Abortion, lets talk about it

[A Vestigial Mote]

I don't believe rape should be a factor of abortion or not. The baby could be born just fine despite what the mother had gone through... Rape, though, wouldn't be a determiner in that.

I can't even begin to agree with this.

Here's a simple thought experiment that is food for thought on the subject:
A group of single women are abducted by a scientist, who renders them unconscious in their beds while they are sleeping, takes them to his lab where he impregnates them - mechanically - with donated sperm of basically random origin, and then returns them to their beds. This is all later exposed somehow and the women find themselves pregnant from the experience. They made no conscious decision to become pregnant at all, let alone in this intrusive, forced manner. Do you believe that these women should decide to have these babies? Better yet - if any of them chose to abort, would you be against their decision? What forms of argumentation would you use to try and convince them that they should not abort these babies? When they in no way chose for themselves to have these children, nor were they even culpable/responsible for the act of producing the zygote/fetus in the first place.

Now juxtapose that to rape. What is different other than the fact that they (may) know who the father is?

 

[Koldo]

So when I say more objective, I do not mean completely objective, because I do not think that humans are entirely objective creatures.

I think the emotional part in survival of the species is the innate natural desire to want to survive and ensure the survival of your offspring, which is common among many, if not all species, either in individual or collective ways. There are many objective points to achieve that though, one being to dominate other creatures and to eat them for sustenance. Killing a faetus is also counterproductive to that way of thinking so it would not objectively follow that abortion is in humanities best interest. I also think that it seems to be a double standard when it comes to our general stance on the right to live when it comes to individuals.

I think that her stance is less objective, because to not kill certain animals is in the best interest of our species because we have a social "pact" with them, but as a whole, to rather stop humans from eating animals purely because of their feelings but to rather abort faetuses would leave many people suffering (many people rely on meat for sustenance and to earn a living) and on top of that could possibly halt human population growth.

You have an underlying premise there: That we want, essentially, every single human being to live no matter what that entails, meaning we that we give the utmost importance to human life as a whole. But that's not objective, not to mention that's just not true at all for most of us. Through all of our history we have been giving priority to those closer to us, even if that results in others being royally screwed and dying.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Any mother could die in childbirth. There's not always a clear visible line where a pregnancy becomes high risk and despite best efforts maternal death is still something that happens even in the most developed of countries. And, in places where abortion is illegal, maternal death has happened because doctors were too busy being concerned about whether the abortion would be considered lawsuit territory than their patient, who dies. (See cases like Savita Halappanavar.) As for rape victims...

So would one reason to have an abortion be that "I do not want to potentially die" even if a woman hasn't been told that she was at risk? The example of Savita, is why I am not in favour of making abortion illegal. The law is often based on religion, which often ignores nuances of a situation.

What objectivity is there in deciding that it's okay to abort a fetus when it's a result of rape? If your answer is that the damage to the mother could conceivably be greater than the potential human contribution to society, well I personally feel that applies to ALL pregnancies. Where the potential harm to a person by forcing a pregnancy to its completion is more noteworthy than the potential of the fetus.
Keep in mind that 'human potential contribution' is also why various governments banned birth control. Because birth control stops a 'potential of contribution to society.'

These are very good points. I think that it is OK to abort a fetus that is a result of rape because of the tremendous psychological harm that will be done to the child as well as the psychological harm done to the mother. My whole objectivity argument sprang up because of others saying that I must rather think objectively. My replies are to show that abortion has not got much to do with objectivity. So my anti abortion argument isn't based on an objective argument because I do not see it as an entirely objective issue.

I agree with your earlier post that the objectivity comes in where there are agreed upon goals. If you can set that you are at A and want to get to B, you can form objective, information based, results based conclusions on the best way to get there.
Tribalism historically causes societal growth issues because a society which fears they, at any point, can become part of the 'out group' tends to be less engaged with that society, or tends to want to make very sure that the 'out group' cannot ever gain equivalent power and overthrow or sue for equal rights. Tribalism often isn't based on actual help or harm the out group does, but instead based on gut reactions (gays are icky, that person looks too different, etc). But tribalism is an ingrained tendency born from a time when social stability wasn't a high priority. Not exactly a desirable standard for modern living when you're looking at 'It's okay to kill someone if they're not your family and they have food you need.'

