Is Abortion At Best Justified Homicide?

LawOfTheLand brought this up in RPG Chat.

He argued that abortion robs a human from a potential future, and thus is nothing short of murder. However, not giving a mother that option to abort grants her fewer rights than an organ donor, and that seems not right, as well.

When I asked if there can be justification for murder, LawOfTheLand said, "there can be mitigating circumstances (shooting a mass shooter to save the lives of potential victims, self-defense) that can act as practical justification." Would killing a fetus to save the life of a mother fall into that category?

Murder
A: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
B: To Kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation.

No, murder would not allow justification, because it is defined as being unjust.

justifiable homicide
A:The killing of a person in circumstances that allow the act to be regarded in law as without criminal guilt. i.e self defense , or capital punishment.

He argued that abortion robs a human from a potential future, and thus is nothing short of murder. However, not giving a mother that option to abort grants her fewer rights than an organ donor, and that seems not right, as well.

The option needs to be there, however, it should not be seen so lightly. Education about abortion needs to be given to whom ever is considering it, Personally I believe there DOES need to be a cut off date that is uniform across the board. An abortion at week 27 for example could be considered murder, tho the further back say week 8 or 7 , the line becomes fuzzy. Answering the question above, but simply raises another question. When is too late.

Would killing a fetus to save the life of a mother fall into that category

Yes, but it would depend on the circumstances. How early/late is the pregnancy? Typically , if the need for something like this happens it is because Both parties will not survive, such as ectopic pregnancies, generally if the mother's life is in danger the fetus is already dead or is dying causing the mother's death.

But that's my .02

Ninety seven percent (97%) of abortions are based on convenience so that leaves only three percent (3%) to cover every actual danger to the mother and includes both rape and incest which are the most commonly given excuses. Total numbers of abortions for rape and incest Combined only come to one percent (1%).

So abortions to legitimately save the mothers life are almost nonexistent. On top of that, the very legitimate danger of ectopic pregnancies that candlejack mentioned usually miscarry anyway because the resources to keep a human babe alive long enough to grow are only inside the uterus.

A regular surgery would be required to either move the child to the safety of the uterus, before he or she dies, or remove the actual dead babe out of the mother's body cavities. I don't know if there are any surgeries that actually move the preborn child out of the fallopian tubes or whatever body cavity she finds herself trapped. Ectopic pregnacies are usually somewhere inside the fallopian tubes, but some have been found in between the organs.

Also in keeping with what candlejack said, a pregnant mother is in greater danger when her babe is dead than when alive and still growing, because of necrosis that could spread. In modern times, all the complications that come from pregnancy can be treated without harming either party. A change of diet and exercise can nullify or reduce the effects of anemia or gestational diabetes, and other complications can be reduced by proper prenatal care.

Complications with the actual birthing process can also be resolved without harming either child or mother. The most common method is a Caesarian or C-section. It is a bit riskier than a natural vaginal birth or water birth, because it is surgery and will have to cut into the uterus to extract the babe. Anesthesia can also have problems with the babe himself by disrupting breathing or heart rate, since a newborn needs to learn how his heart and lungs are supposed to work. Even so plenty of children and mothers are perfectly fine after C-section. It may only require a longer recovery period because t is surgery.

My short answer to the topic question is no, because I see no justification for abortion to save a mother. We, particularly in the US and other technologically-savvy countries, have the proper equipment and medicine to prevent most deaths related to pregnancy and childbirth. I like your phrasing though. "At best" marks that it really is something bad.

Even though I obviously do not approve of abortion at all, for more reasons than the above, I do appreciate the suggestion to have a universal cut off time.

The problem with your typical comparison of abortion and homicide is that one of the big differences, the difference between a legally recognized person and a fetus is one between a human and a potential human. And the second we start considering potential human life to be morally equatable to actualized human life more than just abortion comes into question.

