'It's a child not a choice...but not if you were raped'
- Thread starter visceral_instinct
- Start date
Agreed. However I am sure you do not believe this involves the right to happiness by abuse or murder of some other person. Any rights of any human being are circumscribed by the right of others not to be abused or killed in order to contribute to said happiness
Yep thats my main contention. The whole point of abortion is to dispose of an unwanted child, not an unwanted zygote or an unwanted blastocyte or an unwanted ovum. Its the child the elector does not want. The aim is to terminate a life
Indeed there are plenty of people who support legalised killing in one form or another. It reminds me of people who will not eat fish if the head is still attached and served on the dish. A bizarre kind of squeamishness which depends on presentation and appearances which conceal reality rather than an acceptance of their choices.
Exactly. If the fetus is not living, there is no need to abort. A dead fetus does not result in a child.
Last edited:
In the material world, one being's happiness cannot but come at the cost of another being's unhappiness.
And so they fight, in whatever way they can ...
If a population insists on being free to do with their lives as they see fit, disregarding everyone else, but when acting on this freedom gets them in trouble, expects that the state and others would support them, then such a population is unethical.
Freedom costs.
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
The state and other's only need not get in their way. You have deep seated problems if you believe that what other's do with their own bodies is any of your concern. I mean what do you expect people to do, take a poll every time they have to make a life decision? Are you crazy? Do you make deeply personal decisions based on what your neighbor (or some stranger unconcerned for your life) wants for you or what you want for you? No one is beholden to the rest of society in matters that concerns ones future and ones own body. Its a basic freedom and it costs you nothing!
62% of americans supports abortion on demand and 77% support it under the conditions of rape (yes even among republicans). Would you tell a woman she should have an abortion because its supported by the state and society? I didn't think so. So please save me this ridiculous rant about conforming ones decisions in favor of what society supports. It has nothing to do with the reality which is that women need a choice, they need access to safe abortions as well as help when they do choose to keep a child.
Last edited:
And I recognise that, as you would note in the thread on child labour, where I argued that the right of a child to eat is far more important than the laws which ban labour because the alternative is mutilation for begging or child prostitution or death by starvation. I am not in any way, an idealist. I am first and foremost a pragmatist. I know my ethics are not politically correct but to me the choice is between an inconvenience to a mother and the death of a child. Morally or ethically, I cannot see how the choice can be any other than to support the defenceless. Between the mother being forced to carry a child and a child being forced to die, I cannot ethically support the mother. A pregnancy is only nine months, death is somewhat longer, more final and totally irreversible
not at all
In the analogy it is the blacks who are deemed defenseless on the merit of their being owned by another (and such ownership contributes to the other's personal happiness and avoidance of inconvenience, individual ability to pursue opportunity and financial stability, greater savings to society at large and most of the other benefits you list in regards to abortion)
not at all
I am saying that black rights, as a civil piece of legislation, only became practical when the required social conventions were there as a foundation
not at all
I would say that the Jim Crow laws failed because the social conventions out grew their need (perhaps you could say that it was a successful piece of legislation in working on bridging the gap between two extremes ... kind of like having regulated abortion could bridge the gap between today's current standard and a standard that weighs in more the rights of the defenseless child.
no more than extending civil liberties to blacks is all about controlling cotton plantation owners
to repeat yet again : bringing in legislation that doesn't have a foundation in the ethics of the society it is to be implemented in is a failed piece of legislation in everyone's books ....
:bugeye:
Hogwash
If you live in a free society you live in a society that has the regulations of freedom translated into the language of justice.
That's why such societies don't hesitate to infringe on the personal freedoms of active rapists, murderers and the like.
Last edited:
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
@Lightgigantic
No your defense of the analogy doesn't work because you are comparing people who have discernible rights to non-entities that have none. As long as the fetus is in the womb the only right is that of the mother.
LG: I am saying that black rights, as a civil piece of legislation, only became practical when the required social conventions were there as a foundation
As did abortion.
LG: I would say that the Jim Crow laws failed because the social conventions out grew their need
As did making abortion illegal which only lead to women dying from illegal abortions. The fact has always been that women would seek out abortion whether it was illegal or not, when people were sick and tired of abandoned babies and women bleeding to death legalized abortion became a practical necessity.
LG: bringing in legislation that doesn't have a foundation in the ethics of the society it is to be implemented in is a failed piece of legislation in everyone's books ....
But it is in line with the ethics of society. Those who oppose abortion are still in the minority. 62% of the American public supports abortion on demand and 77% support it particular for rape victims. So no it hasn't failed as a piece of legislation.
