Should An Atheist Be Pro Life?

[SquareOne]

Vigile I have responded to you repeatedly on this thread.  I am sorry if there are any things that you do not think I have considered.

 

If you would like to re-raise a view point that you posed earlier that I did not consider, or shut you down on, then please bring it back up and I will address it.

 

I cannot be be more open than that.

[Vigile]

It's my opinion that you deflected from this point: http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/55101-should-an-atheist-be-pro-life/page-11#entry836974

 

This is your second overt deflection IMO.  I'm now not interested in taking this further.  It's like a joke you have to explain at this point.  Only you know really if you gave it the old college try.  It doesn't look like it to me.

[SquareOne]

Can you honestly argue that human beings EXPERIENCE suffering when a fetus is aborted (outside of the mother's personal struggle)? And no, yours and others personal sensibilities do not count as valid suffering.  Can you honestly argue that human beings do not experience suffering when a person is executed? 

 

I believe that an adult who is executed suffers more than a foetus who is aborted.

 

I believe that it is more likely that more human beings will suffer when an adult is executed than when a foetus is aborted.

 

Nevertheless- Relatives of the mother of the aborted foetus, foetus, the father, and relatives of the father of the foetus, may be emotionally aggrieved.  Though, probably more from sympathy with the mother than anything else.  Though, in all, the suffering will probably be less than if an adult was executed.

 

Do you have any problem with that point of view?

[Akheia]

I see I didn't miss a whole hell of a lot. I think you called it, Vigile. High abortion rates are indicative of a deeply dysfunctional society. They need to be considered not in isolation but rather as part of a much greater framework of women's rights and personal liberties. "Pro-life" leaders admit it flat-out: the problem is women having sex and being all uppity, all because they no longer face the "consequences" of their sluttery. It's not about babies; it never was, though I do think that most forced-birth folks think otherwise. Follow the money and the legislation suggestions, and you quickly discover what "pro-life" is really a dog-whistle codeword for.

 

I'm posting here because I saw an article today about how women in abusive relationships often report that their abusers monkey with their birth control, or otherwise lie about their own usage of birth control, to forcibly impregnate them. The thought is that once she gets pregnant, their victim is stuck with them forever. Such coercive impregnation gets reported in an astonishing percentage of abusive relationships, so women's health clinics are starting to ask their clients about it so they can get them the tools they need to protect themselves against such abuse. My own fundie (now ex-)husband lied about getting a vasectomy to trick me into stopping taking birth control, which didn't work as he'd forgotten that I was well aware that he was a pathological liar. I told him I wasn't going to stop taking BC till I saw the doc's report that he was now sterile, and he mysteriously never got that test done after his "procedure." But how many women would trust a man who claimed this? I thought my experience was an isolated instance, but now I'm discovering that such tactics are a standard tool in an abuser's repertoire. Sickening to think that "pro-lifers" would tell such a woman that she's fucked in such a situation.

 

Ravenstar, thank you for more of your usual awesome, nuanced, well-considered posts, and much love. And Vigile, I <3 you man. Sq1 might not be understanding where you're heading, but I do, and I've gotten a lot out of your posts as well. I thank you and the others who've offered some really intriguing new concepts and ideas about reproductive rights. And thank you to all of those who have offered me and the other women who have personal knowledge of this matter one way or the other your compassion and understanding.

[SquareOne]

[edit] 

[Guest MadameX]

Sad to say but rape and forced pregnancy (and sexual slavery) have been used to control women for a long time. Still happening. (Rwanda, Bosnia )

[Outlaw393]

Being a nontheist myself, I am adamantly pro-choice.

 

I don't believe a fetus is viable life, and can and should be terminated if not wanted, created by rape or incest, or is causing problems or a burden on the mother's health.

 

The fetus is a form of a parasite. All of us were parasites at one time, depending on the host to keep us alive for 9 months.

 

Of course I have my cut-off to when elective abortion stops, and that's at the beginning of the third trimester. By then the fetus is large enough and developed enough to be human. And can arguably be viable life. Unless it's a direct threat to the mother's health, I personally recommend the mother try to carry it to term by that point. But the first 6 months? Fair game.

