Abortions
 

It came up elsewhere, so I thought I’d start a topic on abortions. Now, I know this can be a rather contentious issue, so remember to keep the rules in mind before you post. Over emotionality doesn’t say anything whereas a civil, polite, rational dialogue can do wonders.

Here’s how I see it. I believe in the right to life, and I believe in the rights to freedom and liberty; so both sides have good cases. In the end, to be able to settle the issue, you have to define precisely what a life and freedom are and weight them as priorities.

Naturally, the right to life has its logical limits. Even a Vegan has to eat something to survive. I really don’t get the big difference between a shrimp and some salad; seems to me they both have about as much brains and to forgo the shrimp is just discriminating on the basis of photo-synthesis cells. As I see it, life in a significant context means something with the mental faculties to perceive, think, and react. Let’s face it; if I’m brain dead, what does the rest of me matter? A meat vegetable is of no more significance than a vegetable with cytoplasm. How much cognitive capacity does a fetus have? Not a whole lot; certainly nothing on parallel with say, a deer, an animal regularly killed for sport.

Then there’s a woman’s right to freedom. During the term of pregnancy, a woman must essentially act as a life support system for a foreign organism, using her own biological resources to nourish. Imagine likewise (In a highly improbably scenario.) if a man were to be hooked up to some enfeebled old geyser to supply him with blood, air, and kidney and liver use. I don’t think many of us would think it ethical for a person to be forced to provide such a service against their will, so as I see it, a woman is under no obligation to physically nurture another being at their own expense either.

That’s as far as a woman’s right goes, but there’s also a few ethical issues involving what a person “should” do. A fetus is after all, is expected to become a fully cognizant person within time; something you can’t say so much for sperm and eggs because it’s expected that over 99% of them will just get hucked away with no chance of ever being people. Yet imagine if a woman were to get an abortion over the sex of their child, or, in the future, over their sexual orientation, racial characteristics, and so on. I think that using abortions as a method of eugenics is wrong, but a woman should still have the right to it. I also think that if someone else would want to take care of the child, the proper thing to do would be to carry it to term and give it up. Of course, that’s just something benevolent to do rather than something one “ought” to do, and ultimately, it is rather hard to give up a child once it actually has any significant signs of life.

So ya, that pretty much pins me with pro-choice.

For me it's an issue of, the goverment should not be able to regulate, what I can and cannot do with my own body. Period. How the woman got pregnant, why she's aborting, all of those things are nobody's business but hers. And I'm sure that the rights of the father will become alot more important to me as a woman when they figure out how to let a man carry a pregnancy to full term. If he wants to keep the fetus, then by all means give it to him. Until thats possible, women should be the only ones deciding what they will or won't do with an unwanted pregnancy. You cannot take away a woman's right to abortion without taking away her rights as a person. Also regardless of religion or when you think life starts is completely irrelevant because you cannot push your beliefs on everyone else. People must be free to make their own judgements in this case, and live with the consequences.

My girlfriend was firmly anti-abortion. But its interesting how quickly her viewpoint changed when she thought she was pregnant.

There are situations when letting the baby come to term and be born would be utterly disasterous for the child and for the parents.

Had my girlfriend actually had been pregnant and had the baby, it most certainly would have ruined both our lives, and I dont think the kid woulda turned out all that great, either.

In the end, I think its the would-be parents choice, and theirs alone.

I agree that the parenting couple should have the ultimate right to choose, not their family or friends. I also believe that women themselves have the ultimate choice to bring a child into the world or not.

My biggest question to pro-lifers is this: What is going to stop a woman from getting an abortion if she truly desires it, one way or another? Banning abortion for dangerous or unwanted pregnancies would simply deny those women the right to a clean place for an abortion... There are alternative places, not hygenic, not even sanctioned by the state, where people will go. These are not only dangerous for the women, but also anyone they might have relations with. Back alley abortions, if you will. Why deny them the option to be healthy after such a procedure?

So do I believe in choice? You bet. Do I believe they should be covered in basic medical insurance? Still deciding, but leaning toward yes.

abortion is already covered by most people's medical insurance, and if you think about it from the insurance company's stand point, it's cheaper for them to help you get you one quick proceedure, than 9 months of pre-natal care, the inevitable costs of birth and post natal care.

Really? Well, that's something new I learned today! I met my quotia! Hooray!

I think I meant government health care, probably should have made that clear.. In fact, yes, I should have. Sorry!

I think the cheapness point still stands for government healtcare to.

they do already cover it.

Well said. The problem with your argument is that the pro-life camp doesn't give a damn and refuses to logically examine it.

Now, here's a few names of some prominent philosophers. I suggest people of either opinion compare your argument to theirs'. They are of mixed standpoint.

Judith Harvis Thompson: A Defense of Abortion
Mary Anne Warren: On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion
Jane English: Abortion and the Concept of a Person <---- Read that, please.
Don Marquis: Why Abortion is Immoral <---- Very good pro-life literature. One of the few, sadly.

Those are just a few that will help your arguments. After viewing how fast someone can be banned around here (damnit, Junkmaster. Fight da powah!), I'm abstaining from argument. But I'll watch and laugh at idiocy or clap silently for well-spoken members of either camp.

Scanning the arguments, I find one flaw. The difference between hooking a man up to an old geyser for life support, and being pregnant is simple. The baby is new life, not someone who has already lived his life out. But that's just a hypothetical, and I did get your point.

Semantics is the problem with this argument.

As for me, I'm anti-abortion, not pro-life. I'd assume everyone was in favor of life, and this debate is full of loaded words. I called the fetus a baby above, this is what pro-lifers apparently call it. "Pro-choicers" call it a fetus, dehumanizing him. Also, I'm referring to the fetus as a he, not an it. You can't argue this well with loaded words.

I agree that the government should not ban abortions, however, I will advise my friends to find an alternate solution, such as adoption. It's my belief that if left to nature, and by nature I mean the pregnancy is carried to turn, the fetus will be a child. This future child should not be killed. That is my belief. Should the government enforce my beliefs? No.