Abortion debate thread

J C · 19-11-2012 01:22AM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

What is created at conception has no sentience and looks the same as a fish at the same stage. And many people feel that does not mean it is a human life.

There's a very long list of intellectuals who only agree that it is impossible to reach agreement, the precise moment when life begins.

... how very convenient ... the first thing to be done if you want to kill is to de-humanise the target.

J C · 19-11-2012 01:26AM

georgieporgy wrote: »

so you would argue a woman should have the option of smoking in a pub or other such public place if she chooses?

... the pseudo-liberals will frown on her smoking when pregnant ... but killing the child is OK ... it's called 'sweating the small stuff'!!!!
... and accepting the elephant in the room!!!

Zombrex · 19-11-2012 02:07AM

georgieporgy wrote: »

so you would argue a woman should have the option of smoking in a pub or other such public place if she chooses?

No, since expelling smoke into the air is not an action on ones body, so the issue of bodily privacy isn't relevant.

If you want to inject nicotine into your veins (or how ever those patches work) knock yourself out.

The thing with abortion is that it is an action on your body that affects someone else purely through that action on your body. It is not an outward act, so analogies to smoking or suicide bombers or the like are failed analogies. Really there are so few actual analogies since we do not really rely on another's body for life after we are born. People can do things too us, but we are rarely if ever effected if they simply do something to themselves.

The closet is the transfusion analogy. You are hooked up to someone and without your blood they will die. Can you refuse to continue to participate and pull out the tube, an act that is purely on your own body, but which effects another?

People need to be careful and consider how they answer that, since the conclusion if you cannot is that people have the right to override your right to bodily autonomy if they need your body for some reason, such as sustaining their life. It is a dangerous precedent.

Morbert · 19-11-2012 02:31AM

Zombrex wrote: »

No, since expelling smoke into the air is not an action on ones body, so the issue of bodily privacy isn't relevant.

If you want to inject nicotine into your veins (or how ever those patches work) knock yourself out.

The thing with abortion is that it is an action on your body that affects someone else purely through that action on your body. It is not an outward act, so analogies to smoking or suicide bombers or the like are failed analogies. Really there are so few actual analogies since we do not really rely on another's body for life after we are born. People can do things too us, but we are rarely if ever effected if they simply do something to themselves.

The closet is the transfusion analogy. You are hooked up to someone and without your blood they will die. Can you refuse to continue to participate and pull out the tube, an act that is purely on your own body, but which effects another?

People need to be careful and consider how they answer that, since the conclusion if you cannot is that people have the right to override your right to bodily autonomy if they need your body for some reason, such as sustaining their life. It is a dangerous precedent.

I'm going to play devil's advocate here. The pro-life position is that the distinction between having an abortion and killing a newborn is ethically irrelevant, even if it can be characterised as an action on the body and an outward action respectively. The blood transfusion analogy is a strong argument when considering cases where the woman was raped, and for that reason many pro-life advocates would make an exception in such cases, but regarding all other arguments, they would say that, analogously speaking, you are the one who caused the person to be dependent on blood transfusions.

JimiTime · 19-11-2012 02:35AM

Zombrex wrote: »

"Pro-choice" comes from the idea that it is the woman's choice as to what she does to her own body (body autonomy/privacy), irrespective of any standing of the child.

I know what it means to describe, but in another perspective it is distinctly ANTI-choice as its not simply her body that she's dealing with. Using the term 'prochoice' simply ignores the full reality of the situation. These types of political terminologies are very carefully coined.

Do you deny that these pro choice, or life terms are set up for political impact rather than any truly accurate description of what they are about?

Consider the poster who raised the point, 'Im not pro abortion, Im pro Choice'. Well, you ARE pro abortion if you believe that an unborn child does not have value enough to be protected from termination, and that a woman should have a legal right to choose to kill their unborn. Pro abortion is a much more accurate term than the political pro-choice.

