Finally opening up about abortion on this forum

[Aractus]

THEN you have they old "well if they don't want the baby, give it up for adoption, and there any many parents who can't have babies etc", which to my understanding there are upwards of 400,000 children in the adoption system currently [In the USA].......so there are many children already waiting for a home.

That statistic is probably misleading (or just wrong) as adopting older children especially teenagers, and especially-especially teenagers with drug and other problems is very very difficult, whereas adopting newborns is far easier. But that said there are negatives to adoption as well of course.

[OakTree500]

That statistic is probably misleading (or just wrong) as adopting older children especially teenagers, and especially-especially teenagers with drug and other problems is very very difficult, whereas adopting newborns is far easier. But that said there are negatives to adoption as well of course.

While that is true, that a lot of kids in the overall process are older/come with baggage, part of the issue is that people who are choosing to adopt are saying "fuck that, we want a baby". To be fair, you can see why people do that as well, but there are tons of kids with/without issues that are just waiting to be loved by a family. 

Yeah, there are pro's/con's for everybody involved [parents and the kids] but my point is you can't hinge this whole thing on "well there are people waiting to adopt", when there are so many children/teenagers who have been in this system their whole lives because they've never been picked by a family. Ultimately making that point of "give babies up for adoption" a bit of a shit point to make.

[Mathilda]

When the woman came round to our house regarding adoption, she said that the odds of getting adopted start to severely drop off around the age of 4. It's well known that the new born babies are the ones most in demand.

Personally I think it's a waste for us to ask for a new born because we know that we can give a childhood to a couple of siblings who would otherwise not get it, especially if they are already damaged by life. My brother and his wife were really worried about how they would cope with such a child but my husband and have more experience in such matters and know that we could really help in this regard.

Personally though I'd prefer it if there weren't any children needing adopting.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The pro-no-choice folks want this to be a perfect world.

[Jenny]

Well, if you'd like me to shut up about it I will. I'm pretty sure I've made a valid point here. You either see it or you don't.

I see your point and I see Dom's.  But adey also questioned CL whether this was a good time to talk about this (and he used to be a nurse).  I can only speak for myself, but sometimes when threads get heated over hot button issues (ahem vegan as in my case ha ha) it can lead to all kinds of emotions-including stress.  I'm not going to speak for CL--I mean she did say she might not want to keep up with this thread long term, so it's good she's taking care of her self and protecting herself if things get too heated.  But on the other hand, I agree, each person needs to make their own decisions--regardless of life situations.  I think though, as a friend, it's okay to look out for one another and say hey, are you sure this is a good time for talking about this 'cause I care about you? Anyway, that's my take on things.  

But I'm also hormonal because I'm on my period   ha ha 

No doubt CL will speak her piece if she feels like it. I just thought it sounded pretty dismissive and had to pipe up. Pretty 1878 or so, in my book -- "she's hormonal".

I hear you and see where you're coming from.  You always stick up for people and have such a big heart, that's one of the things I love about you   And if it was one of those troll-y people saying "She's hormonal" then I totally agree with you, it would be dismissive as that would (most likely) be the intent coming from someone who wants nothing more to do than to fuck with people on the forum.  However, when the intent is coming from a point of care and from someone who is good-hearted, then I don't think it's meant to be a dismissive comment in any way.

[SteveII]

I don't see how that's relevant, Steve.

Well, it could be construed that you believe that humans do not have right to life. Or, are you just attempting to get her to back up a step and prove the assumption?

If it were so construed, then one would be making a straw man argument.  Are you making a straw man argument?

And I'm not asking her to "prove" anything.  I'd just like to know why and how she draws such a conclusion given that it appears that it is not and has never been universally recognized that all forms of human life have an absolute right to continued existence.  I haven't seen her really establish a foundation and until she does, the best I can do is speculate on the source of her conclusion.

I'll also point out that asking whether I'm a moral nihilist or a relativist seems like nothing more than a prelude to an ad hominem.  This isn't about me at all at this point.

I was trying to get to the bottom of your statement. It seems you were not making a claim, you were pointing out the assumption without offering opinion. Another post you made about animals made your point more clear.

[SteveII]

There is an underlying assumption of some sort of system of "rights" that you all are applying. Why is "bodily autonomy" a right and what reasons causes it to be ranked higher than other rights? What is the basis of these rights?

From government or societal consensus? The first problem with this is that it is thinly veiled "might makes right" argument. Secondly, this source is simply too arbitrary and/or subjective to be taken seriously. If this is the source of rights, then a slightly different society could have a conflicting set of rights and who is to say which set was wrong. If we can't judge one set to be correct and the other incorrect, then we are not talking about "rights", we are talking about preferences.

