Abortion debate thread

Fanny Cradock · 02-07-2013 11:41PM

For those interested in the bodily autonomy arguments from the pro-choice side (kidneys and all) and the rebuttals from the anti-abortion side then I would heartily recommend What is My Duty? Bodily Autonomy Arguments of Thomson, McDonagh, and Boonin. It's part of an excellent series that really takes an in-depth look at the scientific, moral/ bioethical, philosophical, religious and social aspects of abortion. It also tackles the hard cases that always come up in these debates.

firemansam4 · 02-07-2013 11:53PM

Not with standing the victims of rape, i'm pretty sure if you have unprotected sex in the full knowledge of conceiving a child then that child can hardly be classed as being uninvited

firemansam4 · 02-07-2013 11:56PM

I would also like to ask a question out of curiosity?

If a woman took very damaging illegal drugs during her pregnancy that left a child disabled for life because of it. Would that be ok because she can do what she likes with her own body?

03-07-2013 09:11AM

firemansam4 wrote: »

I would also like to ask a question out of curiosity?

If a woman took very damaging illegal drugs during her pregnancy that left a child disabled for life because of it. Would that be ok because she can do what she likes with her own body?

Asking about illegal drugs doesn't make any sense. If they're illegal, they're illegal for everyone, the question of bodily autonomy doesn't come into it.

Take the illegal part out, and the question becomes about alcohol and cigarettes. I'm not aware of any country or law anywhere that says a woman can't smoke or drink because they're pregnant

santing · 03-07-2013 09:25AM

Quite a lot of the discussion centers about womens rights - and the right to the live (mother/baby).
As this is a Christian forum I would like to add the following into the discyussion: when you become a Christian you give up on the "rights" - you turn back to the purpose for which you were made: to glorify God.
So the question in my life should not be "What do I want, what is best for me?" But, what does God want.

You were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body. (1Co 6:20)

Zombrex · 03-07-2013 10:39AM

firemansam4 wrote: »

Not with standing the victims of rape, i'm pretty sure if you have unprotected sex in the full knowledge of conceiving a child then that child can hardly be classed as being uninvited

What does that have to do with anything?

Imagine a girl starts having sex with a guy and then half way through asks the guy to stop. Does the guy say "Sorry babe, but you invited me in, I'm stay for as long as I like"?

Zombrex · 03-07-2013 10:45AM

firemansam4 wrote: »

I would also like to ask a question out of curiosity?

If a woman took very damaging illegal drugs during her pregnancy that left a child disabled for life because of it. Would that be ok because she can do what she likes with her own body?

Leaving the legality and issue of enforcement aside, no that wouldn't be ok, not if she knew she was pregnant. Through that action the woman is not attempting to remove the foetus from her body or restore her bodily integrity.

The woman only has the right to remove the foetus from her body, and she only has the right to take necessary steps to do that. She cannot harm the foetus beyond what is necessary to remove it from her body. She would have no more right to damage the foetus with those drugs that you would have to blow yourself up on a bus under the idea that you are doing what you like to your body.

Using the drowning man analogy, if a man grabs on to you you can take steps necessary to remove the man from holding on to your body. You can't then walk up to him and shoot him in the face. It is the difference between self defence and aggression.

Your right to bodily integrity extends only to stopping someone else violating your bodily integrity. If you are confused about this just ask yourself does the action facilitate removing the person violating your bodily integrity. If not then what is its relevance.

The issue of bodily integrity really isn't all that complicated or difficult to understand (I suspect most people object to abortion on the idea that woman should not be allowed get away with consequence free sex, not concern for the foetus).

Just imagine you had a wound in your tummy and someone went to put their hand inside it, and then consider what actions you would be justified in carrying out to stop that person.

eviltwin · 03-07-2013 10:48AM

firemansam4 wrote: »

I would also like to ask a question out of curiosity?

If a woman took very damaging illegal drugs during her pregnancy that left a child disabled for life because of it. Would that be ok because she can do what she likes with her own body?

My own personal view on that is if you commit to having a child you should do the decent thing and step up to the plate. There are lots of things I don't do as a parent that I might have done before kids simply because I accept my responsibility as their mother and understand that means certain behaviours are off limits because it would limit my ability to parent or would put my children at risk.

I would be pretty horrified tbh to see a pregnant woman taking drugs but as it stands she isn't doing anything illegal. We all know that some pregnant women do things that are harmful to themselves and their babies just as some people do things that harm existing kids. The difference is once the child is born you can do something about it.