LG: If you live in a free society you live in a society that has the regulations of freedom translated into the language of justice.
And of course it is the highest courts in this free society that has supported Roe vs. Wade
No your defense of the analogy doesn't work because you are comparing people who have discernible rights to non-entities that have none. As long as the fetus is in the womb the only right is that of the mother.
LG: I am saying that black rights, as a civil piece of legislation, only became practical when the required social conventions were there as a foundation
As did abortion.
LG: I would say that the Jim Crow laws failed because the social conventions out grew their need
As did making abortion illegal which only lead to women dying from illegal abortions. The fact has always been that women would seek out abortion whether it was illegal or not, when people were sick and tired of abandoned babies and women bleeding to death legalized abortion became a practical necessity.
LG: bringing in legislation that doesn't have a foundation in the ethics of the society it is to be implemented in is a failed piece of legislation in everyone's books ....
But it is in line with the ethics of society. Those who oppose abortion are still in the minority. 62% of the American public supports abortion on demand and 77% support it particular for rape victims. So no it hasn't failed as a piece of legislation.
LG: If you live in a free society you live in a society that has the regulations of freedom translated into the language of justice.
And of course it is the highest courts in this free society that has supported Roe vs. Wade
that's precisely the point!
during the period of black slavery they had no discernible rights
naturally
which brings us back to contemporary ethics, and whether we are dealing exclusively withe the same dire necessity
how is legislation in line with this ...
If people were only concerned about ethics then they wouldn't be trying to ban abortion for every woman.
.... supportive of abortion?
much like that the high courts were also handing down similar findings in regards to blacks, several hundred years ago, yes?
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
@Lightgigantic
No LG blacks could and did VOCALIZE their demand to have their rights protected under law. A fetus as, Quadraphonics pointed out, doesn't have a voice, nor an opinion. A fetus isn't a person but only a potential, it doesn't have a name, nor does it have any sense of 'choice' or 'rights', individuality or personhood the way a a human being black or not would have. That's why your analogy doesn't work. Its also why you cannot call removal of a fetus murder.
Originally posted by Quad:
"But moreover, what would it even mean to grant equal civil rights to an embryo? How's it going to vote, or assemble, or otherwise express its conscience? How is the pregnant woman's equal civil right to be free of the demand to nourish and feed this other, civilly equal entity to be upheld? This framework doesn't make any sense here. Unless and until a fetus reaches the point of viability, it just plain does not make sense to speak of it as a distinct person from the pregnant woman. It fails to meet the requirements of such a category for obvious reasons of plain biology. And note that we don't accord equal civil rights to actual children, in the first place. How about you work through the philosophical and legal reasoning for that distinction, and maybe then take a hack at figuring out how to extend such to the unborn? As it is, your framework is so stilted as to produce inanity."
LG: which brings us back to contemporary ethics, and whether we are dealing exclusively withe the same dire necessity
The necessity hasn't changed. Making abortion illegal in a modern society has never stopped the rate of abortion nor the need for abortions. What is unethical is placing women in a position where they are desperate enough to risk their lives having unsafe abortions. Contemporary ethics is not a problem, its only a problem for you. If you don't like the idea of abortion then you are free not to have an abortion, of course being male you could never make that choice which means your own motivation is to control the lives of women in general, thankfully those forms of control over a woman's body and over her life and choices is considered unethical in a contemporary sophisticated society.
LG: If people were only concerned about ethics then they wouldn't be trying to ban abortion for every woman. .... supportive of abortion?
Because what the religious anti-choice are trying to do is control women's reproductive rights not saving lives as they claim. We know this because we know that abortions were particularly high when abortions were illegal but you had the added problem of women dying because of them. If the anti-choice were really concerned about saving lives they would be interested in the life of the woman not simply those who haven't even been born.
LG: much like that the high courts were also handing down similar findings in regards to blacks, several hundred years ago, yes?
Well actually no. People black or otherwise are entities possessed of legal existence as persons with rights precisely because they are capable of understanding and engaging themselves as people of able mind and body and can demonstrate their personhood, a fetus is not that kind of entity and as the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists have discovered the connections in the foetal brain are not fully formed before 24 weeks, nor is the foetus conscious. A fetus is not a person so it cannot be awarded rights nor would it be able to lobby for those rights as blacks had done during slavery by running away, rebelling and convincing others as Fredrick Douglas had done when he ran away from the south and became an abolitionist up north. A woman IS a person and her body is a part of her person as is the fetus which she is free to nourish to its full potential or not. This is not something that you can ever work around, her womb I mean.