Turtwig · 19-11-2012 02:47AM

Morbert wrote: »

I'm going to play devil's advocate here. The pro-life position is that the distinction between having an abortion and killing a newborn is ethically irrelevant, even if it can be characterised as an action on the body and an outward action respectively. The blood transfusion analogy is a strong argument when considering cases where the woman was raped, and for that reason many pro-life advocates would make an exception in such cases, but regarding all other arguments, they would say that, analogously speaking, you are the one who caused the person to be dependent on blood transfusions.

But to extend that analogy medically you don't refuse an alcoholic an organ donation. And to extend it even further, but probably getting a little bit less plausible, one could make the argument that if the woman used birth control then the foetus, against the woman's permission, attached itself to the woman for transfusion. It's a foreign invader, if you like.

Turtwig · 19-11-2012 03:15AM

JimiTime wrote: »

Consider the poster who raised the point, 'Im not pro abortion, Im pro Choice'. Well, you ARE pro abortion if you believe that an unborn child does not have value enough to be protected from termination, and that a woman should have a legal right to choose to kill their unborn. Pro abortion is a much more accurate term than the political pro-choice.

Consider the example of a spider on the keyboard/phone/laptop/input device beside you. You could crush him. Or you could choose to let him live. Personally, I'd do everything I could to avoid harming or killing him unless he was a direct threat to me. If he was attached to me like a human botfly however and there was no option to remove him from my body without killing him then I wouldn't hesitate.

I would rather no harm to be done to living entity that is the foetus but in terms of mother's health, not life, being in jeopardy I give her health precedence over that of the foetus. I don't consider the foetus to be a human person. And I don't think any woman should be forced through 9 months of a procedure which may leave her crippled for life. She might not die, or the fact that she's alive might never come under threat, but her quality of life will be aversely affected. In those situations, which I'll admit are rare, I don't it think it's fair or just to force the woman through the pregnancy unless it is absolutely wanted. Pregnancy can be a brutal ordeal and with more and more women leaving it until later in their lives to get pregnant it's probably going to become even more complex.

That's why I consider myself pro-choice but I'm most certainly not pro-abortion. I'd rather if no foetus was harmed, but alas, that's not possible yet.
It's her body, it's her choice and while I'd rather if she could avoid abortion I understand it's not my decision to make: it's hers.

19-11-2012 10:25AM

Can someone explain this for me please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_abortion#Ectopic_pregnancy

the only moral action in an ectopic pregnancy where a woman's life is directly threatened is the removal of the tube containing the human embryo (salpingectomy). The death of the human embryo is unintended although foreseen

in the 17th century, Francis Torreblanca approved abortions aimed merely at saving a woman's good name, the Holy Office (what is now called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith), at that time headed by Pope Innocent XI, condemned the proposition that "it is lawful to procure abortion before ensoulment of the fetus lest a girl, detected as pregnant, be killed or defamed"

Also reading up on the wiki page it seems the Churches views on abortion have changed down the years and that the view of when "ensoulment" occurs has varied.

Fiachna heard a description of the beauty of the woman, and he came and carried her off, and she lived with him some days.

After this Ciaran went to demand the maiden of the king, and he refused to give her to him. And he said to Ciaran that he would not let her go till he should be wakened by the voice of the cuckoo. On the morrow there was a heavy fall of snow, which covered the earth, but it did not come near Ciaran or his company; {folio 146b} and it was the winter season then. And early on the morrow the voice of the cuckoo was heard, and the king arose and prostrated himself before Ciaran, and gave his fosterling to him.

And when Ciaran saw his fosterling coming to him, and her womb great with her pregnancy, he made the sign of the Sacred Cross over her, and her womb was decreased, and there was no appearance of pregnancy therein; and he took her back to the same place.

Part 5 of Bethada Náem nÉrenn

Am I interpreting this correctly? Did he miracle an abortion on a rape victim?

19-11-2012 10:28AM

Jernal wrote: »

It's her body, it's her choice and while I'd rather if she could avoid abortion I understand it's not my decision to make: it's hers.