Having sex at any time other than those that provide optimal chances for a zygote to survive and grow would be negligent homicide, with even more suspicion for mothers who are too old or who have been told the chances of pregnancy are low. A pregnant woman doing anything unhealthy for the fetus would be abuse and negligence, thus requiring their entire nine month stint as second class citizens be completely regulated. If a miscarriage occurs, the mother would then need to be investigated and prosecuted for homicide. Oh, and don't you dare ever risk getting pregnant if there's a chance you'll pass on some sort of disease or condition, because I'm sure inflicting those on a person counts as some form of aggravated assault. And that's all while only extending this moral equation to fertilized eggs; it gets much bigger when you start including sperm and eggs in it.

Meanwhile, the worst you'll get for not being an organ donor or a blood donor is some side eye from people when the topic comes up. Which shouldn't be surprising since the general population's right to never lose a drop of their blood and have a heartless corpse at their funeral is more respected and accepted than a woman not wanting to experience what amounts to an incredibly inconvenient medical condition for nine months that results in an incredibly expensive burden for either her or the state.

I had to read that last post several times to understand what was being said, because much of it doesn't make any sense.

Optimal or suboptimal conditions for pregnancy and childbirth as well as miscarriages are all part of nature, natural selection if you will. As such, none on that list could possibly now or ever be a crime. Diseases are also natural handicaps, but if a woman with a disease wants to have a child why should anyone stop her?

Hitler thought that way actually. He believed people "unfit to live" should be eliminated, and used abortion in his campaign to do so. Abortion's origin in eugenics and Social Darwinism is another reason why I disapprove. The modern practice hasn't changed at all from it's bloody and cruel origins. Even now "unfit people" are being killed. Most abortion facilities are located inside low-income and minority neighborhoods, and in these particular neighborhoods more minority children are being aborted than born.

Lifecharacter used the cost of children as a defense for the bloody cruel practice. What most people in first world countries fail to recognize is that we have a lot of things that are not absolutely necessary. Of course buying unnecessary objects will bring up the cost.

African tribespeople have little in the eyes of first world countries, but they know what is absolutely necessary: food, water, and a place to sleep. Since most tribespeople in general get all they need from the land around them, it doesn't cost much to have a child and when those children are big and strong enough they will help out the tribe.

Able-bodied idle adults actually cost the state and community in general more than children.

Another thing to think about is that women have limited fertility. Women are only capable of pregnancy and childbirth for a few years of their lives, and even in those few years, women are only fertile for a few days of each month. Those few days are called ovulation and land within a week before menstruation. If a woman feels she absolutely must have sex but isn't ready to have children, she can have sex outside of ovulation. All she needs is to know her own body.

A woman who knows her own body also should be able to prevent complications and get proper prenatal care when she does want to have a child. With proper prenatal care,this woman and her doctor can also point out signs of unexpected complications. Because of modern medical technology, these unexpected complications can be treated before they get to a point where they are a danger to either mother or child's life. And that brings me full circle. Abortion is not justified homicide because we have the technology to prevent and eliminate problems when they appear.

If you want to push the button of what about countries without the technology, Countries without the technology to prevent or eliminate these problems don't have the technology to do abortions either.

FyreT1ger wrote:Optimal or suboptimal conditions for pregnancy and childbirth as well as miscarriages are all part of nature, natural selection if you will. As such, none on that list could possibly now or ever be a crime. Diseases are also natural handicaps, but if a woman with a disease wants to have a child why should anyone stop her?

I mean, I don't have a problem with it, but then I'm not someone who describes aborting a fetus as "at best justified homicide." I merely didn't limit the idea of considering fetuses human beings that can be the victims of crimes to abortion and nothing more for the sake of convenience. Saying that suboptimal conditions are "natural" amounts to completely nothing, because, as far as I can tell, riding a roller coaster isn't part of nature, nor is smoking, nor is a diet filled with junk food.

FyreT1ger wrote:Hitler thought that way actually. He believed people "unfit to live" should be eliminated, and used abortion in his campaign to do so. Abortion's origin in eugenics and Social Darwinism is another reason why I disapprove. The modern practice hasn't changed at all from it's bloody and cruel origins. Even now "unfit people" are being killed. Most abortion facilities are located inside low-income and minority neighborhoods, and in these particular neighborhoods more minority children are being aborted than born.

