Introducing Reason to the Abortion Debate

[grandpa]

Is that link supposed to be relevant to the topic?

Some of those links were decent, but I'd still start again.

Grandpa h.

[Charos]

(continued from previous post)

The first major objection to abortion is that it’s morally wrong because life is sacred. If the argument is that all life is sacred, then the acts of hunting, eating meat, and hand washing would be immoral. Hand washing especially is practically an act of genocide for microorganisms, but no one who is pro-life seems to care. If the argument is that only human life is sacred, and humans are making the argument, I would say it’s a biased point of view.

Another point that is debated is the exact time or stage of development when a fetus is officially considered a baby or person with rights like everyone else. This is mostly a semantic issue. There are different stages of development within a human lifetime from conception all the way through adulthood—zygote, embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, child, teenager, adult, senior citizen. These are just arbitrary labels that refer to the same entity at different times during his or her life. The terminology is not a relevant factor. Whether we consider a fetus to be a person has no bearing on whether it is one.

People often wonder when life officially begins. According to Alan Templeton, a geneticist at Washington University, the answer to this puzzle is simple; life began billions of years ago and has not stopped since then (Templeton, 2005). In other words, perhaps we’re asking the wrong question. Nevertheless, it seems pretty clear that there is life at all stages of development. Even so, this does not address the issue of whether ending that life causes it to suffer, and whether it is an acceptable practice.

Many pro-choice people claim that the child is a part of the mother when it’s in the womb, and becomes a separate entity when it’s born. They feel that they have a right to bodily autonomy, the freedom to do whatever they want with their own bodies. In fact, however, no one is telling them they can’t do what they want with their bodies. Opponents of abortion are merely saying that it’s the body of the fetus that is being mistreated, not the mother. The fetus has been compared to an extremity and an appendix to satisfy the bodily autonomy argument. Some have gone further by comparing it to a parasite. A fetus cannot logically be compared to an extremity or an appendix, because it has its own unique genetic code. There is no part on a person’s body that has a genetic code that is different from the rest of the body. The parasite argument is a strange one that’s not likely to win anyone over to the pro-choice camp. Parasites have a tendency to attack their host. A fetus accepts nourishment from its host. That’s quite a difference. The pro-life claim that women are acting upon the body of another when they choose to have an abortion is true. However, it does not demonstrate that the action reduces the quality of life for the unborn.

Some pro-choice people argue that the fetus depends on the mother for survival, and so it doesn’t deserve to be protected until it is independent. It should be stated that a person never really becomes independent in this world until they can maintain a stable job and pay their bills on time. Even then, we’re still dependent on countless other people in society to grow food for us to buy at the supermarket and drill oil for us to use in our cars. We really aren’t truly independent. We’re just more independent than a fetus. But where exactly do we draw the line? The concept of one’s degree of independence doesn’t help anyone make a case for or against abortion because it says nothing about whether an abortion causes suffering. A reasonable discussion about abortion should always come back to that.

No discussion about abortion is complete without a large portion dedicated to the concept of human rights. The pro-life crowd claims that all human life has rights, while the pro-choice crowd claims that rights are mysteriously granted to someone when they’re squeezed out of the womb. This is one of several pro-choice arguments that seems to do nothing for their case. No one has ever quite figured out why the physical location of the child matters. Nevertheless, the concept of rights is an interesting one. Based on the way rights are often described, they seem to be nothing more than intense desires. A right is something we want so badly, we’re willing to convince ourselves that we’re entitled to it. There is no reason to believe that anyone owes us something just for being alive. The assertion that we have a right to various things that we want very badly is extremely bold and requires rational justification. Unfortunately the only arguments for the origin of rights that one is likely to encounter are that they are granted by God or by nature. The God claim is a simple one to address. To say that rights came from God is only a valid statement if one can demonstrate that God exists. Additionally, one would have to demonstrate that God’s nature is that of a right-granting humanitarian. The requirements to prove this claim are absolutely astounding. The claim that nature gave us our rights is equally baseless because nature has no will. It doesn’t care one bit about whether we get what we want. Whatever it “gives” us are things we just stumbled upon by accident or discovered on our own. The only reasonable conclusion about rights is that we have none. We just made up the concept of rights in order to get what we want.

