Better Restated Abortion Question

[Stu Pidasso]

Hi Subfallen,

To be honest I did not read nor respond to the luckyme post you quoted. I was responding to a luckyme post where he essentailly claimed a womans "agenda" in having an abortion might be 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."

I was merely pointing out that the "agenda" in any abortion is to prevent a specific person from coming into existence who will complicate the woman's life. How do you expect us to answer the OPs question without examining the "agenda" behind the act of an abortion? If we are to ignore the "agenda" the OPs question becomes moot.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you re-read this thread its apparent that many on here refuse to look at abortion from its simpliest most basic perspective. Saying I have a dull fixation is the pot calling the kettle black.

Stu

[nepenthe]

[ QUOTE ]
Ignore the first one as I was unclear.

If technology advances to the point where even young embryos can be saved after an abortion, will pro choicers claim woman will have the right to tell the surgeons not to save it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've seen some posts in here comparing fetuses to toenails and deeming the fetus-preserving machine to be some kind of a supermachine that can magically turn any skin cell to a human being. As I don't believe that such leaps in logic were intended by the OP, I'd like to narrow down the terms of this hypothetical a bit more if I may:

The technology mentioned by the OP above isn't some magical box that can create human beings out of toenails or skin cells. The technology involves a sophisticated incubator that can successfully emulate a mother's womb such that a fetus, regardless of its age, may be placed inside it and be kept alive until it develops into a newborn baby.

Further assume that this new technology is so effective, that many pregnant to-be-mothers have started taking advantage of it. At no cost to them, these mothers can have their fetuses removed from their body and have them placed in this incubator. This would save them many months of inconvenience, having to miss work, etc.

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?

[David Sklansky]

A+

[Stu Pidasso]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct.

Do you think the abortion issue should revolve around womans right to do what she wants with her life instead of a womans right to do what she wants with her own body?

Stu

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think if a woman's burden was simply to carry a fetus for 9 months, vs murder, most would bear the burden. The issue for most is exactly what Stu describes - the creation of a thinking person who they're the mother of and are responsible for. This is exactly what they want to destroy.

I know we had a feminist come on here and describe the "visceral horror" of a person growing inside her, but I'd suggest she's a small minority of women.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]

If you re-read this thread its apparent that many on here refuse to look at abortion from its simpliest most basic perspective.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not denying that abortion ends a potential life. Of course it does. What I am telling you is that creating/ending potential life is NOT the "most basic" perspective on the topic of abortion---at least not in the sense of "most important."

The most important perspective on abortion is one that examines the right of a woman to end a potential life that is making profound demands on her independence/potential/viability, etc.

Your treatment of abortion is like saying that the pivotal perspective on birth control is that it prevents potential life. OF COURSE IT DOES. But a sensible debate on birth control must center on whether parents have the right to prevent potential life.

Your position only makes sense to you because you presuppose that ending potential life is somehow categorically execrable.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

I've seen some posts in here comparing fetuses to toenails and deeming the fetus-preserving machine to be some kind of a supermachine that can magically turn any skin cell to a human being. As I don't believe that such leaps in logic were intended by the OP, I'd like to narrow down the terms of this hypothetical a bit more if I may:

The technology mentioned by the OP above isn't some magical box that can create human beings out of toenails or skin cells. The technology involves a sophisticated incubator that can successfully emulate a mother's womb such that a fetus, regardless of its age, may be placed inside it and be kept alive until it develops into a newborn baby.

Further assume that this new technology is so effective, that many pregnant to-be-mothers have started taking advantage of it. At no cost to them, these mothers can have their fetuses removed from their body and have them placed in this incubator. This would save them many months of inconvenience, having to miss work, etc.

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 ]

Are the father and the mother paying for the incubator?

In any case, this formulation of the question does seem to make things more interesting. I'm leaning toward saying that the mother no longer has the right to terminate the pregnancy if it isn't a burden on her body or her life any longer. She has the option of putting it up for adoption, so I don't see why termination would be a preferred route to take.

[KipBond]

Since I don't think it's very important, I just want to briefly say that I don't think what Stu is saying is wrong -- depending on what he means by a "specific potential person". Abortions are done to prevent a future baby from being born.

Anyway, this following post is more interesting:

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If technology advances to the point where even young embryos can be saved after an abortion, will pro choicers claim woman will have the right to tell the surgeons not to save it?

[/ QUOTE ]

The technology mentioned by the OP above isn't some magical box that can create human beings out of toenails or skin cells. The technology involves a sophisticated incubator that can successfully emulate a mother's womb such that a fetus, regardless of its age, may be placed inside it and be kept alive until it develops into a newborn baby.

Further assume that this new technology is so effective, that many pregnant to-be-mothers have started taking advantage of it. At no cost to them, these mothers can have their fetuses removed from their body and have them placed in this incubator. This would save them many months of inconvenience, having to miss work, etc.

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 ]

The question then becomes: when a part of a woman's body is removed from her, does she still own it?

I think so -- why wouldn't she? Unless there is some societal reason for her not to, I don't see who else has more of a claim to that part of her body than she does.

Now, it's a bit different than being "part of her body" -- it's more like a tumor with only 1/2 of her DNA that was attached to her, but has now been removed.

And, it just so happens that the other 1/2 of the DNA belongs to the father. Now, does he have a right to say what happens to the tumor?

Good question. I don't know.

[KipBond]

[ 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 ]

Yes, most women have abortions to prevent a baby from being born.

And as far as I know they go in to abort that specific fetus that is in them, as it wouldn't be right for them to abort a fetus that was in someone else.

This is malicious? To whom? The future baby? It doesn't exist.

[All-In Flynn]

[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]


This comes down to who is impacted by the foetus’ continued existence – who is paying for the incubator, and the eventual further care of the born baby? If neither the father nor the mother is willing to keep paying for the incubator (for whatever specific ‘change of heart’ reason), and neither the State nor some private-sector individual or entity will do the same, there seems literally no option but to terminate.

So to further reduce the question to one of pure principle, stipulate that there is such a third-party prepared to step up. This third party will place itself in loco parentis and will ensure the child is raised with a quality of life acceptable to the typical citizen. Assuming for the moment that both parents are unanimous, can the parents insist the foetus be terminated? It seems analogous to a ‘copyright control’ issue – whose DNA is it, anyway?

What if the parents disagree? The traditional special privileging of the mother in this decision seems to be obviated by this technology. If the ‘copyright-control’ perspective were applied, arguably consent might be needed from both just to ensure the foetus is not terminated – however in practice I very much doubt this would ever be implemented. I can predict the reductio ad absurdum of this line, however – what happens if the two parents wish to abort and face a unanimous objection from the four grandparents? That can be trivially dismissed but such dismissal again begs the question of when the DNA’s end product is assigned the autonomy to determine its own fate.

This all Peter Singer country, if I remember right. The book of his I read concluded parents should have the right to terminate children up to the age of four, absent (I think) any other option which would with equal effectiveness absolve them of all further responsibility for its welfare, etc. Which sounds monstrous but I recall him pointing out that the very fact it is so unpalatable to the overwhelming majority is proof that it is unlikely ever to actually occur – he has just followed the logic.

This is a lot more interesting than I thought at first. Thanks for unpacking, nepenthe!