Is Abortion Immoral?

[SilentLoner]

 

 

 

 

I don't want to be misunderstood here.  I am not making the argument that the father's rights should outweigh, over-ride, trump, or in any other way be greater than the mother's rights.  I am simply saying we should try to come up with a system that is more fair.

 

You say you don't want to argue that a father should be able to outweigh the mother's rights. But what you have suggested is exactly that. It is the woman's body, not the man's. Saying the father can veto her decision to abort is giving control of the woman's body to him. That's not "fair" - it gives the man more rights. It cannot work this way. 

 

A man involved in a pregnancy also does not have an equality of experience that would confer the right to veto. The man does not undergo the health risks. The man does not suffer the limitations on activity (including loss of pay, loss of promotion, and possibly job loss) that go with being pregnant. The man does not suffer the pain and/or undergo the serious surgical procedure required to deliver the baby and the man does not experience the permanent changes to the body caused by bringing a child to term. It is not fair, but there is no equality of experience that can give an equal say.

 

If a woman who values her relationship with the father will work her decision out with him. True, it's not fair, just the way it isn't fair that pregnancy and delivery can't be shared. But "sharing" pregnancy and birth between the sexes wasn't an adaptation that had any survival values for mammals as we evolved, so "fair" is out the window. 

 

Also, for instances like rape or abusive relationships, what would it take for a man to be disqualified from having a vote? Would it require an accusation of rape/abuse from the woman or that the man is convicted of rape/abuse?

 

If it required conviction, how could an abortion possibly be carried out during the early, safe weeks? It would be unusual for a case to come to trial in less than a year in many places.

 

It needs to be woman's private decision.

 

You have completely mis-stated what I said.  I never said the father should be able to veto the mother; nor did I say anything about giving anyone control over anyone else's body.  You completely fabricated an argument against an argument I never made.

 

That said, my wife's body does not belong to me, nor do I want control over it.  My son, however, is mine.  He is my DNA, my blood, my family line, just as much as he is his mother's.  Yes, his mother went through the pangs of pregnancy and I didn't have it quite as bad.  That fact, however, does not make my son any more hers than mine.

 

I simply want more equality for the men out there who would be good fathers for their kids.

 

 

I acknowledged that you didn't intend to mean it that way, but essentially it was coming off that way and that there was no real way to be truly "fair" in this situation without giving rights over a woman's body. If humans had the reproductive abilities of seahorses, then yes it could be fair but of course that's not a reality.

 

No one is arguing about your son being yours. I see your point there. And I never said a born child is more the mother's - in fact I have always said that once out of the womb, both parents have 50/50 rights to the child. I have spoken out against mothers who give a child away for adoption against the father's will or who try to keep a father who has done nothing wrong away unlawfully, and I do strongly believe in father's rights. However, this discussion is not about born children, its about fetuses. And while in utero, the woman has the say because her body is the one at risk. There is little basis for equality in this regard. 

 

I would argue that the body of the fetus is also at risk.

 

 

Well duh. That's kind of the point of abortion.

[SilentLoner]

I would further point out that whether the body is in utero or in vivo does not alter the fact that it still carries my DNA, my blood, and my family line, just as it does the mother's.

 

You already said that. But you haven't yet explained why that matters or why it is an argument against abortion. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

 

 

When does the body of a fetus begin to belong to said fetus? 

Once its born. 

 

 

I don't think our current system adequately addresses this question.  We speak in terms of trimesters and such, but at what point should the rights of the fetus be recognized?  I understand a woman's staunch position with regard to her own body, but the fetus is eventually going to grow into a baby, be born, and leave the woman's body.  It has a body of its own even if it is still inside the womb.  Where to the rights of the mother's body end and the rights of the fetus's body begin? 

 

 

 

When its born. You do not have rights until you are born.

 

 

 

   But it affects the child in a much more terminal way than anyone else.

 

 

If you're going to stubbornly refer to a embryo as a "child" then I can already see how futile this debate is.

 

I hardly think referring to the embryo as a "child" one time constitutes stubbornness.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

I would further point out that whether the body is in utero or in vivo does not alter the fact that it still carries my DNA, my blood, and my family line, just as it does the mother's.