Every maternity hospital in the country will have patients who are engaging in behaviour that is damaging to their babies. You can't stop a woman doing those things. If unborn babies are to be treated as the same as actual children then surely we should be consistant and have those women done for child neglect? But we don't because the very idea of it is silly and because the idea of putting in sanctions that prevent women having freedom during pregnancy is shocking to most people.

It shows the hypocrasy of the state. You can smoke, drink, take drugs etc when you are 7/8 months pregnant and we do nothing but try and remove a pregnancy in the first few weeks and we'll make you a criminal for doing so.

Zombrex · 03-07-2013 10:51AM

santing wrote: »

Quite a lot of the discussion centers about womens rights - and the right to the live (mother/baby).
As this is a Christian forum I would like to add the following into the discyussion: when you become a Christian you give up on the "rights" - you turn back to the purpose for which you were made: to glorify God.
So the question in my life should not be "What do I want, what is best for me?" But, what does God want.

That again would be the "choice" in the pro-choice argument. It is up to the woman to decide. If she decided that it is glorifying God to allow her body to be used to bring the child into existence, then that is fine.

Forcing abortion, like they do in China, is as much a violation of bodily integrity as refusing abortion.

santing · 03-07-2013 11:37PM

Zombrex wrote: »

That again would be the "choice" in the pro-choice argument. It is up to the woman to decide. If she decided that it is glorifying God to allow her body to be used to bring the child into existence, then that is fine.

Forcing abortion, like they do in China, is as much a violation of bodily integrity as refusing abortion.

Its not as easy as that. From a Christian perspective, children are a blessing from the Lord, it is hard to find cases where the killing of an unborn child will fit with the will of the Lord. From a Christian perspective, we cannot say that is it good to have a law that allows you to do what is against the stated will of God, just because the individual must have a right to choose.
For non Christians we cannot force them to glorify God (they are not capable anyway) but as Christians we still believe that God's expressed will is best for mankind.

Frito · 03-07-2013 11:54PM

santing wrote: »

it is hard to find cases where the killing of an unborn child will fit with the will of the Lord.

Maybe this has come up in the thread before but Numbers 5:12-31 suggests that an abortifacient is permissible where pregnancy occurs in the context of adultery.

santing · 04-07-2013 12:11AM

Frito wrote: »

Maybe this has come up in the thread before but Numbers 5:12-31 suggests that an abortifacient is permissible where pregnancy occurs in the context of adultery.

I think your imagination is running a bit wild here - it is not about pregnancy but adultery. It doesn't state anything about abortion here.

Frito · 04-07-2013 12:24AM

My understanding is the swelling abdomen and wasting thighs referred to miscarriage and infertility, and the bitter water would cause this.

Turtwig · 04-07-2013 12:26AM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

For those interested in the bodily autonomy arguments from the pro-choice side (kidneys and all) and the rebuttals from the anti-abortion side then I would heartily recommend What is My Duty? Bodily Autonomy Arguments of Thomson, McDonagh, and Boonin. It's part of an excellent series that really takes an in-depth look at the scientific, moral/ bioethical, philosophical, religious and social aspects of abortion. It also tackles the hard cases that always come up in these debates.

Only managed five minutes of the first link. Not sure I want to delve deeper. Maybe he was just trying to encourage the students along but things he was agreeing to I found strange.

Is there anything particular you want to discuss?

Or were you just posting it as a resource link.

If so, ignore this.

Fanny Cradock · 04-07-2013 12:53AM

Jernal wrote: »

Only managed five minutes of the first link. Not sure I want to delve deeper. Maybe he was just trying to encourage the students along but things he was agreeing to I found strange.
Is there anything particular you want to discuss? Or were you just posting it as a resource link. If so, ignore this.

Well at least you gave it 5 minutes. Only 6 hours 55 minutes to go. What exactly did you find odd?

Turtwig · 04-07-2013 01:01AM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

What exactly did you find odd?

I stopped the point where the instructor or whoever seemed to agree with the notion that because the body is naturally designed for pregnancy as means to dismiss Thompson's parallel.

For someone who teaches ethics to not even contradict the appeal to nature seemed odd. But like I said above, it may have just been because he wanted to encourage suggestions to keep coming. But I just didn't find the suggestions atmosphere useful. I'd rather to have just the useful and pragmatic stuff in text in front of me if you know what I mean? I'll try it another way. The video is an hour long and I'm not particularly that interested in students inputs and guesses.
I understand why at times that can be valuable. But, well, you know, it's an hour long video and not high on my list of priorities. Especially when the transcript could probably be read in less than half that time.

firemansam4 · 04-07-2013 01:05AM

Zombrex wrote: »

What does that have to do with anything?