 

I see a religious theme so much behind anti-choicers (I don't call them "pro-lifers") which is why I wouldn't understand an anti-choice atheist. It wouldn't make any sense to me why an atheist would care whether or not a woman got an abortion. Surely he/she doesn't believe in any god punishing the woman or caring about the abortion and the fetus doesn't have a soul, so...what's the ramifications?

 

Personally, I think men shouldn't even have a voice in this, because they can't carry children. Let them get pregnant for nine months and THEN they can have a say. Until then...no.

 

But that's a whole different argument for a whole different thread. >

[SquareOne]

If you don't understand why an atheist would be pro life, Outlaw - perhaps read through this thread and read the things that I have said.  Then come back, and if you have any direct objections to things that I have said, I'd be glad to engage you in discussion.

[Yrth]

As to when I think abortion rights should be withdrawn, I believe that my consent is required for any use of my personal body, and that I can withdraw that consent at any time. But again, it's mental masturbation since most abortions happen well before that.

 

Do you have some kind of problem with masturbation thinking? Sometimes you just need to wrestle with an issue until you come to some kind of reasonable answer.

 

As you know, we've discussed this issue before, but the discussion became way too heated. I'm dipping a toe in here because this issue still interests me -- in that way it's like the siren song of ex-c. Reflecting on it now, I find that I'm in a similar or same spot as I was then -- interested in ideas about abortion and consent. I have some questions, maybe you would be willing to answer them.

 

The point at which she withdraws her consent is clear enough, but when do you suppose a woman gives her consent?

 

I've been thinking about this a bit and I 'reckon there are two distinct things she gives consent to, the possibility of becoming pregnant and giving birth. She consents to the possibility of becoming pregnant when she has sex because she knows that birth control isn't 100% effective. (I see this as similar to consenting to the possibility of getting into a car accident. You do not consent to a collision by driving, but you acknowledge that it could happen -- also, that there are things you can do to avoid it but that it's ultimately not in a driver's control. And each car wreck has relative levels of fault.) If she does become pregnant, there's a point where she could consent to giving birth, either intentionally or by default. Put another way, this would mean that an abortion is always the withdrawal of pseudo-consent to being pregnant and sometimes the withdrawal of consent to giving birth.

 

So this consent framework has me wondering about other points I read about this year. I think the biggest thing I'm stuck on at the moment is  that there is a massive difference between giving consent and withdrawing consent. Your answer in the quote seems to recognize that this difference exists but also states that it does not matter, even if another person's life were on the line. In reading about this, it does not make sense to me that someone could consent to doing something -- say, a blood transfusion -- and then simply be permitted to withdraw that consent at any time. There's no remedy for the person who relied on the donor's word, they will simply die as a victim to someone else's choice. To me, the donor in this situation seems very much in the wrong. If they consented to a blood transfusion, then they shouldn't be able to withdraw their consent and thereby kill someone else who relied on their word. What do you think. And, for our records here, I haven't personally applied this logic to abortion yet, I'm just curious.

[Guest MadameX]

Lol

 

As if ...

 

Yrth I can only imagine what kind of person you are

[SquareOne]

MadameX,

 

Perhaps you would care to elaborate on just what kind of person you think Yrth might be?  We're all freethinkers here, let's be open and frank with each other.

 

Putting aside his character, if what Yrth said is wrong in your view, perhaps you could explain why, so that he may have the opportunity to respond.

 

I would very much like this thread to remain a place for honest discussion.  Fierce debate is welcome. But let us all put our cards on the table.

[nobodyyouknow]

The fact is, even if we assume that it is a human life that we're dealing with we still have someone who this fetus depends on to survive. This argument illustrates the issue well. If it can't survive on its own, and the 'life-giver' doesn't want it attached to them anymore, what then?

 

 

The baby, like the fetus, would also die unless there was some kind of "life giver" to help keep the baby alive. (feed, nurture etc)

[SquareOne]

I would like to immediately and unequivocally disassociate myself from nobodyyouknow, our Authentic Christian Believer.

 

We do not share the same views, and I would appreciate it if everyone could bear that in mind.

Appreciated, thanks.

 

 

Hi, nobodyyouknow, welcome to the thread.

