It is like saying that I decided to go outside in the cold once, and catch a cold , I then should just suffer through the cold and it potentially killing me , because I made a decision to go outside ?
>This is where we disagree Megami. I agree that bodily autonomy and right to life are both important. But I believe that one exercises their bodily autonomy during conception, and that the right to bodily autonomy does not permit killing a human, or even a potential human.
But again what if I use contraceptive, what if I was sexually assaulted, I should still bare this potential child ?
& btw, I think you are simplifying when you say that women are only in need of abortions because they were irresponsible. there are many, many circumstances where a woman finds herself pregnant and seeking out an abortion that aren't just "oops i'm so irresponsible. I knew all the right info and still found myself in this mess," such as:
-victims of ra pe who do not want to be reminded of their every day for 9 months and then either raise their rapists baby, or give their child up for adoption
- women who find out that their child is going to have serious quality-of-life deformities/complications and/or is likely to not see their 1st birthday
- women who are either too young or old or fraile to where going through with a pregnancy could put their life at risk
- women who have general pregnancy complications that could put their life at risk
You need to consider what makes a human a human and therefore a foetus only hitting 1/5 of making it human does not make it a full human in the moral sense.
If the room is stuffy, and I therefore open a window to air it, and the burglar climbs in, it would be absurd to say, 'Ah, now he can stay, she's given him the right to the use of her house, for she is partially responsible for his presence there, having voluntarily done what enabled him to get in, in full knowledge that there are such things as burglars, and that burglars burgle.
deletedalmost 6 years
Suppose that instead of being grown in the womb, the first nine months of every child's life were spent inside a test tube.
Should the mother have a say whether the child is killed or not? What if the child has a genetic disorder; should we kill it for the good of the community, disregarding the mother's wishes? It's not growing inside her, so why should she have a say?
My apologies, I don't quite understand what you are saying here?
Does a one day old child have a right to life any more than a child one day before birth?
>This is where we disagree Megami. I agree that bodily autonomy and right to life are both important. But I believe that one exercises their bodily autonomy during conception, and that the right to bodily autonomy does not permit killing a human, or even a potential human.
Here is a point and thought I think Thompson makes pretty well ""You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, 'Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you—we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it’s only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.' Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says. 'Tough luck. I agree. but now you've got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him.' I imagine you would regard this as outrageous."
It is totally fine to draw the line at 30 weeks, if you want. That is not unreasonable, and that is double what many countries draw the line at when women can legally abort.
A baby is out of a womans body and therefore has its own human rights, but until it leaves the body it is not a human life, and therefore even if is considered alives, again it does not outweigh the womans right to life.
To compare it to murder is absurd, as again you can argue that killing cancer cells or bacteria is murder, as both those things under definition are alive.
People have sex, cool its going to happen, as it human nature , we have advanced from there however and no choice should be forced upon a woman , due to you seeing it as morally correct.
As I do not have a say what you do with your body, as its none of my business.
to prevent a woman from making her own choice to continue or end her pregnancy is to undermine her autonomy, integrity and agency—which are the essence of her humanity
deletedalmost 6 years
How do we define viability though? If we leave a one day old baby to its own devices it will surely die. A one day old baby is just as viable as a 30 week old fetus. A baby that isn't fed milk will die.
The point I was attempting to make though was that both a 30 week old fetus and a 30 day old baby are about as aware as each other - twins in the womb can actually find each other and interact post 28 weeks. Thus I believe killing a 30 day old baby without reason is as wrong as killing a 30 week old fetus without reason.
And since I believe that sex is a choice not a right, abortion to me is people choosing to have sex and murdering their unwanted progeny.
Men simply do not have a say in this matter, as the foetus is not growing inside their body, the man still has a choice to not be apart of childs life, a mother is forced into a life upon what society sees fit, taking away her fundemental freedom of choice away.
-any being who does not possess most of 1-5 is not a human being in the moral sense.
- the more like a person a being is, the stronger is the case for regarding it as having a right to life, and the stronger its right to life is.
- there is no stage of fetal development at which a fetus resembles a person enough to have a significant right to life.
- a fetus’s potential for being a person does not provide a basis for the claim that it has a significant right to life. Even if a potential person has some right to life, that right could not outweigh the right of a woman to obtain an abortion, since “the rights of any actual person invariably outweigh those of any potential person”
There *is* a clear difference between a fetus and a born baby though, viability outside of the mother's body. Only very late into the pregnancy might a fetus be viable. If it needs its mother's body as a host, I don't think terminating a pregnancy is at *all* equivalent to taking a child' life 1 day after it is born.
deletedalmost 6 years
To me, the “choice” is made during conception.
A man can have his child killed against his will before it is even born. A man has no legal recourse. A man does not even need be informed about the procedure until after it has occurred, or never at all. A man can be forced to take care of a child he never wanted. A man can be forced to take care of a child that he was told wouldn’t exist, because the woman lied about being on “birth control” and the law will side with the woman.
A man can help conceive a child, can raise a child, but he can’t birth a child. I’m tired of people saying men can’t understand or shouldn’t have a say. Abortion affects men. If men are devoid of any choice then men should not bare any responsibility, and child support can fck right the hell off.
