Better Restated Abortion Question

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
The question is: does she have the right to terminate the fetus?

If so, upon what rationale does the woman have that right? Does the father have that right based upon that same rationale? If not, why not?


[/ QUOTE ]
You've compounded DS's mistake of assuming some objective meaning to arbitary points on the sperm-person line with assuming some objective meaning to human rights.

Then because objective human rights make no sense you somehow suggest there must be some problem with the objection to objective arbitary points.

chez

[foal]

nepenthe,

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Slansky,

[ QUOTE ]

My point of course is that many woman who choose to have an abortion disingenously use the argument that they have a right to do what they want with their body, even though their real agenda is that the baby does not survive.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are falsely characterising something as disingenous when it is valid. The statement "I don't want the baby to survive and I have the right to do what I want with my body, so I'm going to get an abortion" is consistent and makes sense, just as "I want to get high and I have the right to do what I want with my body, so I'm going to do drugs" is consistent.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I think what DS is saying is that, *if* the pro-abortionists' claim boils down to "I can do what I want with my body (including any life form attached to my body against my wishes)," then logically that claim no longer applies once the fetus is alive and well and is no longer a part of a woman's body.


[/ QUOTE ]

Reread the quote I was responding to: "many woman who choose to have an abortion disingenously use the argument that they have a right to do what they want with their body, even though their real agenda is that the baby does not survive"

[bocablkr]

I am pro-choice. I have 'personally had' 6 abortions.

If technology advances to the point where instead of having an abortion they perform a procedure to remove the fetus and place it in an incubator until it is full term, then I would be all for it. I believe all the women I had abortions with would say the same - as long as it is no longer their responsibility from that point on.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
I am pro-choice. I have 'personally had' 6 abortions.

If technology advances to the point where instead of having an abortion they perform a procedure to remove the fetus and place it in an incubator until it is full term, then I would be all for it. I believe all the women I had abortions with would say the same - as long as it is no longer their responsibility from that point on.

[/ QUOTE ]

By "all for it", do you mean you would be apathetic whether it was or was not incubated? I presume you would be against it (and prefer the fetus to be terminated) if the future child is most likely not going to be taken care of once it is born?

[Mendacious]

[ QUOTE ]
Finally, assume that one of these to-be-mothers had her fetus removed from her body at the very beginning of her pregnancy and placed it in the incubator, fully intending that the fetus develop into a newborn. About a month later, she has a change of heart and now wants to terminate the fetus (which is now living outside of her body). The question is: does she have the right to terminate the fetus?

If so, upon what rationale does the woman have that right? Does the father have that right based upon that same rationale? If not, why not?

[/ QUOTE ]

To me, this quesion merges with how we define life and who makes custodial decisions regarding for beings that lack conciousness and awareness.

As a matter of definition, I believe the line should be drawn for life at the point when the brain stem begins to function. (My understanding is that this is the end of the firts trimester). As to who should make decisions regarding beings that lack the ability for any self-awareness, I believe this responsibility should rest with immediate family rather than the State. In the case of an unborn Fetus, that decision goes to the mother (and only the mother) for obvious reasons.

If the magic incubator existed, would I vest some legal rights in the Father to an abandoned but viable Fetus? I am not persuaded that I would-- but I am slightly open to that possibility.

I have been married for 13 years, I have two children, 12 & 10 years old. After our second child, my wife became pregnant a third time-- at this point she was over 40 years old. We lived in a cramped house in a nice neighborhood, both worked and felt that the addition of another child would put a strain on our marriage, and our ability to nurture and provide what we wanted to provide for our first two children. We mutually decided that an abortion was in the best interest of the entire family. I have little doubt that this was the correct decision.

That said, we extinguished our potential 3rd child, and when I consider how much I love my children, and how irreplaceable they are, I am filled with regret and remorse.
I am sure my wife feels the same way. But, fortunately we are together, we have two wonderful kids that we provide for and are developing beautifully. The loss of a potential third child is OUR burden to bear emotionally and to regret when we think about it.

Although "life is precious and sacred" to a degree-- it is also overly abundant. The preciousness and sacredness of life has more to do with the bonds that people feel for one another than for its numerousity.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am pro-choice. I have 'personally had' 6 abortions.