 

How interesting to have an actual Christian in the thread.  I have been accused of being one - I know - shocking, shocking.

 

 

If a mother gives birth to a baby in a toilet and leaves it there to die is that her right?  The baby, like the fetus, would also die unless there was some kind of "life giver" to help keep the baby alive. (feed, nurture etc)

 

I think Ravenstar would argue, based on what she said before, that there is a difference between being physically joined to a foetus in pregnancy, and being not physically joined after birth.  That personhood only really attracts after that separation has taken place.  Indeed, that is what British law says, as far as I am aware.  Do you disagree?

 

As for myself, I have sympathy with your point - though the coarseness of the image of leaving a baby in a toilet is unnecessarily emotive.  Perhaps we could simply speak of abandonment, which is emotive enough on its own, and when it actually happens it is a horrible tragedy.

 

Imagery aside, I have sympathy with the tenor of your argument, because I believe there are parallels between a foetus and a neonate baby.  Both are dependent in some way on their mother, and neither have any particular conscious awareness of the world.

 

However, I do also sympathise with Ravenstar's argument that there is a physical cut-off point when the baby stops being biologically connected to the mother.

[Kurari]

 

As to when I think abortion rights should be withdrawn, I believe that my consent is required for any use of my personal body, and that I can withdraw that consent at any time. But again, it's mental masturbation since most abortions happen well before that.

 

Do you have some kind of problem with masturbation thinking? Sometimes you just need to wrestle with an issue until you come to some kind of reasonable answer.

 

As you know, we've discussed this issue before, but the discussion became way too heated. I'm dipping a toe in here because this issue still interests me -- in that way it's like the siren song of ex-c. Reflecting on it now, I find that I'm in a similar or same spot as I was then -- interested in ideas about abortion and consent. I have some questions, maybe you would be willing to answer them.

 

The point at which she withdraws her consent is clear enough, but when do you suppose a woman gives her consent?

 

I've been thinking about this a bit and I 'reckon there are two distinct things she gives consent to, the possibility of becoming pregnant and giving birth. She consents to the possibility of becoming pregnant when she has sex because she knows that birth control isn't 100% effective. (I see this as similar to consenting to the possibility of getting into a car accident. You do not consent to a collision by driving, but you acknowledge that it could happen -- also, that there are things you can do to avoid it but that it's ultimately not in a driver's control. And each car wreck has relative levels of fault.) If she does become pregnant, there's a point where she could consent to giving birth, either intentionally or by default. Put another way, this would mean that an abortion is always the withdrawal of pseudo-consent to being pregnant and sometimes the withdrawal of consent to giving birth.

 

So this consent framework has me wondering about other points I read about this year. I think the biggest thing I'm stuck on at the moment is  that there is a massive difference between giving consent and withdrawing consent. Your answer in the quote seems to recognize that this difference exists but also states that it does not matter, even if another person's life were on the line. In reading about this, it does not make sense to me that someone could consent to doing something -- say, a blood transfusion -- and then simply be permitted to withdraw that consent at any time. There's no remedy for the person who relied on the donor's word, they will simply die as a victim to someone else's choice. To me, the donor in this situation seems very much in the wrong. If they consented to a blood transfusion, then they shouldn't be able to withdraw their consent and thereby kill someone else who relied on their word. What do you think. And, for our records here, I haven't personally applied this logic to abortion yet, I'm just curious.

 

Mind if I take a crack at this? 

 

Consent to sex is only a consent to sex. A consent to pregnancy is something different. 

 

Consent to sex is consent to one person. Consenting to pregnancy is consent to another. 

 

I give consent to my partner to have sex with me. 

 

I do not give consent to a fetus to use my body. 

 

I've never really understood or agreed with the idea that "Consent to A act automatically means consent to B act because B stems from A." 

 

 

 

 it does not make sense to me that someone could consent to doing something -- say, a blood transfusion -- and then simply be permitted to withdraw that consent at any time.

 

Even if another person's life is on the line, I do not believe that gives them a right to override your consent. If you agree then back out, that's your right. If they die, they die. 