Imagine a girl starts having sex with a guy and then half way through asks the guy to stop. Does the guy say "Sorry babe, but you invited me in, I'm stay for as long as I like"?

It has everything to do with it...

The act of sexual intercourse is the act of reproducing, if 2 people knowingly consent to sex with the knowledge a life can be created from it, then that baby has been invited and there are no 2 ways about it.

your comparison about a guy refusing to stop having sex is ridiculous, a woman does not have sex with a guy knowing that if she tells him to stop he will say no because he is invited.

Fanny Cradock · 04-07-2013 01:15AM

Jernal wrote: »

For someone who teaches ethics to not even contradict the appeal to nature seemed odd.

Why is an appeal to nature automatically worthy of contradiction? We do it in other ethical debates, right?

Still, I'll agree with you insofar as there are better arguments against abortion, even kidney related thought experiments and the so called hard-cases.

Jernal wrote: »

I understand why at times that can be valuable. But, well, you know, it's an hour long video and not high on my list of priorities. Especially when the transcript could probably be read in less than half that time.

Fair enough. If you want a more concise presentation then try the debate I posted to a couple of pages back.

hinault · 05-07-2013 12:43AM

firemansam4 wrote: »

It has everything to do with it...

The act of sexual intercourse is the act of reproducing, if 2 people knowingly consent to sex with the knowledge a life can be created from it, then that baby has been invited and there are no 2 ways about it.

your comparison about a guy refusing to stop having sex is ridiculous, a woman does not have sex with a guy knowing that if she tells him to stop he will say no because he is invited.

While I agree with you where you say that the act of sexual intercourse is an act of reproducing, the pro-choice/abortion side argue that not every act of sexual intercourse is for reproductive purposes.

I'm pro-life/anti-abortion btw:)

Zombrex · 08-07-2013 11:17AM

firemansam4 wrote: »

It has everything to do with it...

The act of sexual intercourse is the act of reproducing, if 2 people knowingly consent to sex with the knowledge a life can be created from it, then that baby has been invited and there are no 2 ways about it.

And as I've already pointed out just because you initially "invite" someone to use your body doesn't mean you cannot at a future point refuse consent.

firemansam4 wrote: »

your comparison about a guy refusing to stop having sex is ridiculous, a woman does not have sex with a guy knowing that if she tells him to stop he will say no because he is invited.

That is whole point. Just because you invite someone to use your body doesn't mean that if you remove that invitation they can continue because they were initially invited.

Even if you "invite" the foetus to use your womb you can still at a future point remove that invitation, just like you can with anything.

The idea that you cannot is like saying if you invite someone to have sex with you then even if you change your mind you put up with it until they are finished because you invited them.

Zombrex · 08-07-2013 11:20AM

hinault wrote: »

While I agree with you where you say that the act of sexual intercourse is an act of reproducing, the pro-choice/abortion side argue that not every act of sexual intercourse is for reproductive purposes.

It is an irrelevant issue. The anti-abortion argument firemansam seems to be making is that once you have sex you are consenting to the baby using the woman's womb for as long as the foetus likes. That is stupid, we don't put that requirement on anyone in any other situation of bodily integrity. You can get up in the middle of a blood transfusion. You can demand your partner stops having sex with you half way through. You can sign a consent form for surgery and they refuse the surgery.

The idea that you have sex and then are bound to letting the fetus us your womb for 9 months is ridiculous. At any point during pregnancy a woman can say 'I no longer consent to this' and it is the fetus' problem after that whether he still needs the womb or not. It is no more the woman's responsibility if that damages the fetus than it is her responsibility that her boyfriend is annoyed he didn't have an orgasm.

No one has a right to another person's organs without their on going and continuous consent to use said organs.

Gumbi · 08-07-2013 01:46PM

I'm not sure I fully agree with you here Zombrex. Surely having sex conceded in part the risk of conceiving a child, especially drunken, unprotected sex. I'm not saying a woman should be denied an abortion for this reason, but that doesn't make it any more "right" in my view - maybe as a dirty way to fix a mistake.

Zombrex · 08-07-2013 03:47PM

Gumbi wrote: »

I'm not sure I fully agree with you here Zombrex. Surely having sex conceded in part the risk of conceiving a child, especially drunken, unprotected sex.

Again I can't see how the risk involve has anything to do with the argument.

For example before I have surgery (which I've had a lot in the last few months) I have to sign a consent form. After all my body, the doctor is not going to do anything to me that I don't consent to.

