In the past I didn't have any strong opinions about whether abortion was right or wrong. I hadn't thought about it much.
I now believe one could make a strong argument that abortion is wrong. Why? Logic. Let me examine some arguments.
If a woman has an unwanted baby, and decides to keep it, it's very true that her life will be altered radically. Proponents of abortion may mention this. Hence, in this sense, an abortion could be a benefit to the mother.
But benefits don't always outweigh the costs.
But what are the costs? Well, the main cost is that the fetus dies, through no choice of it's own. And the choice then becomes this: you either complicate the life of a mother who may have only 60 years more to live, or you end the life of a human that has their entire life to live. Using only this logic, I don't see how abortion could ever be justified, unless you strongly value the life of the mother over that of the baby.
I find it interesting that people often speak about older people sacrificing for the young, perhaps since the young have longer to live (the idea of a parent jumping in front of a bullet heading for their child). But if that belief is commonplace, why don't I ever hear a parallel argument that one should sacrifice for the life of the fetus? You'd think that the latter would be an even stronger argument than the former, since a fetus will have more time to live than a child will.
Other proponents of abortion will tell you that a mother has a right to have an abortion since it's her own body. I rarely hear people discuss just how weak this argument is. It's quite weak.
The fetus is in the mother's body simply because that's where the birth process dictates that it be. If abortion is wrong, should a mother have the right to have an abortion simply because the wrongdoing would occur in her own body?
Well, if you believe crime is wrong, is it OK for someone to commit murder in their own car or home simply because they own that car or home? Of course it's not OK. Is it OK for someone to inject illegal drugs simply because they are injecting it into their own body? Of course not.
If unplanned pregnancies weren't sometimes avoidable, perhaps abortion would be justified. Unplanned pregnancies are not unavoidable. Yes, accidents do happen, and perhaps exceptions could be considered in those circumstances, but an adult is an adult. It shouldn't be difficult to prevent unplanned pregnancies with birth control. However, I agree that many people may have limitations that make it more difficult for them to use birth control.
And what about the all-important question: is the fetus a person? Well, I think the best answer is this: yes it is. It is a human. It is no longer a sperm or egg...it's a developing human being. Why should it matter whether the human being is in the womb or whether the human being has left the womb? After all, the only thing separating the fetus from being a newborn is time.
Time is the only thing separating the fetus from developing into an adult. That's it! There are no significant structural changes that need to occur to change the fetus into a baby. Nothing. Just time. The human being has already been created.
If you believe that humans shouldn't be killed, I really don't see how abortion could be logically justified, since time is the only barrier between a fetus and a baby.
I'm not suggesting that a woman that has an abortion is likely to be evil. That's hardly the case. Myself, I was undecided on this topic until recently. It's a complex topic in the following sense:
I think that a significant problem is one of perception. People don't perceive a fetus as a baby, a human, so they have less difficulty aborting it. What's out of sight is often out of mind.
Look at gamblers. It's easier to give away money in the form of poker chips, right? And why is that? Because it doesn't look like money. Do you think people would throw away as much money if the poker chips were actual bills? No, they wouldn't.
And when people have abortions, the idea of the fetus as a human being is often out of sight and hence out of mind. I understand why people have that perception, but perception isn't always accurate.
After all, time is the only thing separating a fetus from becoming an adult.
After I wrote this article, I found a remarkable photo of a 21 week old fetus being operated on while still in the womb! And guess what...the baby's tiny hand reached through and grabbed the doctor's hand and squeezed it! Now think about how many million of abortions of these babies have occurred! Frightening. And sickening.
Here's the photo.
hey NoSuchThingAsAnOpinion,
ReplyDeleteI do agree with you. I think even if it was an "accident" and the baby(fetus) is unwanted then in stead of aborting the baby they should think of other options like adoption. there are alot of people out there that would love to have a baby and are unable to. Then you have those that abort cause they simple do not want a child? Then if thats the case youi should not have layed down in the first place and thought of using protection. But that does not always work sometiems on amtter how much"protection" you use yuo can still end up pregnant. If you have done everything you can to prevent it and you get pregant then I believe you are trulymeant to have this child.
i AM AGAINEST ABORTATION MYSLEF BECAUSE I THINK THERE IS ALWAYS ANOTHER WAY.
thank you for psoting this and letting me have my opinion on it.