Another objection to abortion is that many women often feel guilty after having one. This argument can be countered with a simple explanation of how science works. Whenever there are two or more variables affecting a result, we must isolate each one to see if it is an independent cause of the result. The two variables here are the abortion procedure and the belief that abortion is wrong. When both are present, the person will feel guilty afterwards. If only one is present, the person will not feel guilty. For example, if someone gets an abortion without the belief that it’s wrong, she won’t feel guilty. If she believes it’s wrong but chooses not to get one, she won’t feel guilty. The reason some women feel guilty after an abortion is because of the combination of the two aforementioned variables. This means that neither one by itself is independently responsible for guilt.

Yet another pro-choice argument that will never help their case for abortion (firstly because it’s dehumanizing, and secondly because it is of no importance to the issue) is that a fetus is merely a bundle of organs and tissues, often referred to as a “glob of goo” or some similar term. First of all, it’s no more a glob of goo than an adult. We too are essentially wet sacks of tissue and organs, if one decides to look at it that way. Secondly, whether we are called globs of goo or people does not affect our ability to suffer.

The central theme in a reasonable discussion of abortion should always be about whether abortion reduces the quality of life. Even though abortion ends life, it does not reduce its quality. This is a key distinction. The quality of life is specifically defined by the sum of the pleasant and unpleasant experiences one has. If the life of a fetus abruptly ends without the quality going down beforehand, there is no reason to feel upset about it. When determining whether an action is acceptable, the only factor to consider is the effect it has on the quality of life. This is because the quality of life is the only thing any of us actually care about. Our relationships, goals and aspirations, accomplishments, hobbies and pastimes, pursuits and endeavors, enjoyment and appreciation of art and beauty, and all sorts of other things we do fall under the category of things which improve our quality of life. That's why we do them. Meanwhile, we want to avoid things that reduce our quality of life. Our entire lives revolve around this concept, even if we don’t realize it. Since medical research shows that abortion does not reduce the quality of life, it is simply unreasonable to object to it.

Nicely written...only a couple changes I'd make (and most were stupid nitpick things like uses of words), one thing I wanted to point out:

"Based on the way rights are often described, they seem to be nothing more than intense desires. A right is something we want so badly, we’re willing to convince ourselves that we’re entitled to it."

Rights are essentially what you could think of as "what privileges ought all human beings have?"...now answering where we get the "ought" from is the real issue...I tend to think of it as simple social development...a privilege is generally beneficial to society as a whole so it's considered a right. A society with no right to life would live in perpetual fear of suddenly being hacked to bits...this doesn't do well for the society, economy and so forth in the long run. I see morality the same, what is "good" is basically what is most socially beneficial at the time (or is perceived to be), what is "bad" is everything that is deleterious to the order of society. Nietzsche put it well, even if he was speaking of a different ideal than I:

What is good? All that heightens the feeling of power in man, the will to power, power itself. What is bad? All that is born of weakness. What is happiness? The feeling that power is growing, that resistance is overcome.

(continued)

[Charos]

References

Glover, V., Fisk, N. M. (1999). Fetal pain: Implications for research and practice. International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 106, 881-886. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1999.tb08424.x
Fetal pain: implications for research and practice - Glover - 2005 - BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology - Wiley Online Library

Lee, S. J., Peter Ralston, H. J., Drey, E. A., Partridge, J. C., Rosen, M. A. (2005) Fetal pain. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 294(8), 947-954. doi: 10.1001/jama.294.8.947
Fetal Pain, August 24/31, 2005, Lee et al. 294 (8): 947 — JAMA

Templeton, A. R. (2005). When does life begin? An evolutionary genetic answer to a central ethical question. Retrieved from http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB...2/embryo_1.pdf

U.S. Centers for Disease Control. (2002). Abortion surveillance – United States, 1999. Retrieved from Abortion Surveillance -- United States, 1999

Thank GOD...do you have any idea how rare a citations list is in a debate forum? People tend to just toss out their ideas and never reference them to anything.

Though I don't agree with you, it was well written. But babies can not do any more than someone in a vegetative state until they start to roll over at about 3 months after being born.A fetus not only doesn't remain in a vegetative state but has an entire lifetime of possibilities.

You're talking of "potential"...the real issue for me is that functioning, organized Central Nervous System...as such, prior to the fetus developing an organized, functioning brain, spinal chord and so on it lacks the fundamental quality that differentiates "living human tissue" into "person" or rather, adds the "being" to human being. So a zygote has the POTENTIAL for humanity to me, if it never realizes that potential then no humanity was ever lost. In analogy, every American has the potential to be the president, but try walking into the white house to sleep the night and you'll realize fast that the potential to be president doesn't afford those rights.