What I dislike about pro-choice the most is it is all about her this her that, fathers rights aren`t given a look in. It is as if fathers don`t exist.

Zombrex · 19-11-2012 10:53AM

JimiTime wrote: »

I know what it means to describe, but in another perspective it is distinctly ANTI-choice as its not simply her body that she's dealing with. Using the term 'prochoice' simply ignores the full reality of the situation. These types of political terminologies are very carefully coined.

"Pro-choice" isn't dependent on it being "simply her body" that she is dealing with. If I got a sex change operation I'm pretty sure it would have a significant effect on my family and friends. That doesn't mean it is not my choice.

The point is that it is her choice what she does with her body, just like it is your choice what you do to your body, irrespective of the effect it has on others.

Consider the alternative, the alternative is that others can control what you do to you own body because it effects them.

JimiTime wrote: »

Do you deny that these pro choice, or life terms are set up for political impact rather than any truly accurate description of what they are about?

They are set up to have the most impact in explaining what is being asked for.

Given how often the body autonomy argument is completely ignored/dismissed by anti-abortion movement I can see why the pro-choice movement would feel this is necessary.

JimiTime wrote: »

Consider the poster who raised the point, 'Im not pro abortion, Im pro Choice'. Well, you ARE pro abortion if you believe that an unborn child does not have value enough to be protected from termination

Case in point. The value of the unborn child is irrelevant to the body autonomy argument.

A full grown adult has as much value/rights as one can have. That still doesn't mean that they can control what a woman does with her body, even if what the woman does to her body negatively effect them.

So why would an unborn child have more rights than a full grown adult?

"Pro-choice" is a response to groups like Christians trying to reframe the debate away from the issue of bodily privacy, one assumes because it is easier to argue about the subjective value of the unborn child and a lot harder to argue against bodily autonomy.

JimiTime wrote: »

and that a woman should have a legal right to choose to kill their unborn. Pro abortion is a much more accurate term than the political pro-choice.

Only if you don't understand the bodily autonomy argument. It is perfectly possible to think abortion is immoral but still should be allowed because a person has a right to do what they want to do with their own body, the same way that someone might say tattoos or sex change operations or refusing to give blood are immoral but still agree that it should be legal to do it.

Zombrex · 19-11-2012 10:56AM

Deleted User wrote: »

What I dislike about pro-choice the most is it is all about her this her that, fathers rights aren`t given a look in. It is as if fathers don`t exist.

No, it is as is if fathers don't carry the unborn child in their bodies.

The argument that fathers should some how have a say in what the woman does with her body is equivalent to saying that a woman should be able to rape a man in order to get his sperm cause it is so unfair that woman can't produce their own sperm.

I'm sure some radfem feminist has made such an argument at some point, but generally such arguments are considered ridiculous. There is no requirement that we invalidate civil rights in order to rebalance nature.

Clockwork Owl · 19-11-2012 11:00AM

@JimiTime,
How exactly is 'pro-life' a less emotive and politically charged term than 'pro-choice'? I don't know of anyone who casually jaunts down to the clinic for an abortion. 'Pro-abortion' is misleading and full of negative connotations, because I doubt even the staunchest pro-choice advocate thinks it's a grand thing for people to do on their lunch break. It is a painful and incredibly difficult decision, but a decision that I believe a woman should be allowed to make for themselves.

Zombrex's blood transfusion analogy is an interesting one. Some people might agree to continue with the transfusion and save the person's life; others might choose differently. Regardless of how anyone else might feel about their decision, I think it would be deeply unethical to handcuff the person to the hospital bed and do away with the choice altogether.

Another analogy that I have used in the past to puzzle this out is one of kidney donation. Say you're involved in a car accident that involves a passer-by. This innocent bystander is severely wounded, and their injuries lead to sepsis and kidney failure. He (or she) desperately requires a kidney transplant, and yours is the perfect match. Without your kidney, the passer-by will die. You can still live with only one kidney, but your life will be severely and irreversibly changed as a result.