I've read the Chinese believe life starts at conception. So, people are actually nine months or so older than their birth date. There is also a stopping point for abortions, after 3 months, I think, before the fetus is considered living? Also, I personally think that this is a moral question for the individual and have often wondered why politicans need to be involved or the government for that matter. Have you noticed all the men that attend these pro-life or pro-choice rallies?
ReplyDeleteReader 19,
ReplyDeleteI haven't really examined the crowd at the rallies, but I would find it interesting if a large percentage of them are men.
I believe you're right about abortion clinics often using a cutoff date, but I believe there are some places (some states?) that allow late term abortion up to about 6 months. I know of someone that was born prematurely at about 6.5 months, and to think that some places would have allowed abortion of that person had it been done only weeks earlier, it can make you think about things differently.
In fact, just the fact that there is a cutoff date suggests that there ARE people who believe that a fetus is a person before the date it is born, b/c if they didn't feel that way, they would allow abortion anytime up to 9 months!
Oh the stupid. How it burns.
ReplyDeleteFor one thing, legal abortion laws were instated largely because of the large numbers of women dying in their attempt to abort pregnancies themselves. For a vast variety of reasons, there have always been (and likely will continue to be) many women who find themselves pregnant and find that state so abhorrent that they would rather risk dying than continue with their pregnancy. In these scenarios, we are not talking about a choice between a fetus with a possibly longer life expectancy than the mother, we are talking about saving one person by providing them the abortion they are determined to have administered by medical doctors capable of aborting the pregnancy safely. Women who die having unsafe abortions also cause the end of the fetus life - but we are talking two lost lives instead of one.
And yeah, lets talk about the value of those lives. The woman is an adult (or nearly one) who society has already invested greatly in - she likely has people who love her and depend on her. Most women who have abortions already have young children dependent upon them, which frequently factors into their decision to seek abortion; they want to be able to provide quality care to the children they have. None of this is true of a fetus, which is only a potential person. No one is dependent on that fetus for care, family members and loved ones are unlikely to be so devastated by it's loss as they would that of an adult.
On the contrary, the argument about bodily autonomy is not weak. The first reality fully demonstrates the importance of the fact that the fetus exists inside of a woman's body. If that woman is determined not to carry forward with the pregnancy, she is capable of taking dangerous measures to end it. Women who don't want to be pregnant are more likely to abuse drugs or alcohol during the pregnancy. You simply can't MAKE a woman want to be pregnant when she does not. And that has consequences.
Further, no one uses the same reasoning about any other medical conditions. You could save people today by donating a kidney. Sure, it poses risk to you, but doesn't the life that could be saved compel you by the same reasoning you employ regarding abortion? Legally, no - because you have the right to decide over your own body.
cont'd below
cont'd from above
ReplyDeleteAs far as unplanned pregnancies being avoidable, you were right to note that other factors come into play. Cases of men tampering with birth control to get women pregnant are one example of how this occurs. Domestic abuse scenarios are also highly associated with unwanted pregnancies, involving women who have had their agency reduced within a partnership. Further, contraceptives aren't cheap, with the exception of condoms which only have an 85% success rate in average use, and most aren't covered by health care if you are so lucky to have a coverage plan. And then there is rape.
Let's talk about rape. Lots of people like to state that there should be an exception for rape or incest victims. Forcing 13 year old kids raped by their stepdad to carry through with their pregnancy is repugnant to your average individual. Well, tell me how such an exception could be written into law, and you would have a fascinating point. Would only women who reported their rapes be allowed to have abortions? Rape is the most under reported crime in the U.S. according to the government. And then you might actually have a problem with fake rape accusations, putting women in that desperate circumstance. So maybe we only let women who have reported their rape and succeeded in having the man found guilty obtain abortions? Except that trial cases can take a very long time - longer than 9 months usually - and rape cases only result in convictions about 6% of the time. It's very difficult to prove despite the consequences. So darn, doesn't look like those sort of exceptions work, do they?
And if you think that conception is the point when a person with fully-fledged rights comes into existence, per your words it's "no longer an egg or sperm", you have the same problem with contraception. Birth control pills and IUDs work in more than one way, but evidence suggests part of how they work is by preventing implantation after contraception. So there goes that "unwanted pregnancies are unavoidable spiel" you had going. You have a contradiction.
Abortion is complicated, and "logic" employed without context is likely to lead someone to come to the very certain and self-righteous conclusion you have reached.
