Better Restated Abortion Question

[nepenthe]

[ QUOTE ]
The original post scenario is not reasonable, because the woman would be paying them to terminate the embryo.

[/ QUOTE ] How can you presuppose this? Why wouldn't (or shouldn't) the woman be paying them simply to remove the fetus from her body? [ QUOTE ]
They could remove the embryo from her and then refuse to kill it, but they couldn't then expect her to pay for the procedure.

[/ QUOTE ] You're presuming that in OP's hypothetical, she already has the right to terminate the fetus once it's outside her body. Of course, you can't logically presume it because that's the very question being debated by the hypothetical. [ QUOTE ]
She would not be going in saying "get this thing out of me and we'll figure it out from there".

[/ QUOTE ] Why not? Why would the woman *necessarily* insist upon the termination of the fetus?

I do believe you've just provided ammo to the posters in here who have been claiming that a woman's real agenda in abortion is that the baby doesn't survive. Exhibit A: foal's post.

[nepenthe]

[ 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.

That said, in OP's hypothetical, a woman who wants to perform an abortion and who subscribes to the above rationale *could* still tell the surgeon, prior to the operation (when the fetus is still part of her body), that she wants it terminated before being removed, and be logically consistent.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
The point is that DS and Stu's statements are far past caricatures. It's not the "hey, let's kill a baby today" that has women choosing an abortion it is variations of -
- I don't want to go through the pregnancy.
- I don't want to be a mother.
- I don't want the responsibility of raising a child.etc.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Luckyme,

The examples you have given are merely motivations for the desire that the fetus stops developing into a person who will complicate thier lives. They are not reasons for the act itself. If someone commits first degree murder they do so because they desire that their victims no longer exist. Jealously, vengance, or greed, etc are the reasons the murderer desires that thier victims no longer exist. I understand why pro-choice folks are afraid to veiw the issue in its most simpliest form. Abortion is very distasteful from the perspective, but that is exactly what it is.

[ QUOTE ]
If we could offer a woman, " your fetus will be painlessly removed, it's DNA altered so it's not traceable to you and transplanted into a wealthy caring french women" do DS and Stu really believe that they'll be faced with "Hell no? Kill it now !" gimme a break.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why would a woman choose such an option? Because she does not want a specific actual person to exist who will complicate her life. Such an option allows the woman to fulfill her desire.

Stu

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]

You think that the majority of women want to have abortions to prevent that specific fetus from becoming a person? In other words, malicious abortions? This is ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think all women who have abortions do so because carrying the fetus to term will allow a specific actual person to come into existence who will in some way complicate their lives. Pick apart that last statement and tell me what is so ridiculous/untrue about it.

Stu

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You think that the majority of women want to have abortions to prevent that specific fetus from becoming a person? In other words, malicious abortions? This is ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think all women who have abortions do so because carrying the fetus to term will allow a specific actual person to come into existence who will in some way complicate their lives. Pick apart that last statement and tell me what is so ridiculous/untrue about it.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

Who will "someday" complicate their lives? How about RIGHT NOW, IMMEDIATELY severely complicate their lives? Thats fine. It has nothing to do with a 'specific person' and your use of that term is very misleading. They would feel the same if ANY fetus was inside of them.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You think that the majority of women want to have abortions to prevent that specific fetus from becoming a person? In other words, malicious abortions? This is ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think all women who have abortions do so because carrying the fetus to term will allow a specific actual person to come into existence who will in some way complicate their lives. Pick apart that last statement and tell me what is so ridiculous/untrue about it.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

I am quite sure that many, if not most, woman who have an abortion would have no problem with the idea that the removed fetus went on to survive.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
I am quite sure that many, if not most, woman who have an abortion would have no problem with the idea that the removed fetus went on to survive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only if it could be done with minimal or no complication to thier own lives. As long as abortion is easier, that is the option they will choose.

Stu

[Subfallen]

Stu -

Time for you to go back and re-read lucky's posts. And pay attention this time. Hint:

[ QUOTE ]
The 'agenda' is the RIGHT of a person, their reasons for wanting to exercise that right are not that relevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

This selection from your posts is particularly embarrassing:

[ QUOTE ]
The examples you have given are merely motivations for the desire that the fetus stops developing into a person who will complicate thier (sic) lives. They are not reasons for the act itself. If someone commits first degree murder they (sic) do so because they desire that their victims no longer exist. Jealously, vengance (sic), or greed, etc are the reasons the murderer desires that thier (sic) victims no longer exist. I understand why pro-choice folks are afraid to veiw (sic) the issue in its most simpliest (sic) form.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I understand why you are afraid to proof-read this sort of casuistry! Let me remind you: the meaning and consequence of an abortion can be seen FROM MANY PERSPECTIVES and weighed BY MANY METRICS. Not just your dull fixation on re-tallying humanity's potential head-count.

It's shocking how happily people blind themselves with the shades of moralistic psychology.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
It has nothing to do with a 'specific person' and your use of that term is very misleading. They would feel the same if ANY fetus was inside of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Carried to term, any fetus is going to become a specific actual person who will complicate the womans life.

Stu

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am quite sure that many, if not most, woman who have an abortion would have no problem with the idea that the removed fetus went on to survive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only if it could be done with minimal or no complication to thier own lives. As long as abortion is easier, that is the option they will choose.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

No. There are certainly many woman who would opt for the fetus to live even if it complicates their life fairly seriously. Just not as much as carrying the baby to term would. Those woman are probably in the minority though.