In fact if the comparison were fair you could include the fact that a fetus does not require any real effort other than 9 months of mild discomfort and inability to lift heavy objects, consume narcotics or run marathons. Medical, vitamin supplements and extra nutritional foods are covered by government funding.

Dude...YOU ever tried shoving something the size of a watermelon out your sphincter? Carol Burnett once described labor pains, she said "take your bottom lip and pull it up and over your head"...not only are 9 months of a persons life permanently destroyed, they often wind up in financial hell because they have to take time they can ill afford off work, but if they can't actually RAISE it (which is more effort than anyone who has no child can even conceive of) and have to give it up for adoption then they have a lifetime of living with the question of whether he wound up with an alright family or if he's being raped by a dog while his adoptive father takes pictures or something...

It's not a argument for or against, but having a child, even one you put up for adoption, changes ones life irreparably. Forever.

And one more thing if you don't mind. Abortion is four times more deadly than childbirth and cause permanent damage, physically, mentally, and emotionally.

Where'd you get this?

Scientificly a human is identified by there unique DNA. Many mistakes have been made in the past by trying to identity a human by their color, size, intelligence, or level of independence.

So you're saying that when geneticists reach the point that they can take a strand of my DNA and perform some minor alterations to it to make it different then that strand of DNA suddenly needs to be treated as an independent life? Besides, we use level of independence on a daily basis, unless you're suggesting we make removing brain dead people from life support illegal...in which case you'd better have trillions to help pay for the thousands of wards we'd have to set up to store the brain-dead bodies.

If abortion has no effect to ones quality of life negatively then it should not be done, but it seems as if your arguing thy if one does not see a decrease in quality of life I.e. the mother than it is quite fine? I ask what of others, cost and the positive/negative impact to the population/society and the possible worth the individual may have provided to the world. If any individual associated with the fetus objects and has qualms then does that not impact the quality of their life....also is the quality of life limited to the mother?

It's limited to the mother primarily due to it existing solely in the mothers body...if grandma wants to lend out her uterus for 9 months then her say starts to have an impact.

Live, breathing, feeling, babies who survive abortion are wrapped in a blanket and disposed of with hazardous waste material, and sometimes suffer for hours alone. It is illegal to help them because it was the mothers choice. This is pro-choice. As society continues to push that moral ceiling I believe we will find it harder to to put the lid on this very ugly can of worms. Not that I expect that my opinion will change anything because this has been predicted.

While I question the "living breathing" part (if you know anything about late term abortion you know the doctor literally sucks the brain out of the skull...living breathing things don't have their brains in a paste consistency in a jar somewhere. Yes, fetal tissue is disposed of as hazardous waste. It is biological material, it rots, it spreads infection...this is no different from any biological material, TECHNICALLY even someone who mops up a nosebleed in a McDonald's is breaking the law, biological material is supposed to be specifically and carefully handled by professionals.

[grandpa]

Thank GOD...
do you have any idea how rare a citations list
is in a debate forum?

In this debate group, people are exected to provide sources. So you're in luck.

Grandpa h.

[Sean989]

I am rather disappointed as I don't see how this post has lived up to it's name. I am pro choice but do not wish to get embroiled in the usual to and fro of this subject.

What I do wish to contribute is this, if abortion was made illegal it would do much more damage than now. Back alley and 'freelance' abortionists would spring up everywhere. People who are in all probability only in it for the money. Most will not be medically qualified to perform an abortion and standards such as environment and care provided to the mother would be unregulated. This may also lead to abortions carried out after the third trimester causing undue suffering to the fetus. Care to the mother would be minimal (to the extent it may cause her own death). Aftercare to the mother would also be non-existent which would put more pressure on our psychological institutions.

Pro-lifers, do you really think anyone is happy having blood on their hands? Especially that of an unborn child? This industry is regulated legally because the ramifications of it any other way are astronomical. Would you really be happy if abortions were illegal knowing that they still continued unregulated?

Many may reply to my thread and say yes they would be happy because legal action could be taken against those who participate...but are we universally going to be able to bring the law down on these people after the fact. No, not to the extent it would 'make a difference'.

[Muckraker]

Would you really be happy if abortions were illegal knowing that they still continued unregulated?

Many may reply to my thread and say yes they would be happy because legal action could be taken against those who participate...but are we universally going to be able to bring the law down on these people after the fact. No, not to the extent it would 'make a difference'.