As someone who has read a few of your posts, I recommend you do more research and reading, delving into the history and complexity of topics, before trying to make profound judgments. You leave far too much unexamined.
I’m sorry that you find my logical writings to be “stupid”. Let me explain the faults with your reasoning.
ReplyDeleteYour first paragraph mentions that abortion laws were instated in part to prevent women from killing themselves when she attempts to abort the baby herself. You imply that abortion laws could be needed to prevent aborters from harming themselves. The only way this argument makes sense is if abortion itself is justified, and you provide a weak argument for that (more on this later).
The reason your argument only works if you can justify abortion is this: If abortion is unjustified, then you are saying that it is ok for someone to do something wrong in order to prevent harm to themselves while doing the wrong thing!! I.e. it is ok to wrongly abort in order to reduce the risk that the aborter will harm herself while committing the wrong act! That’s absurd, not worth discussing. That’s like saying it’s ok for a criminal to go ahead and do something wrong simply because it will benefit the criminal!
As for whether abortion is wrong or not, you center on my argument that abortion is likely to be wrong because it ends the life of the fetus who has more time to live than the mother will.
You appear to suggest that the value of the 20-30 years extra the fetus will live is surpassed by one factor in the mother’s life: quality of care for her other children. However, you don’t offer any evidence to support the dubious claim that the increased quality of life that would occur for, say, 2 other children, is more important than the totality of experiences that would occur within the 20-30 years of life for the fetus. The fetus would have many experiences within 20-30 years (the totality of life experiences itself!),while the decrease in quality of life of the 2 children due to the extra responsibility of the mother for one other child would likely not result in a decrease in experiences remotely similar to the decrease in experiences the fetus would lose within 20-30 years! I don’t think this is even debatable.
cont'd below
cont'd from above
ReplyDeleteBut let’s assume that your dubious claim is correct-that the decreased quality of life (experiences) of the other children is greater than the total 20-30 years’ worth of experience of the fetus. The argument is still weak! Because it ignores the 40-50 years that the fetus will be alive OTHER than the 20-30 year head start it has on the mother. How can you say that 40-50 years of total experiences (as a result of the fetus being alive in the first place) is surpassed by the (likely relatively much smaller) decrease in experience suffered by the children!
What I’m saying is this, more clearly: You mention the positive aspects of the mother’s life and write: “None of this is true of a fetus, which is only a potential person”. None of it is true of the fetus yet!
But it will be true of the fetus, because the fetus will, on average, have the same experiences as the mother. And in fact, it will have the 20-30 year head start, and may even have better experiences as a result of progressions in society over time!
Just because the mother currently has experiences that the fetus does not does not mean it’s somehow more ok to end the life of the fetus, because future experiences count just as much as present or past experiences. The only criteria as to whether an experience is valued is whether it will occur over time eventually, or whether it is occurring. In fact, your own argument backs me up: You suggest that the mother should be allowed an abortion to allow for the future experiences of her children to have a higher quality. Similarly, an abortion would take away the future experiences of the fetus!
Your argument about bodily autonomy has already been addressed by me: you can’t allowed someone to do something wrong simply because it benefits themselves; and also, you can’t allow someone to do something wrong simply because it involves manipulation of their own body; drug abuse is not allowed, even though it involves someone doing something with their own body. And doing something with your body by aborting is affecting not just your own body but someone else’s body, the fetus!
Your comparison with other medical conditions is a weak argument. It’s obvious why the community accepts manipulation of the body for donation purposes and doesn’t accept manipulation of the body for drug abuse purposes. Both are risky to the person, yet donation will likely save a life while drug abuse provides a high that can be harmful in many ways, harmful to the body and harmful to others (through impaired driving etc).
About unplanned pregnancies: I never said that one couldn’t consider allowing abortion in some circumstances. Yes, it may be difficult to prove that, for example, a man tampered with birth control. However, if you were to claim abortion
As one may expect, the hot button socio-political issue of abortion brings out some very passionate opinions on either side of the issue.
ReplyDeleteOn the one hand, we have NoSuch trying to apply a logical argument on something that is clearly an emotional issue, and unlikely to ever be affected by logic. An exercise in futility, and dubious rational in the first place.
On the other hand, we have the first "disagree" responder, Reader 27, citing her own misinterpreted statistics and misconceptions, failing to make her point, either.