Always good when we jump straight to Hitler to justify our moral indignation for women having a semblance of control over their own bodies. Until low-income and minority people are being forced by the government to get abortions, comparing it to a eugenics program is horribly wrong if not downright offensive. I wish I could say that I'm surprised that the notion that such people might want an abortion (since, at least in the US, there's also the issue of absolutely terrible sex ed that might possibly encourage the use of contraception) and not be able to afford traveling very far to do so was ignored so that we could jump to Hitler, but I can't say that I am.

FyreT1ger wrote:Lifecharacter used the cost of children as a defense for the bloody cruel practice. What most people in first world countries fail to recognize is that we have a lot of things that are not absolutely necessary. Of course buying unnecessary objects will bring up the cost.

So women should forgo financial security (for themselves and, in case you've forgotten, the child) as well as any luxury goods rather than simply exercise the small amount of control over their body that an abortion amounts to? Also, I used a woman's right to actually have control over her own body and the medical decisions that involve her body to justify the practice of abortion, because no amount of moral whinging has managed to convince me that women should just inherently have less rights.

FyreT1ger wrote:African tribespeople have little in the eyes of first world countries, but they know what is absolutely necessary: food, water, and a place to sleep. Since most tribespeople in general get all they need from the land around them, it doesn't cost much to have a child and when those children are big and strong enough they will help out the tribe.

That's wonderful for them. When American society is in any way comparable to that of "African tribespeople" (really narrowing it down there) that might become relevant. Until then, people have to worry about their jobs and their homes and their cars, because they aren't guaranteed any sort of security and occupation by simply being born somewhere.

FyreT1ger wrote:Able-bodied idle adults actually cost the state and community in general more than children.

I wasn't aware that raising a ward of the state from age 0 to 18 was so cheap, though I haven't exactly heard good things about the quality of the foster care system.

FyreT1ger wrote:Another thing to think about is that women have limited fertility. Women are only capable of pregnancy and childbirth for a few years of their lives, and even in those few years, women are only fertile for a few days of each month. Those few days are called ovulation and land within a week before menstruation. If a woman feels she absolutely must have sex but isn't ready to have children, she can have sex outside of ovulation. All she needs is to know her own body.

Or she could always use contraception and have sex whenever she wants and suffer no moral judgement (beyond the sadly typical judgement for women enjoying sex) because it is pretty much impossible to tell if there was ever a zygote unless it survives and grows large enough to become noticeable. Then a bunch of people who think they have any claim over another's body get to be angry when she has an abortion.

FyreT1ger wrote:A woman who knows her own body also should be able to prevent complications and get proper prenatal care when she does want to have a child. With proper prenatal care,this woman and her doctor can also point out signs of unexpected complications. Because of modern medical technology, these unexpected complications can be treated before they get to a point where they are a danger to either mother or child's life. And that brings me full circle. Abortion is not justified homicide because we have the technology to prevent and eliminate problems when they appear.

But would you punish a woman who has a miscarriage? Would you investigate her to see if she could have prevented it somehow? After all, there's so many things that can make the entirety of pregnancy a completely uncomplicated process that women should all be required to endure, so if something went wrong than she obviously did something wrong.

FyreT1ger wrote:If you want to push the button of what about countries without the technology, Countries without the technology to prevent or eliminate these problems don't have the technology to do abortions either.

Sure they don't.

When I saw the title I thought: "DWI, are you serious?"

"But would you punish a woman who has a miscarriage? Would you investigate her to see if she could have prevented it somehow?"

I'll answer this first because I know I can do so without getting agitated. No, there is no blame attached to miscarriages. Most miscarriages are unfortunate accidents and should be treated as such.
In some cases, another person may beat or poison the mother to induce abortion. Only then is there any blame to allot. The perpetrator of such an act should be charged with abuse, murder or attempted murder, depending on how it ends, and punished to the full extent of law.

Now onto the more difficult things. There are certain phrases regarding this particular topic that disturb me. Something repeated in lifecharacter’s post was ”woman’s right to control her body.” I won’t deny such a thing exists. Both men and women have a right and duty to control their bodies where they can. Yes, I said men and women and I used the term duty in the same sentence. Duty also means responsibility. Right and responsibility always go hand in hand.