The pro-choice position is that, while others may feel strongly about your decision, it's still your call to make. If the accident was partially caused by your own negligence, that may affect your choice. However, that still doesn't mean that the doctor will just go right ahead, anaesthetize you without your consent and excise your kidney because it saves the life of an innocent bystander. While some people might see a donation as the right thing to do, that imposition of one person's beliefs upon another is precisely what pro-choice advocates oppose.

Zombrex · 19-11-2012 11:05AM

Morbert wrote: »

I'm going to play devil's advocate here. The pro-life position is that the distinction between having an abortion and killing a newborn is ethically irrelevant, even if it can be characterised as an action on the body and an outward action respectively. The blood transfusion analogy is a strong argument when considering cases where the woman was raped, and for that reason many pro-life advocates would make an exception in such cases, but regarding all other arguments, they would say that, analogously speaking, you are the one who caused the person to be dependent on blood transfusions.

Well you could change the blood transfusion analogy to initially agreeing and then deciding that you don't want to proceed. I think it would be difficult to argue that you can be forced to continue because you initially agreed.

The idea that it is your fault they need blood in the first place is an interesting analogy, that you effectively put the unborn child into the position where it needs your body to survive. I'm still not sure it would be justified in saying that you must then continue.

This goes back to the pro-choice bit I was saying to Jimi. There are two issues, should you do this and can you be forced to do this. The latter is the issue for pro-choice (hence the choice bit).

If I caused someone to lose blood I would give them a blood transfusion until they are better. I would still though feel quite unsure about the idea that I should be physically forced to give blood even if I disagreed.

Just because we find something wrong doesn't mean we should force people to adhere to it when doing so over rights a quite fundamental right they have. You can certainly use your right to bodily autonomy badly, but that doesn't mean we should remove that right.

The principle is a bit like freedom of speech. You can use your freedom of speech to be a neo-Nazi, that doesn't mean we should stop freedom of speech, nor that supporting freedom of speech means you support neo-Nazi hate speech.

Or to put it another way, it is perfectly possible to be pro-choice and anti-abortion at the same time, where anti-abortion means you shouldn't do it, not that it should be illegal.

Obliq · 19-11-2012 12:08PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Consider the poster who raised the point, 'Im not pro abortion, Im pro Choice'. Well, you ARE pro abortion if you believe that an unborn child does not have value enough to be protected from termination, and that a woman should have a legal right to choose to kill their unborn. Pro abortion is a much more accurate term than the political pro-choice.

That was me. The terms pro-choice and pro-life are not mutually exclusive either - but these are the terms that are ascribed to each side of the abortion debate, whether we like them or not.

Pro-life is a much less accurate term for the side that is actually anti-choice than pro-choice is for the side that believes in a woman's right to choose, regardless of one's personal take on abortion.

As a mother of two (wanted children), I know there is a point during pregnancy where the growing fetus becomes a person for you. For each woman, this will be at a different stage. At this point, I remember the clarity of ascribing my future baby's human potential and my subsequent emotional attachment to him/her plus my hopes and dreams for their future. For a woman with an unwanted pregnancy, this may or may not happen, I don't know. My own opinion is that there is a point during pregnancy where, as the baby could potentially survive outside the womb (with intervention), an abortion would not be ethical (either for the woman wanting one, or the health care practitioners delivering one), but I do not ask anyone to agree with me on that. A time limit for abortion is, in my opinion, the most difficult issue among people who are pro-choice.

It was impossible to me to consider an abortion, because I wanted the children, but I can put myself in the shoes of a woman who would if the baby is unwanted, or a woman who wants a child but cannot bear to bring a severely disabled person into the world. I am not "pro-abortion" because I do not promote abortion, I promote choice. I have explained before that I am not religious, I do not ascribe sacredness to anything, I have thought out my OWN moral positions on taking a life, whether it is an unwanted unborn baby, or a chicken that is surplus to requirements.

philologos · 19-11-2012 12:21PM

I'm sorry but pro-choice and pro-life are polar opposites. You can't genuinely be pro-life if you advocate the choice to kill. I'd also extend that to advocacy of the death penalty.

