an abortion thread with no personal attacks

[kramerfan86]

Even if a fetus is a person, that shouldn't give it rights that trump the rights of the woman carrying it. If I were ill, and could only be saved by borrowing your kidneys, I can't force you to give me one. Even if this were a temporary problem and it could be solved by running tubes between us so your kidneys could process my blood while still staying in your body, I can't compel you to do this to save me. Why should a fetus be able to do so?

In the case that it is a person it shouldnt trump her rights in terms of health, but its health should trump her rights to convenience. In your example its a case of "i cant hurt your health for my health" when you need to talking about "I cant hurt your health for my comfort".


This is hypothetically assuming though it is suddenly agreed a fetus is a person, which I would agree with after a certain stage but not the early stages.

 

[NBAfan]

A civil abortion discussion is impossible because of the implications. If the pro-life argument is right, then abortion is one of the biggest atrocities in the history of mankind.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I have always wondered about this, since it's an emotion I also share. It's the purest form of racism. Also, although in my reasoning I always argue against the potential-argument, it exists in my non-rational take on abortion. Maybe just the reason I argue so vehemently against it.

"Purest form of racism" puts it nicely. So now pro-lifers are racists.
Anyway, I think we all realize the source of the power of the potential-argument. It goes against every inch of evolution to not care more about our offspring than cows, be coherent morality be damned. But to me the sign of a civilized being is the ability and the willingness to move beyond instinct and rest decisions on rationality (not saying that this is impossible for pro-life people, please don't feel attacked).

 

[Oruc]

I suppose it's not so much the life part as the fact that they won't have a chance to live (I'm probably not describing it very well) even a crap life is better then nothing. I don't see what give me the right to snuff that out.
The whole pro-life pro-capital punishment being contradictory, I never saw it that way those considered for the death penalty have royally screwed up their chance to live a decent life.

I also really don't like it when people claim the baby(cells whatever) is a parasite because it can't survive by itself (forgotting the fact that is still true even after it's born).
When I didn't have a job and was on the dole I clearly couldn't provide for myself, I certainly don't like the implication that my death would be ok because of that.

 

[emzie]

A civil abortion discussion is impossible because of the implications. If the pro-life argument is right, then abortion is one of the biggest atrocities in the history of mankind.

As a pro-choicer, I can endorse this stance except that I don't think an objective "right" exists.

The purpose of this thread I assume is not to convert the other side, but to let them see you're not a woman-hating monster or that you're not a baby-murdering monster. I think the abortion debate could use some of that realization.

 

[strijder20]

What's the difference between killing a fetus and not having a child when you can have one?

 

[JollyRoger]

those considered for the death penalty have royally screwed up their chance to live a decent life.

even a crap life is better then nothing. I don't see what give me the right to snuff that out.

&

He was the spitting image of the killer, had the same first name and was near the scene of the crime at the fateful hour: Carlos DeLuna paid the ultimate price and was executed in place of someone else in Texas in 1989, a report out Tuesday found.

http://news.yahoo.com/wrong-man-executed-texas-probe-says-051125159.html

 

[Oruc]

even a crap life is better then nothing. I don't see what give me the right to snuff that out.

They screwed up when they killed someone.

 

[JollyRoger]

They screwed up when they killed someone.

even a crap life is better then nothing. I don't see what give me the right to snuff that out.

&


http://news.yahoo.com/wrong-man-executed-texas-probe-says-051125159.html

 

[Oruc]

even a crap life is better then nothing. I don't see what give me the right to snuff that out.
&
http://news.yahoo.com/wrong-man-executed-texas-probe-says-051125159.html

Well I think it's pretty obvious I don't like what happened there?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

What's the difference between killing a fetus and not having a child when you can have one?

Yep, that is also one of those very good questions.
Though, I always kind of struggled with that. I mean, why wouldn't it be immoral to deny all those potential human beings I could have already conceived existence? I think in this instance morality becomes such a burden that it is simply not worth the effort.

 

[JollyRoger]

Well I think it's pretty obvious I don't like what happened there?

No, because you ignored it and went on assuming that someone that got the death penalty deserved it.

 

[Oruc]

No, because you ignored it and went on assuming that someone that got the death penalty deserved it.

I thought it went without saying, were you expecting me to leap to the defence of what happened?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

"Purest form of racism" puts it nicely. So now pro-lifers are racists.

Indeed. And I am too, since I too would grant the foetus rights which I wouldn't grant a sentient animal.

If the pro-life argument is right

What if you can't say either side is right or wrong?