 

You already said that. But you haven't yet explained why that matters or why it is an argument against abortion. 

 

It's not an argument against abortion.  I am merely pointing out that a lot of good men out there do not get the chance to raise children that are as much theirs as the mother's.

[SilentLoner]

 

I think a good starting point is when the foetus has a reasonable chance of surviving the extra-uterine environment. Once the foetus is capable of surviving outside of mom, we can begin discussing. Remember, when you look at your son, you are injecting context and experience that simply does not exist in a situation where a gravid person is considering abortion. Debating a cutoff for reasonable chance of survival is also another debate.

That is a very good point, but it immediately raises the question: should anyone else have the right to make decisions for the body simply because it is not yet viable?  I suppose the real sticking point for me is that we say, "Men shouldn't have the right to decide what a woman does with her own body; but women should have the right to decide what happens to the body of a fetus on the grounds that the fetus's body happens to be inside her own."  Maybe it's a double standard and maybe it's not, I don't know.

 

Women are sentient beings with rights and the actual ability to make decisions. Fetuses cannot have an opinion one way or another. 

[SilentLoner]

 

 

I would further point out that whether the body is in utero or in vivo does not alter the fact that it still carries my DNA, my blood, and my family line, just as it does the mother's.

 

You already said that. But you haven't yet explained why that matters or why it is an argument against abortion. 

 

It's not an argument against abortion.  I am merely pointing out that a lot of good men out there do not get the chance to raise children that are as much theirs as the mother's.

 

 

I think this is a bigger issue with adoptions and biased custody arrangements with existing children, don't you? Adoption agencies do often screw over father's rights. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

I think a good starting point is when the foetus has a reasonable chance of surviving the extra-uterine environment. Once the foetus is capable of surviving outside of mom, we can begin discussing. Remember, when you look at your son, you are injecting context and experience that simply does not exist in a situation where a gravid person is considering abortion. Debating a cutoff for reasonable chance of survival is also another debate.

That is a very good point, but it immediately raises the question: should anyone else have the right to make decisions for the body simply because it is not yet viable?  I suppose the real sticking point for me is that we say, "Men shouldn't have the right to decide what a woman does with her own body; but women should have the right to decide what happens to the body of a fetus on the grounds that the fetus's body happens to be inside her own."  Maybe it's a double standard and maybe it's not, I don't know.

 

Women are sentient beings with rights and the actual ability to make decisions. Fetuses cannot have an opinion one way or another. 

 

And we usually grant medical proxies when individuals are incapable of making decisions for themselves.  Perhaps automatically assigning this role to the mother is something that should be re-examined.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

 

I would further point out that whether the body is in utero or in vivo does not alter the fact that it still carries my DNA, my blood, and my family line, just as it does the mother's.

 

You already said that. But you haven't yet explained why that matters or why it is an argument against abortion. 

 

It's not an argument against abortion.  I am merely pointing out that a lot of good men out there do not get the chance to raise children that are as much theirs as the mother's.

 

 

I think this is a bigger issue with adoptions and biased custody arrangements with existing children, don't you? Adoption agencies do often screw over father's rights. 

 

At last we agree on something.  I was worried for a moment there.  Yes, father's rights get trampled on left, right and center.

[RogueScholar]

It sucks man, but what option do we have as a society? Do we put a gun to a woman's head and coerce her to carry a foetus? Is that really what we should do? Is this the option we want to take? It sucks and it's probably terrible for any guy who has to deal with this situation. However, we (guys) don't have baby making equipment. That's just the way the world is. Women have to physically as well as emotionally deal with that process. As bad as it may appear, the woman has ultimate responsibility and control of this process. It's her body, not ours regardless of the genetic material within her.

 

Perhaps try to imagine you were a women placed in a situation where you were being forced to make your body do something you did not want? I cannot imagine because the experience would be exceptionally painful.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

It sucks man, but what option do we have as a society? Do we put a gun to a woman's head and coerce her to carry a foetus? Is that really what we should do? Is this the option we want to take? It sucks and it's probably terrible for any guy who has to deal with this situation. However, we (guys) don't have baby making equipment. That's just the way the world is. Women have to physically as well as emotionally deal with that process. As bad as it may appear, the woman has ultimate responsibility and control of this process. It's her body, not ours regardless of the genetic material within her.