The primary person who can determine the life of the fetus is the woman, no one outside of the woman can decide the fate of the fetus unless they take charge of her womb which of course would be taking charge of the woman. Its in this fashion that anti-choice lobbyists will always fail to reach their goals, unless they make slaves of women they will never be able to stop a woman from seeking an abortion legal or otherwise.
No LG blacks could and did VOCALIZE their demand to have their rights protected under law. A fetus as, Quadraphonics pointed out, doesn't have a voice, nor an opinion. A fetus isn't a person but only a potential, it doesn't have a name, nor does it have any sense of 'choice' or 'rights', individuality or personhood the way a a human being black or not would have. That's why your analogy doesn't work. Its also why you cannot call removal of a fetus murder.
Originally posted by Quad:
"But moreover, what would it even mean to grant equal civil rights to an embryo? How's it going to vote, or assemble, or otherwise express its conscience? How is the pregnant woman's equal civil right to be free of the demand to nourish and feed this other, civilly equal entity to be upheld? This framework doesn't make any sense here. Unless and until a fetus reaches the point of viability, it just plain does not make sense to speak of it as a distinct person from the pregnant woman. It fails to meet the requirements of such a category for obvious reasons of plain biology. And note that we don't accord equal civil rights to actual children, in the first place. How about you work through the philosophical and legal reasoning for that distinction, and maybe then take a hack at figuring out how to extend such to the unborn? As it is, your framework is so stilted as to produce inanity."
LG: which brings us back to contemporary ethics, and whether we are dealing exclusively withe the same dire necessity
The necessity hasn't changed. Making abortion illegal in a modern society has never stopped the rate of abortion nor the need for abortions. What is unethical is placing women in a position where they are desperate enough to risk their lives having unsafe abortions. Contemporary ethics is not a problem, its only a problem for you. If you don't like the idea of abortion then you are free not to have an abortion, of course being male you could never make that choice which means your own motivation is to control the lives of women in general, thankfully those forms of control over a woman's body and over her life and choices is considered unethical in a contemporary sophisticated society.
LG: If people were only concerned about ethics then they wouldn't be trying to ban abortion for every woman. .... supportive of abortion?
Because what the religious anti-choice are trying to do is control women's reproductive rights not saving lives as they claim. We know this because we know that abortions were particularly high when abortions were illegal but you had the added problem of women dying because of them. If the anti-choice were really concerned about saving lives they would be interested in the life of the woman not simply those who haven't even been born.
LG: much like that the high courts were also handing down similar findings in regards to blacks, several hundred years ago, yes?
Well actually no. People black or otherwise are entities possessed of legal existence as persons with rights precisely because they are capable of understanding and engaging themselves as people of able mind and body and can demonstrate their personhood, a fetus is not that kind of entity and as the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists have discovered the connections in the foetal brain are not fully formed before 24 weeks, nor is the foetus conscious. A fetus is not a person so it cannot be awarded rights nor would it be able to lobby for those rights as blacks had done during slavery by running away, rebelling and convincing others as Fredrick Douglas had done when he ran away from the south and became an abolitionist up north. A woman IS a person and her body is a part of her person as is the fetus which she is free to nourish to its full potential or not. This is not something that you can ever work around, her womb I mean.
The primary person who can determine the life of the fetus is the woman, no one outside of the woman can decide the fate of the fetus unless they take charge of her womb which of course would be taking charge of the woman. Its in this fashion that anti-choice lobbyists will always fail to reach their goals, unless they make slaves of women they will never be able to stop a woman from seeking an abortion legal or otherwise.
Last edited:
all to no avail, until the required social conventions filtered down to the persons who actual held the power
similar arguments were lodged as to why a black person has no rights outside what one would offer to an animal, and hence you couldn't talk of their handling as a crime against humanity or whatever
seriously, you are like a broken record
If you bring up the disparity between implementing laws against abortion and society I will refer to it as the LRILSSC (Legislation Rendered Impractical due to a Lack of Supporting Social Convention) issue, k?
Nothing.
But it doesn't really answer whether that is that is the common or typical scenario that frames contemporary abortions ....