As I've stated before, I am not pro-choice or pro-life. My position is dynamic and it is currently militant, logical, pro-life, and yet supporting abortion.

That being said, I don't think this line of reasoning is logical. It would definitely 'make a difference' and decrease the number of abortions taking place if society decided abortion should not be legal.

1. The choice to get an abortion today is affected by its legality, risk/reward ratio, cost, societal support, availability of service, ease of service, and numerous other factors.

2. There is no chance that making abortion illegal would increase the total number of abortions taking place.

3. All abortions taking place today do not boil down to "abort or bust (ruin the rest of your life)" decisions to the women making that choice.

4. If number three is true then there is a point when the perceived benefit of the act no longer outweighs the perceived handicap of not acting.

5. If number four is true then the quantity of abortions and potential abortions will decrease if abortion is no longer legal.

Making abortion illegal may not mean that individuals who break the law are always (or even most of the time) receiving a logical punishment for something that has already happened. But making abortion illegal would definitely have a preventative effect and decrease the number of abortions taking place.

If some unforeseen catastrophe takes place and my survival, my child's survival, or the survival of the human race depends upon pregnancy and birth then I would absolutely support laws banning abortion. If the situation was dire enough I would also support laws making pregnancy mandatory. And, to be fair, I would support research into the possibility of requiring males to carry gestating humans to term via testicular implantation--although ma(pa)ternity leave would probably need to be extended to account for not being able to sit down.

[Sean989]

As I've stated before, I am not pro-choice or pro-life. My position is dynamic and it is currently militant, logical, pro-life, and yet supporting abortion.

That being said, I don't think this line of reasoning is logical. It would definitely 'make a difference' and decrease the number of abortions taking place if society decided abortion should not be legal.

1. The choice to get an abortion today is affected by its legality, risk/reward ratio, cost, societal support, availability of service, ease of service, and numerous other factors.

2. There is no chance that making abortion illegal would increase the total number of abortions taking place.

3. All abortions taking place today do not boil down to "abort or bust (ruin the rest of your life)" decisions to the women making that choice.

4. If number three is true then there is a point when the perceived benefit of the act no longer outweighs the perceived handicap of not acting.

5. If number four is true then the quantity of abortions and potential abortions will decrease if abortion is no longer legal.

Making abortion illegal may not mean that individuals who break the law are always (or even most of the time) receiving a logical punishment for something that has already happened. But making abortion illegal would definitely have a preventative effect and decrease the number of abortions taking place.

If some unforeseen catastrophe takes place and my survival, my child's survival, or the survival of the human race depends upon pregnancy and birth then I would absolutely support laws banning abortion. If the situation was dire enough I would also support laws making pregnancy mandatory. And, to be fair, I would support research into the possibility of requiring males to carry gestating humans to term via testicular implantation--although ma(pa)ternity leave would probably need to be extended to account for not being able to sit down.

I didn't suggest they would increase in all probability they would decrease. They wouldn't however stop altogether. Leaving a highly unregulated system to run amok which would endanger vulnerable women maybe to their demise.

Some abortions today the would be mother really doesn't give a damn but for most women faced with this decision it has a profound affect on the rest of her life.

Would you be happy in the knowledge that some abortions would continue unhindered? Happy that women who are desperate enough would consent to an illegal abortion and risk their lives in doing so? If abortion is made illegal their blood is on our hands for our ignorance of the issues. Abortion is legal for many reasons but fundamentally to regulate an industry which would be prone to abuse any other way.

I think your example is a extreme example to help your cause. I would not necessarily support the banning of abortion unless it was temporary and lifted after sufficient re-population. In any case in this extreme situation do you think any logically thinking woman would have an abortion. It maybe more productive to ask the woman to come to term and birth the baby and put it up for adoption.

I am skeptical about your theory of male carrying fetus in the testicles. Is it even plausible? Would it not run the risk not only of impotence but also death to the male due to blood loss (at a higher percentage than females now).

But hey it would stop the typical comments of women 'Men don't know how painful labor is.'

[Muckraker]

I didn't suggest they would increase in all probability they would decrease. They wouldn't however stop altogether. Leaving a highly unregulated system to run amok which would endanger vulnerable women maybe to their demise.

Making something illegal, and assigning a degree of punishment, is the apex of societal regulation. Legality and the severity of consequence have not succeeded in completely eliminating any criminal act.