What do I mean when I say men and women have a right and responsibility to control their bodies? It’s called SELF-control. Self – control does not require any drugs or risky surgery and is for everyone who is able to understand consequences of behavior. Pregnancy and certain diseases are both consequences of sex. If you don’t want those consequences, the simplest answer is don’t do it. Those who don’t want to say no, say use contraception. No contraceptive is 100% effective and none prevent the diseases. I’ve also seen more cases of damages done by such things than not.

I am a woman, so my views on this are not based on misunderstanding. I am also a virgin, so I know it's possible to live without having sex. I survived the entire hormonal roller coaster of my adolescence without any sex. I had one boyfriend and one unrequited crush. I did have sexual fantasies, as all humans do, but I never acted on them. If I did anything with them, I wrote erotic fiction for myself and either put it aside or discarded it. I am now an adult and have little to no interest in erotica. I prefer more in-depth and, in my opinion, more mature writing and literature.

“no amount of moral whinging has managed to convince me that women should just inherently have less rights.”

Men have no right to refuse child support, no right to beat women, and no right to kill children. This so-called right is giving women MORE rights than men. You don’t believe women should inherently have less rights, neither do I. Do you believe men should inherently have less rights? Should a man have a right to refuse to give child support? Refusing child support is the male equivalent of abortion.

If a low-income man is given responsibility for a child when the mother abandons, abuses, or neglects him or her, should he GET child support from the woman? In the US, women don’t pay child support or are even considered to do so, but men taking responsibility of children without a mother happen. I know a man who was in that position personally. He raised two girls by himself when the mother both neglected and abandoned them using his own income and no outside support. They never had much but they had what they needed.

Getting back to abortion and low-income women, there are other options. The simplest of these is if the woman doesn’t have the financial needs to care for her child, let the baby’s father do it. He can pay for her living and medical expenses until birth and then claim his child and not be required to see the woman again if he wishes. In many cases the fathers want the children, and abortion would deny these men their right to choose.

In cases of rape and incest, abortion allows the criminals to get away scot-free and continue their evil behaviour. Not only that, but victims can’t get the help they need. Rape causes both physical and mental wounds. Letting the perps get away scot-free, and hiding the evidence of their crime under the rug, allows those wounds to fester and destroy the poor women’s lives. Doctors and psychologists need to know the source to treat these wounds appropriately.

Another option that costs the woman nothing is adoption. Abortions always cost money. In adoptions, the agency and adoptive family will pay her medical and living expenses for the duration.

If the mother doesn’t want to put baby up for adoption, crisis pregnancy centres and groups affiliated with them DO pay for medical expenses and make sure both mother and baby have food and clothing until they get on their feet. Some offer parenting classes for both mother and father and employment training. If these aren’t available on site, they would know how and where mother or both parents can get them. These are more reasons why abortion isn’t justified.

FyreT1ger wrote:I'll answer this first because I know I can do so without getting agitated. No, there is no blame attached to miscarriages. Most miscarriages are unfortunate accidents and should be treated as such.

But you don't actually know that to be the case. After all, if a child just suddenly died would you just immediately assumed that it was an unfortunate accident that should be treated as such and not investigated? Unless the miscarriage was a thing of utter inevitability it is likely that the mother could have done something to prevent it or, at the very least, reduce the odds of it happening.

FyreT1ger wrote:Now onto the more difficult things. There are certain phrases regarding this particular topic that disturb me. Something repeated in lifecharacter’s post was ”woman’s right to control her body.” I won’t deny such a thing exists. Both men and women have a right and duty to control their bodies where they can. Yes, I said men and women and I used the term duty in the same sentence. Duty also means responsibility. Right and responsibility always go hand in hand.

And an abortion is taking responsibility for the body they have a right to hold control over.

FyreT1ger wrote:What do I mean when I say men and women have a right and responsibility to control their bodies? It’s called SELF-control. Self – control does not require any drugs or risky surgery and is for everyone who is able to understand consequences of behavior. Pregnancy and certain diseases are both consequences of sex. If you don’t want those consequences, the simplest answer is don’t do it. Those who don’t want to say no, say use contraception. No contraceptive is 100% effective and none prevent the diseases. I’ve also seen more cases of damages done by such things than not.