 

Perhaps try to imagine you were a women placed in a situation where you were being forced to make your body do something you did not want? I cannot imagine because the experience would be exceptionally painful.

I definitely agree with you, Rogue.  Women take the responsibility and deal with motherhood to boot.  My hat is off to all of them for it.  And, no, I don't think we should take drastic measures and force anyone.  Society is what it is and really it's the best we've got so far.  If we had some sort of gestation chamber, a la Brave New World, the discussion would be drastically different. 

 

I guess I still just don't like the idea that my fetus can be aborted without my consent; but I also don't really see any way around it.

[SilentLoner]

 

 

 

I think a good starting point is when the foetus has a reasonable chance of surviving the extra-uterine environment. Once the foetus is capable of surviving outside of mom, we can begin discussing. Remember, when you look at your son, you are injecting context and experience that simply does not exist in a situation where a gravid person is considering abortion. Debating a cutoff for reasonable chance of survival is also another debate.

That is a very good point, but it immediately raises the question: should anyone else have the right to make decisions for the body simply because it is not yet viable?  I suppose the real sticking point for me is that we say, "Men shouldn't have the right to decide what a woman does with her own body; but women should have the right to decide what happens to the body of a fetus on the grounds that the fetus's body happens to be inside her own."  Maybe it's a double standard and maybe it's not, I don't know.

 

Women are sentient beings with rights and the actual ability to make decisions. Fetuses cannot have an opinion one way or another. 

 

And we usually grant medical proxies when individuals are incapable of making decisions for themselves.  Perhaps automatically assigning this role to the mother is something that should be re-examined.

 

So who should be given control of the mother's body? See what you keep doing? 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

 

 

I think a good starting point is when the foetus has a reasonable chance of surviving the extra-uterine environment. Once the foetus is capable of surviving outside of mom, we can begin discussing. Remember, when you look at your son, you are injecting context and experience that simply does not exist in a situation where a gravid person is considering abortion. Debating a cutoff for reasonable chance of survival is also another debate.

That is a very good point, but it immediately raises the question: should anyone else have the right to make decisions for the body simply because it is not yet viable?  I suppose the real sticking point for me is that we say, "Men shouldn't have the right to decide what a woman does with her own body; but women should have the right to decide what happens to the body of a fetus on the grounds that the fetus's body happens to be inside her own."  Maybe it's a double standard and maybe it's not, I don't know.

 

Women are sentient beings with rights and the actual ability to make decisions. Fetuses cannot have an opinion one way or another. 

 

And we usually grant medical proxies when individuals are incapable of making decisions for themselves.  Perhaps automatically assigning this role to the mother is something that should be re-examined.

 

So who should be given control of the mother's body? See what you keep doing? 

 

I understand your staunch position concerning the mother's body.  I'm not saying I have any answers.  I'm simply saying there are two bodies concerned but, as you pointed out earlier, only one of those bodies has any rights.  I disagree with this position and think it should be reconsidered.

[WarriorPoet]

 

 

 

 

 

I think a good starting point is when the foetus has a reasonable chance of surviving the extra-uterine environment. Once the foetus is capable of surviving outside of mom, we can begin discussing. Remember, when you look at your son, you are injecting context and experience that simply does not exist in a situation where a gravid person is considering abortion. Debating a cutoff for reasonable chance of survival is also another debate.

That is a very good point, but it immediately raises the question: should anyone else have the right to make decisions for the body simply because it is not yet viable?  I suppose the real sticking point for me is that we say, "Men shouldn't have the right to decide what a woman does with her own body; but women should have the right to decide what happens to the body of a fetus on the grounds that the fetus's body happens to be inside her own."  Maybe it's a double standard and maybe it's not, I don't know.

 

Women are sentient beings with rights and the actual ability to make decisions. Fetuses cannot have an opinion one way or another. 