0.3% of abortions today have complications that result in hospitalization. Roughly 1.25million abortions are documented in the US each year. I'm not in the mood to do heavy number crunching but I suspect that as the quantity of abortions scales down and as the risk of complication scales up we would find the total number of illegal complications is not incredibly higher than total legal complications today.

The numbers may also change if we take into account that the danger of death/complication increases drastically with the duration of the pregnancy. The question is whether the percentage of total 8+week legal and illegal abortions will be the same when illegal abortions have at least four major risks: later-term risk, inept service risk, legal punishment risk, and societal reaction risk. I'm thinking the percentage of later-term abortions to total abortions would decrease drastically if abortion was illegal.

Some abortions today the would be mother really doesn't give a damn but for most women faced with this decision it has a profound affect on the rest of her life.

This is partly societal. Abortion rates in Russia are twice as high as the US. Also, the percentage of women having abortions after already completing an earlier pregnancy or after having a prior abortion is not insignificant.

In 2004, 60% of women who had abortions had already given birth to at least one child, an increase from 50% in 1989, while 47% of women who had an abortion had already undergone the procedure at least once before (the study's authors point out, however, that the trend in multiple abortions may already be declining).
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...#ixzz1cZy8WY2F

Would you be happy in the knowledge that some abortions would continue unhindered?

All crimes continue unhindered--but that doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't impose law.

Abortion is legal for many reasons but fundamentally to regulate an industry which would be prone to abuse any other way.

Regulation is a perk but, in the case of abortion, I don't think it has much to do with legality.

I think your example is a extreme example to help your cause.

It's not that extreme. Society is currently positioned pretty far over on the "choice" side of the scale--too far over, in my opinion.

Doesn't it seem extreme for corpses to have more of a right to decompose than individuals have a right to live? Isn't it strange that a parent can watch their own child die because they don't believe in treatment? They can't even be legally compelled to donate blood to save their own child's life--let alone mine. Today, an individual is not, and cannot be, legally compelled to do much of anything to help just about anyone--unless it's your job of course.

In countries with low fertility rates the government--the law--is already attempting to legislate pregnancy by offering some pretty awesome perks to people who have kids. A world catastrophe could easily turn that request with a carrot into a demand with a stick.

I am skeptical about your theory of male carrying fetus in the testicles. Is it even plausible?

Details aside, it is supposed to represent a possible degree of personal sacrifice required by law--one that I would support if the state of the world demanded it.

[Sean989]

Making something illegal, and assigning a degree of punishment, is the apex of societal regulation. Legality and the severity of consequence have not succeeded in completely eliminating any criminal act.

0.3% of abortions today have complications that result in hospitalization. Roughly 1.25million abortions are documented in the US each year. I'm not in the mood to do heavy number crunching but I suspect that as the quantity of abortions scales down and as the risk of complication scales up we would find the total number of illegal complications is not incredibly higher than total legal complications today.

The numbers may also change if we take into account that the danger of death/complication increases drastically with the duration of the pregnancy. The question is whether the percentage of total 8+week legal and illegal abortions will be the same when illegal abortions have at least four major risks: later-term risk, inept service risk, legal punishment risk, and societal reaction risk. I'm thinking the percentage of later-term abortions to total abortions would decrease drastically if abortion was illegal.


This is partly societal. Abortion rates in Russia are twice as high as the US. Also, the percentage of women having abortions after already completing an earlier pregnancy or after having a prior abortion is not insignificant.


All crimes continue unhindered--but that doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't impose law.


Regulation is a perk but, in the case of abortion, I don't think it has much to do with legality.


It's not that extreme. Society is currently positioned pretty far over on the "choice" side of the scale--too far over, in my opinion.

Doesn't it seem extreme for corpses to have more of a right to decompose than individuals have a right to live? Isn't it strange that a parent can watch their own child die because they don't believe in treatment? They can't even be legally compelled to donate blood to save their own child's life--let alone mine. Today, an individual is not, and cannot be, legally compelled to do much of anything to help just about anyone--unless it's your job of course.

In countries with low fertility rates the government--the law--is already attempting to legislate pregnancy by offering some pretty awesome perks to people who have kids. A world catastrophe could easily turn that request with a carrot into a demand with a stick.


Details aside, it is supposed to represent a possible degree of personal sacrifice required by law--one that I would support if the state of the world demanded it.