If technology advances to the point where instead of having an abortion they perform a procedure to remove the fetus and place it in an incubator until it is full term, then I would be all for it. I believe all the women I had abortions with would say the same - as long as it is no longer their responsibility from that point on.

[/ QUOTE ]

By "all for it", do you mean you would be apathetic whether it was or was not incubated? I presume you would be against it (and prefer the fetus to be terminated) if the future child is most likely not going to be taken care of once it is born?

[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming that if this technology existed we have advanced to the point where the incubated fetus would be guaranteed to be taken care of by some means (by government, charities, adoption, etc) then I can't see how many people would be opposed to it. Of course, it this was not the case, then it is debatable whether bringing this child into the world is the 'right thing to do'.

[Mendacious]

...and just to flesh out the who has the right to terminate and incubator thing a little further:

I believe (as a system) that it is preferable to have the fewest, most immediate, and most necessary people making custodial decisions of life and death. The are many reasons for this. 1) Practicality; a difficult decision is easier to make if it is made by one person. 2) The person most affected by a decision should be empowered to make it; 3) in the case of life or death, the more people you involve in the decision, the propensity for emotional consequences increases dramatically the more people you involve in the decision.

In the case of a fetus, nature has naturally vested the life of the fetus in the mother's hands. I see no reason whatsoever to disturb this. Now, if the mother chooses to remove the fetus and put it in an incubator and sustain the life, then PERHAPS this brings the rights of the natural father into play, but I am not really convinced that this is automatically so.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
No, I think what DS is saying is that, *if* the pro-abortionists' claim boils down to "I can do what I want with my body (including any life form attached to my body against my wishes)," then logically that claim no longer applies once the fetus is alive and well and is no longer a part of a woman's body.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well duh if its not part of their body then nothing follows when its not part of their body. but if that's DS's point then his being silly because its just slightly incomplete language his addressing rather than any fallacy. What's being said is:

If
a) X belongs to me
and
b) what I do with X doesn't harm anyone else
then
c) I can do what I like with X.

c) doesn't follow logically from a) and b) but its a statement of what many people believe to be true.

So either you disagree with the above or its just a question of when a) and b) hold which is where the arbitary points come in. For some reason DS seems to claim (though he denies he claims anything) that an important arbitary point comes with the distinction between keeping alive something and whatever we'd have to do to grow babies from toenails.

chez

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, I think what DS is saying is that, *if* the pro-abortionists' claim boils down to "I can do what I want with my body (including any life form attached to my body against my wishes)," then logically that claim no longer applies once the fetus is alive and well and is no longer a part of a woman's body.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well duh if its not part of their body then nothing follows when its not part of their body.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, who has ownership of my appendix after it is removed? Are you saying I have no rights to it once it is removed from my body?

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
I have been married for 13 years, I have two children, 12 & 10 years old. After our second child, my wife became pregnant a third time-- at this point she was over 40 years old. We lived in a cramped house in a nice neighborhood, both worked and felt that the addition of another child would put a strain on our marriage, and our ability to nurture and provide what we wanted to provide for our first two children. We mutually decided that an abortion was in the best interest of the entire family. I have little doubt that this was the correct decision.

That said, we extinguished our potential 3rd child, and when I consider how much I love my children, and how irreplaceable they are, I am filled with regret and remorse.
I am sure my wife feels the same way. But, fortunately we are together, we have two wonderful kids that we provide for and are developing beautifully. The loss of a potential third child is OUR burden to bear emotionally and to regret when we think about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for sharing this. It is a good example of how abortion is not just for crack whores or teenage delinquents. I think people sometimes forget that.

I have a question though, and I want to be as considerate as possible:

Do you regret not having all the potential babies you could have had, or still can have, if you and your wife wouldn't use birth control (and/or various birth control methods)? What about the aborted one makes you regret it and feel remorse for aborting it? Is it just the amount of time she carried it? Or something else?

A lot of people don't realize that around 50% of all pregnancies result in a natural abortion (usually not implanting on the uterine wall). Some people don't realize that most birth control pills just help this natural phenomenon -- by not allowing the fertilized egg to implant. I don't think many people regret these natural abortions. My guess is that it's because they weren't around very long, and didn't have time to start to become emotionally attached to the future potential person. I'm just wondering if that is why you think you feel remorse about your decision to abort?