Even after I sign the consent form I can still refuse the operation. That is nothing to do with my assessment of the risks. That isn't even a factor, the doctor doesn't say "Well Mr. Zombrex, I can only stop the operation going ahead if I'm convinced you didn't understand the risks involved when you signed the consent form". That is not even an issue of consideration

Festus · 08-07-2013 09:43PM

Zombrex wrote: »

Again I can't see how the risk involve has anything to do with the argument.

For example before I have surgery (which I've had a lot in the last few months) I have to sign a consent form. After all my body, the doctor is not going to do anything to me that I don't consent to.

Even after I sign the consent form I can still refuse the operation. That is nothing to do with my assessment of the risks. That isn't even a factor, the doctor doesn't say "Well Mr. Zombrex, I can only stop the operation going ahead if I'm convinced you didn't understand the risks involved when you signed the consent form". That is not even an issue of consideration

if you have to sign a consent form before letting a doctor do what he has to do with your body then perhaps people should sign consent forms before having sex.

Festus · 08-07-2013 09:48PM

Zombrex wrote: »

It is an irrelevant issue. The anti-abortion argument firemansam seems to be making is that once you have sex you are consenting to the baby using the woman's womb for as long as the foetus likes. That is stupid, we don't put that requirement on anyone in any other situation of bodily integrity.

That the baby lives initially inside the woman due to how biology works does not make it a case of bodily integrity as the baby is not an integral part of the womans body in the way one her organs is. The baby is her genetially different son or daughter.

Zombrex wrote: »

You can get up in the middle of a blood transfusion. You can demand your partner stops having sex with you half way through. You can sign a consent form for surgery and they refuse the surgery.

If you donate your blood can you then decide who gets it and who doesn't. Can you ask for it back once it's inside someone else?

Zombrex wrote: »

The idea that you have sex and then are bound to letting the fetus us your womb for 9 months is ridiculous.

Its only ridiculous if you have no concept of biology and you think the primary purpose of sex is something other than reproduction. Once you consent to sex you consent to its consequences, including pregnancy. If you are not prepared for that then don't have sex.

Zombrex wrote: »

At any point during pregnancy a woman can say 'I no longer consent to this' and it is the fetus' problem after that whether he still needs the womb or not.

Can a parent at any point in their childs life say to them "I no longer consent to being your parent" and it's their childs problem after that whether still needs somewhere to live and someone to feed him?

The baby in the uterus is the parents responsibility, a responsibility that start as soon as they were conceived and he or she remains their responsibility until they can fend for themselves. If they cannot look after their children they become wards of state.

Zombrex wrote: »

It is no more the woman's responsibility if that damages the fetus than it is her responsibility that her boyfriend is annoyed he didn't have an orgasm.

If a mother kicks her 2 year old out her house because she doesn't want the responsibility anymore who then is responsible if something happens that child?

Zombrex wrote: »

No one has a right to another person's organs without their on going and continuous consent to use said organs.

If you donate an organ can you come along at a later date and ask the recipient for it back?

Zombrex · 08-07-2013 10:00PM

Festus wrote: »

if you have to sign a consent form before letting a doctor do what he has to do with your body then perhaps people should sign consent forms before having sex.

Do you think that once I sign my consent form for my surgery I cannot change my mind, I must go through with the surgery no matter what and the doctor has every right to perform the surgery on me even if I object as he is doing the sugery?

If not I don't see your point.

Festus · 08-07-2013 10:11PM

Zombrex wrote: »

Do you think that once I sign my consent form for my surgery I cannot change my mind, I must go through with the surgery no matter what and the doctor has every right to perform the surgery on me even if I object as he is doing the sugery?

If not I don't see your point.

Not surprised because I don't see yours.

if you go to a doctor because you are not well and (s)he says you need a procedure for which a consent form must be signed indicating that you understand what you are about to undergo and you then sign it and then refuse the procedure if means you did not understand in the first place. That or there is something else wrong with you and it may be mental bcause by refusing the procedure you are endangering your health. Or are you talking about elective surgery only in which case no you don't really need bigger boobs or a longer penis you just need to work on your self esteem issues.

But all this is moot as it's about your body and no one elses.

I'm not sure if a consent to surgery is a legally binding contract, I doubt it is, but either way it does not square with an argument that involves the morally binding responsibility of being a parent, a responsibility that begins with pregnancy, and a responsibility that should be considered before having sex.