Some sort of Natural Law? John Locke and others philosophically reasoned that liberty/freedom was wrapped up in person hood. We own our bodies because no other person has a natural claim to them. The conclusion being that we cannot be killed, harmed or forced into servitude without our consent. If you are going to go with this one, it seems to me that the argument is based on the "forced servitude" idea and the mother wishes to withhold consent on a infringement of her freedom. There are problems with this argument:

1. Even if the mother did not give explicit consent, she gave tacit consent by engaging in activities that led to the pregnancy--and therefore has some responsibility for the baby's well-being.
2. Even if you consider tacit consent as insufficient, and think that evicting one's child is a right, it does not automatically follow that the methods to do so are unlimited. If you find an unknown drunk in your house when you come home (violating your rights), you do not have the right to put a gun to his head and pull the trigger.
3. If you use Natural Law to justify a Bodily Autonomy "right" to justify abortion, then what about the rights of the baby? If a person has intrinsic rights derived from natural philosophy that concludes that no one should have a claim over your freedom, why wouldn't those *naturally* derived rights apply to your offspring as well? The uterus was specifically designed to protect and nourish the baby, so what could be more natural than that? What was the magic moment you got your Bodily Autonomy right?
4. Where does the obligation come from to take care of your children after they are born? What mechanism gave those children rights that, starting at the time of birth *supersede* the mother's rights which, if you think carrying a baby in your uterus for 9 months is a violation of your rights under the forced servitude principle, then what in the world would you call taking care of infants and toddlers for years?!?

So, it would seem that a pro-abortion stance based on "bodily autonomy" is not based on any objective reasoning.  It is entirely subjective. It is a matter of opinion that the mother has these rights--and a not very well justified one at that.

What about "the fetus is not a human" argument? That is ridiculous. It is not some other animal. What about "the fetus is not a person" argument? Three additional points.

5. Personhood. This is a philosophical question and NOT a scientific one. When does a baby gain personhood and thereby gain human rights? Some say heartbeat, produce brainwaves, viable outside the womb, be conscious or self-aware or being born. These test are arbitrary and inconsistent and can be applied to newborns, people with disabilities etc. so therefore cannot be real indicators of personhood because most are not willing to live with the logical conclusion that their "test" would have on people after birth.

6. Science tells us that once an egg and sperm come together, a new entity that is unlike the parents is created. It is also undeniably that a human embryo is alive and equipped with all the necessary information to grow to a ripe old age. So to destroy it is to destroy something unique and containing potential.

7. In case you want to deny embryos are considered alive, it fulfills the four criteria needed to establish biological life: metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction.

So it would also seem that "not a human" or "not a person" is not a viable argument either. We are back to it is an opinion that it is okay to kill unborn babies. Is that okay as a society? To base such an act on personal preference? Seems like a slippery slope to me.

Further, these are justifications why it is okay to kill the unborn baby. Reasons for pursuing an action are important in any moral system. Studies show that women choose abortion primarily for socio-economic reasons. I do not find the rights of convenience to be compelling to warrant the violence of taking another life--regardless of your position on personhood. This also undercuts the Bodily Autonomy argument.

[epronovost]

7. In case you want to deny embryos are considered alive, it fulfills the four criteria needed to establish biological life: metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction.

You forgot homoestasis which they don't have at least until the fetus pass the point of viability at around the 20th week.

[SteveII]

7. In case you want to deny embryos are considered alive, it fulfills the four criteria needed to establish biological life: metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction.

You forgot homoestasis which they don't have at least until the fetus pass the point of viability at around the 20th week.

No, not depending on another life is not a definition for life.

[epronovost]

7. In case you want to deny embryos are considered alive, it fulfills the four criteria needed to establish biological life: metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction.

You forgot homoestasis which they don't have at least until the fetus pass the point of viability at around the 20th week.

No, not depending on another life is not a definition for life.

Actually, it's frequently mentionned as a condition for life. Virus generally aren't considered alive precisely because they can't maintain homestasis.

The seven most commonly mentioned condition to be considered alive are the following:

• responsiveness to the environment; (which fetus start to develop at around 16 week)
  
  
• growth and change; (which they get from the get go)
  
  
• ability to reproduce; (which they will develop only at puberty, though they will have genitals very quickly)
  
  
• have a metabolism and breathe; (they don't until birth)
  
  
• maintain homeostasis; (which they can't until the 20th week or so)
  
  
• being made of cells; and. (which they are)
  
  
• passing traits onto offspring. (which they can once they reach puberty, though they will have the structure in-utero)
  

As such, fetus don't actually meet all the prerequisite to be considered alive, they are gestalting life, not living per say.

