Abortion, and birth control

[Dan Rutter]

Say there is a lady that ends up getting pregnant after her, and her partner have sex without using any birth contol. Both her and her partner have never really been educated about birth control. They both know it exists, but do not know much else. She decides she does not want to have this baby. She goes to a place like Planned Parenthood, or something, and decides on having an abortion.

After this abortion, Planned Parenthood informs her, and her partner about birth control ( I have know idea if PP would do this, I think they would, if not someone else does). PP teaches the her, and her partner how to use various forms of BC, and gives them some BC to use themselves.

Her, and her partner choose to not use the BC in the future when they have sex. She becomes pregnant again. She wants an abortion again.

What valid reason does she give for having an abortion? Is it just because it is her body and she can do what she pleases with it? If that is the case, is society saying we value the women's oppurtunity to have sex without birth control, more then a human fetus. The human fetus, which independent of anyone's beliefs of its rights, may in fact be entitled to rights.

[lehighguy]

The circumstances of the pregnency have nothing to do with the morality of abotion.

I think you've pretty much summed it up.

/images/graemlins/frown.gif

[Dan Rutter]

[ QUOTE ]
The circumstances of the pregnency have nothing to do with the morality of abotion.

[/ QUOTE ]
A lot of people would disagree. A lot would change their opinions on abortion based on what particular circumstances you gave them. Thats why a lot of opinion polls can be biased depending on the question, or circumstance presented. I really don't think it does though.

[BCPVP]

Bingo. Hence it is not any more moral to abort a baby that was conceived due to rape or incest, something I argued in a different thread a month or two ago.

[fluxrad]

[ QUOTE ]
The circumstances of the pregnency have nothing to do with the morality of abotion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am very pro-choice and I disagree with you. That is to say, the circumstances of putting a bullet in a mans head have everything to do with the morality of that act. Although, as a purely digressionary endeavor, it would be interesting to dive into the mindset of those who favor abortion in the case of rape and incest. Does a fetus that is the product of a rape have fewer rights simply because something bad happened to the mother? Is it OK to abort the child simply because the father is an [censored] (to my knowledge, the propensity to rape is not hereditary).

To address the OP - The circumstance you envision does happen. Any institutionalized practice, such as driving, drinking, drugs, guns, golfing, dining out, credit, and abortion all have the ability to be abused. This alone cannot be used as a case to argue their prohibition. That is to say, en total the right of a woman to choose is greater than the negative effects that stem from the abuse of abortion.

Of course, my ability to convince pro-life individuals of that is somewhat limited.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
Bingo. Hence it is not any more moral to abort a baby that was conceived due to rape or incest, something I argued in a different thread a month or two ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain to me the morality of this situation. Someone drugs you against your will. They remove a kidney. You will function without it, but you may have a lowered quality of life. You wake up, and have the chance to take your kidney back and have a doctor reattach it to you. However, the kidney was taken to save the life of a sick old man. Does the old man have a right to your kidney?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Does the old man have a right to your kidney?

[/ QUOTE ]
No. I'd also have to assume that the old man had no part in the decision as the fetus has no part in the decision of its creation. So assuming the old man didn't know, do you have a right to commit uniniated force against him? I don't believe you do. Just as if a man hits his wife, she does not have the right to hit her daughter, even though aggression was committed against her. In other words, being aggressed against does not give you the right to aggress against innocent 3rd parties.

You have to assume the fetus has rights in this scenario or else there's no reason to bring it up because if the fetus has no rights, the circumstances of its conception don't matter; you can abort it regardless.

[Peter666]

"That is to say, en total the right of a woman to choose is greater than the negative effects that stem from the abuse of abortion."

"En total" this is true. But the OP is not arguing against the whole practice of abortion, but against individuals who are doing it again for a second time.

If drunk drivers have their licences removed, and some repeat felons get the three strikes and you're out rule, how can we justify mulitiple abortions for irresponsible people?

[ QUOTE ]
...
"En total" this is true. But the OP is not arguing against the whole practice of abortion, but against individuals who are doing it again for a second time.

If drunk drivers have their licences removed, and some repeat felons get the three strikes and you're out rule, how can we justify mulitiple abortions for irresponsible people?

[/ QUOTE ]

1) The issue should be why should someone have to right to impose his/her moral views on another. There are no victims in the case of abortion. Once, twice or 100 times makes no difference.

