Abortion

[Peregrine]

Granted, that is one option. But, essentially, what you are doing here is dumping your unwanted kids on someone else to look after. In essence, you are getting someone else to pay for your responsibility that you don't want to shoulder. IMO, if you abort, at least you are dealing with that responsibility, even if it is in a way some people find distasteful.

 

 

The only problem is the large number of people who want children, but are unable to have them for some reason. So it's not really dodging the responsibility when someone wants that child. There's no reason to kill it when there's a better alternative.

 

And abortion isn't taking responsibility, it's avoiding it. Responsibility would be not having unprotected sex, choosing responsibility over selfish pleasure. Responsibility would be accepting your unpleasant 9 months as the price of your stupid choices. Or, if you insist on having that abortion, turning yourself in to face murder charges.

[Zmid]

The only problem is the large number of people who want children, but are unable to have them for some reason. So it's not really dodging the responsibility when someone wants that child. There's no reason to kill it when there's a better alternative.

 

This argument holds water - as long as you make absolutely sure such suitable foster parents exist for your child before you put them up for adoption. If you just dump the kid in the nearest foster home simpy to get him off your hands, then this argument is entirely irrelevant.

 

And abortion isn't taking responsibility, it's avoiding it. Responsibility would be not having unprotected sex, choosing responsibility over selfish pleasure.

 

Imagine this situation - you are female. You plan to have a child with your partner. You get pregnant. Your partner dies (circumstances are really irrelevant, but let's just say, for the purposes of this, he gets run over and killed). As a result, you can no longer afford to support this child. What do you do? Put him up for adoption? Well, we've already dealt with that one above. Spend a lot of time and/or money trying to find foster parents yourself? Considering you can't afford to support the child, this is probably time and money you don't have. Have an abortion? Can you think of another option?

 

Even disregarding situations like the one above, I fail to see how abortion is 'avoiding responsibility'. OK, fine, you made a mistake by having unprotected sex and getting pregnant. You deal with the consequences of that mistake by having the abortion. Where's the avoidance of responsibility? Unless, of course, you think having an abortion is easy for most women?

 

Responsibility would be accepting your unpleasant 9 months as the price of your stupid choices.

 

If that's your argument, then, by the same token, it should also be passed into law that the man involved gets a small mass surgically inserted into his abdomen, whereupon it grows in size at the same rate as the average foetus (either on its own or artificially by having matter added to it), then, 9 months later, it must be squeezed out through the anus (as men lack the necessary *censored* to make it identical to the woman's ordeal).

 

The man is just as responsible as the woman. As such, why should she have to go through this 'unpleasant 9 months' and he doesn't?

 

Or, if you insist on having that abortion, turning yourself in to face murder charges.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

...which would cause the entire police station to have a fit of hysterical laughter before they told you to go home.

[Sticky Mick]

I don`t think abortion should be outlawed completely. There should be some sort of guidelines and rules introduced to control it. As in the case of my last g/f when she fell pregnant it became obvious that there was some sort of a problem. The child was not developing properly and it was suspected that if she would have gone the full term the least that would have happened was the child was going to be severely handicapped and quite possibly could have been still born and mother could have been severely injured during the birth. All this happened quite late in the pregnancy so we had very little time to make a decision and I believe the decision we made was the right one in the interests of her health and future and for the child.

 

I believe abortion should stay but should only be used in extreme cicumstances. Not just because the child isn`t wanted or was a stupid drunken mistake or was a quickie behind the bike sheds at school that went wrong.

[KzinistZerg]

I just have to point out: this is a private, individual thing- what right has the government to say anything about it?

[Faust870]

My answer is very simple: No one can tell a woman what to do with her body... its totally up to her.

[sebalo]

But does the woman have a right to end a life. The least she could do is to have the baby and then give it to a home for orphans. Because even if you are unable to raise a child someone else could.

[Domhnall]

I don't have the energy to read thru 8 pages of this, but will just say that both sides of the debate are sitting on presuppositions that most are wholly unwilling to examine, and even fewer are willing to challenge. It seems that Ego and Anger make these debates pointless.

 

At the end of the day, there is but one question alone which serves as the crux of the yelling: Is this object (the "Fetus") a living being with the same rights as the rest of "us"? If it's not human, then who could argue against abortion (for there's nothing there to kill). If it is a human, then who will argue they have the right to murder him/her?

 

So is "it" a human?

 

Those for abortion say, 'no' and move on to "Rights of the woman" talk.

 

Those against abortion say 'yes', and talk of the atrocity of murdering a baby.

 

Therefore, there is no actual dialogue going on. There are two radically different perspectives, all launched from the answer to "The Question".