And, for people who don't regard the potentiality for life as equivalent to life and regard nine months of what, in any other situation, would be regarded as an illness, an abortion is a means of dealing with the consequences of sex. Would you tell someone who contracted an STI that they shouldn't be allowed to take medicine or manage their illness because they had sex and thus are responsible for just toughing out any and all consequences?

FyreT1ger wrote:I am a woman, so my views on this are not based on misunderstanding. I am also a virgin, so I know it's possible to live without having sex. I survived the entire hormonal roller coaster of my adolescence without any sex. I had one boyfriend and one unrequited crush. I did have sexual fantasies, as all humans do, but I never acted on them. If I did anything with them, I wrote erotic fiction for myself and either put it aside or discarded it. I am now an adult and have little to no interest in erotica. I prefer more in-depth and, in my opinion, more mature writing and literature.

That's all wonderful and irrelevant.

FyreT1ger wrote:Men have no right to refuse child support, no right to beat women, and no right to kill children. This so-called right is giving women MORE rights than men. You don’t believe women should inherently have less rights, neither do I. Do you believe men should inherently have less rights? Should a man have a right to refuse to give child support? Refusing child support is the male equivalent of abortion.

Women have no right to refuse child support, no right to beat women (or men), and no right to kill children. They have exactly the same lack of rights in all three instances. If a man ever becomes pregnant, he should have all the rights in the world to have an abortion just as a woman should, that such a thing isn't typical or likely to happen due to the simple facts of biology does not mean that men somehow have less rights than women. You might as well argue that (barring instances of trans, gender fluid, and the like individuals) women have less rights than men because men have the right to chop off their penis.

And no, refusing to give child support is in no way equivalent to abortion, it's the equivalent of refusing to give child support, you know, that thing women aren't allowed to do either. The major difference between abortion and not paying child support is that, in the former, there is no child for anyone to support while, in the latter, the entire burden of the child is foisted upon a single individual. It's the difference between taking complete responsibility for a pregnancy and placing the entirety of the burden on someone else.

FyreT1ger wrote:If a low-income man is given responsibility for a child when the mother abandons, abuses, or neglects him or her, should he GET child support from the woman? In the US, women don’t pay child support or are even considered to do so, but men taking responsibility of children without a mother happen. I know a man who was in that position personally. He raised two girls by himself when the mother both neglected and abandoned them using his own income and no outside support. They never had much but they had what they needed.

Sure they don't. Though, if you'd like to cite actual law rather than invoke the image of a single parent who doesn't receive child support, you're welcome to. If not, I'll have to remain unconvinced because I was raised by a single mother who used her own income to support us and received no child support from my father. Funny that.

FyreT1ger wrote:Getting back to abortion and low-income women, there are other options. The simplest of these is if the woman doesn’t have the financial needs to care for her child, let the baby’s father do it. He can pay for her living and medical expenses until birth and then claim his child and not be required to see the woman again if he wishes. In many cases the fathers want the children, and abortion would deny these men their right to choose.

So we're going to start off with the assumption that all these low-income pregnant women conceived with some well-off man who can afford to just support what amounts to a surrogate at that point? I imagine low-income men just don't want children or don't deserve them for not earning enough money to fund a surrogacy.

Besides that, men don't have a right to choose after sex because, shockingly enough, giving them such a choice would amount to giving them the absolute right to control another person and subject them to their whims. Though it's good that you think a man who wants a child should be able to influence the bodily and medical decisions of another person simply because he impregnated them.

FyreT1ger wrote:In cases of rape and incest, abortion allows the criminals to get away scot-free and continue their evil behaviour. Not only that, but victims can’t get the help they need. Rape causes both physical and mental wounds. Letting the perps get away scot-free, and hiding the evidence of their crime under the rug, allows those wounds to fester and destroy the poor women’s lives. Doctors and psychologists need to know the source to treat these wounds appropriately.

An abortion is not an incinerator and, in fact, might actually make physical evidence more readily available since trying to extract biological material from a developing fetus can't safely be done for some time. It's honestly rather disgusting that you'd try and act as though forcing a rape victim to carry the fetus they conceived during their rape to term is the only way to bring their assailant to justice. An abortion also doesn't stop a woman from telling doctors and mental health professionals about what happened to her, it just means that she doesn't have to spend nine fucking months dealing with a medical condition inflicted upon her despite their being a simple medical solution for it.

