Abortion: A 'right' that is wrong? (two theses for debate)

[TCO]

Dan, Tia is on the right track. Understanding the broader picture does not change your ability to "have high school debates". It just means that you are not restricted to them.

[Rex Little]

Just to be nitanoid, the real premise is that the fetus IS a part of the woman's body like an arm or leg...rather than a unique human life. You can take this premise and argue for it...but your opposition will argue the contrary.

Certainly a lot of pro-choicers view the fetus that way, but my position is that the fetus is a human being with human rights. Those rights, however, do not include the right to live inside another human being's body without her consent. Ramo, if I understand him correctly, is saying pretty much the same thing.

If you want to pick a nit, Ramo did say "before the first trimester. . .". Before the first trimester it's not abortion, it's contraception.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Rex Little
If you want to pick a nit, Ramo did say "before the first trimester. . .". Before the first trimester it's not abortion, it's contraception.

Which, according to the truly hardcore, is just as bad. That's what I love about this debate. Most people on both sides are pretty reasonable, and can have a reasonable discussion. But, goodness me, how the crazies come out and announce themselves... such wholesome entertainment for the entire family.

[DanS]

GP: I would be careful about the course that's being charted. Sympathy implies a bias for support of the ultimate decision. Empathy doesn't, but is available to just about anybody for the taking.

Empathy is quite useful, but that club's not nearly as exclusive as Tia makes out. Even snot-nosed 14 year old brats can get the picture.

[TCO]

Dan, my only point is that there is more to talk about with abortion than just "what should the law be". I see sympathy as valuable in and of itself. Everything does not have to be a subtext for yet another rehashed debate.

I am basically taking on the original scope of this discussion. Which I find somewhat trite and out of touch.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Rex Little
Certainly a lot of pro-choicers view the fetus that way, but my position is that the fetus is a human being with human rights. Those rights, however, do not include the right to live inside another human being's body without her consent. Ramo, if I understand him correctly, is saying pretty much the same thing.

If you want to pick a nit, Ramo did say "before the first trimester. . .". Before the first trimester it's not abortion, it's contraception.

Maybe so...I would love to have him say so explicitly. This is moving the discussion further.

We could also introduce things like the arguments about responsibility of parents for their children. (If parents are responsible for feeding and protecting their children...are mothers responsible for doing the same for embryonic children?)

[Rex Little]

Parents are responsible for feeding and protecting their children while they have them. They are, however, free to give the kids up for adoption, and that's what they have to do if they don't want to care for them anymore. Once adoption becomes a possibility (i.e., when the fetus is independently viable), abortion is no longer a morally acceptable choice. But before that, abortion is a woman's only alternative to allowing an unwanted intruder to remain in her body.

Note, too, that the obligation of parents to care for their children does not, AFAIK, legally extend to requiring that the parents give of their bodies. To take an extreme example, suppose your child needs a blood transfusion, and that yours is the only blood available of the necessary type. If you refuse to donate, you may be a selfish slimeball, but the law can't touch you. (I may be wrong about the law here, or it may vary from state to state; I welcome correction.)

[TCO]

Rex, a contrary argument might be that parents aren't allowed to eject their children into environments where the children die...and that it's not the child's fault that he can't be put out for adoption until birth.

[TCO]

Oh and regarding adoption. I don't think that inability to adopt is seen as a legal or ethical rationale for abodoning children. For instance, if I have a 5 year old: I'm legally responsible for taking care of him...even if I don't want to...and even if no one will take him off my hands.

[TCO]

(slight jack) BTW, I am "gold" now!

[Adam Smith]

GP:
Adoption agreements can be entered into before the child is born, often with the adoptive parents agreeing to pay medical expenses of the birth mother.

I guess my experiences and views are a bit different than some peoples here. Being unable to have children of our own, my wife and I have come to a greater appreciation than most people of what a great gift it is to have a biological child of your own. On the other hand, having tried to help my wife's niece (two abortions, one out of wedlock birth by age 17), we have come to realize that some people just don't get it.