If you insist that ethics be brought to your body when it is raped, its kind of hypocritical to request that ethics be kept off your body in the case of abortion (assuming that you aren't the one being aborted, of course)
:shrug:
hence (as I mentioned before) ..... bringing in legislation that doesn't have a foundation in the ethics of the society it is to be implemented in is a failed piece of legislation in everyone's books ...., or as I will be saying from now on, LRILSSC
actually, no
Several hundred years ago, blacks were more or less categorized as animals in terms of the law. (and there were various arguments for it ... such as how could you expect a black man to vote when he has the intelligence of an animal, and a host of scientific practices to back up the claim)
IOW on the authority of (19th century .... excluding nazi germany's foray into the field in the 20th century) eugenics, you have the means to disqualify blacks from the arena of human rights ..... much like on the authority that fully formed connections in the fetal brain are the base requirement for including another
Last edited:
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
@Lightgigantic
Well social conventions support abortion so I don't know what you are going on about. Your point of view on abortion as well as sex is a minority view. Those who hold power are interested in the vote of women who are half of the population and care deeply about reproductive rights, even women who are anti-choice are not reflective of women's opinion as a whole. Are you going to take away a woman's right to vote too? Even a Catholic anti-choice advocate had this to say about politics concerning abortion:
"Those of us who recognize abortion as the destruction of unborn human life need to ask ourselves: Is the situation that much different from what it has been over the past 36 years? For 20 out of those 36 years, the White House has been occupied by Republican presidents who declared themselves to be pro-life (though George H.W. Bush's conversion on the question did not come until 1987, as he geared up to run for the Republican nomination for President in 1988). For six out of the past eight years, George W. Bush had a majority in both houses of Congress. Yet the number of abortions nationwide every year has held relatively steady, at around 1.3 million, no matter who occupied the White House or which party controlled Congress. Both parties have treated abortion as a political issue--as a tool for winning elections. Once in office, they have essentially governed the same, with some differences concerning federal funding and partial-birth abortion--questions that concern, at most, a few thousand abortions per year (a fraction of one percent of all abortions performed in the United States). The biggest difference between the two parties on abortion has been on the question of Supreme Court nominations, yet even there, Republican nominees were responsible for Roe v. Wade in the first place, and more recent Republican nominees, such as David Souter and Anthony Kennedy, have shown little interest in restricting Roe, much less overturning it. Meanwhile, the culture continues to change. For many people of Barack Obama's age and younger (he was 11 when Roe was handed down), their commitment to abortion is as much a cultural question as an ideological one." Scott P. Richert
LG: similar arguments were lodged as to why a black person has no rights outside what one would offer to an animal, and hence you couldn't talk of there handling as a crime against humanity or whatever
Yes but no one is calling a fetus an animal it simply a growth that isn't independent in any shape or form from the woman's body. In a sense even animals can have rights based on the fact that they exist independently (yes even of humans). We cannot say that of a fetus.
LG: (Legislation Rendered Impractical due to a Lack of Supporting Social Convention) issue, k?
Abortion is supported and its very very practical. And what I love so much about these debates is how weak the argument of the opposition.
LG: But it doesn't really answer whether that is that is the common or typical scenario that frames contemporary abortions ....
It isn't because there are legal abortions, it would be if they were illegal and what the anti-choice has NEVER been able to come up with is how to stop women from haven abortions even when its criminalized. There were approximately 1 million abortions a year when it was illegal which is somewhat in par with what you have now, difference was that women also lost their lives. So I ask you, why would the anti-choice people who claim they are advocating 'life' are not interested in saving the life of women? I mean when abortions are illegal you risk losing two lives.
LG: If you insist that ethics be brought to your body when it is raped, its kind of hypocritical to request that ethics be kept off your body in the case of abortion (assuming that you aren't the one being aborted, of course)
I don't understand your point. A rapist attacks the body of another, a fetus is not a separate entity from the mother, it is a part of the mother. You can not take the life of a person who doesn't have an independent life. If the woman dies for example so does the fetus. If the woman starves so does the fetus. But more importantly if you removed a fetus from the womb at the stage of development where it is to be aborted it wouldn't survive under any conditions.
LG: bringing in legislation that doesn't have a foundation in the ethics of the society it is to be implemented in is a failed piece of legislation in everyone's books ...., or as I will be saying from now on, LRILSSC
And as I keep reminding you abortion is founded on the ethics of society, the ethics that claims a woman has a right to control her own body. Its supported and in alignment with a modern free society
LG: Several hundred years ago, blacks were more or less categorized as animals in terms of the law.
Even animals are conscious and have brain activity. Something you cannot say about a fetus.