 

It doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to care about each other, help each other, work to ease suffering, and be honorable about our word. It doesn't even mean we shouldn't feel bad about it or give us a right to be callus. But maybe the donor backing out of the blood transfusion has a really good reason to do so. Maybe they discover after they have consented they have a contagious blood-borne illness that would make death still inevitable and even more painful for the recipient of the blood.    

 

But that's my 2 cents. *throws a couple pennies in the jar* 

[Guest MadameX]

Sq 1 you are one to talk

 

So in people who are about to have sex are going to talk about a contract??

 

Lets be real. As I wrote earlier in this thread there is the way things oughta be and then ther's the ways things are. Come back down to earth, guys.

[SquareOne]

MadameX,

 

Perhaps you would care to elaborate on just what kind of person you think I might be?  We're all freethinkers here, let's be open and frank with each other.

 

Putting aside my character, if what I have said is wrong in your view, perhaps you could explain why, so that I may have the opportunity to respond.

 

I would very much like this thread to remain a place for honest discussion.  Fierce debate is welcome. But let us all put our cards on the table.

[nobodyyouknow]

I would like to immediately and unequivocally disassociate myself from nobodyyouknow, our Authentic Christian Believer.

 

We do not share the same views, and I would appreciate it if everyone could bear that in mind.

 

Appreciated, thanks.

 

 

Hi, nobodyyouknow, welcome to the thread.

 

How interesting to have an actual Christian in the thread.  I have been accused of being one - I know - shocking, shocking.

 

 

If a mother gives birth to a baby in a toilet and leaves it there to die is that her right?  The baby, like the fetus, would also die unless there was some kind of "life giver" to help keep the baby alive. (feed, nurture etc)

 

I think Ravenstar would argue, based on what she said before, that there is a difference between being physically joined to a foetus in pregnancy, and being not physically joined after birth.  That personhood only really attracts after that separation has taken place.  Indeed, that is what British law says, as far as I am aware.  Do you disagree?

 

As for myself, I have sympathy with your point - though the coarseness of the image of leaving a baby in a toilet is unnecessarily emotive.  Perhaps we could simply speak of abandonment, which is emotive enough on its own, and when it actually happens it is a horrible tragedy.

 

Imagery aside, I have sympathy with the tenor of your argument, because I believe there are parallels between a foetus and a neonate baby.  Both are dependent in some way on their mother, and neither have any particular conscious awareness of the world.

 

However, I do also sympathise with Ravenstar's argument that there is a physical cut-off point when the baby stops being biologically connected to the mother.

 

Yes there is a difference between being physically joined and not being physically joined. A quick snip of the scissors.

[Kurari]

Sq 1 you are one to talk

 

So in people who are about to have sex are going to talk about a contract??

 

Lets be real. As I wrote earlier in this thread there is the way things oughta be and then ther's the ways things are. Come back down to earth, guys.

 

If I say before I have sex, "I consent to having sex with you, but I do not consent to pregnancy. Any and all gametes which should take up residence in my person as a result of aforementioned sexual act shall be immediately and forthwith aborted at my discretion (or kept, adopted out). Trespass at your own risk." 

 

Does that still mean I'm still giving consent/withdrawing consent? 

 

I'm actually not trying to be snarky. I'm just exploring this consent idea and what constitutes it. 

[Yrth]

 

 

As you know, we've discussed this issue before, but the discussion became way too heated. I'm dipping a toe in here because this issue still interests me -- in that way it's like the siren song of ex-c. Reflecting on it now, I find that I'm in a similar or same spot as I was then -- interested in ideas about abortion and consent. I have some questions, maybe you would be willing to answer them.

 

The point at which she withdraws her consent is clear enough, but when do you suppose a woman gives her consent?

 

I've been thinking about this a bit and I 'reckon there are two distinct things she gives consent to, the possibility of becoming pregnant and giving birth. She consents to the possibility of becoming pregnant when she has sex because she knows that birth control isn't 100% effective. (I see this as similar to consenting to the possibility of getting into a car accident. You do not consent to a collision by driving, but you acknowledge that it could happen -- also, that there are things you can do to avoid it but that it's ultimately not in a driver's control. And each car wreck has relative levels of fault.) If she does become pregnant, there's a point where she could consent to giving birth, either intentionally or by default. Put another way, this would mean that an abortion is always the withdrawal of pseudo-consent to being pregnant and sometimes the withdrawal of consent to giving birth.