You really are missing the point I am trying to make. If abortions were illegal, very few professionally trained medical associates would participate. Meaning the abortion that are carried out would pose significant risk to the mother and possible complete disregard to the sensations of the fetus. Thus, no proper care provided to the mother and undignified treatment to the fetus. You talk about current complications? At least properly trained medical professionals can deal with these when it is legal. If made illegal, women will be much less likely to seek medical help for fear of persecution. With this you would be happy as the law is being imposed? But prosecution of all of these people (who would have very deep pockets) performing them will be impossible.

Regulation is a perk??? So providing a safe place for abortion to occur and ensuring standards is a perk?

You obviously wish to impose this to improve human life but it will also devalue human life and ignore the issues that surround this subject. But hey what you can't see, right?

You have a right to believe we have too much choice, and you maybe right. But who are you to decide what choices people can make in their own lives? Lives that no one else can live and by extension no one can fully understand. What I mean to say by this is, you can't literally walk in someone else's shoes so why should you have authority over their choices?

'Doesn't it seem extreme for corpses to have more of a right to decompose than individuals have a right to live?'

This is an inanity. No one has the 'right' to decompose it happens. You would have to take extreme measures to prevent it i.e. remove organs and the intestinal tract where most bacteria occur and also remove all if not most of the water from the human body. In any case it happens to us all and is for the most part unavoidable. It isn't strange parents can watch their own children die it is heartless but allowing the state more power to enforce treatment would be a worrying step. As to blood donation of parents, in most cases they are not a match to their children if both parents have different blood types so enforcing that would be less than worthwhile.

A world catastrophe could also wipe out a hell of a lot of resources leaving this plan in tatters and turn us all in to scavengers, a perfect environment for your bundle of joy.

I don't see how on earth this personal sacrifice could help. In fact does it not hinder the goal of re-population if you are leaving the man impotent or worse. Sacrificing one new life for another. May as well shot your own scrotum off, wouldn't really be any difference.

[Muckraker]

If abortions were illegal, very few professionally trained medical associates would participate.

It depends on the severity of the punishment, societal views, complexity of procedures, availability of materials, etc. A more refined 'abortion pill' would change the issue drastically.

You are not accounting for changes in women's rights, societal acceptance of pregnancy, the intelligence of women, and the power of women. This isn't the 1950's.

Meaning the abortion that are carried out would pose significant risk to the mother and possible complete disregard to the sensations of the fetus.

The additional risk is an unknown. All abortions, especially high-risk procedures, will decrease if abortion is illegal. And low risk abortions, such as handing over a black-market pill, are not going to be exponentially riskier than the same legal abortions. There will be additional risk but it is additional risk for the tiny sliver of abortions still taking place.

1% of 1,000,000 is the same number of complications as 10% of 100,000. You are welcome to crunch realistic numbers but, as I said, my speculation is that the higher risk applied to the lower number of procedures--and fewer high-risk procedures--will result in fewer total women experiencing complications.

If made illegal, women will be much less likely to seek medical help for fear of persecution.

That's the point of making something illegal.

What percentage of women getting abortions do you suspect are making an "abortion or bust" decision?

Regulation is a perk??? So providing a safe place for abortion to occur and ensuring standards is a perk?

By this logic, if a safe and effective abortion pill shows up, making abortion illegal would be acceptable since abortion was primarily legal to regulate medical procedures.

Abortion is legal because women have a right to bodily autonomy--especially in a society where nobody is currently compelled by law to sacrifice bodily autonomy for anybody else.

You obviously wish to impose this to improve human life but it will also devalue human life and ignore the issues that surround this subject.

Impose what?

I currently support a woman's right to abort a pregnancy and then I proposed a hypothetical scenario where my position on bodily autonomy would change. Would your position remain unchanged in the event of a nuclear holocaust? Would you still support the full legalization of abortion so as to ensure regulated medical procedures?

Priorities change--as they should.

You have a right to believe we have too much choice, and you maybe right. But who are you to decide what choices people can make in their own lives? Lives that no one else can live and by extension no one can fully understand. What I mean to say by this is, you can't literally walk in someone else's shoes so why should you have authority over their choices?

When a person's choice to be an idiot infringes on others' ability to survive I don't really care about their shoes.

No one has the 'right' to decompose it happens.

I think you missed my point. Your right to not donate the organs of your corpse--your right to rot--infringes on my right to live. Currently, a person can invoke bodily autonomy even after they have died. Your corpse's property rights trump my living rights.