Well social conventions support abortion so I don't know what you are going on about. Your point of view on abortion as well as sex is a minority view. Those who hold power are interested in the vote of women who are half of the population and care deeply about reproductive rights, even women who are anti-choice are not reflective of women's opinion as a whole. Are you going to take away a woman's right to vote too? Even a Catholic anti-choice advocate had this to say about politics concerning abortion:
"Those of us who recognize abortion as the destruction of unborn human life need to ask ourselves: Is the situation that much different from what it has been over the past 36 years? For 20 out of those 36 years, the White House has been occupied by Republican presidents who declared themselves to be pro-life (though George H.W. Bush's conversion on the question did not come until 1987, as he geared up to run for the Republican nomination for President in 1988). For six out of the past eight years, George W. Bush had a majority in both houses of Congress. Yet the number of abortions nationwide every year has held relatively steady, at around 1.3 million, no matter who occupied the White House or which party controlled Congress. Both parties have treated abortion as a political issue--as a tool for winning elections. Once in office, they have essentially governed the same, with some differences concerning federal funding and partial-birth abortion--questions that concern, at most, a few thousand abortions per year (a fraction of one percent of all abortions performed in the United States). The biggest difference between the two parties on abortion has been on the question of Supreme Court nominations, yet even there, Republican nominees were responsible for Roe v. Wade in the first place, and more recent Republican nominees, such as David Souter and Anthony Kennedy, have shown little interest in restricting Roe, much less overturning it. Meanwhile, the culture continues to change. For many people of Barack Obama's age and younger (he was 11 when Roe was handed down), their commitment to abortion is as much a cultural question as an ideological one." Scott P. Richert
LG: similar arguments were lodged as to why a black person has no rights outside what one would offer to an animal, and hence you couldn't talk of there handling as a crime against humanity or whatever
Yes but no one is calling a fetus an animal it simply a growth that isn't independent in any shape or form from the woman's body. In a sense even animals can have rights based on the fact that they exist independently (yes even of humans). We cannot say that of a fetus.
LG: (Legislation Rendered Impractical due to a Lack of Supporting Social Convention) issue, k?
Abortion is supported and its very very practical. And what I love so much about these debates is how weak the argument of the opposition.
LG: But it doesn't really answer whether that is that is the common or typical scenario that frames contemporary abortions ....
It isn't because there are legal abortions, it would be if they were illegal and what the anti-choice has NEVER been able to come up with is how to stop women from haven abortions even when its criminalized. There were approximately 1 million abortions a year when it was illegal which is somewhat in par with what you have now, difference was that women also lost their lives. So I ask you, why would the anti-choice people who claim they are advocating 'life' are not interested in saving the life of women? I mean when abortions are illegal you risk losing two lives.
LG: If you insist that ethics be brought to your body when it is raped, its kind of hypocritical to request that ethics be kept off your body in the case of abortion (assuming that you aren't the one being aborted, of course)
I don't understand your point. A rapist attacks the body of another, a fetus is not a separate entity from the mother, it is a part of the mother. You can not take the life of a person who doesn't have an independent life. If the woman dies for example so does the fetus. If the woman starves so does the fetus. But more importantly if you removed a fetus from the womb at the stage of development where it is to be aborted it wouldn't survive under any conditions.
LG: bringing in legislation that doesn't have a foundation in the ethics of the society it is to be implemented in is a failed piece of legislation in everyone's books ...., or as I will be saying from now on, LRILSSC
And as I keep reminding you abortion is founded on the ethics of society, the ethics that claims a woman has a right to control her own body. Its supported and in alignment with a modern free society
LG: Several hundred years ago, blacks were more or less categorized as animals in terms of the law.
Even animals are conscious and have brain activity. Something you cannot say about a fetus.
Last edited:
that constantly going on about the shortcomings of rendering abortion illegal doesn't mean much when the arena for the argument (in today's society) - both for and against - is mostly one of ethics
defining things in terms of majority doesn't automatically earn one the ethical high ground.
I mean its not like a majority thumbs up to black slavery (excluding the input of the blacks of course) several hundred years means anything remarkable on the ethical barometer.
In fact the ethical barometer is completely distinct and separate from the entire historical social dialogue of thesis to antithesis to thesis (or one minority view winning over a majority view, which in turn is won over by another minority view)
well duh
just like blacks were called animals, children in the womb are called a "growth that isn't independent in any shape or form from the woman's body" to deprive them of rights that would otherwise be extended to t hem (even though its not too difficult to lodge an argument for blacks being distinct from mere animals, or a child in the womb being distinct from the language that one also uses to define a wart)
sure
not even the cotton plantation owners of yesteryear would disagree with you on that one
Seems like in your ecstasy you forgot that we were talking about "anti-abortion legislation" .... (remember? all that talk of the city's gutters running red with the blood of back street abortion clinics and what not?)
(lol - Well the first thing I would ask is what is the source for those numbers you are throwing around ....)
... and the second thing I would ask is what the hell do two near identical numbers have to do with suggesting that the ethical grounds for the acts are also near identical?
