand, since, as I have explained before, your ethical development seems very primitive to me.

And just so you know, I'm most assuredly pro-choice ....but that doesn't mean that I can't see the opposing side's point of view.

Why are you pro-choice? I'd really like to know.

 

[James R]

Quarkmoon:

I said I'd come back to the issue of potentiality of the foetus. Having thought about this a bit, I think we can deal with it quite quickly.

You have agreed that you believe an embryo or foetus has a special right to life because it has the potential to grow into a valuable, adult human being. Who knows, the embryo could be a future Einstein or Mozart, and the world ought not to be deprived of the possibility.

Clearly, innocent adult humans have a right not to be killed due to somebody else's decision. And since an embryo is a potential innocent adult, it ought to have the same rights.

Or should it?

Consider this: Suppose I buy a ticket for a $1 million lottery. Having a ticket makes me a potential lottery winner. By your argument, being a potential lottery winner ought to give me the same rights as an actual lottery winner (cf. being a potential child gives the embryo the same rights as an actual child). So, if your argument is correct, the lottery company ought to pay me the million as soon as I've bought my ticket. I should have the right to demand my money as a potential winner.

Hopefully, you can see from this that being a potential X (whatever X is) doesn't automatically mean you ought to have all the rights of an X now. All it means is that if you ever in fact become an X, then you'll have all the applicable rights.

So, as an argument against abortion, this one fails. We must look at the embryo as it is now, not as it might become in future.

There's another problem with the argument, too. Any pair of sperm and egg have the potential to become an embryo, which in turn has the potential to become a newborn child. By using contraception, you are eliminating the chance for the sperm and egg to get together to make an embryo.

Therefore, it is inconsistent to hold simultaneously on the basis of "potentiality" that the use of contraception is morally blameless, while at the same time claiming that abortion is morally wrong.

So, it seems to me that the potentiality argument is worthless as as argument against abortion.

 

[James R]

mountainhare:

Wow. A prime example of condescension!

I wrote a detailed reply directly to you about two pages back. Since then, I've also written several detailed posts in response to Quarkmoon. All these posts have set out a number of arguments for the pro-choice position.

And in reply, the above one-liner is the best you can do?

 

[FallingSkyward]

Consider this: Suppose I buy a ticket for a $1 million lottery. Having a ticket makes me a potential lottery winner. By your argument, being a potential lottery winner ought to give me the same rights as an actual lottery winner (cf. being a potential child gives the embryo the same rights as an actual child). So, if your argument is correct, the lottery company ought to pay me the million as soon as I've bought my ticket. I should have the right to demand my money as a potential winner.

I had an entire response typed out, made a few clumsy hand movements and within a second I highlighted and deleted my entire post. Needless to say I am very sad, especially since I've been procrastinating on calc long enough...gahh... but I don't like to give up, so.. here it goes again.


The example you used cannot be compared to that of a developing embryo. Not only do the social implications when dealing with the component of human life place the issue of abortion on an entirely different level than any materialistic example; a lottery ticket and a developing embryo deal with two different kinds of potential. The only way they can be related is if, to win a lottery, you would simply need to buy a ticket to start accumulating money in an account, and at the end of a period of time(oh, 9 months sounds good) you would be able to collect the entire million dollars. Does the time that would have to elapse make the money less significant? Even the few dollars growing in the account at the beginning are important because you know that what the end result will be. You assume that, if the company does not go through a financial crisis, you WILL be recieving a very tangible million dollars.

But of course we know the lottery does not work that way. There is generally more a chance for lightening to strike you twice(or as I used to say when I was a wee one, "More a chance that a horse will jump through your window!") than to win the lottery, and obviously you do not assume you will win it just because you buy the ticket. (Providing that you're sane...is that a safe assumption to make??) Just about the opposite is true when you deal with conception. It is assumed that, without complication, the baby WILL be born. There's just the waiting. In 9 months, you are almost guaranteed to "win."

This obviously deals with two significantly different kinds of potential, one being the very minute possibility of being randomly selected among millions; the other is the extremely likely possibility of the embryo developing into what our government has decided to be a "living" human being. It is only time that is the factor - excluding complications, there are no other hinderances to that child's birth.

There's another problem with the argument, too. Any pair of sperm and egg have the potential to become an embryo, which in turn has the potential to become a newborn child. By using contraception, you are eliminating the chance for the sperm and egg to get together to make an embryo.

I have a similar response to this, but I'll save it for later(unless someone else gets to it first). Need to sink my teeth into this math...

 

[leopold]

Oh, and ......what the hell is the consensus on abortion rights? Have we decided yet? If so, what's the decision? I mean, with some 17 pages of debate, surely a decision has been made and agreed to, hasn't it?

Baron Max

i believe that in the first trimester abortions should be the right of every female.

 

[hug-a-tree]

Don't worry, Hug-a-tree, no one else understands him either ....notice the lack of response to that comment?