Agreed. I am reading a book called Moral Tribes by Joshua Greene, and he shows that humans are ingrained to be tribalistic in different degrees. Some people are naturally disposed to being more tribal than others, and this is the problem we are facing in society today. Most humans can only have a limited size tribe, and this is causing more friction the larger a society becomes. It is good for the stability of small groups, but not good for the stability of large groups.

Killing is always harmful. It's just a matter of ratio of harm to help. Modern humans in modern human societies do not 'need' meat to live. We are omnivores but we are fully capable of, with very few exceptions, living on a vegetarian diet. We do not live on an omnivore diet because it's objectively better, but because we subjectively enjoy eating meat.

Good point. But vice versa, you subjectively are concerned about the harm of animals. ( Same here actually to a lesser degree. I am OK with killing animals but not the enslaving of them and depriving them of life in harsh conditions.)

If we were in a different situation, such as an actual survival situation, my stance would change. But it would also change in a survival situation re: cannibalism. We *can* (are physically able to) process human meat (and it was a common occurrence in early human life). There is no real difference in human meat and meat from non-human animals except for human tribalistic attachment to other humans.

The problem with cannibalism is that it becomes detrimental to society as it corrodes trust. Because we are social creatures we need to be able to trust each other so that we can work together to survive. On the other hand, humans give into their hunger when starving, so will go on a ravishing cannibalistic rage when pushed to far.

Edit: I don't want to side track the thread too much on ethics of vegetarianism vs omnivorian diets. I intended to use the example of how I rate help vs harm. It's not a matter of future potential but of current consequences. e.g. killing an animal which can experience more suffering than a human fetus causes more unnecessary suffering.

OK. Cool. So then your criteria is "can the being feel pain?". If that is the case, would you object then to harming a person if they cannot feel the harm being done?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You're playing semantics. Context.

What child are you talking about? If a woman is in early stages, it's not a child. This not me casting an uninformed opinion, it's biology 101.
Do you base your rejection of other people freedom to choose what to do with their bodies in religion, moral, or any other combo that I would like to know.

Since this isn't biology, I'd hope you get what I'm saying regardless the terms I use.

No. I said:

If it's the health of the child, I can kinda see it depending on the child's age, I guess (though I'd be hard pressed to side that direction). If the child is healthy, I don't see rape as a determinant.

Do you think the child shouldn't live because what the mother has gone through?

I can kinda see abortion depending on the health of the child and age (if you understand what I'm saying?). I don't see rape as a determinant for abortion.

Once the child has been conceived, I see no reason to abort it ethically speaking. But I kinda understand if there were health reasons but not because of rape.

 

[Samael_Khan]

No you are comparing a human with the " potential" harm doing with a bunch of cells

We are all just a bunch of cells.

 

[ChristineM]

We are all just a bunch of cells.

But some are viable

 

[Samael_Khan]

You have an underlying premise there: That we want, essentially, every single human being to live no matter what that entails, meaning we that we give the utmost importance to human life as a whole. But that's not objective, not to mention that's just not true at all for most of us. Through all of our history we have been giving priority to those closer to us, even if that results in others being royally screwed and dying.

Yes, you are very correct. Even though we are social, we only care about those who we have a relationship with and who benefit us. So the tribe grows from individual, to immediate family, to close friends, to pets, to extended family, to work colleagues, etc, and we care more about those who are further in our circle.

So we aim for our tribe to survive rather than humans in general. But our empathy is actually expanding these days and many of us are furthering what we consider our tribe.

 

[Samael_Khan]

But some are viable

What meaning of viable are you using here?

 

[stvdv]

What do you think about abortion?

IMO:

1) Every woman should be free to choose for herself whether or not she wants to abort
2) A man should not even think about telling a woman "she should not abort"
2) (First walk a mile in another's shoes the saying goes ... man should first get pregnant)
3) The Pope should not even tell women "you should not abort"
4) My Master should not even tell women "you should not abort"
5) God should not even tell women "you should not abort"
2) (IF Bible is true THEN God has done lots of killings, hence should not criticize us)

 

[sun rise]

Personally I'm against abortion even knowing that in fact my mother had one when it was highly illegal. So I know law won't stop abortions.

I also don't believe the soul enters the fetus at conception. And I know some beautiful souls who have Down's. So my view is nuanced and somewhat conflicted.