Now I am confused. If its not a child that she is carrying in the womb, why use the word "mother"?
As for attacking the body, isn't that what abortion is all about. I mean if a woman goes in for an abortion and the body of the fetus is not attacked, is she okay with that?
the strength of your arguments rests on the definition of "independence" and what it signifies
I mean we could also argue that you have no capacity for independence from society, so if you die as a result of society (like for instance having to opt for an illegal abortion clinic), your life is not taken by society.
Or do you think that the institutions/individuals whom you are dependent on are obligated to protect you?
And furthermore that such protection is the essence of justice (strong protecting the weak and so on)?
Similarly if we remove you from society, you die. If society goes down the gurgler, so do you. And unlike a fetus, you have practically no scope for ever being at a stage of development where you can survive independent from society, so technically, you should enjoy even less privileges than a fetus in an abortion clinic.
Charming, isn't it?
:wallbang:
and as I keep reminding you, citing the impractically of implementing legislation to the contrary in no way dampens the ethical arguments that abound!
Sheesh!
If it was any other way, the history books, with all their talk of how one idea competes with another, would be quite slim, donchathink?
congratulations
once again, you score another big thumbs up from the cotton plantation owners of yesteryear ....
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
@Lightgigantic
LG: and as I keep reminding you, citing the impractically of implementing legislation to the contrary in no way dampens the ethical arguments that abound!
And like I said abortion is not unethical, society doesn't think its unethical only individuals do and since individuals are not required to undergo an abortion there should not be any issue of individuals having to do anything they find morally or ethically reprehensible. What is morally and unethically reprehensible is holding women hostage to another's will.
LG: that constantly going on about the shortcomings of rendering abortion illegal doesn't mean much when the arena for the argument (in today's society) - both for and against - is mostly one of ethics
It does when you can prove that its unethical to try and force yourself on another persons body. When you attempt to make abortion illegal you are saying you have a rights over another persons body and you don't. And before you say that a woman is forcing herself on the fetus I will remind you that the fetus is not separate from the woman's own body, it is her body to do with what she will.
LG: defining things in terms of majority doesn't automatically earn one the ethical high ground.
Nor does it mean that the majority are wrong or have not taken the moral high ground. I think its very moral to protect the lives of women and very moral to protect women's body from the idiosyncratic opinion of others. It puts the power in her hands alone and I find that very moral and just.
LG: "growth that isn't independent in any shape or form from the woman's body" to deprive them of rights that would otherwise be extended to t hem
It is a growth and it doesn't have any rights and cannot have any rights as it is not a person. You claim that right would be extended towards them but since abortions were happening anyway a woman who has decided to have an abortion would do so anyway and so that fetus would never get so far as to be awarded any rights because it would never be born.
LG: not even the cotton plantation owners of yesteryear would disagree with you on that one
The science didn't exist yesteryear
LG: and the second thing I would ask is what the hell do two near identical numbers have to do with suggesting that the ethical grounds for the acts are also near identical?
Recent stats on abortion: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_abo-health-abortions.
'Outlawing abortion did nothting to prevent pregnancy, and some estimates put the number of annual illegal abortions from 200,000 to 1.2 million in the 50s and 60s.'
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/elect...i/abortion.htm
The annual abortion stats for 2004 are reported to be 1,222,100 by the Guttmacher Institute and 839,226 from the Center of Disease Control. Not much difference in the stats considering you have to naturally assume that the stats of abortion rates are underestimated during the 50's because of the illegal nature of the activity.
Since you claim that this discussion is about 'anti-abortion legislation' then I would assume your ethical position is based on saving the fetus is it not? Well making abortion illegal does not stop abortions from being performed it only endangers the woman. Abortions are not a requirement but a choice so if you as an individual find abortions to be unethical then you are free as an individual to not have an abortion but you cannot claim that forcing your will on a woman's body so you can control her body is ethical, that you cannot do.
LG: As for attacking the body, isn't that what abortion is all about. I mean if a woman goes in for an abortion and the body of the fetus is not attacked, is she okay with that?
Do you look at having an appendix removed as an attack on the appendix? If so then yes abortion is a woman attacking something she wants removed from her body very much like attacking an appendix you want removed and a woman is okay with that in the same way. If anything its an intrusive measure on her own body not an attack.
LG: I mean we could also argue that you have no capacity for independence from society, so if you die as a result of society (like for instance having to opt for an illegal abortion clinic), your life is not taken by society.
People remove themselves from society all the time. They move off the grid and live independent of company or the amenities society has to offer. When a woman goes to have an abortion she is not dependent on society she's dependent on able doctors who choose to perform the procedure. Society often doesn't even pay for the abortion. So society should not have a say because the choice is private not public. When a fetus is destroyed 'society' not only does not know but it also does not suffer. When a child is unwanted society pays and society suffers.