How to comment, without a 40-page thesis on the social history behind abortion as a political subject, and an in-depth analysis of the social costs of pregnancy versus abortion?
Brief summary:
Reader 27, no need for name-calling. People will always disagree with you, because ending a human (or potential human) life is never something to be taken lightly.
You cite the facts of past "back alley" abortions dictating current abortion laws, but fail to address the reality of the social conditions that brought those women of the past to make such decisions. Truth is, it WAS tantamount to social suicide to have a child out of wedlock, and so many were driven to abort in the hopes that they would never suffer the ostracism they were perceptive enough to foresee. How many, however, would have done so if they knew that others would be as aware of their attempt to rid themselves of pregnancy as they were of the pregnancy themselves?
Fact is, modern medical advances have given women a great deal more options than they used to have, in terms of birth control. And yet, the amount of unwanted pregnancies has risen. So, of course, the amount of abortions has, because unfortunately, many irresponsible people choose to abort a life after acting recklessly, rather than taking the time and thought to act appropriately in the first place.
Those who identify themselves as "Pro-Choice" hopefully do so out of compassion for the few women who inadvertently find themselves in a position where they were not allowed to choose for themselves. Unfortunately, from the media portrayals most often seen, those same "compassionate" people refuse to ascribe any benign motives to those that disagree with them.
Truth is, 90% of abortions performed in the USA in modern times are a sort of "post-pregnancy birth control", rather than the act of an abused woman or someone who has been advised so because of birth defects. Perhaps if the act of abortion was treated less casually by those who promote it, those who disagree wouldn't be so passionately opposed to it.
Abstention being "out of favor" as an option in sex education, many communities have countered by greatly emphasizing the high risk of STD exposure in unprotected sex. Implicit in these "lessons" are the idea that pregnancy is yet another sexually transmitted disease, to be treated by medical means. Abortion = penicillin, anyone?
Reader 31 says, "And yet, the amount [sic] of unwanted pregnancies has risen."
ReplyDeleteThe unwanted pregnancy rate has fallen every year for the last three decades, and teen pregnancy has been on the decline since the '50s.
NoSuch, you're ignoring an important point of Reader 27's:
ReplyDelete"Further, no one uses the same reasoning about any other medical conditions. You could save people today by donating a kidney. Sure, it poses risk to you, but doesn't the life that could be saved compel you by the same reasoning you employ regarding abortion?"
I'd like to hear your thoughts on this. It's not enough to say (incorrectly, I think) that you've rebutted another one of her points--if someone shows that your argument implies something false, then you have to show either (a) it doesn't actually imply that, or (b) the thing it implies isn't actually false. Otherwise, your argument is flawed.
Reader 20,
ReplyDeleteI addressed Reader 27's comments about bodily manipulation here:
"Your comparison with other medical conditions is a weak argument. It’s obvious why the community accepts manipulation of the body for donation purposes and doesn’t accept manipulation of the body for drug abuse purposes. Both are risky to the person, yet donation will likely save a life while drug abuse provides a high that can be harmful in many ways, harmful to the body and harmful to others (through impaired driving etc). "
That's not addressing her point at all. She asked if your logic suggests that people should be forced to donate organs to those younger than themselves, just as you believe women should be forced to give birth.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, doesn't your argument imply that ANY action which results in fewer people living lives is immoral? Is birth control wrong, in that it deprives possible-humans of the opportunity to live rich lives? What about abstinence?
Also, I'm curious to hear what your last paragraph in your first comment was going to say, before it got cut off.
ReplyDeleteReader 20, you are incorrect. This is the context of what she asked:
ReplyDelete"On the contrary, the argument about bodily autonomy is not weak. The first reality fully demonstrates the importance of the fact that the fetus exists inside of a woman's body. If that woman is determined not to carry forward with the pregnancy, she is capable of taking dangerous measures to end it. Women who don't want to be pregnant are more likely to abuse drugs or alcohol during the pregnancy. You simply can't MAKE a woman want to be pregnant when she does not. And that has consequences.