Zombrex · 08-07-2013 10:14PM

Festus wrote: »

That the baby lives initially inside the woman due to how biology works does not make it a case of bodily integrity as the baby is not an integral part of the womans body in the way one her organs is. The baby is her genetially different son or daughter.

Yes .. that is the point. :rolleyes: The foetus is just another person. The organ in question is the woman's womb. The foetus does not have more right to the woman's womb than the woman does. At all points the woman decides how her womb is used.

Festus wrote: »

If you donate your blood can you then decide who gets it and who doesn't. Can you ask for it back once it's inside someone else?

Unless the woman gives the foetus her womb and no longer owns it, none of that is relevant.

Is that what you are proposing, that the woman gifts her womb to the foetus and no longer owns it?

Festus wrote: »

Its only ridiculous if you have no concept of biology and you think the primary purpose of sex is something other than reproduction. Once you consent to sex you consent to its consequences, including pregnancy. If you are not prepared for that then don't have sex.

Which is again like saying that once you consent to sex if you change your mind during the sex that is tough. You already consented you cannot unconsent, you lie there and take it from the other person.

Or it is like saying that once you consent to a surgery you cannot change your mind and withdraw your consent, you lie there and let the surgon work away on you.

Which is (again) stupid. The idea that once you consent to something being done with your body you cannot change your mind is not a principle we hold anyone to other than pregnant mothers. You continue to own your organs and body and continue to decide how they are used. A woman does not gift her virgin to a man when she consents to sleeping with, I do not gift my bowels to my surgon when I sign a consent form, and a woman does not gift her womb to her foetus when she gets pregnant. The foetus can only use the woman's womb with the woman's consent.

Festus wrote: »

Can a parent at any point in their childs life say to them "I no longer consent to being your parent"

You don't consent to being a parent, so your question is again irrelevant.

Festus wrote: »

The baby in the uterus is the parents responsibility, a responsibility that start as soon as they were conceived and he or she remains their responsibility until they can fend for themselves. If they cannot look after their children they become wards of state.

I've no problem with the foetus being made ward of the state after the foetus is no longer using the woman's womb.

Unless you are arguing that children have more right to their parents organs than their parents do, you question is (again) irrelevant.

Festus wrote: »

If a mother kicks her 2 year old out her house because she doesn't want the responsibility anymore who then is responsible if something happens that child?

Responsibility for raising children is nothing to do with bodily integrity. You have a responsibility to raise your children. You don't have a responsibility to surrender ownership of your internal organs to them.

Unless you are arguing you do, your question is irrelevant.

Festus wrote: »

If you donate an organ can you come along at a later date and ask the recipient for it back?

Unless you are arguing that after she becomes pregnant a woman has gifted her womb to her child your question is irrelevant. Is that what you are arguing?

Can I take it from your long, bizarre list of irrelevant questions that you don't have a serious rebuttal to the point of bodily integrity.

Festus · 08-07-2013 10:21PM

Zombrex wrote: »

Yes .. that is the point. :rolleyes: The foetus is just another person.

Just another human being. Just another person.

Ok. When can you kill another human being or another person?

just deal with that because the rest of your argument is frankly irrelevant.

Zombrex · 08-07-2013 10:28PM

Festus wrote: »

Not surprised because I don't see yours.

It is a pretty simple question. You are claiming that once a woman consents to the foetus using her body she cannot change her mind. I'm asking if that applies to me consenting to my doctor performing an operation on my body?

Festus wrote: »

if you go to a doctor because you are not well and (s)he says you need a procedure for which a consent form must be signed indicating that you understand what you are about to undergo and you then sign it and then refuse the procedure if means you did not understand in the first place.

It might mean that. It might mean you watched a scary movie and now have an irrational fear of doctors. Why you refuse the procedure is irrelevant to whether you have the right to refuse the procedure.

Festus wrote: »

But all this is moot as it's about your body and no one elses.

So if it was about someone else' body I couldn't refuse a procedure? If I signed a consent form to allow a procedure to donate one of my kidneys to my brother cannot refuse that procedure after I sign the consent form? I would be bound, and in fact forced to under go the procedure and have my kidney removed?

Festus wrote: »

I'm not sure if a consent to surgery is a legally binding contract, I doubt it is, but either way it does not square with an argument that involves the morally binding responsibility of being a parent, a responsibility that begins with pregnancy, and a responsibility that should be considered before having sex.

And the responsibility of parenthood includes gifting ownership of your internal organs to your children?

So if your child requires one of your organs, say a kidney, you cannot refuse a procedure to take it because your child owns your organs not you?

Abortion debate thread

Comments