Oh, and ......what the hell is the consensus on abortion rights? Have we decided yet? If so, what's the decision? I mean, with some 17 pages of debate, surely a decision has been made and agreed to, hasn't it? Or have we, the members of sciforums, not able to make any legitimate compromises on such issues? ...and yet continually expect our congressmen and judicial members to do it?

Baron Max

Okay good, so I'm not the only one.

I still haven't decided yet. There's alot of different ways too look at it.

 

[hug-a-tree]

If a person smoked all their life and got cancer should they be able to get help? After all they decided too smoke, it was there choice. Now should they pay for it by having too live with Cancer?
I had a heartattack, since I've been eating too many of those wonderful french fries. If I take this medication to lower my risk of getting a heart attack again, is that fair? No-one was shoving those frys down my throat.
I was driving drunk on the highway, and I smashed into a railing. My leg is broken, do I deserve help?
You see what I'm getting at?

Oh, and none of these things really happened too me. Don't worry. =)

 

[QuarkMoon]

You see what I'm getting at?

Yes, you believe abortion should be a solution to "accidentally" getting pregnant. And what I, as well as a few others, are arguing is that abortion should not be a solution. Take responsibility by giving the child a chance at life, and if you are unable to support the child, put it up for adoption.

There's another problem with the argument, too. Any pair of sperm and egg have the potential to become an embryo, which in turn has the potential to become a newborn child. By using contraception, you are eliminating the chance for the sperm and egg to get together to make an embryo.

The lottery ticket argument was addressed by someone else so I will address this. Yes, you are eliminating the chance for pregnancy, which is the main objective to using protection. I am not a religious person, I don't believe people should only have sex to procreate (or else I would be a hypocrite). If an egg is never fertalized, than I have no problems. However, as soon as that egg is fertalized and developes into a fetus, it has the potential to grow into a child, therefore it is immoral to abort it.

You missed my point again.

An adult cow clearly has a higher level of sentience and consciousness than a human blastocyst. Yet pro-lifers consider the killing of a blastocyst to be murder which ought to be subject to the full force of the criminal law, while at the same time cheerfully encouraging and indirectly participating in the mass slaughter of innocent animals. And why? Just because they like the taste of their flesh.

Now that is hypocrisy.

Animals are killed for their nutritional value. Ever heard of protein, Vitamin B12, Vitamin B6, Iron? Again, this is a distractive argument, a tactic heavily used by people who try to defend Bush's policies. It does not address the main concern, it is pointless.

You're beginning to sound a little desperate, what with your accusations of trolling. But you sound intelligent enough. Chances are you'll come round to my way of thinking once you've grown up a bit. I don't expect to convince you now, but at least I can plant some seeds.

Do no patronize me. Just because you are older does not automatically make you more knowledgeable. And so far, you have done a terrible job of making your case, this discussion has actually reinforced my opinion.

So, 47% of abortions are performed on women who have already had one. So what? What's your argument against allowing abortion to anyone (apart from in rape cases), to which that fact is relevant? Don't be shy. Tell me what you really think.

I have stated it's relevance on numerous occasions. So many times in fact that I was starting to sound like a broken record. Read any one of my responses for why that statistic is relevant.

So, would you support the abortion option for those women who would find adoption more traumatic than having an abortion?

If they are evaluated by a licensed psychologist and it is determined that adoption would have lasting emotional effects on the women above abortion, the women has never had an abortion before, and the women is not supported by the father, than she should would be allowed to have an abortion (if complete prohibition can not be made). The fact is, if that standard was implimented, I would bet cash money abortions would drop exponentially, and I would be happy with that. If abortion can not be fully outlawed (except in instances of rape or incest), than a decrease in abortions is the next best thing.

I could ask you to source this fact, but it really doesn't matter whether it is true or not. Let's say it is. Why does it then follow that abortion should not be permitted?

Please make an effort to read the post I was responding to. I was making the case of why unplanned pregnancies happen. I was defending the necessary use of protection to prevent unplanned pregnancies, which would in turn prevent abortions.

So, in essence, you do believe that women are reckless about the chances of pregnancy. You actually think that, in general, women don't worry about getting pregnant when they have sex. What makes you think that?

Yes, if a women does not want a child, chooses not to use protection and has sex anyway, that is the very definition of recklessness.

As for your other points, they are just going in circles and I feel I am getting jerked around. I respond and you bring it up again in different words, I than respond again only to have you bring it up a third time. That's why I called you a troll. And it's not me taking it personal, it's me getting e-annoyed.

 

[QuarkMoon]

Interesting that you bring this up. Right-to-lifers generally believe that abortion is wrong regardless of who has the abortion. So, while they will deny perfectly rational, healthy women the right to have an abortion, at the same time they will trust a drug-addicted, mentally ill, teenage mother to have the child they have determined she must have and support it for its entire life.

*sigh*

You are forgetting adoption again.

 

[RickyH]

*sigh*

You are forgetting adoption again.

But, in the case of rape

Do you think its fair to go through emotional pain and physical pain?

The pain of being raped, then giving birth to the child that's father raped you?

I don't think that is fair.