2) For the same reason that smokers should not be given medical assistance when required??? [and abortion is not felony see 1) above]

[BluffTHIS!]

It is a great poverty that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.
-Mother Teresa of Calcutta

[ QUOTE ]
It is a great poverty that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.
-Mother Teresa of Calcutta

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I guess it is a good idea to have even more children in Calcutta. The place can really sustain them and they are going to have an extremely dignified life.

[BluffTHIS!]

God has created us for an eternal purpose, and not just to have the most happy life on earth possible without any misery or suffering. But Mother Teresa was proof that God provides loving care for those marginalized by society, an example which if followed by more people would provide for all.

And maintaining that a fetus is not a person, even to the ridiculous length of saying the same regarding partial birth abortion where a borderline viable fetus is first partially delivered so that its head may be crushed, doesn't make that assertion so.

[Peter666]

"The issue should be why should someone have to right to impose his/her moral views on another."

The aborting of a fetus is the ultimate in imposing one's moral views on another, in this case, on the fetus. The state recognizes the rights of a fetus when a pregnant woman is killed or when a fetus is put in an incubator. So that is a non starter.

The second point about the smokers is not similar in that it is seen as an addiction and is customarily handled in a different way. However, if the state offered a stop smoking program that allowed addicts to totally quit their addiction but the smoker decided to start again and then has medical problems as a result, he surely should be found liable for all treatments and expenses.

[ QUOTE ]
... maintaining that a fetus is not a person, ...

[/ QUOTE ]

As far as I know, even in the USA a foetus is not a person. A person nhas an obligation (not neccesarily fullfilled) to be registered as a member of society. As far as I know, there is no need to register pregnancies, nor occasions of intercourse, nor looking lecherously at a neighboor because it may lead to conversation, contact and then intercourse, which could result in the birth of an individual.

In my opinion, if there is no victim there is no crime. The opposite view is an extension of private and personal morality over others who may not share it. Believe me, I am not opposed to yourself, or anyone, choosing not to have an abortion, not using drugs, not going to a prostitute, or not prostituting him/herself, I only object to making individual choices compulsive for others. Neither do I neccesarily choose those behaviours for myself. As bigdaddydvo would say, stay in your lane!

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
In my opinion, if there is no victim there is no crime.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those who wish to kill unborn children to make their lives easier deny that the fetus is a child so as not admit what they are doing.

[ QUOTE ]
"The issue should be why should someone have to right to impose his/her moral views on another."

The aborting of a fetus is the ultimate in imposing one's moral views on another, in this case, on the fetus. The state recognizes the rights of a fetus when a pregnant woman is killed or when a fetus is put in an incubator. So that is a non starter.


[/ QUOTE ]

See my post above and add to it the fact that miscarriages are not reportable either, but I guess that would be a god induced abortion!

[ QUOTE ]

The second point about the smokers is not similar in that it is seen as an addiction and is customarily handled in a different way. However, if the state offered a stop smoking program that allowed addicts to totally quit their addiction but the smoker decided to start again and then has medical problems as a result, he surely should be found liable for all treatments and expenses.

[/ QUOTE ]

I realise that, especially in the USA, at the end of day, it is a matter who is going to pay for it. A couple of days ago, I heard an interview with a researcher, that compared availability of medical services amongst 8 top developped countries including, the US, Australia, Canada, the UK, etc. and guess what? The good ol' USA scored the worse by a big margin mainly due to, but not only, lack of affordabilty. Maybe it's a euphemism for compassion? Simple thing would be to make the tobacco companies pay the expenses, but that would affect the shareholders, right?

[Peter666]

"miscarriages are not reportable either"

That is not the case. If there is reason to believe that foul play was somehow involved in a miscarriage, charges would be laid. For example, in the case of a domestic dispute, if a husband punches his pregnant wife in the stomach and a miscarriage ensues, he will face much graver charges. Likewise if a woman purposely tries to induce a miscarriage.

I am not in disagreement with your second point.

[ QUOTE ]
"miscarriages are not reportable either"

That is not the case. If there is reason to believe that foul play was somehow involved in a miscarriage, charges would be laid. For example, in the case of a domestic dispute, if a husband punches his pregnant wife in the stomach and a miscarriage ensues, he will face much graver charges. Likewise if a woman purposely tries to induce a miscarriage.