 

So this consent framework has me wondering about other points I read about this year. I think the biggest thing I'm stuck on at the moment is  that there is a massive difference between giving consent and withdrawing consent. Your answer in the quote seems to recognize that this difference exists but also states that it does not matter, even if another person's life were on the line. In reading about this, it does not make sense to me that someone could consent to doing something -- say, a blood transfusion -- and then simply be permitted to withdraw that consent at any time. There's no remedy for the person who relied on the donor's word, they will simply die as a victim to someone else's choice. To me, the donor in this situation seems very much in the wrong. If they consented to a blood transfusion, then they shouldn't be able to withdraw their consent and thereby kill someone else who relied on their word. What do you think. And, for our records here, I haven't personally applied this logic to abortion yet, I'm just curious.

 

Mind if I take a crack at this? 

 

Feel free

 

 

Consent to sex is only a consent to sex. A consent to pregnancy is something different. 

 

Consent to sex is consent to one person. Consenting to pregnancy is consent to another. 

 

I give consent to my partner to have sex with me. 

 

I do not give consent to a fetus to use my body. 

 

I've never really understood or agreed with the idea that "Consent to A act automatically means consent to B act because B stems from A." 

 

Someone concerned about liability would have you sign a form beforehand that states that you know the risks involved and are willing to accept any and all consequences -- a release form. Then if you sued them, they would wave the form in front of the judge and claim that you consented to the risk of whatever injury you sustained. The classic example of assuming risk is a baseball game. Fans who go to the game assume the risk that they might get hit in the face by a foul ball, and therefore the stadium and the players won't be responsible for their injuries.

 

I don't think that consenting to sex means that you also consent to becoming pregnant. The basic idea is that someone who has sex assumes the risk that they might become pregnant if their birth control fails. It's sort of a natural hazard of the activity.

 

 

 it does not make sense to me that someone could consent to doing something -- say, a blood transfusion -- and then simply be permitted to withdraw that consent at any time.

 

Even if another person's life is on the line, I do not believe that gives them a right to override your consent. If you agree then back out, that's your right. If they die, they die. 

 

It doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to care about each other, help each other, work to ease suffering, and be honorable about our word. It doesn't even mean we shouldn't feel bad about it or give us a right to be callus. But maybe the donor backing out of the blood transfusion has a really good reason to do so. Maybe they discover after they have consented they have a contagious blood-borne illness that would make death still inevitable and even more painful for the recipient of the blood.    

 

But that's my 2 cents. *throws a couple pennies in the jar* 

 

Can you explain why it would be OK for you to agree and then back out when someone's life is on the line? That's what I'm hung up on at the moment. First, you're breaking your word. Second, breaking your word means that someone who relied on you not to break your word is going to die. It almost like a pilot in a two-man plane who suddenly refuses to continue to fly. It just seems incredibly unjust to me.

[mymistake]

.

[mymistake]

 

Sq 1 you are one to talk

 

So in people who are about to have sex are going to talk about a contract??

 

Lets be real. As I wrote earlier in this thread there is the way things oughta be and then ther's the ways things are. Come back down to earth, guys.

 

If I say before I have sex, "I consent to having sex with you, but I do not consent to pregnancy. Any and all gametes which should take up residence in my person as a result of aforementioned sexual act shall be immediately and forthwith aborted at my discretion (or kept, adopted out). Trespass at your own risk." 

 

Does that still mean I'm still giving consent/withdrawing consent? 

 

I'm actually not trying to be snarky. I'm just exploring this consent idea and what constitutes it. 

 

Yes those are good questions.  And of top of that consent to have sex is usually given non-verbally with gestures, actions and expressions.

[Kurari]

 

 

 

As you know, we've discussed this issue before, but the discussion became way too heated. I'm dipping a toe in here because this issue still interests me -- in that way it's like the siren song of ex-c. Reflecting on it now, I find that I'm in a similar or same spot as I was then -- interested in ideas about abortion and consent. I have some questions, maybe you would be willing to answer them.

 

The point at which she withdraws her consent is clear enough, but when do you suppose a woman gives her consent?