FyreT1ger wrote:Another option that costs the woman nothing is adoption. Abortions always cost money. In adoptions, the agency and adoptive family will pay her medical and living expenses for the duration.

And how much do pregnancies cost? Hospital stays? Medication? Potential loss of wages? Do those just not factor in?

All in all, I'm not surprised by anything you've said. It all fits neatly into what is expected of people who virulently despise the notion of a woman having the right to make medical decisions concerning her own body. Not to mention that you also happen to be someone who actually compares people who disagree with you to Hitler and invokes vague notions of "African Tribespeople" to claim that financial security isn't that important.

I believe it is pure murder if the fetus is more than 6 months along (UNLESS it is a rare life threatening situation for the Mother).. Abortions should be commenced within the same month the mother finds out she is pregnant. To each their own, but I personally agree with Lifecharacter. I believe that having abortions is better than the mom having the baby and cutting it's limbs off because she's not mentally suited to be a mother (this has actually happened). There are some women who just should not be convinced or allowed to have children. Casey Anthony is a perfect example of a woman who should never be denied an abortion. In fact, she should never be allowed to even have children in the first place after she killed her two year old and stuffed her in the trunk with a sticker on her mouth. That woman is SICK. Not every sick woman is in prison, and not all of them want children. Why would we force women to give birth to a child they don't want, especially when there are sick women like Casey Anthony out there? What if the woman is so mentally deranged that she blames the child? Even if that is a 'rare' case, would you be happy that outlawing abortions led to a newborn's torture? Hours or even years of abuse just because it makes YOU feel better? Not all sick women would give their child up for adoption after the community all but ties her down and forces her to give birth, plenty would keep the child and torment it for 'ruining' her body, or her life, or whatever other lame excuses sick women use.

Abortions should always be an option because otherwise we are taking a woman's rights away and putting more children in potential risk for longterm abuse, but also making it more likely that certain unstable women will attempt the abortions themselves! There have even been cases where RAPISTS have WON the right to visitations with their child, even when they conceived said child while raping the child's mother! That is a scary thought, for anyone to imagine. Would you trust your child that you were forced to have, that may or may not look EXACTLY like your attacker with someone who raped and brutalized you?

There are so many flaws with the world and society... Like I said, an abortion should be a personal choice, because backing ANY person into a corner and taking their choice of what happens inside of their body away... it isn't right. While I personally believe abortions are wrong, I would never try to force another woman to keep a baby she doesn't want. We can give them options, but at the end of the day, the choice is HER'S. Not mine, not yours, not the father's. If a man wants a baby so bad, go be with a woman who wants one! No one can force a woman to have their baby just because they were born male. The mother might commit suicide feeling helpless to control what goes on inside of her body, then the baby dies anyway. How does that fix anything? The man STILL loses his baby, and we've lost two valuable human lives because people stick their noses where they don't belong. Lots of women used to jump off buildings or throw themselves down stairs to avoid having their child. In the long run, you can't charge a dead woman. Why lose two lives for one just because you want to shove your beliefs down everyone else's throats?

Also, how many would want their teenage daughter to have an abortion? What if it was your daughter, raped and pregnant with her rapist's child. Say...fourteen-year-old girl? Would it change things then? Should she be FORCED to have a child she did not willfully create? Forced to bear the stretch marks for life because of your bigotry?

Every egg and sperm is a "potential human" with a "potential future"; you could argue that every time you masturbate (as a man) or release eggs (as a woman) without it being related to an effort to procreate, you're committing homicide.

What is the meaningful distinction between the ingredients and the fetus?

I found the source I meant to bring up in chat that started this whole damn thing.

http://www.cengage.com/philosophy/book_ ... rquis.html

Well, the unfortunate thing is that I find most of this irrelevant, but I need to pose a couple of questions in order to get my point across.

The first question: Are we giving special rights to the unborn? I am assuming not.