My problem with the fight about legality is that it does not truly consider solutions. If it's murder, the woman who has an abortion must be tried as an accomplish to murder or a murderer. Otherwise, it's rank hypocrisy to claim that abortion is murder.

So my solution is that until viability (which I know is vague sometimes), abortion is legal.,

I am all in on helping women in multiple ways. First, by having a decent system that helps with sex education, family planning, affordable prenatal care, education for school-aged women, job training, child care and having high quality affordable help for special needs children.

In other words, make it as easy as possible for women to avoid pregnancy and to be free of economic pressures etc so they can 'choose life'.

Really, to me, people on both sides of the legality question should agree to work together on the behalf of women.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

So would one reason to have an abortion be that "I do not want to potentially die" even if a woman hasn't been told that she was at risk? The example of Savita, is why I am not in favour of making abortion illegal. The law is often based on religion, which often ignores nuances of a situation.

That's certainly why I would get an abortion were I ever to become pregnant. I have a severe case of PCOS and while it doesn't always make pregnancy high risk, it can. Even if I don't die, I could have debilitating consequences from infection from burst cysts or other complications which could make me no longer able to work or care for myself.
Now granted, I take great strides to prevent pregnancy. Because of my medication I use three forms of birth control. But if I discovered I was pregnant (which may take longer for me because I don't have handy dandy period indicators) I will end the pregnancy as immediately as I can.

Good point. But vice versa, you subjectively are concerned about the harm of animals. ( Same here actually to a lesser degree. I am OK with killing animals but not the enslaving of them and depriving them of life in harsh conditions.)

Again, subjectivity and objectivity I think have to be goal orientated terms. If the goal (it is in my case) to increase help and reduce unnecessary harm wherever possible, then I feel like there's no good reason for me to make that a human only restriction. I agree that creating inhospitable conditions for animals is cruel and unnecessary. I just also similarly concluded that eating meat is, since I don't need it and even if I take care to be aware of my sourcing, throwing money at the industrial meat industry contributes to cruel and unnecessary treatment.

The problem with cannibalism is that it becomes detrimental to society as it corrodes trust. Because we are social creatures we need to be able to trust each other so that we can work together to survive. On the other hand, humans give into their hunger when starving, so will go on a ravishing cannibalistic rage when pushed to far.

I don't necessarily agree that just because someone has ate human meat before means they're more likely to kill someone living for their meat. Especially when talking about the meat eating in the context of a previous survival situation e.g. stranded on a raft and made use of a corpse when somebody died.
Heck, I'm not even necessarily opposed to cultured human meat being an available food source. Because I don't see human meat as innately more offensive than non-human animal meat.

OK. Cool. So then your criteria is "can the being feel pain?". If that is the case, would you object then to harming a person if they cannot feel the harm being done?

Harm is harm whether or not they feel it being done. If you sedated a cow first and then killed it, for no other reason than to eat it when you have other food options available, you're still causing unnecessary harm, imo. Ditto with a human.

 

[stvdv]

And all babies in the womb has a soul.

I disagree

Generally, your baby will be called an embryo from conception until the eighth week of development. After the eighth week, the baby will be called a fetus until it's born.

I believe humans get a soul at the conception.

I believe the soul enters the foetes only after 70-90 days

No one has the right to take the life of another.

Tell that to "The Bible-God"

But if a child is victim of rape and therefore pregnant then it is a compleately different matter.
Or if the mother is ill with death treatening diseases. Then the chooice with smallest damage is the chooise humans chould take

Any woman, raped or not, should be free to make her own choice; Gid gave each life and freedom to choose
Others giving her a guilt feeling about doing abortion, might even be the cause of "killing her emotionally"

What if mother would die when not aborting (physical or emotional)?
I don't want to commit her murder by telling her "you should not abort"
Just let the woman decide for herself

Note: All the above are just my personal opinions

 

[Unveiled Artist]

A group of single women are abducted by a scientist, who renders them unconscious in their beds while they are sleeping, takes them to his lab where he impregnates them - mechanically - with donated sperm of basically random origin, and then returns them to their beds. This is all later exposed somehow and the women find themselves pregnant from the experience.

They made no conscious decision to become pregnant at all, let alone in this intrusive, forced manner.

Scientists? Odd analogy. I had to read this a couple of times..