 

I've been thinking about this a bit and I 'reckon there are two distinct things she gives consent to, the possibility of becoming pregnant and giving birth. She consents to the possibility of becoming pregnant when she has sex because she knows that birth control isn't 100% effective. (I see this as similar to consenting to the possibility of getting into a car accident. You do not consent to a collision by driving, but you acknowledge that it could happen -- also, that there are things you can do to avoid it but that it's ultimately not in a driver's control. And each car wreck has relative levels of fault.) If she does become pregnant, there's a point where she could consent to giving birth, either intentionally or by default. Put another way, this would mean that an abortion is always the withdrawal of pseudo-consent to being pregnant and sometimes the withdrawal of consent to giving birth.

 

So this consent framework has me wondering about other points I read about this year. I think the biggest thing I'm stuck on at the moment is  that there is a massive difference between giving consent and withdrawing consent. Your answer in the quote seems to recognize that this difference exists but also states that it does not matter, even if another person's life were on the line. In reading about this, it does not make sense to me that someone could consent to doing something -- say, a blood transfusion -- and then simply be permitted to withdraw that consent at any time. There's no remedy for the person who relied on the donor's word, they will simply die as a victim to someone else's choice. To me, the donor in this situation seems very much in the wrong. If they consented to a blood transfusion, then they shouldn't be able to withdraw their consent and thereby kill someone else who relied on their word. What do you think. And, for our records here, I haven't personally applied this logic to abortion yet, I'm just curious.

 

Mind if I take a crack at this? 

 

Feel free

 

>

Consent to sex is only a consent to sex. A consent to pregnancy is something different. 

 

Consent to sex is consent to one person. Consenting to pregnancy is consent to another. 

 

I give consent to my partner to have sex with me. 

 

I do not give consent to a fetus to use my body. 

 

I've never really understood or agreed with the idea that "Consent to A act automatically means consent to B act because B stems from A." 

 

Someone concerned about liability would have you sign a form beforehand that states that you know the risks involved and are willing to accept any and all consequences -- a release form. Then if you sued them, they would wave the form in front of the judge and claim that you consented to the risk of whatever injury you sustained. The classic example of assuming risk is a baseball game. Fans who go to the game assume the risk that they might get hit in the face by a foul ball, and therefore the stadium and the players won't be responsible for their injuries.

 

I don't think that consenting to sex means that you also consent to becoming pregnant. The basic idea is that someone who has sex assumes the risk that they might become pregnant if their birth control fails. It's sort of a natural hazard of the activity.

 

 

 it does not make sense to me that someone could consent to doing something -- say, a blood transfusion -- and then simply be permitted to withdraw that consent at any time.

 

Even if another person's life is on the line, I do not believe that gives them a right to override your consent. If you agree then back out, that's your right. If they die, they die. 

 

It doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to care about each other, help each other, work to ease suffering, and be honorable about our word. It doesn't even mean we shouldn't feel bad about it or give us a right to be callus. But maybe the donor backing out of the blood transfusion has a really good reason to do so. Maybe they discover after they have consented they have a contagious blood-borne illness that would make death still inevitable and even more painful for the recipient of the blood.    

 

But that's my 2 cents. *throws a couple pennies in the jar* 

 

Can you explain why it would be OK for you to agree and then back out when someone's life is on the line? That's what I'm hung up on at the moment. First, you're breaking your word. Second, breaking your word means that someone who relied on you not to break your word is going to die. It almost like a pilot in a two-man plane who suddenly refuses to continue to fly. It just seems incredibly unjust to me.

 

 

Ahhh, ok, I see what you are saying now. I think having to accept the risks to do anything is different from the idea of consent.

 

Well, I think like everything in life, it depends on the situation. 

 

If the pilot in your example just suddenly got fed up, threw a temper tantrum, and simply flat out refused to fly the plane even though he'd kill everyone because he didn't like his other pilot or something, then I think most people would say he's a complete dick and they would be right. 

 

But if say, he suddenly refuses to continue to fly because he is having a massive dizzy spell, and he CAN'T continue to fly, I think most people would say he was justified in backing out. 

 

General life lesson I've learned is that your word is not infallible. There are always good reasons that will make you break a promise. 