It isn't strange parents can watch their own children die it is heartless but allowing the state more power to enforce treatment would be a worrying step.

Why would it be a worrying step? Do two people who had sex receive Good Parent certificates the moment the kid's head appears? Is a new parent required to learn a single goddamn thing about how to not screw up a baby?

Your right to be an ignorant, selfish, and completely incompetent guardian overrides a kid's right to not die, be maimed, or be mentally f-cked for life.

We require all drivers to take classes, pass a test, submit to traffic laws, and continue to pass follow-up tests over their entire lives. We do this to prevent accidents. And yet we can't require a parent to stop praying and get some goddamn OJ for the kid about to go into a diabetic coma.

As to blood donation of parents, in most cases they are not a match to their children if both parents have different blood types so enforcing that would be less than worthwhile.

It's a hypothetical. If I say a matching parent is not currently required by law to donate blood to their needy child you cannot counter my criticism of the law by saying parental blood types often don't match.

A world catastrophe could also wipe out a hell of a lot of resources leaving this plan in tatters and turn us all in to scavengers, a perfect environment for your bundle of joy.
I don't see how on earth this personal sacrifice could help. In fact does it not hinder the goal of re-population if you are leaving the man impotent or worse. Sacrificing one new life for another.

Again--my hypothetical--my rules. A world catastrophe causes pregnancy and childbirth to be critical to our survival. New technology allows males to become pregnant. In this hypothetical scenario, I support all sorts of infringements on autonomy. This includes illegal abortion, forced pregnancy of both males and females, and passing parenting tests with flying colors if you want to parent your own kids.

It's a sliding scale--and my position moves along it based on the current state of affairs. I'm on the pro-life side at the point where I feel it's stupid for corpses to have rights and for organ donation to be an opt-in instead of an opt-out program but I'm not far enough over to require forced organ donation. One of the farthest infringements on the pro-life side of the scale is requiring women to carry pregnancies to term. I'm nowhere near that spot. But I could be.

[grandpa]

It depends on the severity of the punishment, societal views,
complexity of procedures, availability of materials, etc.
A more refined 'abortion pill' would change the issue drastically.

Societal views do determine treatment. For example, on the "pro life" side, I don't see sub-assemblies of people opposed to abortion in some circumstances, while supporting it in others. That would be too nuanced for some to understand, and would result in shaming.

Some really try to make it a war-zone:
"Antiabortion activists may not change anyone's mind about the pill -- but they
could have an effect if they persuade enough doctors that entering this
minefield is dangerous to their health and practice. The tactic has worked
well for years now; in much of the country, Roe v. Wade might as well not
exist, and the only way the abortion pill changes that is if doctors
everywhere decide to offer it. 'There are a lot of doctors who feel very
strongly that women have a right to make a choice but are unwilling to wear
flak jackets to work,' says Dr. Diana Dell, an ob-gyn specialist at Duke
University Medical Center."
http://jackiewhiting.net/Women/Mother/RU486.htm

Grandpa h.

[Sean989]

It depends on the severity of the punishment, societal views, complexity of procedures, availability of materials, etc. A more refined 'abortion pill' would change the issue drastically.

You are not accounting for changes in women's rights, societal acceptance of pregnancy, the intelligence of women, and the power of women. This isn't the 1950's.


The additional risk is an unknown. All abortions, especially high-risk procedures, will decrease if abortion is illegal. And low risk abortions, such as handing over a black-market pill, are not going to be exponentially riskier than the same legal abortions. There will be additional risk but it is additional risk for the tiny sliver of abortions still taking place.

1% of 1,000,000 is the same number of complications as 10% of 100,000. You are welcome to crunch realistic numbers but, as I said, my speculation is that the higher risk applied to the lower number of procedures--and fewer high-risk procedures--will result in fewer total women experiencing complications.


That's the point of making something illegal.

What percentage of women getting abortions do you suspect are making an "abortion or bust" decision?

By this logic, if a safe and effective abortion pill shows up, making abortion illegal would be acceptable since abortion was primarily legal to regulate medical procedures.

Abortion is legal because women have a right to bodily autonomy--especially in a society where nobody is currently compelled by law to sacrifice bodily autonomy for anybody else.


Impose what?

I currently support a woman's right to abort a pregnancy and then I proposed a hypothetical scenario where my position on bodily autonomy would change. Would your position remain unchanged in the event of a nuclear holocaust? Would you still support the full legalization of abortion so as to ensure regulated medical procedures?

