Why would anyone support the practice of abortion?

[Little Raven]

Imagine: Your 5 year old kid needs the machine. Do have the rigth to refuse to use it?

As a society, we expect parents to care for their children. However, we also allow parents to give up their children at birth, so obviously we recognize that parents can give up that responsibility in certain circumstances.

I am expected to provide for children under my care, regardless of whether they are biologically mine or not. However, I am not expected to provide for every child that I pass on the street. Before I gain the responsibility, a relationship must be created between the child and myself.

Are you suggesting that the mere fact that the fetus has taken up residence in the mothers womb implies a relationship between them? If I leave my door open, and you take up residence in my living room, does that imply a relationship between us? It might lead to a relationship...maybe I discover you're a fun guy to have around. But it might not, and its perfectly within my rights to have you kicked out, even if it's freezing outside and kicking you out is equivilant to a death sentence. It doesn't matter that I left my door open...the living room belongs to me. I get to decide who stays there.

And the womb belongs to the mother. She gets to decide who stays there. If she decides the fetus needs to find a new home...well, that sucks for the fetus, but that's life.

 

[Stapel]

As a society, we expect parents to care for their children. However, we also allow parents to give up their children at birth, so obviously we recognize that parents can give up that responsibility in certain circumstances.

I am expected to provide for children under my care, regardless of whether they are biologically mine or not. However, I am not expected to provide for every child that I pass on the street. Before I gain the responsibility, a relationship must be created between the child and myself.

Are you suggesting that the mere fact that the fetus has taken up residence in the mothers womb implies a relationship between them? If I leave my door open, and you take up residence in my living room, does that imply a relationship between us? It might lead to a relationship...maybe I discover you're a fun guy to have around. But it might not, and its perfectly within my rights to have you kicked out, even if it's freezing outside and kicking you out is equivilant to a death sentence. It doesn't matter that I left my door open...the living room belongs to me. I get to decide who stays there.

And the womb belongs to the mother. She gets to decide who stays there. If she decides the fetus needs to find a new home...well, that sucks for the fetus, but that's life.

Well, we can argue the mother invited the embryo into her womb in the first place!

Anyway: I am not suggesting anything. I am just philosophating a bit

 

[Little Raven]

Well, we can argue the mother invited the embryo into her womb in the first place!

Anyway: I am not suggesting anything. I am just philosophating a bit

I know.

But can we really argue that? I mean, in the case of rape, it seems that we absolutely cannot. And even in the case of consensual sex, it seems a stretch. What if the woman was using birth control, but it failed? Does that still count as inviting the child in?

 

[Mise]

I know.

But can we really argue that? I mean, in the case of rape, it seems that we absolutely cannot. And even in the case of consensual sex, it seems a stretch. What if the woman was using birth control, but it failed? Does that still count as inviting the child in?

Exactly. If the woman doesn't want the child inside her, she can kick the child out, just like she can kick a squatter out of her house if she doesn't want him there.

The only difference is that if the woman wants the child initially, thereby accepting responsibility for the child, the woman can't kick the child out.

 

[The Last Conformist]

What if the woman was using birth control, but it failed? Does that still count as inviting the child in?

In the opinion of just about any anti-abortionist I've spoken with, yes. They usually claim that engaging in potentially procreative sex implies promising to care for any offspring that might be created by it till it reaches legal adulthood, except only that you may put it up for abortion post natus. (Implication - you have heavier responsibilities to an unborn child than a born one!)

 

[Stapel]

I know.

But can we really argue that? I mean, in the case of rape, it seems that we absolutely cannot. And even in the case of consensual sex, it seems a stretch. What if the woman was using birth control, but it failed? Does that still count as inviting the child in?

In a post before I did add the word usually........

 

[Little Raven]

The only difference is that if the woman wants the child initially, thereby accepting responsibility for the child, the woman can't kick the child out.

But legally, it is impossible to determine what a person wants...we can only judge by actions. For instance, we can say that carrying a child to term implies consent. Or carrying it for 6 months, or whatever. We can put the line wherever we want. But it has nothing to do with when the child becomes human, it's merely a legal definition of consent.

Put the line where ever you like. I happen to think it's in a pretty good place already.

 

[luiz]

@luiz

So, the world can hold ten times the number o people than now. Tell me that again when no one on this planat has to die because of hunger or lack of other needed stuff to survive.

Nobody has to die because of hunger or other stuff presently! We produce enough food to feed two human populations. Hunger is a matter of localised poverty, not of lack of production.

Mankind can't prevent that a huge number of their kin live nearly without ANY kind of life standard, and you stand there and cry: "Come in, we can hold ten times the number we have now."
Thats a heavy pipe dream. You think grow can be unlimited. But we're talking about earth, and earth is a closed system. And infinite grow in a closed system brings the system down at some point. Call me doomsayer or what ye wan't. Thats the way, plain and simple.
Just look at your house. Imagine you have to share it with 9 other people and maybe you realize how out of reality your remark was.

We can´t grow to infinity, but we can grow alot.

Your remark about my house is the one way out of reality. It would only be true if all the living space on Earth was occupíed, and that´s simply ridiculous. My country, for exemple, has vast ammount of fertile lands that are completely empty. In fact, they probably outnumber the occupied pices of land.

In the next 60 years the world population will have doubled again, and no serious economist is losing his sleep over it.

 

[The Last Conformist]

In the next 60 years the world population will have doubled again, and no serious economist is losing his sleep over it.