Laws shouldn't be based on wooly philosophical concepts such as personhood but on biological fact about human life.

Obliq · 19-11-2012 01:04PM

philologos wrote: »

I'm sorry but pro-choice and pro-life are polar opposites. You can't genuinely be pro-life if you advocate the choice to kill. I'd also extend that to advocacy of the death penalty.

Laws shouldn't be based on wooly philosophical concepts such as personhood but on biological fact about human life.

I'm assuming that's in response to my comment. I can genuinely promote life and do my best not to waste it or cause it to suffer cruelty (for eg. in terms of killing animals - I kill my own chickens after they have lived as good a life as a chicken can. I do not buy meat from places where it's origin and therefore, it's quality of life is unknown, and I never waste meat.) I am pro-life in that sense, but can identify that in order to eat meat at all, I must consider that my lifestyle choice in eating meat leads to the death of animals. I have to accept, therefore, that I consider my "needs" to be above the right to life of that animal. If you eat meat, then you do the same thing.

I mentioned no philosophical concepts of personhood as being a basis for someone having a choice or not, just that there could be a personal line drawn on that basis. I fully accept that an unborn baby is human and has life, but I consider it a personal and ethical question as to whether that life can be taken. I do not think that the unborn has an equal right to life. If I did, I would have to reconsider my position on killing animals that are as defenceless as unborn humans.

philologos · 19-11-2012 01:19PM

Human life is different to animal life. It's because of human empathy and human rights that I'm pro-life. You aren't pro-life if you support the choice to kill the unborn.

I guess where this debate gets tricky is because I don't consider morality in the same postmodern way as you do. The whole aspect of personal morality is a perversion of truth. Things are good and things are evil this is known intrinsically by most people.

Obliq · 19-11-2012 01:33PM

philologos wrote: »

Human life is different to animal life. It's because of human empathy and human rights that I'm pro-life. You aren't pro-life if you support the choice to kill the unborn.

I guess where this debate gets tricky is because I don't consider morality in the same postmodern way as you do. The whole aspect of personal morality is a perversion of truth. Things are good and things are evil this is known intrinsically by most people.

Whose truth? That's pretty much my whole point. Written into the constitution is a version of truth that does not represent the "truth" for a huge (if not the majority) of people here in Ireland - it represents the Catholic take on humanity as being sacred. Human life is not different to other animals, except in terms of the rights we have given ourselves to use this world and it's contents as we see fit. We, as the cleverest of the animals, have formed cultural structures to suit ourselves. It is our ability to empathise (even with other animals) that leads to ethics, and then to morality. Religion has laid claim to this being "spoken by (insert God of choice)" for far too long.

What is a "postmodern morality"? And yes, clearly we don't have the same moral views, I am not religious. However, my truths are as valid as yours.

Momento Mori · 19-11-2012 01:35PM

I'm actually quite shocked at the comments I'm reading here.

Abortion should be a choice. A woman should have the right to choose whether or not they wish to terminate a pregnancy.

Ireland is so far behind when it comes to abortion laws. It probably has to do with the massive impact the Catholic church still has
on our society. It hurts me to say that as I believe religion is a choice as well, and no religion should be ridiculed as it does mean something
for someone out there.

nickcave · 19-11-2012 01:39PM

philologos wrote: »

Laws shouldn't be based on wooly philosophical concepts such as personhood but on biological fact about human life.

That's not exactly true though, is it? How many laws can you count that are predicated on human biology? And in fact, legal areas such as privacy, property and human rights are generally based on some reasoning which is traceable to some philosophical arguments in our history.

In any case, the laws of any fair and well-functioning society should be open to change in reflection of the will of those being governed. And it's that change that those who pull their morality from religious arguments are so opposed to.