Priorities change--as they should.


When a person's choice to be an idiot infringes on others' ability to survive I don't really care about their shoes.


I think you missed my point. Your right to not donate the organs of your corpse--your right to rot--infringes on my right to live. Currently, a person can invoke bodily autonomy even after they have died. Your corpse's property rights trump my living rights.


Why would it be a worrying step? Do two people who had sex receive Good Parent certificates the moment the kid's head appears? Is a new parent required to learn a single goddamn thing about how to not screw up a baby?

Your right to be an ignorant, selfish, and completely incompetent guardian overrides a kid's right to not die, be maimed, or be mentally f-cked for life.

We require all drivers to take classes, pass a test, submit to traffic laws, and continue to pass follow-up tests over their entire lives. We do this to prevent accidents. And yet we can't require a parent to stop praying and get some goddamn OJ for the kid about to go into a diabetic coma.


It's a hypothetical. If I say a matching parent is not currently required by law to donate blood to their needy child you cannot counter my criticism of the law by saying parental blood types often don't match.


Again--my hypothetical--my rules. A world catastrophe causes pregnancy and childbirth to be critical to our survival. New technology allows males to become pregnant. In this hypothetical scenario, I support all sorts of infringements on autonomy. This includes illegal abortion, forced pregnancy of both males and females, and passing parenting tests with flying colors if you want to parent your own kids.

It's a sliding scale--and my position moves along it based on the current state of affairs. I'm on the pro-life side at the point where I feel it's stupid for corpses to have rights and for organ donation to be an opt-in instead of an opt-out program but I'm not far enough over to require forced organ donation. One of the farthest infringements on the pro-life side of the scale is requiring women to carry pregnancies to term. I'm nowhere near that spot. But I could be.

Would making abortion illegal not drag us back to a period rather like the 1950's?

Yes I have been getting your points (over previous posts) what I am saying by making abortion illegal you will leave a section of vulnerable woman at higher risk. You seem to be under the impression an abortion is an easy procedure for the non-medically trained. You also seem to be ignoring the fact that abortions will (rather like the 1950) become home made using gin, soaps and other harsh materials. I would also point out the Department of Health will not allow an abortion pill if abortions are illegal. At least add some logic to you hypothetical

Abortion is a risky procedure which can cause physical pain to the woman, Spiritually they can feel separated from God especially in 'Christian' countries . And the surfacing (or re-surfacing) of psychological problems. Never mind the problems that may arise in her relationships with the father if present, her family (and his).

http://www.deveber.org/text/whealth.html

In your hypothetical examples you wish to impose abortion, this devalues some human life for the sake of others. Near the exact same as happens now. So is it any better?

If you read my post you would have read in extreme catastrophic events I would not be against a temporary ban on abortions but many woman will wish an abortion because they don't want or can't look after a baby, in this case alternatives must be made.

To 'walk in someone else's shoes' is not literal, no one really cares about anyones f***ing shoes! You are avoiding the question, what gives you authority over the decisions someone can make?At the end of the day no two people have the exact same experience of life making all our thoughts, ideas and opinions subjective.

My right to rot infringes upon your right to live? First of all what if my organs don't match yours and your body rejects them? That's just tough if no one dies who is a match? Secondly, many are heavy smokers, drinkers and eaters...do those lifestyle choices also infringe on your right to live? Also some of religious belief are against an autopsy never mind organ donation. Should you forsake that persons belief for their organs?

I would be rather worried if we allowed the state more power, it maybe for a great good but can be manipulated for their own ends. Parenthood is something that changes a person completely, no one is ever ready and you won't know the results until that child is an adult. Most people learn parenthood from experience and although some buy books there isn't a class to make you a good parent.

You wish parenthood test? So social services have never ever balls up which has resulted in a child's death? Parents put their children at risk everyday, an example the amount of kid beggars in London. I don't see anyone as particularly bother enough to do anything.

I would point out in your hypothetical blood question, you are also assuming the matching parent is also infection-free and not on heavy medication which may endanger the child.

Fair enough your hypothetical, your rules. You do use a lot of hypothetical situations in this debate which can make debate much slower.

I would also point out, decide which side you are on without hypothetical examples it prevents inconsistencies like this:

' I currently support a woman's right to abort a pregnancy...'

' I'm on the pro-life side at the point...'

It makes difficult debating with a person who cant decide where they stand and if you can't I really don't know how much you can offer a debate when you don't even know how you feel about it right now.