I am not in disagreement with your second point.

[/ QUOTE ]

At what point is a miscarriage reportable, except in as much as it is cause of grief/harm to the mother (the reason for recognition of the fact of foetal existence)? That, imo, is why some state recognise right of foetus, because it has an impact on a real person or persons (the parents, especially the mother). I may be corrected here, as I can't claim that I am conversant with all states legislations.

The other part of this point still stands altough it may be better that I post the question on the philosophy forum. A naturally occuring abortion is an act of god, no? Or is it an "accident of nature" (this intelligently designed reality) to conveniently make your god not responsible and preserve its pristime reputation?

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
What valid reason does she give for having an abortion?

[/ QUOTE ]

Her valid reason is: "it's a personal decision that is none of your damn business."

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Does the old man have a right to your kidney?

[/ QUOTE ]
No. I'd also have to assume that the old man had no part in the decision as the fetus has no part in the decision of its creation. So assuming the old man didn't know, do you have a right to commit uniniated force against him? I don't believe you do. Just as if a man hits his wife, she does not have the right to hit her daughter, even though aggression was committed against her. In other words, being aggressed against does not give you the right to aggress against innocent 3rd parties.

You have to assume the fetus has rights in this scenario or else there's no reason to bring it up because if the fetus has no rights, the circumstances of its conception don't matter; you can abort it regardless.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are missing my point. EVEN IF you grant a fetus full human rights, it's very strange to say that another person has a right to your body AGAINST YOUR CONSENT. Of course this is a moot point if you grant a fetus zero rights.

But the extreme anti-abortionists will argue that even in cases of rape it is morally reprehensible also means that it is morally reprehensible to demand your kidney back from this "innocent" man.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
it's very strange to say that another person has a right to your body AGAINST YOUR CONSENT

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. Hypothetical: there is a set of conjoined twins named Yin and Yang. Yin and Yang have grown to the ripe old age of 48 (combined- Yin is 24 as is Yang /images/graemlins/tongue.gif .) Aside from being adult conjoined twins, Yin and Yang have other health issues as well. On their 25th birthday, Yin will die if (and only if) Yang is still alive.

Does Yin have a right to kill Yang to preserve his own life?

We would never say that Yin has that right. Yang is an innocent. Yis life has as much value as Yin. The reason that in the abortion context we allow this is that society either believes a fetus to not be alive or consider it a form of life with less value than the mother.

[BluffTHIS!]

Virtually every consensual action we take in life entails repsonsibilites to others, from driving a car to signing a contract to owning and using firearms, or even merely lighting a campfire with the knowledge we are repsonsible not to start a forest fire. Yet with the thing that is at the very essence of humanity, the creation of life itself through sexual generation, we by your views magically have no responsbility by conveniently declaring an unborn fetus not to be a person regardless of its stage of development.

All so that a woman's or a couple's life not be inconvenienced by a birth when there are so many other couples who would count it their greatest joy to adopt that child if the birth parents should not wish to raise it.

And how much difference can there really be then between infanticide committed during the first week of an infant's life and aborting it 1 month earlier?

But all that convenient reasoning rests on the lie that a fetus is not a child, when it draws its nourishment from inside the mother rather than outside as it will later.

How conventient indeed. And how sad.

And if you are going to maintain abortion is OK, then at least have the guts to admit that it is murder as Sklansky maintains. But of course, how then would you be able to live with yourself and maintain your complacent selfish existence?

[vulturesrow]

Consent is implied when you choose to engage in the sexual act, no matter how small the chance of pregnancy occuring is.

[Peter666]

It appears that different states make different rules, and this also applies to countries around the world. There is no universal consistent logic in the application of miscarriage laws as some give undoubtable fetal rights, and others do not.

I myself argue that there is a simple universal principal that applies to abortion from deductive reasoning and using the definition of a human. It does not involve religion at all. But I guess that is a Philosophy forum thing.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
You are missing my point.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, I understand what your point was. It's just that you're wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
EVEN IF you grant a fetus full human rights, it's very strange to say that another person has a right to your body AGAINST YOUR CONSENT.

[/ QUOTE ]
They don't have a "right" to your body, but you don't have a right to kill an innocent party simply because someone else harmed you.

[ QUOTE ]
Of course this is a moot point if you grant a fetus zero rights.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course.