I'll side-step the various arguments that exist for pro-life, in favour of the one I think you would most identify with and is most useful to explain. I assume you consider a foetus to be a person because you believe it has been given a soul by God. That is your perspective and you are right to be against granting the choice for abortion.

I don't believe in a soul, nor do I believe that a genetic make-up makes something a person. Sentience is the first step to becoming a person I feel, and by gaining that I should be granting it the same rights as I would a sentient animal. But I too have irrational reasons to value a sentient foetus over a sentient animal. From that point on I'd not want to endanger it's life unless the mother's life would be. So, I'd be right to be in favour of given the woman the choice for abortion until sentience and beyond that only for life-threatening scenarios.

A civil discourse is possible, but only to clarify our positions, not to determine who's right.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

As said earlier, the same goes for me. Yeah well, to be racist with regards to humanity as a whole is pretty ordinary I guess.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I guess cows feel the same way towards their own

 

[bernie14]

What's the difference between killing a fetus and not having a child when you can have one?

Yep, that is also one of those very good questions.
Though, I always kind of struggled with that. I mean, why wouldn't it be immoral to deny all those potential human beings I could have already conceived existence? I think in this instance morality becomes such a burden that it is simply not worth the effort.

i think a biological argument can be made in that a gamete (sperm or ovum) only contains one set of chromosones (haploid)..... an individual cannot choose to combine his/her gametes to produce offsping, that is not a choice an individual can make.

 

[mangxema]

Even if a fetus is a person, that shouldn't give it rights that trump the rights of the woman carrying it. If I were ill, and could only be saved by borrowing your kidneys, I can't force you to give me one. Even if this were a temporary problem and it could be solved by running tubes between us so your kidneys could process my blood while still staying in your body, I can't compel you to do this to save me. Why should a fetus be able to do so?

I have been intrigued by this sort of argument recently. I suspect the counterargument would be that there is a responsibility/implied consent as a result of engaging in sexual intercourse. I can kind of see the logic in that (i.e., the counterargument) but I'm not sure that I find it convincing.

My personal view is that if abortion is in fact murder, then surely there must be some provision for self-defense. Any policy that does not include that is, in my opinion, absurd. The absolutism that seems to permeate this issue is just stupid. Ending a pregnancy that is threatening your life is entirely justifiable, for the same reason that shooting someone who is threatening your life is.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Indeed, I have a really hard time accepting that a woman doesn't have full rights with what she does to her own body.

Though the current American Constitutional argument (about privacy rights) as to why abortion is currently allowed I think is a particularly interesting one, since it doesn't seem to coincide with the main public discourse at all.

There is currently a private member's bill in Parliament to reopen the matter of whether or not abortion should be allowed in Canada. I remember the case of Chantal Daigle, whose boyfriend managed to get the courts to try to prevent her from obtaining an abortion. She sneaked across the border into the U.S. and got her abortion, and I remember being glad. Not because I hate babies (or whatever), but because she absolutely would NOT let this guy dictate what she could or could not do with her own body.

What is your opinion of the current situation? Should this whole issue be reopened?

Ending a pregnancy that is threatening your life is entirely justifiable, for the same reason that shooting someone who is threatening your life is.

Bravo. Just yesterday I was reading on Care2 how there are some Catholic hospitals that refuse to perform abortions for women who have ectopic pregnancies (where the fetus is growing outside the uterus). These are cases where the fetus has ZERO chance of survival, and the woman has an excellent chance of dying if the fetus is not removed. And yet the hospitals scream "Oh noes! We won't abort that baby - that would be MURDER!" And if/when the woman dies, they have the gall to spout some platitude about "God's will."

No. Such things are not "God's" will. They are the "will" of fanatics who claim to be pro-life, but have the most hypocritical way of showing it.

 

[Agent327]

If the anti-abortionists can make a legitimate case for a fetus being person , then the rights of the woman carrying the fetus are reasonably called into question.

It's not anyone's decision to kill a child. Avoiding 9 months of pregnancy and childbirth would not justify murder.
If a fetus was a human being with rights the only acceptable justification for abortion would be complications that endanger the life of the mother.

You are assuming I am pro abortion - which I am not.

she absolutely would NOT let this guy dictate what she could or could not do with her own body.

Which basically sums up most abortion ´debates´: men telling women what to do.

So yes, it´s still about women´s rights. Men can´t get pregnant, but they love to tell the other party what´s right and what´s not.
-----------------------------------

Valka, that´s not a foot, it´s a paw.