If someone got rapped and got pregnant without conscious decision on their part?

Do you believe that these women should decide to have these babies? Better yet - if any of them chose to abort, would you be against their decision? What forms of argumentation would you use to try and convince them that they should not abort these babies? When they in no way chose for themselves to have these children, nor were they even culpable/responsible for the act of producing the zygote/fetus in the first place.

I don't believe the choice of having a healthy baby is dependent on what happens to the mother.

I would disagree with their decision. That doesn't mean I don't understand it.

I wouldn't try to convince them. That's not my place. My opinion is that having the child doesn't mean legally they have to take care of it. Many states in the US the mother can decide whether or not she wants to keep the child within the first couple of weeks of giving birth. Legally, I understand it. Ethically, I disagree.

Now juxtapose that to rape. What is different other than the fact that they (may) know who the father is?

I couldn't follow the scientist analogy so I made my best guess. My disagreement with abortion is an ethical issue. Legally, women can do what they want. I lean more towards abortion (legally) if the child would not survive anyway. But a healthy child from a rape victim shouldn't be deprived of life because of what happened to his mother.

 

[Polymath257]

I think the determining fact is that the zygote, embryo, or fetus is *inside of a person*.

That person has the right to bodily integrity and to remove *anyone or anything* that is inside of the body and unwanted.

I see no moral issue at all before the fetus has the neural connections allowing for the sensation of pain. That happens around the 24th week of pregnancy, with further development later.

After that point, I *do* see a moral dimension to abortion, but the bodily integrity of the woman still takes precedence. She has the right to have the fetus removed. If it is *possible* to remove it in such a way that it lives, that should be done. If it is NOT possible, then it is regrettable, but the woman in whose body this is happening still has the final say.

 

[Irate State]

You're playing semantics. Context.




Since this isn't biology, I'd hope you get what I'm saying regardless the terms I use.

No. I said:



I can kinda see abortion depending on the health of the child and age (if you understand what I'm saying?). I don't see rape as a determinant for abortion.

Once the child has been conceived, I see no reason to abort it ethically speaking. But I kinda understand if there were health reasons but not because of rape.

I'm not playing semantics, you choose words that have an inherent weight and a side of attached emotion to a discussion. You persist in using the word child, no matter gestation time.
I don't understand how biology is not at least a part of the topic, that's just selective blindness.
If biology is out of the equation, then your mental gymnastics are also out of the question regarding other people's bodily autonomy.

 

[ChristineM]

What meaning of viable are you using here?

The legal meaning, the fetus cannot support itself

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I'm not playing semantics, you choose words that have an inherent weight and a side of attached emotion to a discussion. You persist in using the word child, no matter gestation time.
I don't understand how biology is not at least a part of the topic, that's just selective blindness.
If biology is out of the equation, then your mental gymnastics are also out of the question regarding other people's bodily autonomy.

This isn't an argument but an accusation of thoughts. What is your point relating to the debate topic not my choice in words?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I think the determining fact is that the zygote, embryo, or fetus is *inside of a person*.

That person has the right to bodily integrity and to remove *anyone or anything* that is inside of the body and unwanted.

I see no moral issue at all before the fetus has the neural connections allowing for the sensation of pain. That happens around the 24th week of pregnancy, with further development later.

After that point, I *do* see a moral dimension to abortion, but the bodily integrity of the woman still takes precedence. She has the right to have the fetus removed. If it is *possible* to remove it in such a way that it lives, that should be done. If it is NOT possible, then it is regrettable, but the woman in whose body this is happening still has the final say.

The argument is the expectation the fetus "will" become a child not the argument of whether to abort the fetus or not. It's about stopping the process of becoming a child not the present state of the fetus before it becomes a child. Stopping the process of being a life not ending a life that has not been fully developed yet.

 

[syo]

If a woman gets raped, she can abort.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Also, it makes no sense, imo, is that some will excuse having an abortion in cases of incest and/or rape if they truly feel that which is inside the woman is a baby, which I do believe it is.

OTOH, it makes perfect sense if we assume that the anti-choicers' primary concern is punishing women for sex they disapprove of.

When the pregnant person hasn't committed an act that they see as "culpable," the abortion is acceptable. This is a bit of a giveaway that they're motivated by a desire to punish, not a desire to save "lives."