[ QUOTE ]
But the extreme anti-abortionists will argue that even in cases of rape it is morally reprehensible also means that it is morally reprehensible to demand your kidney back from this "innocent" man.

[/ QUOTE ]
Demand all you want. But he has no moral obligation to kill himself (nor you to kill him) to give it back.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
But he has no moral obligation to kill himself (nor you to kill him) to give it back.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly.

[fluxrad]

[ QUOTE ]

They don't have a "right" to your body, but you don't have a right to kill an innocent party simply because someone else harmed you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it not also the responsibility of the third party to ensure that the object they are getting was not obtained through illegal means? Certainly an old many buying a kidney off the back of a truck in Brooklyn cannot reasonably expect that kidney was legally obtained. Try replacing kidney with stereo - does an individual have a right to an illegally obtained object which they purchased (unbeknownst to them) illegally? The current concensus is no, an individual does not have a right to a stolen good, regardless of how they obtained it. The only reason this is a hairy question is because you're talking about a kidney - which would require not just the initiation of force to remove, but the forced initiation of surgery - an act which is not done in the U.S.

Also - this brings up a somewhat related question: Is coercion equivalent to force? Is saying "do X or I will kill you" considered a forceful act in the classic libertarian view (I can't remember if you're libertarian or anarcho-capitalist). If it is, then where does one draw the line? Is any ultimatum considered force? If not then your notion of an "innocent" third party creates all sorts of problems - namely, the old man can simply say "steal me a kidney/stereo/motor boat or I will kill you." He is then entitled to whatever object he receives simply because he is not the one who actually stole the object.

[OtisTheMarsupial]

[ QUOTE ]

And if you are going to maintain abortion is OK, then at least have the guts to admit that it is murder as Sklansky maintains. But of course, how then would you be able to live with yourself and maintain your complacent selfish existence?

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't call abortion OK, but I think it should be legal. See, there is a distinction between legal and moral. Penty of things should be legal that are not moral. And there are a variety of reasons abortion should be legal: ease of application of law, difficulty in proof, social consequences and more.

Furthermore, Sklansky got it wrong. He should have said it was homicide, not murder. There is a distinction there, too. Homicides include accidental killings and self defense killings. Murders are a distinct class of killings - and they do not include the killings, no matter the intent, of animals, plants, fetuses, enemy soldiers in war, etc.

Sklansky's logical connections in these areas is fine; it's just he's got the premises wrong. They're valid, but not strong, arguments.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it not also the responsibility of the third party to ensure that the object they are getting was not obtained through illegal means? Certainly an old many buying a kidney off the back of a truck in Brooklyn cannot reasonably expect that kidney was legally obtained.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is why I said that the old man would have to have no say in where the kidney came from if the analogy was to be comparable to what we were talking about.

[ QUOTE ]
Also - this brings up a somewhat related question: Is coercion equivalent to force? Is saying "do X or I will kill you" considered a forceful act in the classic libertarian view (I can't remember if you're libertarian or anarcho-capitalist).

[/ QUOTE ]
1)Yes, I think coercion is force. If you say "do X or I will kill you", you are forcing someone to do something that is probably against their will.
2)I fairly sure libertarians believe that coercion = force when discussing such matters.
3)I'm a conservative who is leaning more and more libertarian. The last political compass test I took pegged me as a libertarian. I'm definitely not anarcho-capitalist.

[ QUOTE ]
If it is, then where does one draw the line? Is any ultimatum considered force?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think so.

[ QUOTE ]
the old man can simply say "steal me a kidney/stereo/motor boat or I will kill you." He is then entitled to whatever object he receives simply because he is not the one who actually stole the object.

[/ QUOTE ]
Receiving stolen property (knowingly or at least suspecting, I believe; not sure) is still a crime. And even if the old man did force someone to steal a kidney for him and he had it implanted, that wouldn't prevent him from being arrested.

But I think we're straying away from abortion by bringing up extraneous items like stereos. What I was arguing originally was that you cannot believe abortion is morally wrong yet accept it in cases of rape and incest (which an incredible ~70% of Republicans believe should be the case!).
When talking about whether abortion should be allowed for in cases of rape/incest, you're basically accepting (at least for the sake of argument) that a fetus is life worth protecting. A stereo is not equivalent to a fetus if we accept the above premise.