Moreover, it doesn’t even make a difference. Men and women have almost the same divide on abortion. 60% of women think it should be legal to 57% of men.
deletedalmost 6 years
50 years ago if we had this debate the law would have been against abortion, so using laws as an argument seems silly to me. based on law yes abortion is legal for most any reason, and so I think those laws should be changed.
Seems to me we disagree on two main points. a) Like you said, I think fetuses are human. You think they are less equivalent to humans and more equivalent to bacteria. I ask you then is there anything wrong with killing a baby the day after it is born? I argue that killing a baby the day after it is born is equivalent to killing it at any point during pregnancy.
We cannot equate a fetus to bacteria. If we grew fetuses in test tubes instead of inside the womb, would it be more wrong to kill a fetus, or a colony of bacteria.
b) You contend that people have a right to freedom and bodily autonomy. I agree to an extent, but I don’t think that this right is more important than the right to life of a fetus. I argue that there is no right to have sex, and that having intercourse is taken at one’s own risk. When a guy and a girl go at it, they are both aware and RESPONSIBLE for any conception that occurs. Mistakes happen, yes. Either combine contraceptions or couples can practise abstinence until they’re ready for a child (lollollol).
I don’t think we have the right to kill just because we want to have unprotected sex.
Until the foetus comes out of her body, it is her choice , it is her body and she is the only person who has a say what happens to her body and what is inside her body.
The problem is you are seeing a foetus as an actual human being, the same can be said for bacteria and cancer. It is harmful to force a woman to bear a child based on what you consider to be life, and therefore you are taking away a womans rights over her body.
A man will never get pregnant therefore will never understand the consequences, you are taking away soemones human rights and forcing them into a choice which they do not and forcing them into a life , they do not wish to have.
Laws are not based on human's morals, but rather human exsistance. Again, you might have your opinions and moral, but they cannot be forced on me, and I have the freedom over my own body , and how can I be free, if your morals and opinions on what you consider to be good, is pushed on me. You are violating my human rights and my body.
You do not consider the consequences of having a child, and again I could be cautious, but mistakes do happen, you are saying based on that I should be forced in a life I do not want, therefore denying me of my freedom of choice? Who gave you that right?
Again, whether you like it or not by law, based on human exsistance and my freedom over my body, I have a say what happens to my body, and since the foetus in my body, I and I alone have a say to what happens.
Under the law, a foetus does not have the same human rights as an actual person does, there are many thing alive in my body, and I have a say over it as it is my body, a third person does not, whether they like it or not.
Yes, laws do change because we ethnically and morally challenge laws, it is considered to be right, it is how we function together as a society.
deletedalmost 6 years
I think the act of tangoing forfeits the right of the parents to be impartial; they have a duty of care for that child, and a responsibility to protect it. After all, there is no “right to sex”.
If abortion in of itself for NO REASON is wrong - which I strongly feel it is, as it’s just killing a person or person to be - then I think parents, as fully aware consenting adults, should be prepared to contend with the consequences of their actions should they choose to have sex.
deletedalmost 6 years
The fact that under law a fetus is not a person is not sufficient to stipulate that abortion is ethically acceptable. Laws change; 50 years ago abortion was illegal. Law generally follows the opinion of the majority; doesn’t mean it is “right”.
Cancer and bacteria are obviously different for a few reasons. Cancer directly threatens the immediate health of the host; a fetus generally does not. Bacteria does not have any potential for development into a sentient, complex being. When infants that are a few months or even weeks old die, we recognise that this is bad; even though they might not be fully developed as a human or self aware.
and as said from Judith Jarvis Thomson ".a great deal turns for women on whether abortion is or is not available.
If abortion rights are denied, then a constraint is imposed on women's freedom to act in a way that is of great importance to them, both for its own sake and for the sake of their achievement of equality;
and if the constraint is imposed on the ground that the foetus has a right to life from the moment of conception, then it is imposed on a ground that neither reason nor the rest of morality requires women to accept, or even to give any weight at all."
At the end of the day, morally and ethnically woman can decide what they do with their bodies and what is inside of their bodies. Under the law a foetus does not have the same rights as an actual person, as technically it may be alive , but then we can argue that cancer is alive , bacteria in our bodies are alive, therefore we should not kill cancer or the bacteria.
Currently under the law, a foetus, is not considered to be human :"In summary it appears that the foetus is recognised to have interests in English law but it is not equivalent to a person. As such when a persons interests conflict with those of the fetus it is reasonable to assume the interests of the person will be upheld. As it is not a person, it does not have a direct right to life. Even if it were a person (and under English law it is not) the interests of the mother could still reasonably be taken to have precedence." - woman has the right to decide what she can and can't do with her body -the foetus exists inside a woman's body -a woman has the right to decide whether the foetus remains in her body -therefore a pregnant woman has the right to abort the foetus
it is unethical to ban abortion because doing so denies freedom of choice to women and forces 'the unwilling to bear the unwanted'
ur comparing abortion to genocide pretty sure that oversteps the line
deletedalmost 6 years
ok...sry for sharing my opinion in a safe environment that doesn't exclude others' views on this ethical disagreement and really does not do much except provide a good example of what it's like to share one's thoughts but not step over the toes of others