Obliq · 19-11-2012 02:01PM

“Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.”
― Marcus Aurelius

“Observe always that everything is the result of change, and get used to thinking that there is nothing Nature loves so well as to change existing forms and make new ones like them.”
― Marcus Aurelius

“A man should always have these two rules in readiness. First, to do only what the reason of your ruling and legislating faculties suggest for the service of man. Second, to change your opinion whenever anyone at hand sets you right and unsettles you in an opinion, but this change of opinion should come only because you are persuaded that something is just or to the public advantage, not because it appears pleasant or increases your reputation.”
― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

Not exactly post modern. The history of Stoic philosophy dates back to about 300BC. Well before Christianity. I'm just illustrating here that good morals do not have to stem from a belief in a god.

philologos · 19-11-2012 02:45PM

Obliq wrote: »

Whose truth? That's pretty much my whole point. Written into the constitution is a version of truth that does not represent the "truth" for a huge (if not the majority) of people here in Ireland - it represents the Catholic take on humanity as being sacred. Human life is not different to other animals, except in terms of the rights we have given ourselves to use this world and it's contents as we see fit. We, as the cleverest of the animals, have formed cultural structures to suit ourselves. It is our ability to empathise (even with other animals) that leads to ethics, and then to morality. Religion has laid claim to this being "spoken by (insert God of choice)" for far too long.

What is a "postmodern morality"? And yes, clearly we don't have the same moral views, I am not religious. However, my truths are as valid as yours.

Postmodernism is the view that there is no objective truth and that people invent their own truths.

In reality - there is truth irrespective of what I think. If I jump out of a window, I will certainly fall even if I don't want to fall or if I really don't believe I'll fall I'll still fall.

This is why the postmodern "my truth" stuff falls short. Also moral claims are also truth claims. Like the window, irrespective of what views I may hold, there's good and evil irrespective of whether I like it.

Think of it this way if someone raped continually and told themselves that it is OK to rape. Is rape still wrong irrespective?

philologos · 19-11-2012 02:47PM

nickcave wrote: »

That's not exactly true though, is it? How many laws can you count that are predicated on human biology? And in fact, legal areas such as privacy, property and human rights are generally based on some reasoning which is traceable to some philosophical arguments in our history.

In any case, the laws of any fair and well-functioning society should be open to change in reflection of the will of those being governed. And it's that change that those who pull their morality from religious arguments are so opposed to.

Laws that have to do with life or death should be based in biological reality because they deal with biological truth.

Reflection is useless if it leads people to advocate evil rather than good.

decimatio · 19-11-2012 02:49PM

Zombrex wrote: »

The argument that fathers should some how have a say in what the woman does with her body isequivalent to saying that a woman should be able to rape a man in order to get his sperm cause it is so unfair that woman can't produce their own sperm.

I agree with you saying that the father has no right to decide on whether or not the woman has an abortion.

One point though. If a pregnancy occurs and the father wants an abortion but the mother does not, I do feel that he has some rights regarding legal issues if he doesn't want the pregnancy to continue. That is, the mother has every right to abort or not but the father should also have a say in respect to his rights and financial liabilities if she chooses to go through with the pregnancy.

For example, if a situation arose where a man wanted the woman to abort and she did not then I believe that he has the right to drop any claims on the child (before birth) and hence any financial liabilities attached.

I understand that the legalities around child support favour the woman for legitimate reasons and in most cases it's well deserved but I also see how A) it's very unfair on the male when he has no choice in the matter and

how the system is abused.

Lingua Franca · 19-11-2012 03:00PM

decimatio wrote: »

I understand that the legalities around child support favour the woman for legitimate reasons and in most cases it's well deserved but I also see how A) it's very unfair on the male when he has no choice in the matter and how the system is abused.

