Abortion

mixed_biscuits said:

Well, only in the same way that the state forces people to keep alive other people who they don't want. Which I find equally unfair.

Click to expand...

Fair enough if you see it like that, but people I know who have had a miscarriage early on in their pregnancy have been less upset by that than having a friend or relative die.

The state doesn't see the two scenarios as the same and neither do I.

john eden said:

Fair enough if you see it like that, but people I know who have had a miscarriage early on in their pregnancy have been less upset by that than having a friend or relative die.

Click to expand...

Yes, and I would be less upset by the murder of some friendless itinerant than that of my mum. Despite that, both acts are equally wrong; both endings equally tragic.

john eden said:

Fair enough if you see it like that, but people I know who have had a miscarriage early on in their pregnancy have been less upset by that than having a friend or relative die.

The state doesn't see the two scenarios as the same and neither do I.

Click to expand...

Ah, but you see - if abortion is murder then a miscarrage is involuntary manslaughter. If the state wasnt so 'liberal' that'd carry a sentence of 5-10 years hard graft at least.

Y'see, once women become preganant they automatically give up all rights of control over what goes on in their bodies...

I can roll my eyes too.

Look:

!

It's quite good fun.

wheninrome said:

Ah, but you see - if abortion is murder then a miscarrage is involuntary manslaughter. If the state wasnt so 'liberal' that'd carry a sentence of 5-10 years hard graft at least.

Y'see, once women become preganant they automatically give up all rights of control over what goes on in their bodies...

Click to expand...

Que? What complete rubbish. People die all the time without it being 'manslaughter'.

No-one's claiming that women don't have the right to control what happens in their bodies: the argument is that once a woman is pregnant, there is someone else in her body. Whether than 'semi-person', or potential person, has all the rights of a human being, or some of them, or no rights at all, is the matter under discussion. But claiming that the ethics of abortion are about the woman (or even the woman and the would-be father) and no-one else is ludicrous.

Well said, Mr T.

Mr. Tea said:

Whether than 'semi-person', or potential person, has all the rights of a human being, or some of them, or no rights at all, is the matter under discussion.

Click to expand...

well my point is that there are, right now, millions upon millions of "complete", "fully grown", "adult" human beings that live without rights, in abject poverty, starvation. and that their rights should take precedence over these "semi" or "potential" human beings.

Umm, I don't think anyone's saying that we should protect unborn babies at the expense of starving oppressed poor people in the more fucked-up parts of the world. I don't think the two are mutually exclusive (not that all foetuses have to be protected if they're going to be born to women who don't want them or wouldn't be able to cope with them).

Your argument would be more effective in favour of abortion - or, better still, contraception! - in those parts of the world where starvation, oppression etc. widely occur, which also tend to be the places where populations are most rapidly increasing. In much of the developed world (significantly, excluding the US) populations are rapidly aging and even shrinking because of falling birth rates - just look at the trouble Japan's in. Of course, in terms of resource use and pollution the world can afford another African or Indian much better than it can afford another European or American, but that's another issue (though obviously an extremely pressing one).

Mr. Tea said:

not that all foetuses have to be protected if they're going to be born to women who don't want them or wouldn't be able to cope with them

Click to expand...

Ugh - absurd hedging. If foetuses are to have rights, they obviously apply across the board.

If the mother can't cope, others should work to help her out. If the mother doesn't want the child, then others can care for it.

mixed_biscuits said:

Ugh - absurd hedging. If foetuses are to have rights, they obviously apply across the board.

If the mother can't cope, others should work to help her out. If the mother doesn't want the child, then others can care for it.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I suppose that was a bit of a cop-out - I used to totally anti-abortion but I've come round to thinking it might be a necessary thing. I agree that there are always lots of couples who want to adopt babies, and that demand outstrips supply (to put it crudely), but even so, it's a lot for a woman to go through to be pregnant for a whole term and actually give birth only to have to give it away.

Mr. Tea said:

but even so, it's a lot for a woman to go through to be pregnant for a whole term and actually give birth only to have to give it away.

Click to expand...

Well, she could always change her mind (is this in law?).

mixed_biscuits said:

Well, she could always change her mind (is this in law?).

Click to expand...

Well yes, but that won't change her circumstances, which are presumably sufficiently awkward (i.e. parenthood-unfriendly) for her to be considering abortion/adoption in the first place.

Mr. Tea said:

Well yes, but that won't change her circumstances, which are presumably sufficiently awkward (i.e. parenthood-unfriendly) for her to be considering abortion/adoption in the first place.

Click to expand...

That's a different matter entirely.

I generally avoid these arguments...

But two points.

First, there seems to be an underlying assumption here of the importance of human life in the grand scheme of things. Any question of abortion, for me, hangs on the question of the importance of human life. I tend to see us (humans) as another evolutionary mistake, just like any other species. Consciousness, too, is an evolutionary mistake that allowed us to stop adapting to our surroundings and gave us awareness of our surroundings so we could adapt them. If humans are just another species, and consciousness does not give us a moral or ethical imperative to spare human lives, then what is the real question here? I think one has to weigh, then, the positive and negative effects on the potential person's life, and the lives of those that are creating it.