Got a source for that? It's well above any prediction I've seen lately.

 

[Little Raven]

In the opinion of just about any anti-abortionist I've spoken with, yes. They usually claim that engaging in potentially procreative sex implies promising to care for any offspring that might be created by it till it reaches legal adulthood, except only that you may put it up for abortion post natus. (Implication - you have heavier responsibilities to an unborn child than a born one!)

I realize this is often argued. However, it's ridiculous when you think about it. If I leave my doors unlocked, am I responsible if my house gets robbed? If I walk down a dark street without a gun, do people have the right to murder me?

Of course not. In each case, I'm being stupid, but I'm hardly accepting the legal consequences of my actions. Ownership becomes meaningless if we subscribe to that interpretation. Of course, convincing a zealot of this is difficult at best.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Whence the charge that anti-abortionists do not respects women's rights to their own bodies.

 

[luiz]

Are you suggesting that the mere fact that the fetus has taken up residence in the mothers womb implies a relationship between them?

Yes I am, because the fetus is only there due to an action, 99,9% of the times volntary, performed by the mother. And the mother knew very well the risks and apparently did not take the right precautions. So yes, I´m saying that there is responsability.

 

[luiz]

What if the woman was using birth control, but it failed? Does that still count as inviting the child in?

By combinig birth control methods(Ie taking pills, using condoms and having sex on the non-fertile period) the chance of getting pregnant is below one in a million.

So a responsible woman won´t have an undesired pregnancy.

 

[IglooDame]

Exactly. If the woman doesn't want the child inside her, she can kick the child out, just like she can kick a squatter out of her house if she doesn't want him there.

The only difference is that if the woman wants the child initially, thereby accepting responsibility for the child, the woman can't kick the child out.

Very interesting way of looking at it.

Given the significant (a few weeks to a couple months in the vast majority of cases) delay in recognizing the pregnancy, you could extend the analogy to the squatter moving in while the woman is away on vacation. In cases of rape, the squatter has committed Breaking & Entering, in cases of not using contraceptives she has in effect left the front door open.

 

[The Last Conformist]

By combinig birth control methods(Ie taking pills, using condoms and having sex on the non-fertile period) the chance of getting pregnant is below one in a million.

So a responsible woman won´t have an undesired pregnancy.

Accepting that figure, and assuming there's a few million responsible women in the world who have sex a hundred times a year on average, we're already looking at rather a few undesired pregnancies ...

 

[betazed]

Given the significant number of posts on OT that has been dedicated to this topic, I am a little surprised that no one has asked this question yet?

What about the father? Does he have no rights? Does his opinion not count at all?

yeah, I know his contribution is little but it is not going to be little in the long run. What if he is willing to take that responsibility? What if he wants the child too against the wishes of the mother who wants to abort? What if he is not the biological father but is still willing to shoulder the responsibility?

IMHO, here lies a subtle difference between a foetus and LR's machine. LR's machine is just his. A foetus is more than just a woman's foetus. It could also be a father's desire to have a offspring and to teach him what he knows. What then?

 

[The Last Conformist]

Given the significant number of posts on OT that has been dedicated to this topic, I am a little surprised that no one has asked this question yet?

What about the father? Does he have no rights? Does his opinion not count at all?

yeah, I know his contribution is little but it is not going to be little in the long run. What if he is willing to take that responsibility? What if he wants the child too against the wishes of the mother who wants to abort? What if he is not the biological father but is still willing to shoulder the responsibility?

IMHO, here lies a subtle difference between a foetus and LR's machine. LR's machine is just his. A foetus is more than just a woman's foetus. It could also be a father's desire to have a offspring and to teach him what he knows. What then?

The general consensus is; screw the father.

There was a thread at DAF, tho, where thread starter argued that if women are to have abortion rights, so ought fathers. I could dig up the link if you're interested.

 

[betazed]

The general consensus is; screw the father.

I hate to sound like a vulcan, but that is not logical. When one is arguing about rights of one individual how can the same person ignore the rights of another.

There was a thread at DAF, tho, where thread starter argued that if women are to have abortion rights, so ought fathers. I could dig up the link if you're interested.

thanks. if you can please do so. I would like see what other people think about the father's rights.

 

[Little Raven]

IMHO, here lies a subtle difference between a foetus and LR's machine. LR's machine is just his. A foetus is more than just a woman's foetus. It could also be a father's desire to have a offspring and to teach him what he knows. What then?

The father is welcome to the fetus. He can claim it as soon as it is removed from the mother's womb. What he does with it then is up to him.

The machine in my example is not the fetus, it is the womb. The fetus does not belong to the mother, but the womb does. If she wants the fetus out, well, out it goes. If the father wants to keep in a jar...more power to him.

Just because the father had sex with the mother (or didn't) does not give the father any claim on the mother's womb. The womb still belongs to her. To say that the father can force the woman to carry his child in her womb against her wishes is equivilant to saying that TLC's father can force me to turn over my machine for TLC's use just because TLC needs it. Neither is true. If TLC needs the machine, that's his problem, (and his father's) not mine. It's my machine. And its her womb.

 

[Gothmog]

We did have that discussion here in CFC OT as well. I remember that Hitro, and possibly luiz, were on the 'force the woman to have the child' side and Akka and I were opposed.

It again comes down to the sanctity of the womans body and her right to do with it as she pleases.

I believe we argued that the man's rights are in direct proportion to the quality of his relationship to the woman. As it should be IMO.

I would say more but I really should be working...