Further, no one uses the same reasoning about any other medical conditions. You could save people today by donating a kidney. Sure, it poses risk to you, but doesn't the life that could be saved compel you by the same reasoning you employ regarding abortion? Legally, no - because you have the right to decide over your own body."
and I answered that here:
"Your comparison with other medical conditions is a weak argument. It’s obvious why the community accepts manipulation of the body for donation purposes and doesn’t accept manipulation of the body for drug abuse purposes. Both are risky to the person, yet donation will likely save a life while drug abuse provides a high that can be harmful in many ways, harmful to the body and harmful to others (through impaired driving etc). "
Also, I never claimed I believe women should be forced to give birth in all circumstances. I never even claimed I fully believe they should be forced to give birth in SOME circumstances. I merely said that the evidence seems to SUPPORT the idea that abortion is wrong.
And no, my logic doesn't imply that actions that result in fewer lives are immoral. There are several reasons I say this, including that there may be an ideal # of people born, depending on the context. Birth control by condom results in no lives being lost, and hence no dilemma.
My first comment was not cut off.
I'm sorry but I'm going to have to end this discussion here. You've made several claims that misrepresent what I've said, and it is counterproductive to go about correcting so many errors.
"My first comment was not cut off."
ReplyDeleteSorry, I meant your second comment. The one which ends, "However, if you were to claim abortion."
If you believe the evidence "seems to support the idea that abortion is wrong", then you believe that abortion is wrong.
ReplyDeleteNow, perhaps you don't believe that this implies abortion should be outlawed. If so, I apologize for assuming that was your belief. (Again, the paragraph in which you seem to be explaining your thoughts on these policies ends abruptly.) And in that case, I suppose the point is moot: if you don't actually want to force women to carry babies to term, then I don't really have a problem with your opinions. You're certainly entitled to them.
That said, how DOESN'T your logic apply to kidney donations? (This really is what Reader 27 was asking, and if you can't see that from her comment, then no amount of reading comprehension exercises will help you.) You say:
"You either complicate the life of a mother who may have only 60 years more to live, or you end the life of a human that has their entire life to live. Using this logic, I don't see how abortion could ever be justified, unless you strongly value the life of the mother over that of the baby."
Replace "mother" with "potential kidney donor", and "human" and "baby" with "person younger than the kidney donor who needs a kidney", and the same moral calculus holds.
I am no longer discussing with Reader 20.
ReplyDeleteFor reads that may be interested in a response, here's the argument she proposes is similar morally to the one I made. She's referring to kidney donation:
"You either complicate the life of a potential kidney donor who may have only 60 years more to live, or you end the life of a person younger than the kidney donor who needs a kidney. Using this logic, I don't see how abortion could ever be justified, unless you strongly value the life of the potential kidney donor over that of the a person younger than the kidney donor who needs a kidney."
There's a huge problem with this. It isn't an argument at all! To say someone's life is significantly complicated by donating a kidney is absurd! And to compare kidney donation to the life changes that would occur if a mother had a baby is unbelievably absurd!
It appears that my second posting on this thread was cut off. I will repost my general thoughts on Reader 27's unanswered comments briefly:
ReplyDeleteAbout unplanned pregnancies: I never said that one couldn’t consider allowing abortion in some circumstances. Yes, it may be difficult to prove that, for example, a man tampered with birth control. However, the % of pregnancies due to men tampering with birth control is very low. If abortion is wrong, should we allow it to occur in 95% of the cases just because abortion shouldn't occur in the 5% of cases where men caused it and the woman didn't want it? Of course not, the benefits don't come close to outweighing the costs.
The same argument goes for rape. The ideal situation is to be able to either abort or provide the baby for adoption in these cases. But as Reader 27 mentions, it may not be feasible to get a rape conviction in time. So again, if abortion is wrong, should we allow it in the 90% of legit cases simply because it may be useful in only 10% of cases? Of course not. It's a numbers game.
And like I said, there's always the idea of adoption.
This is what I wrote about birth control:
"It shouldn't be difficult to prevent unplanned pregnancies with birth control."
I never said that I found all types of birth control acceptable. I'm sorry you assumed I was referring to ALL types.
I don't think the argument that the fetus will develop into a human being, with an average life - that's debatable - is valid, because:
ReplyDelete1. I could in theory invent a brain implant that turned my cat into a "person" (intelligent, human-like; you name it), hence my cat is a potential "person". In theory I could order random matter into a normal human being, but that doesn't give the matter "rights" before I've done so. The fact that this is "automatic" - natural - rather than artificial isn't relevant.
2. Killing isn't inherently wrong. Sometimes killing someone can be justified, e.g. under extreme circumstances, such as for self-defense.