[Thumpalumpacus]

There is an underlying assumption of some sort of system of "rights" that you all are applying. Why is "bodily autonomy" a right and what reasons causes it to be ranked higher than other rights? What is the basis of these rights?

I've already addressed this. Perhaps you should read the replies to your questions, rather than repeating them as if they've been ignored? The latter course of action is classic trolling.

[SteveII]

I regard bodily autonomy as the single most important right a human has. The rights of a fetus, which by definition is not autonomous, should not be able to trump that.

On what foundation is the right to "bodily autonomy" based on? Be specific. Your answer just asserts one right and denies another. Throwing around the word "rights" requires you to have a system that grants them. You need reasons to support these assertions or it is just your opinion.

Without breath, what other right do you have? If you do not have bodily autonomy, then we can talk about slavery, or conscription, or pagan sacrifice. We can talk about movement restrictions and bureaucratic medical decisions. Do you really want to fight over that hill?

If a person is not free to make their own decisions about their own body, they aren't free.

I will ignore your red herring about needing a system to grant rights, because as even a casual reader can see, I haven't argued against regulations. I haven't argued against a system. I've argued against the idea that a government should be able to dictate to its citizens regarding decisions that do not affect others uninvolved in that decision. I'm happy we have regulatory systems, but I see no need to carry that to the point it broaches such private decisions.

Perhaps you're fine with governments making personal decisions for its citizens, but I am not -- because if I don't fight for their rights, I'll probably be losing some of my own rights sooner or later.

Go check out that John Donne poem if you want to understand where I'm coming from.

You are failing to provide any basis on which the apparently sacrosanct right of "bodily autonomy" is based. Without providing the reasons for it, you have no foundation for your position. It is a house of cards built on an opinion.

[Phaedrus]

There is an underlying assumption of some sort of system of "rights" that you all are applying. Why is "bodily autonomy" a right and what reasons causes it to be ranked higher than other rights? What is the basis of these rights?

I've already addressed this. Perhaps you should read the replies to your questions, rather than repeating them as if they've been ignored? The latter course of action is classic trolling.

At least he's responding to some of you. I think he has me on ignore. xD

[Mathilda]

You are failing to provide any basis on which the apparently sacrosanct right of "bodily autonomy" is based. Without providing the reasons for it, you have no foundation for your position. It is a house of cards built on an opinion.

But you can say that about any moral position.

[SteveII]

You forgot homoestasis which they don't have at least until the fetus pass the point of viability at around the 20th week.

No, not depending on another life is not a definition for life.

Actually, it's frequently mentionned as a condition for life. Virus generally aren't considered alive precisely because they can't maintain homestasis.

The seven most commonly mentioned condition to be considered alive are the following:

• responsiveness to the environment; (which fetus start to develop at around 16 week)
  
  
• growth and change; (which they get from the get go)
  
  
• ability to reproduce; (which they will develop only at puberty, though they will have genitals very quickly)
  
  
• have a metabolism and breathe; (they don't until birth)
  
  
• maintain homeostasis; (which they can't until the 20th week or so)
  
  
• being made of cells; and. (which they are)
  
  
• passing traits onto offspring. (which they can once they reach puberty, though they will have the structure in-utero)
  

As such, fetus don't actually meet all the prerequisite to be considered alive, they are gestalting life, not living per say.

Two things.

1. Your point seems to be that they are a category of life. They certainly cannot be considered non-living.
2. I think the list was intended to provide characteristics of living things verses non-living things. If a baby is developing, all characteristic are present in it's DNA--a few exhibiting and a few that are not. There is no rational reason to characterize an unborn baby as non-living other than to rename the killing of it.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I regard bodily autonomy as the single most important right a human has. The rights of a fetus, which by definition is not autonomous, should not be able to trump that.

On what foundation is the right to "bodily autonomy" based on? Be specific. Your answer just asserts one right and denies another. Throwing around the word "rights" requires you to have a system that grants them. You need reasons to support these assertions or it is just your opinion.

Without breath, what other right do you have? If you do not have bodily autonomy, then we can talk about slavery, or conscription, or pagan sacrifice. We can talk about movement restrictions and bureaucratic medical decisions. Do you really want to fight over that hill?