[TCO]

Oh...one mroe thing. I agree with you that the situation of having another person living inside you is incredibly disruptive, and restricting.

I just wonder if the remedy, (killing that thing) is justified.

A further side issue might be whether the mother is responsible for creating the fetus. (assuming no rape).

[Felch]

Originally posted by Tiamat
Ok for all you guys with a penis...

I assume everyone is familiar with what Tiamat said.

The best analogy I can think of is American bombardment of other nations. Whenever America gets itself involved in such debacles, innocent people die, foreigners criticize us, and we are left with the difficult position of defending an aggresive act which often hurts people who have never committed any wrongs against the United States. While we can often justify these actions to a degree, it doesn't mean that foreign criticism is wrong. Indeed, foreign criticism is one of the key means of reigning in tyrants. As H.L. Mencken said, "Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking."

The simple claim that American bombing of our enemy du juor is a strictly American problem is unfounded. Both abortion and bombing are violent acts against human beings. It would be horrific and inhumane if we simply turned away and said, "It is none of our business because we aren't in so-and-so's shoes." Furthermore they do pose reprecussions on other people. Millions of human lives have been cut short by abortion around the world, and I wouldn't be surprised if the number approaches or even exceeds the loss of human lives as a result of bombing. While I admit it is cliché, abortion robs the economy of potential customers and workers, and has led to an aging population which will find it more and more difficult to pay its social security benefits.

Sometimes bombing or abortion can be justified. However, it would be wrong to give people a blank check simply by calling it an internal matter. Common human decency is expected of all people, and it is a sad fact that so many citizens of the world value expediency over human life.

[Rex Little]

a contrary argument might be that parents aren't allowed to eject their children into environments where the children die...and that it's not the child's fault that he can't be put out for adoption until birth.

If there's an alternative to abortion that preserves the mother's right to her own body and keeps the fetus alive, then yes, she has an obligation to take that path instead of aborting. I foresee a time when something like arthroscopic surgery can be used to remove a fetus without damage at any stage of a pregnancy, and then perhaps this whole debate can be mooted. But that time is not yet.

I don't think that inability to adopt is seen as a legal or ethical rationale for abodoning children. For instance, if I have a 5 year old: I'm legally responsible for taking care of him...even if I don't want to...and even if no one will take him off my hands.

I'm pretty sure that in most states, if not all, you can give your child up to the state, which is then responsible for finding it a home. When the child in question is unborn, it's my understanding that there's a long waiting list of people who would be glad to agree to an adoption at birth. If I were in charge of an abortion clinic, I would counsel any potential patient to consider this course instead, and make sure to have people on-site who could help her arrange it. But in the end, it's still her body and her choice.

abortion robs the economy of potential customers and workers

Irrelevant and immaterial. I could just as well say that it gets rid of potential thieves and murderers. Neither has anything to do with the question of whether it should be prevented by force of law.

[November Adam]

Originally posted by GP


Just to be nitanoid, the real premise is that the fetus IS a part of the woman's body like an arm or leg...rather than a unique human life. You can take this premise and argue for it...but your opposition will argue the contrary.

Indeed, I am one of those who would argue that the embryo, fetus is not part of the womens body, rather a seperate individual. No one is addressing this, and I would like to know why?

Maybe people should start to change their views regarding sex? I would argue that by having consentual sex, you are giving consent to the possibility of getting pregnant. Thus the need to prevent conception. And whom ever said an abortion in the first trimester is only "contraception" is not being very smart. And this attitude strikes me as being "convienient".

Regarding the fetus being a part of the female.... some will argue that the fetus is no different than an organ, or other piece of tissue in a persons body. Yet all of these seperate organs and tissues were necesarry for an individuals survival in our evolutionary histroy at one point or the other. What is the fetus' necessity in it's mother's survival? I would think that an embryo/ fetus would be classified differently, as it is more like a parasite host relationship with the mother.

Hell, even by the fact that we refer to it as an identity lends crecedence to our thoughts on it.