Even if a fetus is not a person, abortion is still wrong.

[ParkCungHee]

Well, actually now that you mention it, S&M *is* illegal in some countries, including the UK, as you cannot be considered to consent to actual bodily harm.

This is in a country that invented boxing?

 

[ainwood]

Consent isn't the last word and it doesn't apply to everyone. A woman who wants to kill her baby should be considered insane, therefore loses the right to give consent.

I'd also like to point out that even though the woman may not be considered insane, she could be in a stage where she'd think differently than normal. You can take the example from Roe v Wade. All she wanted at the time was to have an abortion, but after she had her daughter she was glad that she didn't have an abortion. At the time of pregnancy she would've given consent, but after she gave birth and her chemical level returns to normal she became anti-abortion. (I'm not using pro-life for the sake of this argument)

So which is it? They're insane, or they're not?

Actually, I think your example demonstrates that abortion is not an issue that should be taken lightly; not that it is 'wrong'. Maybe knowing that she'd been at the center of the debate, and how she was treated by her peers made her reconsider? Maybe she did regret what she had done? Who knows?


Women (generally) don't just have an abortion at the drop of a hat. Despite what many say, it is not (again, generally) used as a means of contraception.

 

[Katheryn]

Because we have such an excellent variety of contraception, abortion should be considered not only barbaric, but also obsolete.

 

[ParkCungHee]

By that reasoning, because we have vaccines, anti-biotics are obselete and should be banned?

 

[mdwh]

Even if women may be thinking differently, this doesn't explain why the default should be to have the baby. The argument works the other way - what if a woman wants the baby, but changes her mind when it's too late? She's then saddled with a child for much of the rest of her life, and there's no going back.

Shouldn't we be sure that someone wants a child, if they are going to have it, rather than forcing them to have the child unless we are sure that they don't?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Even with his consent?

With his consent, sure. But the fetus is not giving consent even if the mother is. That is the issue; I personally think that the fetus has rights that in all but the most extreme circumstances supercede those of the mother to have an abortion. Just as it is only permissible to cut off a finger without consent to perform a life-saving amputation, the only justifiable use of abortion on a fetus in my view is to save the mother's life. (Of course, efforts are made to save the fetus, as they should be, but the fetus is put in a lot of risk in the first place.)

 

[Katheryn]

By that reasoning, because we have vaccines, anti-biotics are obselete and should be banned?

Abortions are very traumatic on the female AND can cause permanent damage to her body. That is not the case with antibiotics.

 

[G-Force Junkie]

Even if women may be thinking differently, this doesn't explain why the default should be to have the baby. The argument works the other way - what if a woman wants the baby, but changes her mind when it's too late? She's then saddled with a child for much of the rest of her life, and there's no going back.

Shouldn't we be sure that someone wants a child, if they are going to have it, rather than forcing them to have the child unless we are sure that they don't?

She could give away the child, she doesn't have to keep it.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Abortions are very traumatic on the female AND can cause permanent damage to her body. That is not the case with antibiotics.

Fine, so because we have early cancer screenings, major surgery and chemotherapy is barbaric?

 

[Tekee]

But some relgions belive that Life Begins at Virth
Ortodoxy belive sthat Birth Begins as soon as it is born out of Woman, not when the Egg first gets Fertilized

 

[GenMarshall]

But some relgions belive that Life Begins at Virth
Ortodoxy belive sthat Birth Begins as soon as it is born out of Woman, not when the Egg first gets Fertilized

Well, Catholics believe that life beguins at conception when the union of egg and sperm happens .

 

[Red Stranger]

So which is it? They're insane, or they're not?

For the purpose of the argument we can't say they're insane. I said it, but GinandTonic and RedWolf pointed out that for me to claim they're insane we have to use the premise that the fetus is a human.

 

[Perfection]

For the purpose of the argument we can't say they're insane. I said it, but GinandTonic and RedWolf pointed out that for me to claim they're insane we have to use the premise that the fetus is a human.

So then what is the moral difference between wanting an abortion and wanting a mole removed?

 

[Gogf]

So employing an exterminator is morally reprehensible?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

There is only a moral difference if a fetus is human. To me it seems obvious (speaking from a human rights perspective, not a religious one) that a fetus is human (in fact a zygote is human) but it is a very difficult question - perhaps not even objecively answerable - to say when a fetus is developed enough that its right to live trumps that of the mother to have an abortion. Maybe we just can't say when "life" really begins. That has frightening implications - that we may have to choose between legislating murder or not allowing women to have complete reproductive control.

 

[Red Stranger]

So then what is the moral difference between wanting an abortion and wanting a mole removed?

What's the difference between having a mole removed and a liver removed. Not all body parts are created equal.

 

[Birdjaguar]

There is only a moral difference if a fetus is human. To me it seems obvious (speaking from a human rights perspective, not a religious one) that a fetus is human (in fact a zygote is human) but it is a very difficult question - perhaps not even objecively answerable - to say when a fetus is developed enough that its right to live trumps that of the mother to have an abortion. Maybe we just can't say when "life" really begins. That has frightening implications - that we may have to choose between legislating murder or not allowing women to have complete reproductive control.

When does the soul enter and what authority is that based on? If you think that the soul enters at conception, then please reconcile the natural miscarriage rate of 20-40% with that.

 

[Perfection]

What's the difference between having a mole removed and a liver removed.

Removing the liver makes you die, removing a mole or fetus does not.

Not all body parts are created equal.

Indeed, but what is the moral difference between these two body parts?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Removing a fetus may not make the mother die, but it often makes the fetus die.

 

[Perfection]

Removing a fetus may not make the mother die, but it often makes the fetus die.

But Red Strangers contention is that he can make a moral arguement without stating that a fetus is a person. So he then has to say what the difference between a fetus dying and a mole dying is.