What do you think about abortion

Post Reply New Topic

News flash: Your wife can only decide for her own body and no one else's.

Nope. Already there. It harms fetuses.

Take it this way, most women abort not because they hate the idea of having children but for many other reasons.
- Woman already has too many children, bringing another one would be difficult economically. If the birth happens, all the children will have far less opportunity in life.
- Woman doesn't think she is ready . Would rather wait to be in a better professional and economic position. If abortion happens, a future human life will enjoy life much better than the theoretical birth.
- Woman has been raped.

In the third case, I am sorry but you lack any bit of humanity if you think that a woman should be forced to carry her rapist's fetus.

In the two first cases, the net enjoyment is higher when choosing abortion. Also the net costs of society are smaller.


Safe clinical abortion is really one of the best things ever invented as it makes people's lives better. I would put it right there close to vaccines and antibiotics. This thing helps people avoid certain doom.

---
Also, it is antisemitic to compare an unborn fetus' worth with that of a Jewish person.

^ AngelRho is actually not against abortion in the case of rape. Not that he likes it, but you're assuming wrong on that one.

Rape is the monkey wrench in the gears of this discussion. I wouldn't say "I'm not against abortion in the case of rape." I'd say "I'm against rape." Get rid of rape and you eliminate ONE cause that might remotely serve as a possible justification for abortion. In other words, there shouldn't be any need for abortion in the case of rape because there shouldn't be any rape.

The part that sucks is we don't live in the kind of world in which rape (and abortion due to rape) doesn't happen. This is the part where I have to throw my hands in the air and concede "I got nuthin'." I MIGHT be more amenable to abortion if convicted rapists responsible for the woman conceiving their children were penalized heavily for the loss of the baby, the reason being that it's never fair to punish a child for the father's actions, nor can you put the blame on the child for the circumstances of its conception. You can't punish the woman because she's the victim. That leaves the abortionist and the biological father. If the woman is psychologically unable to show the child mercy, then the father shouldn't be shown mercy, either.

That's why I say I don't "like" abortion in the case of rape, but at the same time I don't know what we could do in a free society the justly do away with it in that circumstance.

AngelRho, I think you make a lot of sense in this thread.

On the issue of rape though, how does something like this fit in...

A Cuyahoga County grand jury indicted Castro, 52, on the aggravated murder charges for allegedly causing the unlawful termination of a pregnancy involving one of the women.

I know it's not a typical case of abortion, but if the fetus isn't a person, then how can it be murder in this case? This case seems to imply that the fetus does have human rights just like anyone who's been born. So would pro-choicers have to say that this shouldn't be considered a case of murder (which to me would just sound incredibly cold and cruel)?

I consider it murder because it wasn't the choice of the mother. Presumably the mother intended to carry it and have it.

So you're saying a fetus has a legitimate right not to be murdered then?

I believe I sorta answered that above...

For me, murder is a crime on two counts:
1) you are depriving the victim of life, which they would probably strongly object to.
2) you are depriving other people of the victim. There are probably people who value this person and wish to maintain a relationship with them. They will be greatly distressed by the murder.

Either 1) or 2) is sufficient for a murder to be committed.

If a suicidal person is violently murdered, they might not care much about the loss of their life, but their friends and family will presumably care a great deal.
If a hermit who has not had contact with a human currently alive but is not suicidal is killed, they have been deprived of their life against their will.

If a woman chooses to abort her embryo, then the embryo does not care because it does not have the capacity to care and is not self-aware. The mother seems to not value the embryo either. Whilst other relatives may value the embryo (and this is the biggest downside of my position IMO), they do not have the right to force the mother to give birth.

If a woman is planning on keeping her baby, then the murder of it deprives her of something she highly values. She may well have already began imaging the zef she carries as her child. I am assured that the mother-child relationship is one of the strongest in the world, far stronger than any owner-object relationship, and thus the crime is more comparable to murder than theft.

Is there really nothing required in terms of the type of entity being murdered though? If not, then if I love my cat more than I love anyone else, and someone intentionally kills it, it seems I should be able to charge the killer with murder.

No. I'm saying that a mother has the right to not have her wanted pregnancy terminated by someone else against her will.

I'd no more want to force a woman to have an abortion/miscarriage than I'd want to force them to go through an unwanted pregnancy.

But the question is whether it should qualify as murder, as opposed to say, some sort of extreme case of assault and theft.

It should be murder and even if it's not there are laws against it. I live in NY and we have Buster's Law.

I am again assured that parent-child relationships are actually stronger than owner-pet relationships.

But I do agree with you largely, IMO we would ideally count pet-killing (or indeed animal-killing) as murder. There are all sorts of issues there though. You can legally own a pig, but not a person. If your son becomes attached to your pig, should you be allowed to kill it?

I hope one day we start eating artificial meat instead of meat from deceased animals. Likewise leather. But animal rights is an even more complex issue than abortion, so can we please agree to leave it out of this thread?

How does something like this fit in, you ask? Here's what I think: It sounds like to me for ONCE a grand jury has done what is seemingly impossible for a large number of people involved in the justice system--a perfect execution of a near-flawless (as far as I can tell) specimen of common sense.

This is exactly why personhood arguments are so stupid and absurd. It's a human being. We place value on human life. The willful, unjustified destruction of human life is murder. QED.

I can't speak for the pro-infanticide crowd. It would sound cold and cruel to us, but to say otherwise would be inconsistent. There have been infanticide proponents on this forum all too willing to express their eagerness to kill babies, so don't fool yourself into thinking they care about being "cold and cruel."

I suppose the next best thing would be something along the lines of what LKL has stated in this thread. My position is that only under extreme and relatively rare circumstances can abortion be even remotely justified. LKL might say all unwanted pregnancies are justified at any time. We would then disagree on what is meant by "justified." We can't say whether in Castro's case that the actions which caused the loss of a baby where justified. For one, the "procedure," if you can call it that, was not performed by a medical professional (though I question whether abortionists deserve that title). For another, it could be legally disputed as to whether the girl COULD have obtained an abortion or not, i.e. had been sufficiently underaged enough that parental permission would be required. Gina, from what I understand, was the only one that young. But she never believed that she had gotten pregnant. It was only Michelle and Amanda, so the underaged rationale wouldn't work. The only way to claim that what happened was unjustifiable homicide is to point to who caused the girls to lose the babies and how it was carried out.

However, I don't believe this really works either. If all it takes to get away with murder is to have a medical degree and a lancet, then pretty much anyone can just give you the Hannibal Lector treatment and it's perfectly legal.

Except it's not. It took some time, but Jack Kevorkian eventually had to take a prison sentence. It turns out you can't even kill someone if they ask for it. If it's wrong to so much as help someone take his own life when it is known those are his wishes, it's certainly wrong to take the life of the unborn who are unable to give consent.

I don't place value in human life, I place value in sentient life. So the rest of your proposed argument falls off from there.

You would be in favor of euthanasia for the elderly? Some elderly people eventually stop showing evidence of sentience.

My father told us to euthanize him in case of dementia, and I agree. And I'll tell my family to do the same when my time comes. So yes, I am in favour with the general concept. (And I'd stop the process before I become almost completely non-sentient anyway)
Those non-sentient old people probably have people who still care for them and don't want to let go of them, even if they are mere shadows of their former selves. Others are too scared of death. Although strictly speaking a non-sentient being doesn't have a will of its own, I'd respect the wishes of their former selves and not advocate forced euthanasia or anything like that. But a non-sentient human has only sentimental value, in my opinion.