 

And we usually grant medical proxies when individuals are incapable of making decisions for themselves.  Perhaps automatically assigning this role to the mother is something that should be re-examined.

 

So who should be given control of the mother's body? See what you keep doing? 

 

I understand your staunch position concerning the mother's body.  I'm not saying I have any answers.  I'm simply saying there are two bodies concerned but, as you pointed out earlier, only one of those bodies has any rights.  I disagree with this position and think it should be reconsidered.

 

I don't see how it can be reconsidered.  As soon rights are given to anybody besides the mother, she loses rights.  I feel that the only logical way to look at a fetus (especially one that is not yet viable) is as a potential human.  As such, it is not and can not be concerned with any medical risks associated with pregnancy/giving birth.  This may seem harsh, but I think we need to favor the rights of the living against those that may some day have a life.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think a good starting point is when the foetus has a reasonable chance of surviving the extra-uterine environment. Once the foetus is capable of surviving outside of mom, we can begin discussing. Remember, when you look at your son, you are injecting context and experience that simply does not exist in a situation where a gravid person is considering abortion. Debating a cutoff for reasonable chance of survival is also another debate.

That is a very good point, but it immediately raises the question: should anyone else have the right to make decisions for the body simply because it is not yet viable?  I suppose the real sticking point for me is that we say, "Men shouldn't have the right to decide what a woman does with her own body; but women should have the right to decide what happens to the body of a fetus on the grounds that the fetus's body happens to be inside her own."  Maybe it's a double standard and maybe it's not, I don't know.

 

Women are sentient beings with rights and the actual ability to make decisions. Fetuses cannot have an opinion one way or another. 

 

And we usually grant medical proxies when individuals are incapable of making decisions for themselves.  Perhaps automatically assigning this role to the mother is something that should be re-examined.

 

So who should be given control of the mother's body? See what you keep doing? 

 

I understand your staunch position concerning the mother's body.  I'm not saying I have any answers.  I'm simply saying there are two bodies concerned but, as you pointed out earlier, only one of those bodies has any rights.  I disagree with this position and think it should be reconsidered.

 

I don't see how it can be reconsidered.  As soon rights are given to anybody besides the mother, she loses rights.  I feel that the only logical way to look at a fetus (especially one that is not yet viable) is as a potential human.  As such, it is not and can not be concerned with any medical risks associated with pregnancy/giving birth.  This may seem harsh, but I think we need to favor the rights of the living against those that may some day have a life.

 

I concede.

[MathGeek]

Nope. If Christians can say miscarriage is part of a natural process, then so are abortions. I personally detest the practice but Christianity offers false hope by saying miscarriage is a natural process. That kind of cognitive dissonance is reprehensible to say the least.

[Minette]

I'll answer this question with a little story, if I may. 

 

When I was a Christian, my entire family told me that things like abortion and gay marriage were sinful and wrong and that people shouldn't be allowed to do them. I've always been a thinker so when I was 15, I sat down and really thought about this and my position on these hot-button topics. After giving each side a lot of consideration and thinking critically about all the information, I decided that I really don't care. People should do what makes them happy and make their own decisions, even if that means doing something that I may not like. I realized that when I get to heaven (remember this was when I was a believer) I will be judged on MY life, not someone else's life. I'm not going to one day be standing before the pearly gates and have the big man himself sitting on his throne stroke his beard in thought and say, "Well Minette, you lived a good Christian life and did everything I asked of you, but Mary Sue from Kalamazoo had an abortion and John Doe married Joe Shmoe from Kokomo so you're going to hell." I realized how pointless it was trying to stick my fingers in someone else's life because who someone decides to marry or what a stranger decides to do with her unborn child has zero effect on my life. 

 

After my deconversion, my stance on this hasn't changed. I still don't care. If I'm one day faced with an unwanted pregnancy, I'll sit down and think through my options and decide what's best for everyone because that's what I do; I think. I don't know what I would do in that position and I think speculation regarding what I would do is pretty pointless because no one really knows how they will react in high stress situations, but I do know that I'll be the one choosing what to do whether I choose to parent, adopt out, or abort. I wouldn't want anyone to take away my options so I wouldn't do that to anyone else.