No, the legalities around child support favour the child. This is why men aren't allowed to duck out of child support with "well I wanted her to have an abortion", otherwise it'd be a lot more common.

nickcave · 19-11-2012 03:27PM

philologos wrote: »

Laws that have to do with life or death should be based in biological reality because they deal with biological truth.

Reflection is useless if it leads people to advocate evil rather than good.

I disagree completely, on both points. Laws that have to do with life or death ought to be based on what can be reasonable discerned as the most fair course of action. If that happens to relate to biologically sound science then great.

I don't subscribe to the good/evil dilemma. And I don't think that anybody's position on the good/evil dilemma, which is again generally based on some religious stance, should hold much weight in lawmaking. Again, laws have to be open to change - we know that. If you are of the position that there is an objective measure of 'good' and that you have some knowledge of that then that's your right. However, it is wholly undemocratic to expect that your position should impress on common law, even if those laws eventually come to represent what you believe to be 'evil'.

Fanny Cradock · 19-11-2012 03:29PM

Obliq wrote: »

“Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact.”
― Marcus Aurelius

[...]

I'm just illustrating here that good morals do not have to stem from a belief in a god.

As an aside, I wonder if Marcus was claiming this as a matter of opinion or a matter of fact?

Why isn't - or shouldn't - be claimed is that God is required when we make moral decisions. A non-believer can be as moral or more moral than a Christian. And this is recognised in Scripture (see Romans 2 for an example).

The problem arises when we try to define what is good. On Christianity and other religions that posit an uncreated creator we have, in principle, a basis for such a definition. On atheism we are left with moral opinion, something Aurelius seems to have grasped.

nickcave · 19-11-2012 03:37PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

On Christianity and other religions that posit an uncreated creator we have, in principle, a basis for such a definition.

Surely you mean an opinion on a basis for such definition? Christianity and other religions disagree famously on morality. Though I think you're twisting Marcus Aurelius' words here.

Zombrex · 19-11-2012 03:48PM

philologos wrote: »

I'm sorry but pro-choice and pro-life are polar opposites. You can't genuinely be pro-life if you advocate the choice to kill. I'd also extend that to advocacy of the death penalty.

Define "choice to kill".

Would you consider a woman performing a procedure on her body so that it removes the foetus, which will causing the foetus to die due to it not being in the woman's body any more, "killing" the foetus?

If you do, and consider that wrong, why do you consider that a person has right over another persons body simply to sustain themselves, and why do I not have right over your body if it is beneficial to me?

Zombrex · 19-11-2012 03:57PM

decimatio wrote: »

I agree with you saying that the father has no right to decide on whether or not the woman has an abortion.

One point though. If a pregnancy occurs and the father wants an abortion but the mother does not, I do feel that he has some rights regarding legal issues if he doesn't want the pregnancy to continue. That is, the mother has every right to abort or not but the father should also have a say in respect to his rights and financial liabilities if she chooses to go through with the pregnancy.

For example, if a situation arose where a man wanted the woman to abort and she did not then I believe that he has the right to drop any claims on the child (before birth) and hence any financial liabilities attached.

That argument works on the false assumption that child benefit is for the sake of the mother and that abortion is a way of giving up child responsibility.

Firstly child benefit is for the sake of the child. The father not having the option to stop the child from continuing to live does not mean he should not have to support the child, since by definition he didn't stop the child living, the child still exists, and requires support.

Secondly abortion is not the act of giving up responsibility for your child, it is the process of removing the child from your body. The issues are confused because in the vast majority of cases this causes the child to die, and thus the woman has no child to care for and thus no financial responsibility. But it is not actually the process of giving up responsibility to the child

For example, if a woman decided to have an abortion and the child survived she should still be responsible for the child.

So there is no real argument for saying that the father can choose not to support the child because the woman can choose to have an abortion. For that to work you have put forward an argument for some way the father can legally cause the child not to be living any more, of which there is none. Adoption is the process of giving up responsibility for your child, and that requires consent from both parents. The mother in this regard has no more rights than the father, so there is no issue of unfairness.

Abortion debate thread

Comments