3. Humans aren't inherently better than other animals. Like my cat, I'm not saying a fetus is necessarily incapable of suffering and rudimentary intelligence - it's an empirical question. But it's a matter of degree. A fetus probably doesn't suffer, much less thinks, has wishes and friends, and I would argue that not even young infants are equal to adults. For the same reason, non-human animals and severely permanently mentally impaired human beings aren't exactly equal to healthy human beings
One of Reader 27's points is more tangential but valid enough, namely that if given the choice, saving the mother's life is at least better than both dying.
Imagine a man robbing a bank. If you assist him, he will survive. If not, you know he will die in the process. All other things equal, I'm arguing that it's preferable to help him.
This example is even less clear than abortion, because presumably a bank robber is potentially more dangerous in the future than a woman having an abortion, and robbing banks is almost certainly unjustified
Reader 32,
ReplyDelete1) Not relevant? Of course it's relevant to note the distinction between a fetus naturally turning into an adult versus a cat unnaturally turning into an adult.
To turn a cat into a person, if that was possible, would require intervention. For a fetus to turn into a fully developed person, it requires no intervention, simply the passage of time.
And you're right, a cat wouldn't have rights as a human before it becomes a human, because before it becomes a human it's a cat.
A fetus IS a human. It's simply an underdeveloped human. Would you claim that a toddler is not a person, simply because it's mind is not fully developed?
You claim that it's debatable that the fetus will develop into a human being with an average life. I wasn't referring to just ANY specific fetus being considered for abortion...I'm referring to the totality of the fetuses being considered for abortion, and on average they would have a life expectancy similar to that of the population as a whole, perhaps a bit less or a bit more. It's possible that aborted fetuses tend to be born to people that differ from others in some respects, so their life expectancy might be different, but it's very unlikely there would be a huge difference, and even if there was, it would probably be due in part to genetic factors: meaning that if you reduce the life expectancy of the fetus, you'd have to reduce the life expectancy of the mother as well, which reduces the strength of the pro-abortion argument that results from reducing the life expectancy of the fetus alone (when comparing the remaining life expectancy of each of them to each other).
2)I never said killing is wrong in all circumstances. I concentrated on the OUTCOME of the killing instead-the loss of expected life expectancy by the fetus versus the life changes of the mother.
3)You mention that fetuses aren't equal to adults in many ways. I agree. But that doesn't take away that fact that, through the passage of time, they WILL become an adult and will be equal to other adults eventually.
If it's ok to consider abortion due to the fact that fetuses aren't equal to adults in many ways, should it be ok to kill toddlers since they are unequal to adults in many ways?
Saving the mother's life is better than both dying. Yes. I never disagreed with that.
Late term abortion (partial birth abortion or PBA) is absolutely only performed on a mother carrying a fetus that will be stillborn or a fetus that will assuredly die within minutes of birth such as a fetus w/o a brain (anencephalic). These severely deformed fetuses don't have higher brain functions & would be not aware of pain or sensations.
ReplyDeletePBAs are performed by only 1 or 2 doctors in the entire country. Prior to any PBA there are extensive consultations & 2nd opinions from OB/GYN, neonatal doctors, diagnostics, geneticists, specialists & family, etc.
You cannot walk into a clinic & decide to have a PBA, absolutely no way. Not to mention it is VERY expensive & obviously not covered by insurance. There is usually extensive travel involved because chances are a doctor won't be found in your state. They're not even done when a mother's life is in danger in cases where they can deliver a baby emergently & remove the immediate danger from mom & baby.
People get reactionary about it, understandably. But let's use our rational, critical thinking beyond what we've seen from the bloody baby parts from the anti-abortion crowd. Those are propaganda & they've were proven long ago to be a hoax. You can't go to a clinic, dig in the trash & take pics of baby parts. Ugh.
It's an horrific choice to think about for sure. You would never want that for yourself, in which case continuing a non-viable pregnancy would be your choice. But we shouldn't remove that decision from the women, men, & families that must go through what none of us could imagine.
Aerie,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the information about how late term abortion works.
When you ask that the decision not be removed from the families, I'm not sure what you're referring to exactly.
Are you suggesting that families be able to make the decision to conduct a late term abortion in cases where the baby will be stillborn or born without a brain? I don't see why not.