 

[QuarkMoon]

But, in the case of rape

Do you think its fair to go through emotional pain and physical pain?

The pain of being raped, then giving birth to the child that's father raped you?

I don't think that is fair.

Come on man, read some of the posts first. I have said on multiple occasions that I am against abortion except in instances of rape and incest (and that includes instances where the mother's health would be in jeopardy).

 

[leopold]

quarkmoon
i don't like the idea of somebody, anybody telling me what i was going to do with my body.

if i want to throw it off a cliff i'm going to

if i want to chop off my legs i'm going to

okay lets say abortion are illegal. whats next? hmmm?
men having their dicks cut off when they are 35?
don't say it couldn't happen

don't forget quarkmoon it is up to the people to tell the government
to STAY THE FUCK OUT OF OUR LIVES.

i am for abortions in the first trimester.
for the simple reason i'm an anarchist, anti authority

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

I've never understood the "it's the womans body so it's her choice" thing.
Does this mean if I stuff a small child into my ass it is then considered a part of me and I can do with it what I will?
Because some of those premy babies, a bit of lube, I don't know... I'm thinking maybe.
If I manage this impressive feat do I then get the right to go nuts with a coathanger?
You know, this isn't even comparable because at least I would have "done" something of note, it could be argued I earned the right to kill a kid by fitting it in my ass.
Being dumb enough to get knocked up at a kegger is behaviour which should be punished, not rewarded with back patting, pamphlets and "options".

Someone spilt their beans up the dumb tarts minge and she got knocked up, now a young human being takes residence in her abdomen.

I'm a fan of abortion, physically enforcing abortion upon those who shouldn't breed.
None of this "pro choice" crap. What does that even mean?
If pregnant chicks can legally get their kids knocked off than everyone else should be able to as well.

 

[hug-a-tree]

Yes, you believe abortion should be a solution to "accidentally" getting pregnant. And what I, as well as a few others, are arguing is that abortion should not be a solution. Take responsibility by giving the child a chance at life, and if you are unable to support the child, put it up for adoption.

Yeah adoption is always the nice way too go.

 

[Baron Max]

Yeah adoption is always the nice way too go.

It has a nice, comfortable sound to it, doesn't it? But the truth is that there are a gazillion kids waiting for adoption, many never get adopted, and many spend their entire childhood in "social prisons". Surely that's not something that we like to face ...so we pretend that every child is adopted by loving, wonderful parents.

Ahhh, the fairy tales are alive and well, huh?

By the way, Hug-a-tree, I liked/appreciated your analogies about other "accidents" ...even if no one else seemed to grasp it. Thnaks.

Baron Max

 

[hug-a-tree]

It has a nice, comfortable sound to it, doesn't it? But the truth is that there are a gazillion kids waiting for adoption, many never get adopted, and many spend their entire childhood in "social prisons". Surely that's not something that we like to face ...so we pretend that every child is adopted by loving, wonderful parents.

Ahhh, the fairy tales are alive and well, huh?

By the way, Hug-a-tree, I liked/appreciated your analogies about other "accidents" ...even if no one else seemed to grasp it. Thnaks.

Baron Max

Yeah, well there are a gazillion people who would like too adopt as well. They just never do. It's supposed to be pretty expensive too, right?

Aw, thanks. I liked my analogies too.

 

[Baron Max]

i am for abortions in the first trimester.
for the simple reason i'm an anarchist, anti authority

Well, that's a strange thing to say.

Does that mean that you're NOT for abortions in the second and third trimesters? And if so, how could make such a distinction after making such radical comments about not wanting anyone to tell you what to do with your body.

Baron Max

 

[RickyH]

Come on man, read some of the posts first. I have said on multiple occasions that I am against abortion except in instances of rape and incest (and that includes instances where the mother's health would be in jeopardy).

Just using your post in example.

 

[Baron Max]

Yeah, well there are a gazillion people who would like too adopt as well. They just never do. It's supposed to be pretty expensive too, right?

Expensive? And you think have a baby is NOT expensive? ..LOL!

But ye're right ...there are lots of obstacles to adoption, but you wouldn't want to give the kids out to potential child abusers or pedophiles, would you? So thorough investigation is needed or else we're doing nothing but "throwing the child away"!

Everyone has a "story" about the nice, happy, wonderful couple who can't adopt because ...blah, blah, blah. But the truth is there are so damned few such people that the kids linger in adoption "prisons" until they're 18, then they're kicked out onto the streets to make their own way. Nice, huh?

The problem with analogies, Hug, is that few read them and ponder them seriously. If they did, they'd make lots more sense than most are willing to admit.

Baron Max

 

[leopold]

Well, that's a strange thing to say.

Does that mean that you're NOT for abortions in the second and third trimesters? And if so, how could make such a distinction after making such radical comments about not wanting anyone to tell you what to do with your body.

Baron Max

there are exceptions baron
a woman would know if she wanted a child or not within the first 3 months
as a matter of fact she would probably know as soon as she found out

after that then other factors would come into play
the womans health would be one

i am definetly pro choice