If a person is not free to make their own decisions about their own body, they aren't free.

I will ignore your red herring about needing a system to grant rights, because as even a casual reader can see, I haven't argued against regulations. I haven't argued against a system. I've argued against the idea that a government should be able to dictate to its citizens regarding decisions that do not affect others uninvolved in that decision. I'm happy we have regulatory systems, but I see no need to carry that to the point it broaches such private decisions.

Perhaps you're fine with governments making personal decisions for its citizens, but I am not -- because if I don't fight for their rights, I'll probably be losing some of my own rights sooner or later.

Go check out that John Donne poem if you want to understand where I'm coming from.

You are failing to provide any basis on which the apparently sacrosanct right of "bodily autonomy" is based. Without providing the reasons for it, you have no foundation for your position. It is a house of cards built on an opinion.

So then you don't think there's a right to life? Why, then, are you arguing against abortion?

You see, if you do not have the right to control your own body, you may well be put to death without protest. You may be sentenced to a GULag for 58-10. You may treated as a game-piece and not a human being.

If you're looking for philosophical justification here, you're going to be disappointed; I don't bother with that bullshit. If you need help understanding this, you probably just need help, period. A little thinking coupled with empathy should lay matters clear. Let's see your capacity for those qualities, then.

[Dom]

No, not depending on another life is not a definition for life.

Actually, it's frequently mentionned as a condition for life. Virus generally aren't considered alive precisely because they can't maintain homestasis.

The seven most commonly mentioned condition to be considered alive are the following:

• responsiveness to the environment; (which fetus start to develop at around 16 week)
  
  
• growth and change; (which they get from the get go)
  
  
• ability to reproduce; (which they will develop only at puberty, though they will have genitals very quickly)
  
  
• have a metabolism and breathe; (they don't until birth)
  
  
• maintain homeostasis; (which they can't until the 20th week or so)
  
  
• being made of cells; and. (which they are)
  
  
• passing traits onto offspring. (which they can once they reach puberty, though they will have the structure in-utero)
  

As such, fetus don't actually meet all the prerequisite to be considered alive, they are gestalting life, not living per say.

Two things.

1. Your point seems to be that they are a category of life. They certainly cannot be considered non-living.
2. I think the list was intended to provide characteristics of living things verses non-living things. If a baby is developing, all characteristic are present in it's DNA--a few exhibiting and a few that are not. There is no rational reason to characterize an unborn baby as non-living other than to rename the killing of it.

You have to kill a chicken if you want to eat it. Do you have to kill an egg? Is an egg a chicken? When does an egg become a chicken?

[SteveII]

You are failing to provide any basis on which the apparently sacrosanct right of "bodily autonomy" is based. Without providing the reasons for it, you have no foundation for your position. It is a house of cards built on an opinion.

But you can say that about any moral position.

But the insistence I see in most of these posts is that there is some "right" that is the basis for abortion. If so, lay it out!

If you want to say that all moral position amount to an opinion as to what is best vis a vis some subjective standards, kudos to you for seeing that.

[TheGentlemanBastard]

The pro-no-choice folks want this to be a perfect world.

But aren't interested in helping make it more perfect by actually helping out once the kids they want forced into the world are here.

[SteveII]

I regard bodily autonomy as the single most important right a human has. The rights of a fetus, which by definition is not autonomous, should not be able to trump that.



Without breath, what other right do you have? If you do not have bodily autonomy, then we can talk about slavery, or conscription, or pagan sacrifice. We can talk about movement restrictions and bureaucratic medical decisions. Do you really want to fight over that hill?

If a person is not free to make their own decisions about their own body, they aren't free.

I will ignore your red herring about needing a system to grant rights, because as even a casual reader can see, I haven't argued against regulations. I haven't argued against a system. I've argued against the idea that a government should be able to dictate to its citizens regarding decisions that do not affect others uninvolved in that decision. I'm happy we have regulatory systems, but I see no need to carry that to the point it broaches such private decisions.

Perhaps you're fine with governments making personal decisions for its citizens, but I am not -- because if I don't fight for their rights, I'll probably be losing some of my own rights sooner or later.

Go check out that John Donne poem if you want to understand where I'm coming from.

You are failing to provide any basis on which the apparently sacrosanct right of "bodily autonomy" is based. Without providing the reasons for it, you have no foundation for your position. It is a house of cards built on an opinion.

So then you don't think there's a right to life? Why, then, are you arguing against abortion?

Sure I believe that there is a right to life. But, I don't even need to have a position for yours to be full of holes.