If there is reason to believe the baby will be healthy, however, then the argument comes down, once again, to this: Which scenario has more benefits to society overall? Allowing a baby to grow to experience their entire life, or allowing a mother to partially increase her quality of life for a period of time that's less than her entire life?
A couple of things I'd like to raise as rejoinders here.
ReplyDelete1) A fetus is a person in one sense, however, in truth, it's more a "potential" person. It can't survive without the mother. I recognise that this is a somewhat slippery slope, imlying that those without the ability to survive independent of the care of the others are somehow 'less human', but the fact is that fetuses are distinct since they aren't indpendent of their mothers.
2) You also say "If unplanned pregnancies weren't avoidable, perhaps abortion would be justified. Unplanned pregnancies are not unavoidable." This completely ignores issues like rape. In these circumstances, would abortion be acceptable?
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteyou write:
"A fetus is a person in one sense, however, in truth, it's more a "potential" person. It can't survive without the mother. "
Interesting train of thought, but there is a flaw. Even babies and toddlers can't survive without human intervention feeding and sheltering them, but no one considers babies and toddlers to be non-humans.
However, you mention this flaw, and then address it by saying:
"but the fact is that fetuses are distinct since they aren't indpendent of their mothers."
Yes, they are in the womb, as opposed to toddlers, who are outside of the womb.
But you offer no reason why this distinction is relevant to any of my post's analysis. There are many types of criminals who are distinct from each other in many ways, yet people wouldn't argue that crime is ok simply because there is a distinction. There must be a relevant distinction. It needs to be pointed out.
Regarding rape, you could more easily (though by no means certainly) justify abortion, if only because of the extra negatives surrounding birth due to rape (versus birth due to non-rape):
1)The quality of life of the child may be less than that of other children, since the child would have the genes of a criminal.
2)The child would be more likely to be put up for adoption or foster home, and the child would be in a less ideal situation in that regard.
3)The child would be less likely to be as supported throughout life, since its father would be more likely to NOT be in their life, and would be less likely to be able to provide money to the child, since criminals likely earn less than non-criminals.
4)The child is not a true example of natural selection and evolution, and in that sense, unfortunately, represents a step backward by humanity. It may sound cruel, but it's true logically (although as I said, I'm not claiming this in itself is enough of a reason to allow abortion in cases of rape, I'm simply saying it leans TOWARDS that direction).
The backwardness evolutionarily is this:
because the mother didn't select a partner that she believed had genes she wanted to pass down.
(Although the rapist might have selected the good genes of the mother, looks-wise, and those would be passed down...but perhaps the rapist offset that, as rapists might be less good looking than average, since those looks and inability to get women might have been an influence on his desire to rape).
Also, just the fact that the mother was raped means that she likely has poorer genes than others in the sense that she put herself in a situation that was likely to increase the odds of her being raped (she's certainly not at fault for being raped, and many people can be raped in situations in which they DID make a smart move...all I'm saying is that on the aggregate level, someone with poorer genes and intelligence is probably MORE likely to be raped-for example, by choosing to meet someone on a first date in a non-public area-and hence to pass down those poor genes to the child).
Those are just four reasons, there are probably others.
I cry every time I hear of someone getting raped. Its a no good situation all around. I never even thought of if the person got pregnant. That would have to be the most miserable thing to endure EVER!
ReplyDelete"(Although the rapist might have selected the good genes of the mother, looks-wise, and those would be passed down...but perhaps the rapist offset that, as rapists might be less good looking than average, since those looks and inability to get women might have been an influence on his desire to rape)."
ReplyDeleteWell I can't comment on the part of rapists, but I'm fairly certain they don't select their victims on the basis of who would make the most suitable mother of their children.
"Also, just the fact that the mother was raped means that she likely has poorer genes "
That's quite offensive. Clearly you didn't mean to be, but I'm sure if you thought about the prevalence of rape and the fact that most incidents happen at the hands of an acquaintance, you might not hold that view.
Anyway, how does this affect your view of abortion, in that case?
Also, how about cases where it's known there will be severe birth defects?
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteyou write:
"Well I can't comment on the part of rapists, but I'm fairly certain they don't select their victims on the basis of who would make the most suitable mother of their children."
I never claimed they would.
I said they would choose to rape women who were more attractive than average, and the genes that control ones looks would be passed down.
About rape and abortion: see earlier reply.