 

We are talking about the ontological status of something what grows in a woman's belly. We name it multiple things, and we turn to authority figures (doctors, clergy, governments) to answer The Question, but we do not truly know what "it" is.

 

So, I offer this analogy: We are standing atop the Empire State building. On the edge of the roof is a large wooden box. We have but to push it a bit and the box will go crashing down.

 

There are some strong motivations for dashing the box to the ground, but there is a heated debate about whether or not a human being is inside the box. Each side of this debate has leaders, and the sides rally around their leaders. Each leader confidently asserts the status of the box's contents. Each side shouts slogans from their side. At the end of the day, no one can decide the fact of the matter. We can't see/hear/whatever in the box. There may be a human in the box, there may not be, it's totally unknowable.

 

In this predicament, it seems there are but 2 justified actions, both which may occur simultaneously:

 

1) Find a way to answer the ontological Question that does not appeal to Authority ("the WHO/AMA says X" or "The Church says Y"...)

and

2) [While doing 1 (or even if you've abandoned hope of #1)] Do not push the box off the building. Considering that we do not know if there's a person inside since we haven't accomplished 1, it is immoral to "take that chance" and push it anyway. We wouldn't put a gun to someone's head and say "Well, there may or may not be a bullet in here. I'll just pull the trigger and see".

[Marxist ßastard]

I don't have the energy to read thru 8 pages of this, but will just say that both sides of the debate are sitting on presuppositions that most are wholly unwilling to examine, and even fewer are willing to challenge. It seems that Ego and Anger make these debates pointless.

 

You're right. The debate is ultimately fruitless, but I'm interested in how you rationalize your position. How does getting rid of an unwanted pregnancy, which combines the right's two favorite pasttimes -- namely, killing off prisoners, and doing so preemptively -- gain your vehement opposition?

[ThetaOrionis01]

I'm afraid your analogy leaves out something important - the mother.

 

In your analogy not moving the box has no consequences for anyone. Now imagine a scenario - a closer analogy to the abortion debate, IMO - where someone is trapped under the box.

 

Perhaps the box only causes them some discomfort and distress. Perhaps it is causing them serious pain and injury - physical or psychological. Perhaps the box may slowly be crushing them to death. What then? Do you shove the box off to save the person underneath, or do you value the contents of the box more highly than the trapped person?

[Domhnall]

I didn't leave it out of the analogy, for it doesn't belong in the analogy. "Exceptions to the Rule serve as terrible guidelines".

 

If the abortion debate were consistenly about choosing between one life ending or another, then the analogy would have to be seriously altered, if not utterly abandoned. But life-threatening childbirth is a speck on the radar compared to the number of abortions had for non life-threatening ones.

 

I included in the analogy that there is strong motivation for pushing the box off the edge (thus important psychological/sociological factors for having an abortion). Maybe the box is on someone's foot, or leg. Maybe it just blocks their view from peeping.

 

Since the abortion issue (generally) excludes this factor, the issue is clouded when we look at an exception (less than 1%?) instead of the fundamental question which causes all of the yelling.

 

I don't think it's impossible to answer the question of this (or another) exceptional case, it's just that it's peripheral to the larger debate.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OK, so, if a mother is 100% certain to die unless an abortion is done, and if #1 (from my 2 proposed justified actions) is not accomplished, and the status of the thing in question remains utterly unknowable, is it justified to have the abortion?

 

I would say that in this case it probably is justified, giving all these factors. And even then it is ambiguous.

I'm driving down the road. I lose control and regain it now only to find I have gone off the path and must steer one of two ways. One way has me flying off the bridge and to sleep with the fishes. The other way has me drive over a baby carrier. I have no idea whether or not a baby is in there or not. Do I save my own life and run over the carriage and hope it was just empty, or do I not take that chance and go diving? As I said, it is probably justified, but uncertain.

 

As to anything other than death, it is unjustified. The potential sorrow/discomfort/financial hardship, etc., of one person does not tally up to the taking of a human life. Or, back to the box:

 

A person has the box (somehow) on her leg. It's crushing and agonizing at this moment. If we push the box off right now, she'll have a limp for a while, then be fine. If we don't, it is possible that she'll be crippled for a decade, suffering pain and hardship. The uncertainty of the contents of the box does not justify tossing it merely to save possible suffering. For an innocent life taken to prevent suffering is immoral.

 

"But what if she's suffering for nothing? It could be an empty box."

 

It Could be. We do not know. The ambiguity compels us, therefore, as moral agents to preserve life (even when we do not have absolute certainty of that life) when the alternative is not death to another.