Which brings me to my second point. In the end, i never have to have an abortion, not having a womb and all (i tried letting the fetus gestate in a box, didnt work). So i never have to atually make the decision. I think its important to realize that, as much as we discuss the positives and negatives of abortion, its the woman who has to do it. She has more at stake than anyone else. I think, for this reason, in the end, it should be each individual woman's decision. I rarely fall in line with political bandwagons and the party-line rhetoric of these "issues," but in this case i think the "Pro-choice" line is right - generally not for the same reasons, but because in the end, im not going to tell a woman she cannot do something with her body, or that she should. If i were to be in the predicament, i would definitely have my opinion, but in the end, its the woman's decision.

Freakaholic said:

But two points.

First, there seems to be an underlying assumption here of the importance of human life in the grand scheme of things. Any question of abortion, for me, hangs on the question of the importance of human life. I tend to see us (humans) as another evolutionary mistake...

Click to expand...

Eh? 'Mistake' according to whose criteria? To call something a mistake implies that something has not gone to plan - whose 'plan' has gone awry here? Describing something as a mistake or a success is to place human values on it; I think you've tried so hard to be anti-anthropocentric you've ironically started sounding very anthropocentric indeed.

Freakaholic said:

Which brings me to my second point. In the end, i never have to have an abortion, not having a womb and all (i tried letting the fetus gestate in a box, didnt work). So i never have to atually make the decision....

Click to expand...

But as I said a few posts ago, the woman is not the only party whose rights have to be taken into consideration here. On the previous page someone made a comment along the lines of "a woman should have the absolute right to decide what goes on in her body" - couldn't a wifebeater just as well say "I should have the absolute right to do as I please in my own home"? The extent to which a foetus has or doesn't have rights is open to discussion, but to claim that abortion is solely about the woman's rights is to automatically assume, without justification, that the foetus has no rights at all. If you can put together a good argument as to why this should be the case, then by all means do so, but to tacitly assume it is the case is avoiding the argument altogether.

"someone made a comment along the lines of "a woman should have the absolute right to decide what goes on in her body" - couldn't a wifebeater just as well say "I should have the absolute right to do as I please in my own home"?

:slanted:

swears said:

"someone made a comment along the lines of "a woman should have the absolute right to decide what goes on in her body" - couldn't a wifebeater just as well say "I should have the absolute right to do as I please in my own home"?

:slanted:

Click to expand...

(yay, self-quoting...)

I'm not, by any means, trying to put abortion and wifebeating in the same moral category, obviously.
My point is that "I should control what goes on in my body" and "I should control what goes on in my house" both sound like perfectly reasonable statements, to the point that you can't really argue against them, until you consider that the rights of someone else may be affected by what you do in your own body/house.

Mr. Tea said:

Eh? 'Mistake' according to whose criteria? To call something a mistake implies that something has not gone to plan - whose 'plan' has gone awry here? Describing something as a mistake or a success is to place human values on it; I think you've tried so hard to be anti-anthropocentric you've ironically started sounding very anthropocentric indeed.

Click to expand...

Ahh, my word choice was a bit poor. I did not mean to imply any sort of "plan gone awry". More of an "accident" than a "mistake," then?

Mr. Tea said:

But as I said a few posts ago, the woman is not the only party whose rights have to be taken into consideration here. On the previous page someone made a comment along the lines of "a woman should have the absolute right to decide what goes on in her body" - couldn't a wifebeater just as well say "I should have the absolute right to do as I please in my own home"? The extent to which a foetus has or doesn't have rights is open to discussion, but to claim that abortion is solely about the woman's rights is to automatically assume, without justification, that the foetus has no rights at all. If you can put together a good argument as to why this should be the case, then by all means do so, but to tacitly assume it is the case is avoiding the argument altogether.

Click to expand...

I would not claim that anyone has "absolute rights" to anything, except perhaps their thoughts. For now. But I dont think that I was saying that, or that the issue is "solely about the woman's rights". But I try to make a connection between the idea that humans are an accident and the lack of foetal rights. The good of the potential parents and the quality of potential life heavily outweigh any implicit "rights" that being conceived may bring, in my opinion, because of the lack of importance i place on any individual human's life. Therefore, i see it as a question of who it affects. And, not being a woman, i can never know the full effects. And that is why i think that, while discussion and adding input, and possibly even having a say in some cases is important, the final decision should lie with the person whos body it is.

Kinda tired this morning, so i hope that makes sense.

Ahh, so then would it be reasonable to summarise your position (if may take such a liberty ) as "quality, not quantity" when it comes to human life? That extinguishing some potential human lives (with birth providing a convenient cut-off point between potential and actual life) while bringing up others that will be cared for and given a decent chance is better than demanding that *all* foetuses be taken to term, even though some of them will be unwanted and (adoption notwithstanding) probably have rotten lives as a result?

And as a lemma to this, where do you stand on totally unsuitable parents - the sort of people who, by this argument, really ought to have the pregnancy aborted - who insist on having kids anyway?