You see, if you do not have the right to control your own body, you may well be put to death without protest. You may be sentenced to a GULag for 58-10. You may treated as a game-piece and not a human being.

If you're looking for philosophical justification here, you're going to be disappointed; I don't bother with that bullshit. If you need help understanding this, you probably just need help, period. A little thinking coupled with empathy should lay matters clear. Let's see your capacity for those qualities, then.

The moment you typed "rights" you are making a philosophical argument. And now you continue to justify it by taking flying leap inferential argument that if you don't have total control of your body, "you may well be put to death without protest...You may treated as a game-piece and not a human being." There is no way that one follows from the other.

Answer this: should we be forced to be vaccinated? That is "subordinating" your bodily autonomy rights to the greater good. If you support it, how do you reconcile these two position?

[Alan V]

But the insistence I see in most of these posts is that there is some "right" that is the basis for abortion. If so, lay it out!

As far as I'm concerned, pro-life people are trying to impose their religious beliefs on others.  They think conception initiates a new human soul, and that the right-to-life of an embryo must be more important than any of the mother's rights which are infringed by taking a pregnancy to term. 

However, many people like me disagree with those assumptions, full stop.  It doesn't matter whether we can convince pro-lifers of anything about our own positions.  What matters is that we think our positions make perfect sense, so pro-lifers don't have the right to impose their beliefs on us.

That's the bottom line.  By all means, avoid abortions if that's what you believe, but don't try to tell everyone else what to do based on your religious convictions.  If you don't like living in a pluralistic, secular society, it's not our fault.

[SteveII]

Actually, it's frequently mentionned as a condition for life. Virus generally aren't considered alive precisely because they can't maintain homestasis.

The seven most commonly mentioned condition to be considered alive are the following:

• responsiveness to the environment; (which fetus start to develop at around 16 week)
  
  
• growth and change; (which they get from the get go)
  
  
• ability to reproduce; (which they will develop only at puberty, though they will have genitals very quickly)
  
  
• have a metabolism and breathe; (they don't until birth)
  
  
• maintain homeostasis; (which they can't until the 20th week or so)
  
  
• being made of cells; and. (which they are)
  
  
• passing traits onto offspring. (which they can once they reach puberty, though they will have the structure in-utero)
  

As such, fetus don't actually meet all the prerequisite to be considered alive, they are gestalting life, not living per say.

Two things.

1. Your point seems to be that they are a category of life. They certainly cannot be considered non-living.
2. I think the list was intended to provide characteristics of living things verses non-living things. If a baby is developing, all characteristic are present in it's DNA--a few exhibiting and a few that are not. There is no rational reason to characterize an unborn baby as non-living other than to rename the killing of it.

You have to kill a chicken if you want to eat it. Do you have to kill an egg? Is an egg a chicken? When does an egg become a chicken?

You kill an embryonic chicken if the egg was fertilized and the biology was at work forming the chicken. There is no such animal as an "egg". Of course that is not what is happening to 99.99% of the eggs we eat.

[SteveII]

But the insistence I see in most of these posts is that there is some "right" that is the basis for abortion. If so, lay it out!

As far as I'm concerned, pro-life people are trying to impose their religious beliefs on others.  They think conception initiates a new human soul, and that the right-to-life of an embryo must be more important than any of the mother's rights which are infringed by taking a pregnancy to term. 

However, many people like me disagree with those assumptions, full stop.  It doesn't matter whether we can convince pro-lifers of anything about our own positions.  What matters is that we think our positions make perfect sense, so pro-lifers don't have the right to impose their beliefs on us.

That's the bottom line.  By all means, avoid abortions if that's what you believe, but don't try to tell everyone else what to do based on your religious convictions.  If you don't like living in a pluralistic, secular society, it's not our fault.

Except there are lots of pro-life humanist--so your opening statement and your reasoning based on it is obviously false. http://www.prolifehumanists.org/secular-...-abortion/

Does your "position make perfect sense"? That seems to be the question for which there are not many answer yet forthcoming. And if you argument does not make sense, then perhaps we can make better choices based on better arguments.

[c172]

Et tu, Missourehhhh?

[TheGentlemanBastard]

You have to kill a chicken if you want to eat it. Do you have to kill an egg? Is an egg a chicken? When does an egg become a chicken?

Lets rephrase so that even Steve can get the point.

You have to kill a duck if you want to eat it. Do you have to kill an egg to make a balut egg? Is a balut egg a duck? When does a balut egg become a duck?