LG: Or do you think that the institutions/individuals whom you are dependent on are obligated to protect you?
I love this question because it proves my initial point which is that individuals do not have to protect women they just have to stay out of their way. When you want to force yourself or your beliefs on another then you lose your moral high ground and become someone who is simply trying to control a woman's body. Individuals are not obligated to protect women they only have to stay out of her way, same with institutions. They are not protecting women they are simply allowing her to make a free choice concerning her own body.
LG: And furthermore that such protection is the essence of justice (strong protecting the weak and so on)?
The law only makes abortion legal, what makes legal safe is that reputable doctors are at hand and clinics are sanitary. The law at the moment protects a woman's choice. The woman isn't weak and doesn't need, nor are they looking for that sort of protection, the essence of justice is allowing women to decent medical facilities where she doesn't have to risk her life.
LG: Similarly if we remove you from society, you die. If society goes down the gurgler, so do you. And unlike a fetus, you have practically no scope for ever being at a stage of development where you can survive independent from society.
The Unabomber removed himself from society for years and didn't drop dead because of it .If society goes down the gurgled as many often do people still survive and unlike a fetus you wouldn't simply drop dead because society stops functioning. A fetus though cannot be removed from the mothers uterus at 8 or 12 weeks and survive under any circumstance whatsoever.
LG: and as I keep reminding you, citing the impractically of implementing legislation to the contrary in no way dampens the ethical arguments that abound!
And like I said abortion is not unethical, society doesn't think its unethical only individuals do and since individuals are not required to undergo an abortion there should not be any issue of individuals having to do anything they find morally or ethically reprehensible. What is morally and unethically reprehensible is holding women hostage to another's will.
LG: that constantly going on about the shortcomings of rendering abortion illegal doesn't mean much when the arena for the argument (in today's society) - both for and against - is mostly one of ethics
It does when you can prove that its unethical to try and force yourself on another persons body. When you attempt to make abortion illegal you are saying you have a rights over another persons body and you don't. And before you say that a woman is forcing herself on the fetus I will remind you that the fetus is not separate from the woman's own body, it is her body to do with what she will.
LG: defining things in terms of majority doesn't automatically earn one the ethical high ground.
Nor does it mean that the majority are wrong or have not taken the moral high ground. I think its very moral to protect the lives of women and very moral to protect women's body from the idiosyncratic opinion of others. It puts the power in her hands alone and I find that very moral and just.
LG: "growth that isn't independent in any shape or form from the woman's body" to deprive them of rights that would otherwise be extended to t hem
It is a growth and it doesn't have any rights and cannot have any rights as it is not a person. You claim that right would be extended towards them but since abortions were happening anyway a woman who has decided to have an abortion would do so anyway and so that fetus would never get so far as to be awarded any rights because it would never be born.
LG: not even the cotton plantation owners of yesteryear would disagree with you on that one
The science didn't exist yesteryear
LG: and the second thing I would ask is what the hell do two near identical numbers have to do with suggesting that the ethical grounds for the acts are also near identical?
Recent stats on abortion: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_abo-health-abortions.
'Outlawing abortion did nothting to prevent pregnancy, and some estimates put the number of annual illegal abortions from 200,000 to 1.2 million in the 50s and 60s.'
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/elect...i/abortion.htm
The annual abortion stats for 2004 are reported to be 1,222,100 by the Guttmacher Institute and 839,226 from the Center of Disease Control. Not much difference in the stats considering you have to naturally assume that the stats of abortion rates are underestimated during the 50's because of the illegal nature of the activity.
Since you claim that this discussion is about 'anti-abortion legislation' then I would assume your ethical position is based on saving the fetus is it not? Well making abortion illegal does not stop abortions from being performed it only endangers the woman. Abortions are not a requirement but a choice so if you as an individual find abortions to be unethical then you are free as an individual to not have an abortion but you cannot claim that forcing your will on a woman's body so you can control her body is ethical, that you cannot do.
LG: As for attacking the body, isn't that what abortion is all about. I mean if a woman goes in for an abortion and the body of the fetus is not attacked, is she okay with that?
Do you look at having an appendix removed as an attack on the appendix? If so then yes abortion is a woman attacking something she wants removed from her body very much like attacking an appendix you want removed and a woman is okay with that in the same way. If anything its an intrusive measure on her own body not an attack.
LG: I mean we could also argue that you have no capacity for independence from society, so if you die as a result of society (like for instance having to opt for an illegal abortion clinic), your life is not taken by society.