The second question: Should a parent be legally forced to filter the blood of their two year old for any period of time should the failing organs of the child require it? (My personal opinion is that no, they should not.)

The third question: Is it murder/homicide if the parent refuses to go through this procedure? (I do not believe so.)

These few questions pose the issue of a similar fictional situation to pregnancy, a parent is having a part of her body used by something or someone else; when a fetus attains personhood is irrelevant in this case. My position is that no one should be forced to use any their body for another person if they do not wish it. My one and only objection is the killing of babies after they are able to live outside the womb. Objections?

First of all, Lifecharacter, my hat is off to you, good sir/madam.

I would simply like to add this. Regardless of which side of the fence you are on, before you start vehemently assaulting the other, ask yourself three questions:
1. Why do you believe whatever it is you believe?
2. Why do you believe your beliefs are right?
3. Why do you believe you have the right to enforce your will on others?

StarlightPrincess wrote:Saying that a mother should have put effort into preventing it is almost the same as shaming and blaming a mother for her unborn child's death.

Agreed, which is why it was brought up in response to the ideas of fetal personhood and abortion being murder to show how ridiculous the implications of such ideas are when you actually apply them outside the narrow perspective of someone just interested in denying people their rights.

To be frank, even if it were justified murder and the fetus had a soul and could feel everything, it still wouldn't be anyone's right to force someone to carry that to term. It's an incredible ability to be able to create humans in your womb, but its an incredibly taxing and intrusive thing too. For ten months your body isn't yours and is concentrated on growing life, your normalcy and comfort are forfeit, sometimes your sanity. You can't force someone into that burden. It's taxing on the mind and body and whether or not that child should be carried to term should be up to the person carrying it.

Pragmatically, you won't stop women from getting abortions anyway. They will find a way to end the pregnancy no matter what the law is, and unfortunately the consequences of those methods are deadly. So when it comes to the law this isn't really about whether or not it's moral to end the pregnancy, but whether or not you care about young women killing themselves.

A good way to avoid this whole situation would be better access to pregnancy preventatives, such as male contraception, which is much less invasive than its female counterpart, and covering contraception in general in medical insurance. Educating people about safe sex in schools instead of relying on parents to do it would also help an incredible amount, teenage pregnancy is much higher in places that concentrate on trying to teach kids about abstinence than those that give better education. These concepts are already proven in other countries and even a few states in the US, so I don't know what the heck is taking legislation so damn long. *looks at most recent election* Oh wait, yes I do.

Sench wrote:First of all, Lifecharacter, my hat is off to you, good sir/madam.

I would simply like to add this. Regardless of which side of the fence you are on, before you start vehemently assaulting the other, ask yourself three questions:
1. Why do you believe whatever it is you believe?
2. Why do you believe your beliefs are right?
3. Why do you believe you have the right to enforce your will on others?

and see, I don't think this statement works when you're talking about a view that entails the absence of enforcing your will on others. That's just contrary reasoning.

Madame wrote:

Sench wrote:...Why do you believe you have the right to enforce your will on others?

and see, I don't think this statement works when you're talking about a view that entails the absence of enforcing your will on others. That's just contrary reasoning.

If you argue pro-choice, you're still forcing people who are against it to accept your view of the issue.
Also, after putting it like that, I suddenly understand why so many are the so-called "pro-life". I'm surprised at myself for not seeing it before.

Sench wrote:

Madame wrote:

Sench wrote:...Why do you believe you have the right to enforce your will on others?

and see, I don't think this statement works when you're talking about a view that entails the absence of enforcing your will on others. That's just contrary reasoning.

If you argue pro-choice, you're still forcing people who are against it to accept your view of the issue.
Also, after putting it like that, I suddenly understand why so many are the so-called "pro-life". I'm surprised at myself for not seeing it before.

Let me try to explain better. When it comes down to it no one cares what their neighbor personally believes, they care what rights they themselves have. You should have the right to choose if you believe that a fetus is a life too precious to not carry, and feel free to do so should you become pregnant. But if you don't see it that way or do but can't go through with it then you need to be able to fix the problem.

That's the magic of free choice. It's the absence of enforcing both your view and will on others.

I don't think I follow what you mean about pro-lifers?