 

Being a decent human being just means you try not to. 

[Ro-bear]

 

As to when I think abortion rights should be withdrawn, I believe that my consent is required for any use of my personal body, and that I can withdraw that consent at any time. But again, it's mental masturbation since most abortions happen well before that.

 

Do you have some kind of problem with masturbation thinking? Sometimes you just need to wrestle with an issue until you come to some kind of reasonable answer.

 

As you know, we've discussed this issue before, but the discussion became way too heated. I'm dipping a toe in here because this issue still interests me -- in that way it's like the siren song of ex-c. Reflecting on it now, I find that I'm in a similar or same spot as I was then -- interested in ideas about abortion and consent. I have some questions, maybe you would be willing to answer them.

 

The point at which she withdraws her consent is clear enough, but when do you suppose a woman gives her consent?

 

I've been thinking about this a bit and I 'reckon there are two distinct things she gives consent to, the possibility of becoming pregnant and giving birth. She consents to the possibility of becoming pregnant when she has sex because she knows that birth control isn't 100% effective. (I see this as similar to consenting to the possibility of getting into a car accident. You do not consent to a collision by driving, but you acknowledge that it could happen -- also, that there are things you can do to avoid it but that it's ultimately not in a driver's control. And each car wreck has relative levels of fault.) If she does become pregnant, there's a point where she could consent to giving birth, either intentionally or by default. Put another way, this would mean that an abortion is always the withdrawal of pseudo-consent to being pregnant and sometimes the withdrawal of consent to giving birth.

 

So this consent framework has me wondering about other points I read about this year. I think the biggest thing I'm stuck on at the moment is  that there is a massive difference between giving consent and withdrawing consent. Your answer in the quote seems to recognize that this difference exists but also states that it does not matter, even if another person's life were on the line. In reading about this, it does not make sense to me that someone could consent to doing something -- say, a blood transfusion -- and then simply be permitted to withdraw that consent at any time. There's no remedy for the person who relied on the donor's word, they will simply die as a victim to someone else's choice. To me, the donor in this situation seems very much in the wrong. If they consented to a blood transfusion, then they shouldn't be able to withdraw their consent and thereby kill someone else who relied on their word. What do you think. And, for our records here, I haven't personally applied this logic to abortion yet, I'm just curious.

What the fuck?  Of course consent can be withdrawn at any time...why wouldn't that be so?  People get to change their minds.  And having sex is not consent to being pregnant; it is merely consent to the possibility of it.  It is not consent to carrying a fetus to term.  If I jump out of an airplane, I give consent to having a chance of death.  But I'm still going to pull the ripcord on my chute.

[Vigile]

 

 

So in people who are about to have sex are going to talk about a contract??

 

It's my understanding that things have gotten that bad in Sweden.  That people are now signing contracts of consent in order to avoid later being accused of date rape and such. 

 

One of these days people are going to start giving the Ceausescu treatment to lawyers. 

[SquareOne]

 

What the fuck?  Of course consent can be withdrawn at any time...why wouldn't that be so?  People get to change their minds.  And having sex is not consent to being pregnant; it is merely consent to the possibility of it.  It is not consent to carrying a fetus to term.  If I jump out of an airplane, I give consent to having a chance of death.  But I'm still going to pull the ripcord on my chute.

Oh,  Yrth, I think you just got analogied.  Bangarang Ro-bear.

 

I'm taking a back seat for a while, guys.  Unless anyone has any direct questions.

 

Oh, except

 

VIGILE

 

I replied to your post above.  I have set out my position.  Now, you said I was wrong for holding my position and should consider an alternative viewpoint.  Please can you explain why you think that I am wrong in this viewpoint:

 

Here is what I said:

 

 

I believe that an adult who is executed suffers more than a foetus who is aborted.

 

I believe that it is more likely that more human beings will suffer when an adult is executed than when a foetus is aborted.

 

Nevertheless- Relatives of the mother of the aborted foetus, foetus, the father, and relatives of the father of the foetus, may be emotionally aggrieved.  Though, probably more from sympathy with the mother than anything else.  Though, in all, the suffering will probably be less than if an adult was executed.

 

Do you have any problem with that point of view?