People remove themselves from society all the time. They move off the grid and live independent of company or the amenities society has to offer. When a woman goes to have an abortion she is not dependent on society she's dependent on able doctors who choose to perform the procedure. Society often doesn't even pay for the abortion. So society should not have a say because the choice is private not public. When a fetus is destroyed 'society' not only does not know but it also does not suffer. When a child is unwanted society pays and society suffers.
LG: Or do you think that the institutions/individuals whom you are dependent on are obligated to protect you?
I love this question because it proves my initial point which is that individuals do not have to protect women they just have to stay out of their way. When you want to force yourself or your beliefs on another then you lose your moral high ground and become someone who is simply trying to control a woman's body. Individuals are not obligated to protect women they only have to stay out of her way, same with institutions. They are not protecting women they are simply allowing her to make a free choice concerning her own body.
LG: And furthermore that such protection is the essence of justice (strong protecting the weak and so on)?
The law only makes abortion legal, what makes legal safe is that reputable doctors are at hand and clinics are sanitary. The law at the moment protects a woman's choice. The woman isn't weak and doesn't need, nor are they looking for that sort of protection, the essence of justice is allowing women to decent medical facilities where she doesn't have to risk her life.
LG: Similarly if we remove you from society, you die. If society goes down the gurgler, so do you. And unlike a fetus, you have practically no scope for ever being at a stage of development where you can survive independent from society.
The Unabomber removed himself from society for years and didn't drop dead because of it .If society goes down the gurgled as many often do people still survive and unlike a fetus you wouldn't simply drop dead because society stops functioning. A fetus though cannot be removed from the mothers uterus at 8 or 12 weeks and survive under any circumstance whatsoever.
Last edited:
Without a sound and elaborate philosophy to support it, and without a society that aspires to live up to it, such a view is not viable, though.
Being moral/ethical for the sake of being moral/ethical has rewards that soon run out.
If the state and others are the ones who pay for the abortions, in one way or another, then they should have some say in the matter.
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
But at the time, it is not a child, any more than an acorn is a seed or a blueprint is a house. How is it fair to give a zygote rights that trump a woman's? You are a scientist, you are well acquainted with physiology, yet you are choosing to throw logic and facts out the damn window and call even a zygote a child. Why?
According it that logic, there should be mandatory organ donation. I mean, it's my kidney vs. your LIFE, right?
I love how you call a pregnancy an inconvenience, rather than use a word like ordeal, suffering, etc. Yes, never mind her body and her health, they're just petty minor privileges compared to that ickle, special baby.
Also I disagree that the effects of pregnancy would only last nine months. She would have to live all her life with the fact that she had been forced against her will to have a child. It would be akin to rape.
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
But it doesn't.That's just another exaggerated lie used by the anti-choice folk. I haven't met one woman who had an abortion that was paid for by the state, NOT ONE! Only 14% of all abortions are paid for by the state. Some states pay for LOW INCOME WOMEN to have abortions and thank god that they do otherwise the poorest women in society who are more likely single will be inundated with more babies than they can possibly care for in any reasonable way, kind of like what's happening right now in the Mississippi Delta where there is little access to abortion clinics..
Here is the information about state funding:
Passed by Congress in 1976, the Hyde Amendment excludes abortion from the comprehensive health care services provided to low-income people by the federal government through Medicaid. Congress has made some exceptions to the funding ban, which have varied over the years. At present, the federal Medicaid program mandates abortion funding in cases of rape or incest, as well as when a pregnant woman's life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury.
Most states have followed the federal government's lead in restricting public funding for abortion. Currently only seventeen states fund abortions for low-income women on the same or similar terms as other pregnancy-related and general health services. (See map.) Four of these states provide funding voluntarily (HI, MD, NY,1 and WA); in thirteen, courts interpreting their state constitutions have declared broad and independent protection for reproductive choice and have ordered nondiscriminatory public funding of abortion (AK, AZ, CA, CT, IL, MA, MN, MT, NJ, NM, OR, VT, and WV).2 Thirty-two of the remaining states pay for abortions for low-income women in cases of life-endangering circumstances, rape, or incest, as mandated by federal Medicaid law.3 (A handful of these states pay as well in cases of fetal impairment or when the pregnancy threatens "severe" health problems, but none provides reimbursement for all medically necessary abortions for low-income women.) Finally, one state (SD) fails even to comply with the Hyde Amendment, instead providing coverage only for lifesaving abortions.
http://www.aclu.org/reproductive-freedom/public-funding-abortion
Last edited: