Abortion and Women's Rights

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: Abortion and Women's Rights

Postby Iulus Cofield » Tue Mar 15, 2011 1:32 am UTC

The official stance of the Catholic Church on abortion as described in the Catechism of the Catholic Church dated 1992 and made available in the official Vatican archives. Short version: A zygote has the full rights entitled to all human beings and therefore abortion is a sin and any Catholics found receiving, performing, or contributing to an abortion will be excommunicated.

Spoiler:
Abortion

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.72

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.73
My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.74

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."80

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."81

2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual. . . . It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."82

2275 "One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival."83

"It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material."84

"Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities. Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity"85 which are unique and unrepeatable.

The Catholic Encyclopedia article on abortion which discusses the history of the church's position and elaborates a bit on the Church's reasoning. The last paragraph says that at one point it was not abortion until the fetus "quickens". But keep in mind that the CE was written between 1907 and 1914 and the Vatican's later decisions clearly have more authority.
Last edited by Iulus Cofield on Tue Mar 15, 2011 1:41 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Abortion and Women's Rights

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Tue Mar 15, 2011 1:37 am UTC

Iulus Cofield wrote:The last paragraph says it's not abortion until the fetus "quickens".

Where? It's definitely a dense paragraph, but it doesn't seem to say that to me; just that aborting a quickened fetus has some effect on the right to take Holy Orders or something to that effect.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: Abortion and Women's Rights

Postby Iulus Cofield » Tue Mar 15, 2011 1:43 am UTC

The Catholic Encyclopedia wrote:Now Gregory XIV had enacted the penalty of excommunication for abortion of a "quickened" child but the present law makes no such distinction, and therefore it must be differently understood.

That distinction, however, applies to another effect which may result from the procuring of abortion; namely, he who does so for a child after quickening incurs an irregularity, or hindrance to his receiving or exercising Orders in the Church. But he would not incur such irregularity if the embryo were not yet quickened. The terms "quickened" and "animation" in present usage are applied to the child after the mother can perceive its motion, which usually happens about the one hundred and sixteenth day after conception. But in the old canon law, which established the irregularity here referred to the "animation" of the embryo was supposed to occur on the fortieth day for a male child, and on the eightieth day for a female child.


Relevant portions italicized. I could be misreading it. It is indeed very dense.

I should have said "at one point it was not abortion until the fetus quickened", so I have edited my post.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Abortion and Women's Rights

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Mar 15, 2011 1:47 am UTC

FWIW, a fetus doesn't satisfy those definitions of life, because homeostasis, growth, metabolism, and to most extents, adaptation are dependent upon the mother.
morriswalters wrote:Here's a factoid about Russia

Also, FWIW, a factoid is a wildly held but INCORRECT belief. But, I'm curious as to why you again drop a statistic and make no effort to tell us what it means. Frankly, I wouldn't care if there was .1, .5, 1, 10, 100, 99999999999 abortions for every live birth in [place]. It's a wholly meaningless statistic without any context.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Abortion and Women's Rights

Postby Diadem » Tue Mar 15, 2011 1:50 am UTC

omgryebread wrote:
Diadem wrote:The above is only true for non-religious people of course. A religious person might claim that what makes us human is the soul. So the question becomes, do fetuses have souls? Interestingly enough, within catholicism at least, the answer is no. Official church dogma, adopted at the council of Vienne in 1312, is that to have a soul, you must have human form. Fetuses do not have human form, ergo they do not have a soul. And indeed for most of its existance the Catholic church has endorsed abortion for precisely that reason. Then somewhere in the 18th century for a brief period some scientists thought fetuses looked like tiny fully formed humans, the church adopted this view and became against abortion because of it. But this view is simple wrong, and even the church has long since abandoned it. For some reason they never reversed their stance on abortion again though. But to cut a long story short. Saying abortion is murder is, at least for catholics, heresy. Any catholic who takes his faith seriously must endorse abortion. Other religious groups will have to do some serious soul searching about the nature of the soul before they form an opinion.
That's just not true. The Didache, written in the second century AD, forbade all abortions. It sounds like you are thinking of the Apostolic Constitutions, around 380, which banned abortion if the fetus was human shaped or contained a soul, but allowed early abortions. This was supported by others, including Augustine. Innocent III in the 13th century said it was sinful only past "quickening" when the woman felt the fetus move. Pius IX banned all abortions in 1869, saying that the soul entered the pre-embryo at conception. Any Catholic who takes his faith seriously respects the authority of papal bulls, and so must condemn any and all abortions (even ones for the health of the mother.)

Well ok, I was a bit glib when I said that opposing abortion would be heresy. Obviously i'm aware of the official church stance on abortion. And I know individual catholics are not supposed to go against the authority of the church. Nevertheless the official church position is logically inconsistent.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: Abortion and Women's Rights

Postby Iulus Cofield » Tue Mar 15, 2011 1:56 am UTC

Diadem wrote:Well ok, I was a bit glib when I said that opposing abortion would be heresy. Obviously i'm aware of the official church stance on abortion. And I know individual catholics are not supposed to go against the authority of the church. Nevertheless the official church position is logically inconsistent.


Like most Catholic positions, it is completely consistent and sensible if you also ascribe to the larger theology, philosophy, and values of the Church. Papal Infallibility is probably the most famous example of that, for which non-Catholics often go, "WTF?" and Catholics go, "Well, naturally."

Isn't claiming Catholics have to accept abortion then saying you full well knew the official stance of the Church the definition of trolling?

User avatar
Krong
Posts: 288
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:49 am UTC
Location: Charleston, South Cackalacky

Re: Abortion and Women's Rights

Postby Krong » Tue Mar 15, 2011 2:23 am UTC

Diadem wrote:Nevertheless the official church position is logically inconsistent.

In the way you've framed it it certainly is logically inconsistent. It seems like you're saying the Catholic Church teaches this:

1. Killing a being with a soul is wrong; otherwise, it's morally OK.
2. Fetuses do not have souls.
Therefore, abortion is morally OK.
3. But abortion is wrong, as declared by church dogma.
CONTRADICTION!

But you're incorrect on the church's teachings on premises 1 and 2.

Ensoulment, Wikipedia
Evangelium vitae, Pope John Paul II -- see (sections?) 60 and 61

The Catholic Church does not officially teach what moment the soul is created in a human fetus. I know that I first heard this in a cafeteria full of lifelong Catholics, and most of us were surprised by this. So, to repeat: There is no official position from the Papal Magesterium at what time ensoulment takes place in a human fetus, and it's one of those things left as a theological / philosophical debate.

However, this also means that it is possible, at any stage after conception, that the fetus has a soul and is thus a human person:
Evangelium vitae wrote:Furthermore, what is at stake is so important that, from the standpoint of moral obligation, the mere probability that a human person is involved would suffice to justify an absolutely clear prohibition of any intervention aimed at killing a human embryo. Precisely for this reason, over and above all scientific debates and those philosophical affirmations to which the Magisterium has not expressly committed itself, the Church has always taught and continues to teach that the result of human procreation, from the first moment of its existence, must be guaranteed that unconditional respect which is morally due to the human being in his or her totality and unity as body and spirit: "The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception; and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life"

Essentially, the church is saying, "We don't know for sure if a fetus has a soul at any given moment, and thus whether or not it's a person. But we know there's a possibility it is a person, and therefore we should treat it as one in all our intents and purposes."

Note that it's this position on ensoulment, not the church's position that abortion is a serious sin, which has varied over time.
The answer to the question "What’s wrong with the world?" is just two words: "I am." -- G. K. Chesterton (attributed)

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26765
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Abortion and Women's Rights

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Mar 15, 2011 2:29 am UTC

morriswalters wrote:I am pro choice. Having said that I also believe in taking responsibility for your actions even if it causes you pain. I also accept that when your have an abortion your killing a child.
Like I said, not particularly hard to figure out from your other posts. So what I'm unclear on is why you insisted on pretending it was some big secret or something.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
ProverbialNoose
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 5:42 pm UTC

Re: Abortion and Women's Rights

Postby ProverbialNoose » Tue Mar 15, 2011 2:46 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
morriswalters wrote:I am pro choice. Having said that I also believe in taking responsibility for your actions even if it causes you pain. I also accept that when your have an abortion your killing a child.
Like I said, not particularly hard to figure out from your other posts. So what I'm unclear on is why you insisted on pretending it was some big secret or something.


By the way you responded to and argued against him and me earlier, it seemed like you were convinced that he was pro-life and forcing that agenda. Also, he wasn't trying to make it a secret. Like both he and I said, it was purely to frame the discussion.
Last edited by ProverbialNoose on Tue Mar 15, 2011 2:46 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Abortion and Women's Rights

Postby Diadem » Tue Mar 15, 2011 2:46 am UTC

Iulus Cofield wrote:
Diadem wrote:Well ok, I was a bit glib when I said that opposing abortion would be heresy. Obviously i'm aware of the official church stance on abortion. And I know individual catholics are not supposed to go against the authority of the church. Nevertheless the official church position is logically inconsistent.

Isn't claiming Catholics have to accept abortion then saying you full well knew the official stance of the Church the definition of trolling?

Well I assumed the official church stance on abortion is pretty universally known. So I kind of assumed that it was clear from context that when I said that Church dogma supports abortion, I was accusing the church of being inconsistent, not of secretly supporting abortion. Either way though you have a strange definition of trolling, if you claim that attacking someone's position in a debate is trolling.

@ Krong: You offer some interesting links. But I'm way too tired now (it's almost 4 here) to read all that. I'll try get back to you after I've slept.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
ProverbialNoose
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 5:42 pm UTC

Re: Abortion and Women's Rights

Postby ProverbialNoose » Tue Mar 15, 2011 2:49 am UTC

Trying to use religious arguments to dictate legislation on abortion is a flawed argument. We have separation of church and state for a reason.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26765
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Abortion and Women's Rights

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Mar 15, 2011 2:52 am UTC

ProverbialNoose wrote:By the way you responded to and argued against him and me earlier, it seemed like you were convinced that he was pro-life and forcing that agenda.
That's just an assumption you were making, wasn't it?

ProverbialNoose wrote:Trying to use religious arguments to dictate legislation on abortion is a flawed argument. We have separation of church and state for a reason.
1) Not all countries do.
2) Even in countries with nominal separation, Catholic (and other religious) interest groups are prime movers behind anti-abortion measures.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
ProverbialNoose
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 5:42 pm UTC

Re: Abortion and Women's Rights

Postby ProverbialNoose » Tue Mar 15, 2011 2:54 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
ProverbialNoose wrote:By the way you responded to and argued against him and me earlier, it seemed like you were convinced that he was pro-life and forcing that agenda.
That's just an assumption you were making, wasn't it?

ProverbialNoose wrote:Trying to use religious arguments to dictate legislation on abortion is a flawed argument. We have separation of church and state for a reason.
1) Not all countries do.
2) Even in countries with nominal separation, Catholic (and other religious) interest groups are prime movers behind anti-abortion measures.


For the first thing, I clearly said that it seemed like it. I didn't accuse you of anything.

For the second thing, I admit I was thinking in terms of America, forgetting that I'm in an international forum.

User avatar
Aaeriele
Posts: 2127
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 3:30 am UTC
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: Abortion and Women's Rights

Postby Aaeriele » Tue Mar 15, 2011 2:57 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:2) Even in countries with nominal separation, Catholic (and other religious) interest groups are prime movers behind anti-abortion measures.


That said, there is a difference between "because my religion says it is immoral, I'm going to push for this to be outlawed" and "government should outlaw this because my religion says it is immoral."

The former isn't an argument, it's a motivation.
The latter is an inherently flawed for an objective argument since it's both (a) argument from authority and also (b) based on subjective beliefs that are generally not shared by all those involved.
Vaniver wrote:Harvard is a hedge fund that runs the most prestigious dating agency in the world, and incidentally employs famous scientists to do research.

afuzzyduck wrote:ITS MEANT TO BE FLUTTERSHY BUT I JUST SEE AAERIELE! CURSE YOU FORA!

pizzazz
Posts: 487
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 4:44 pm UTC

Re: Abortion and Women's Rights

Postby pizzazz » Tue Mar 15, 2011 6:56 am UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:I really want you to try and understand this point: Sex is something two people do, and is private, and as you stated, is none of anyone elses business. Ergo, the ramifications of that act are ALSO private, and it is NOT the purview of society to dictate the outcome of that private act. NOTHING about a woman's uterus is a public act.

I'm sorry, I sat and read through plenty of your nonsense already, but this just takes the cake. How on Earth does an action being private magically imply that the consequences are private? That makes no sense at all. The law steps in precisely when you affect others. The nature of the action itself (intentional or not, for example) can only change the degree to which you are held accountable. If your logic holds, then you can excuse, just as one example, pretty much ANY form of neglect if the caretaker is doing something "private." According to your logic, if a couple is outside to neighbors talking when their child stabs themself, it's neglect, but not if they're instead having sex upstairs.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Abortion and Women's Rights

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Mar 15, 2011 7:17 am UTC

pizzazz wrote:The law steps in precisely when you affect others.

Perhaps you're operating under the assumption that an woman in Omaha Nebraska's abortion affects you? Or maybe that abortion that happened just now in San Fransisco California affected you? I'm still not seeing why the law needs to step in here, nor am I seeing how you made the wildly illogical leap of assuming private actions excuse any and all other non-related activities. But by all means, explain your position in a logically consistent manner that doesn't rely on straw manning my stance or stabbing a child on someones lawn.
EDIT: But you make a good point, accidentally it seems. An action being private does not render it's consequences private as well. It just so happens that a woman being pregnant is no one else's business, nor is her decision to terminate that pregnancy. But yes, I agree that were I to, say, concoct an evil plan to steal all the children's ice cream, and set that plan in motion in private, then yes, I concede, it would have dire, dire, public consequences.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

greengiant
Posts: 272
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:26 am UTC

Re: Abortion and Women's Rights

Postby greengiant » Tue Mar 15, 2011 8:55 am UTC

Didn't we already discuss this earlier on? I was going to be a bit snarky and just repost some of the discussion from then but it seems a bit mean.

A woman in Omaha's abortion probably doesn't affect any of us. A woman in Omaha killing her infant probably doesn't either. A woman in Omaha torturing a donkey probably doesn't either. Just because something doesn't affect us personally, doesn't mean there can be no public discussion. The law recognises the rights of the infant and donkey, there's room for a public discussion on the foetus's legal state.

I don't even disagree with your position very strongly, I just don't like the way you claim that there should not even be a discussion about it because it doesn't affect other people.

FireZs
Posts: 371
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 3:18 pm UTC

Re: Abortion and Women's Rights

Postby FireZs » Tue Mar 15, 2011 9:33 am UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
FireZs wrote:Well, as I said, I don't think "having a shitty life" is a reason to kill them. If they want to kill themselves later on, they can (well, technically that's illegal too), but it should be their choice. "It's too expensive" is frankly even less of a reason to kill them, suffice it to say that I think This is Madness.

I don't think you're being realistic here. Who do you think pays for the child? Why do you think cost isn't an issue? If a woman decides she doesn't want the emotional or financial trauma of dealing with a severely handicapped child, that's her prerogative, not the states. "It's too expensive" is how the world works, and if the mother decides she can't provide for her potential child, it's her choice to not have that child.

I simply don't understand how you can say it's fine to raise a child in horrible unwanted conditions and let them decide to kill themselves later, but it's not fine to simply let the mother abort a fetus.


Again, I'm talking about having a late term abortion where just a natural delivery would result in a living baby. That's far beyond the "just a fetus" stage. I'm absolutely fine with aborting a fetus if it simply won't survive when delivered at that point. But if it can survive, as I said we're no longer talking about the woman's body here, because the fetus's reliance upon that body has ENDED. At that point it really is about a woman deciding to kill her child. I know you're for making that legal (even though you say it horrifies you), but that is not really justifiable. If the mother can't raise the child, there are other ways such as adoption or foster care, and just because the other ways aren't going to result in a perfect life, it doesn't mean they're "better off dead," and it's not the mother's decision at that point, because, once again, the reliance on her body has ENDED. She can choose not to raise the baby, she can choose to cease providing for it with her body, but she shouldn't be able to choose whether it comes out living or dead if it can come out alive.

Izawwlgood wrote:
FireZs wrote:It's a idea to make a woman killing her baby legal and safe(?) by allowing a doctor to stuff the baby inside the woman and killing it while it's inside. Inside the woman -> right to privacy -> covered by Roe v Wade.

Er, der, huh? You mean a sort of 'out of sight out of mind' thing? I don't think it applies at all.


Nevermind, you don't know how Roe v Wade works.

Izawwlgood wrote:
FireZs wrote:Well, as I said, you might want to look into pushing in the other direction then, and try to move the line for abortions past the birth point, because as it stands, killing a born baby is very much illegal.

Or you could take note of the fact that I said killing an infant horrifies me... But that it isn't my decision to make.


Well, it horrifies you but you want to make it legal. I'm pretty sure you did say that and that is your position.


Angua wrote:If you think condemning an unborn child to a life of disability where no one wants them is justifiable, then I don't really see how we're going to agree. Considering the costs is actually quite important as it would have to be the responsibility of the state so from my point of view abortion is both the most ethical and economical action. It also has the bonus effect of not treating women like incubators.


Ok, the child is unborn, now it's born, is it still justifiable to kill them out of mercy if they will be disabled and no one wants them? Izawwlgood says yes (even though it horrifies her). It's of course the woman's right to choose whether to end her body's relationship with the fetus, but why is it her right to decide if the fetus comes out alive? Why is it her job to make that cost/benefit analysis for society, when it's no longer her body at stake? (Remember, the risks of delivery is similar to the risks of a late term abortion).


Роберт wrote:
FireZs wrote:So what you're saying is that premature babies are better off dead? Or just the ones still undelivered? It's one thing to debate the "humanness" of fetuses at various stages of pregnancy, but we're talking about a fetus at the exact same point in the pregnancy. Outside it's human, inside it's not? Is it justifiable to kill the fetus if it's deliverable and the risk to the mother is very low just because it's more invasive? And if so, shouldn't we be advocating for legal euthanasia of premature babies up to the "would have been 42 weeks" point? Cause, you know, the premature baby is really disruptive to the mother's life, and it's going to have a bunch of problems anyway?

I'm saying that it doesn't really make sense as a compromise - you'll instead of infringing on the woman's rights and having a healthy baby, or infringing on the rights of the fetus and killing it outright, your taking out a the fetus so you have a living baby that is WAY underdeveloped and will run up huge medical costs and might die, might live with disabilities, or might live with normal health, but...as an orphan-ish thing since the mother choose to reject the baby? And now the mother has a biological child that she didn't choose to have, but should probably keep track of so that you won't have the child marrying a sibling accidentally later on?

You should either recognize the rights of the fetus as stronger than the woman's choice and say that forced premature delivery is similar to negligance in starving a born child, or recognize the rights of the mother and let her choose to abort the baby or try to let it leave. Instead some dumb middle ground that wastes resources and still lets fetuses be killed and still limits the mother's choice. Nobody would be happy with that.


Well, that's what compromises are, agreements that make no one happy, but can reluctantly agree to. As I said, the mother can choose to not keep the baby. Given that, and given that delivery has similar risks as abortion at that stage in the pregnancy, why does the mother have a right to decide whether it comes out living or dead? It's not even a "rights of the fetus vs the mother" at that point, because either way the mother is severed of the relationship between her and the fetus.

paulisa
Posts: 135
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 8:02 am UTC

Re: Abortion and Women's Rights

Postby paulisa » Tue Mar 15, 2011 11:19 am UTC

FireZs wrote:
Izawwlgood wrote:I don't think you're being realistic here. Who do you think pays for the child? Why do you think cost isn't an issue? If a woman decides she doesn't want the emotional or financial trauma of dealing with a severely handicapped child, that's her prerogative, not the states. "It's too expensive" is how the world works, and if the mother decides she can't provide for her potential child, it's her choice to not have that child.

I simply don't understand how you can say it's fine to raise a child in horrible unwanted conditions and let them decide to kill themselves later, but it's not fine to simply let the mother abort a fetus.


Again, I'm talking about having a late term abortion where just a natural delivery would result in a living baby. That's far beyond the "just a fetus" stage. I'm absolutely fine with aborting a fetus if it simply won't survive when delivered at that point. But if it can survive, as I said we're no longer talking about the woman's body here, because the fetus's reliance upon that body has ENDED. At that point it really is about a woman deciding to kill her child. I know you're for making that legal (even though you say it horrifies you), but that is not really justifiable. If the mother can't raise the child, there are other ways such as adoption or foster care, and just because the other ways aren't going to result in a perfect life, it doesn't mean they're "better off dead," and it's not the mother's decision at that point, because, once again, the reliance on her body has ENDED. She can choose not to raise the baby, she can choose to cease providing for it with her body, but she shouldn't be able to choose whether it comes out living or dead if it can come out alive.


Acutally, in my country there is the legal term (roughly translated) "infanticide under the influence of birth", which is punished much less than murder. While I think infanticide is just as horrible as murder, I can follow the reasoning that some women may not act completely rationally after birth. For the same reason, mentally ill people are not put in prison for murder, they're put in hospital.
If I understand correctly, you are assuming that the mother *decides* to kill her child, rather than give it up for adoption, but that is not always the case. Birth is an emotional, physical and hormonal trauma, not everyone can act rationally in such a situation. OT
Spoiler:
I've seen many many people with open wounds, broken bones, iron spikes in them or whatever blabbering that they don't want painkillers, but it's the professionals duty to administer them because they are not acting rationally
That is why I approve of the special case made for infanticide, but no one claims it would be legal.
The smallest unit of time in the multiverse is the New-York-Second, defined as the period of time passing between the traffic light turning green and the cab behind you honking. - Terry Pratchett, Lords and Ladies

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Abortion and Women's Rights

Postby morriswalters » Tue Mar 15, 2011 11:50 am UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
pizzazz wrote:The law steps in precisely when you affect others.

Perhaps you're operating under the assumption that an woman in Omaha Nebraska's abortion affects you? Or maybe that abortion that happened just now in San Fransisco California affected you? I'm still not seeing why the law needs to step in here, nor am I seeing how you made the wildly illogical leap of assuming private actions excuse any and all other non-related activities. But by all means, explain your position in a logically consistent manner that doesn't rely on straw manning my stance or stabbing a child on someones lawn.
EDIT: But you make a good point, accidentally it seems. An action being private does not render it's consequences private as well. It just so happens that a woman being pregnant is no one else's business, nor is her decision to terminate that pregnancy. But yes, I agree that were I to, say, concoct an evil plan to steal all the children's ice cream, and set that plan in motion in private, then yes, I concede, it would have dire, dire, public consequences.

The courts can have an interest in private behavior if it is forced to. By choosing to have an abortion you require that the courts make a determination about when the fetus or embryo or unborn child has rights. If a child is exists, it has rights, and if you kill it him, it is murder. A determination must be made on the status of the child. A very public matter. Your right of privacy disappears when the child secures rights separate from you. Thus the viability rule. The court has said that the mothers interest is trumped by the rights of the unborn child at that point. This is why examining the question of what it means as technology gains the ability to push back the point at which a fetus is considered viable is important. It is conceivable that a legal opinion at some future time will take this to mean that abortion should be outlawed. If that were to happen then you would be left with the much more difficult relative value argument, measuring the mother against the child. Now since I didn't breed this means very little to me personally. However I do consider it important, no matter what you feel. It would have been nice to discuss it in an unemotional manner.

gmalivuk wrote:So please, both of you: stop pretending he's in this purely for the philosophical discussion, and stop pretending that it makes any sense for the rest of us to ignore all the evidence in all his posts that suggest things about his own personal views on the matter.
I'll speak for myself here as I really need no one to defend me. You are assuming things you can't prove and casting aspersions on my motives. And since it appears that you are making the argument from the pro choice perspective the assumption would be that you consider my position to be pro life. I don't care for that. But what it tells me is that you have no interest in a useful discussion. I have tried to use formal language because it removes a lot of the emotion. I ask questions because it is better then making assertions. The idea is to elicit a response rather than challenge the person I am talking to. It doesn't mean that I don't have a point of view, it's that I don't want my point of view to get in the way when discussing a serious issue. The phraseology used to discuss the situation is loaded. Pro Choice, Pro Life, Unborn child. Pfui!!! Obviously that strategy is a waste here.

greengiant
Posts: 272
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:26 am UTC

Re: Abortion and Women's Rights

Postby greengiant » Tue Mar 15, 2011 11:51 am UTC

The idea of "infanticide under the influence of birth" being a separate crime makes me a little uncomfortable. But not because I'm in favour of harsh penalties. Diminished capacity is already a valid legal defense and one that I think would (and should) apply here. I think I just prefer the idea of a person's rationality being decided in court rather than beforehand.

That said, there may be other reasons for treating it as a distinct crime and I'd be happy to eat my words if there are good reasons.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26765
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Abortion and Women's Rights

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Mar 15, 2011 12:03 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:You are assuming things you can't prove and casting aspersions on my motives.
Like what? You yourself made a point earlier about how apparently none of us knew your actual position on abortion, and yet I for one was completely unsurprised when you finally said what your position was.

And since it appears that you are making the argument from the pro choice perspective the assumption would be that you consider my position to be pro life.
I feel like you of all people should understand that there's a distinction between pro-choice/pro-life on the one hand, and abortion's-not-so-bad/abortion's-killing-a-child on the other. It's been pretty clear all along where you stand on the second issue, because your point of view has gotten in the way of how you've asked most of your questions. If you didn't want it to get in the way, you shouldn't have said so much to make it abundantly clear that you think a fetus is not substantially different from an infant and that killing it is murder.

Your entire participation in this thread has been entirely consistent with what I'd expect from an over-opinionated under-informed guy who's big on some notion of "personal responsibility" and who thinks he knows way more about philosophical ethics than he really does.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Abortion and Women's Rights

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Mar 15, 2011 1:27 pm UTC

FireZs wrote:Nevermind, you don't know how Roe v Wade works.

You mean how Roe v Wade protects the privacy of the mother by ensuring her right to an abortion? And that applies to inserting a child back into her and killing her in her body? I see the gross implication you're going for here, but I don't think it applies to the topic of infanticide, which...

FireZs wrote:Well, it horrifies you but you want to make it legal. I'm pretty sure you did say that and that is your position.

I never said so. I said I don't know how to handle it nor can I think reasons to punish a woman who has decided to kill her unwanted newborn, but that doesn't mean I want to pass legislation allowing women free access to murder their own babies whenever they want. I think, to paraphrase wherever it was I said it, that I asked you why you felt it important to punish a woman who was perhaps denied an abortion for taking an unwanted child out of the world. There's an obvious counter to that question, namely 'because I value the life of a child', but I think now you readily spiral into making judgments about what constitutes 'helping' or 'caring for'.

FireZs wrote:Why is it her job to make that cost/benefit analysis for society, when it's no longer her body at stake?

Because society is probably/possibly not raising her child?

FireZs wrote:She can choose not to raise the baby, she can choose to cease providing for it with her body, but she shouldn't be able to choose whether it comes out living or dead if it can come out alive.

Out of curiosity, would you view a mother letting her baby starve to death as her murdering it? The baby is, after all still very reliant on her body, and her resources.
At this point in time, society has taken measures that make this a less necessary option. As previously mentioned, there are safe drop offs for women, and that's a good thing, because it provides additional options. It's just so fundamentally curious to me that we would prefer to prevent a woman from easily accessing an abortion, for financial or ethical reasons, and then prefer she give her child to the state, or force her to raise it herself. Again, the ethical considerations at play here are 'Why should we interfere with a woman's right to choose?' and the pragmatic considerations are 'Why should the tax payer be burdened with the cost of raising these unwanted children?'

morriswalters wrote:However I do consider it important, no matter what you feel. It would have been nice to discuss it in an unemotional manner.

With due respect to your attempts to be as logical as possible, you've also ignored nearly many, many responses to your questions without providing much in the way of followup remarks, opinions, or questions that pertain to the conversation. If you treat the people in this thread as an experiment to be poked and prodded and tested, I feel you're the one whose failed to engage in the discussion, not us.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

FireZs
Posts: 371
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 3:18 pm UTC

Re: Abortion and Women's Rights

Postby FireZs » Tue Mar 15, 2011 1:55 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
FireZs wrote:Nevermind, you don't know how Roe v Wade works.

You mean how Roe v Wade protects the privacy of the mother by ensuring her right to an abortion? And that applies to inserting a child back into her and killing her in her body? I see the gross implication you're going for here, but I don't think it applies to the topic of infanticide, which...


Well, as I said, it would add more choice for women, wouldn't it?

Izawwlgood wrote:
FireZs wrote:Well, it horrifies you but you want to make it legal. I'm pretty sure you did say that and that is your position.

I never said so. I said I don't know how to handle it nor can I think reasons to punish a woman who has decided to kill her unwanted newborn, but that doesn't mean I want to pass legislation allowing women free access to murder their own babies whenever they want. I think, to paraphrase wherever it was I said it, that I asked you why you felt it important to punish a woman who was perhaps denied an abortion for taking an unwanted child out of the world. There's an obvious counter to that question, namely 'because I value the life of a child', but I think now you readily spiral into making judgments about what constitutes 'helping' or 'caring for'.


Yes you did, and you just said it again just now. If you don't think women should be punished for killing their born babies, then what you're advocating is legalizing infanticide.

Izawwlgood wrote:
FireZs wrote:Why is it her job to make that cost/benefit analysis for society, when it's no longer her body at stake?

Because society is probably/possibly not raising her child?


That makes no sense. She can't want to raise the child and then decide it needs to die. Society is already telling her she doesn't have to raise it if she doesn't want to. She's chosen to sever herself from the child in all ways, so why does she get to decide if it lives or dies?

Izawwlgood wrote:
FireZs wrote:She can choose not to raise the baby, she can choose to cease providing for it with her body, but she shouldn't be able to choose whether it comes out living or dead if it can come out alive.

Out of curiosity, would you view a mother letting her baby starve to death as her murdering it? The baby is, after all still very reliant on her body, and her resources.
At this point in time, society has taken measures that make this a less necessary option. As previously mentioned, there are safe drop offs for women, and that's a good thing, because it provides additional options. It's just so fundamentally curious to me that we would prefer to prevent a woman from easily accessing an abortion, for financial or ethical reasons, and then prefer she give her child to the state, or force her to raise it herself. Again, the ethical considerations at play here are 'Why should we interfere with a woman's right to choose?' and the pragmatic considerations are 'Why should the tax payer be burdened with the cost of raising these unwanted children?'


If the mother has taken on the responsibility of caring for the child, AND there is food available to give to the child, withholding food from the child to cause it to starve to death is murdering it, yes. Why should we interfere with a woman's right to choose? We interfere with everyone's right to choose, when it comes to killing actually born babies. Remember, it's "her body, her choice," and when her body is taken out of the picture, it's not her choice anymore.

As for why the taxpayer should be burdened with providing for "unwanted" humans, that's a far bigger project, with profound implications at all levels of society, but it is a separate question.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Abortion and Women's Rights

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Mar 15, 2011 4:35 pm UTC

FireZs wrote:Well, as I said, it would add more choice for women, wouldn't it?

FireZs wrote:Yes you did, and you just said it again just now. If you don't think women should be punished for killing their born babies, then what you're advocating is legalizing infanticide.

This is admittedly where I start backing myself into a hole, because my personal moralities get jumbled. I can of course envision scenario's where a child, hell, an infant, should be taken from a mother posthaste, and entrusted to anyone else, and she should be imprisoned for whatever awful thing it is she did. My issue with legislating this sort of thing is really more a matter of my reluctance to consider myself an authority on this aspect of the law, and reserving passing judgment. The fine line between a mother wrongfully abusing or murdering a child, and a mother having no other options and choosing to remove her child from the suffering equation, is, in my opinion, not something I'm terribly qualified to answer, nor capable of coming up with a sufficient "If A, then 1, if B, then 2" series of operations to adequately do the situation justice. Ergo, my stance is that killing a child horrifies me, but I can easily envision scenario's where it is required, but I hope to never be in the position of passing judgment on a woman who had to make that sort of decision.
Yes, I'm, in a sense, backing out of this facet of the argument.

FireZs wrote:That makes no sense. She can't want to raise the child and then decide it needs to die. Society is already telling her she doesn't have to raise it if she doesn't want to. She's chosen to sever herself from the child in all ways, so why does she get to decide if it lives or dies?

I've stated this before, so maybe I wasn't clear enough, and I'll state it again;
You know how saying "Abortions are available!" to a woman doesn't really mean that no matter what, a woman can always without zero interference or issue, get to a clinic and receive an abortion? That some states have parental consent/inform laws that could effectively fillibuster someone from getting an abortion? That some small towns likely have constant protest vigils around clinics, and that a girl finding herself pregnant, may not be able to face public outing, and thus, have no real options but to wait and wait an wait...?
Yeah, safe havens are, in my opinion, a similar issue. They are an option, to be certain, and a really good step that society had the foresight to produce, but they aren't an end all be all solution to the problem. Saying "Well you've had the kid now, and there's a safe haven over there, you should have hopped a bus [from the only bus station in town] or taken a cab [maybe your parents carefully monitor your spending] or gotten a ride from your bestfriend [maybe they want you to keep the kid, or maybe you can't tell them, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc] and there's no excuse for what you did" is really sort of missing the point.

FireZs wrote:Remember, it's "her body, her choice," and when her body is taken out of the picture, it's not her choice anymore.

Can you not envision a scenario where a woman simply cannot in good faith give her child to a stranger, or the state, and instead must make the decision to end it's life?

Again, to be crystal clear in this matter, I'm not suggesting that safe havens or state assisted care are NOT options. I'm merely stating that I don't think they're complete solutions.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: Abortion and Women's Rights

Postby Iulus Cofield » Tue Mar 15, 2011 4:49 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:I can easily envision scenario's where it is required, but I hope to never be in the position of passing judgment on a woman who had to make that sort of decision.

Can you not envision a scenario where a woman simply cannot in good faith give her child to a stranger, or the state, and instead must make the decision to end it's life?


I can't. Would you mind sharing some of the scenarios you're envisioning?

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: Abortion and Women's Rights

Postby omgryebread » Tue Mar 15, 2011 4:58 pm UTC

Iulus Cofield wrote:
Izawwlgood wrote:I can easily envision scenario's where it is required, but I hope to never be in the position of passing judgment on a woman who had to make that sort of decision.

Can you not envision a scenario where a woman simply cannot in good faith give her child to a stranger, or the state, and instead must make the decision to end it's life?


I can't. Would you mind sharing some of the scenarios you're envisioning?

I'll throw in one: vegetative state. Granted, I think this should be made like every end-of-life decisio. With the help of a doctor and a clear legal framework.
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Abortion and Women's Rights

Postby Роберт » Tue Mar 15, 2011 5:03 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:Yeah, safe havens are, in my opinion, a similar issue. They are an option, to be certain, and a really good step that society had the foresight to produce, but they aren't an end all be all solution to the problem. Saying "Well you've had the kid now, and there's a safe haven over there, you should have hopped a bus [from the only bus station in town] or taken a cab [maybe your parents carefully monitor your spending] or gotten a ride from your bestfriend [maybe they want you to keep the kid, or maybe you can't tell them, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc] and there's no excuse for what you did" is really sort of missing the point.

FireZs wrote:Remember, it's "her body, her choice," and when her body is taken out of the picture, it's not her choice anymore.

Can you not envision a scenario where a woman simply cannot in good faith give her child to a stranger, or the state, and instead must make the decision to end it's life?

Again, to be crystal clear in this matter, I'm not suggesting that safe havens or state assisted care are NOT options. I'm merely stating that I don't think they're complete solutions.

Well, I think, in the case of children born in the US, where all fifty states have safe-haven laws, it's appropriate to say that killing your child is not a valid option, and punish people who murder their children. Even if it's because, as in your example, they chose to murder their child because they somehow hid the pregnancy and birth from the parents but couldn't discretely get to a safe-haven, so they chose a public restroom instead, or whatever. Murder, regardless of the reason behind it, should be punished based on mental capacity etc.

For a fetus, there is a disagreement on the rights it has, and people are pushing laws back and forth in an attempt to get the laws to reflect their personal belief on the rights a fetus should have and the rights a woman should have.
omgryebread wrote:I'll throw in one: vegetative state. Granted, I think this should be made like every end-of-life decisio. With the help of a doctor and a clear legal framework.

Doesn't this situation already have the legal framework in place?
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

pizzazz
Posts: 487
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 4:44 pm UTC

Re: Abortion and Women's Rights

Postby pizzazz » Tue Mar 15, 2011 5:28 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
pizzazz wrote:The law steps in precisely when you affect others.

Perhaps you're operating under the assumption that an woman in Omaha Nebraska's abortion affects you? Or maybe that abortion that happened just now in San Fransisco California affected you? I'm still not seeing why the law needs to step in here, nor am I seeing how you made the wildly illogical leap of assuming private actions excuse any and all other non-related activities. But by all means, explain your position in a logically consistent manner that doesn't rely on straw manning my stance or stabbing a child on someones lawn.

EDIT: But you make a good point, accidentally it seems. An action being private does not render it's consequences private as well. It just so happens that a woman being pregnant is no one else's business, nor is her decision to terminate that pregnancy. But yes, I agree that were I to, say, concoct an evil plan to steal all the children's ice cream, and set that plan in motion in private, then yes, I concede, it would have dire, dire, public consequences.


What? "Accidentally?" No, that was in fact my point (the entire point of this post, in fact, because if you had read through the whole thing you would see I didn't say a whit about abortion yet). Your original post is practically meaningless. Let's put it this way: any action could be considered private, and it becomes a public issue exactly when you affect other people. You can punch the air all day long, and no one can stop you, but if you do that where someone else is in the way, now it's a public issue. As someone else pointed out, actions don't have to affect *everyone* to be public issues.
But I guess it seems moot now that you've admitted
An action being private does not render it's consequences private as well.

Because earlier, you wrote
I really want you to try and understand this point: Sex is something two people do, and is private, and as you stated, is none of anyone elses business. Ergo, the ramifications of that act are ALSO private, and it is NOT the purview of society to dictate the outcome of that private act. NOTHING about a woman's uterus is a public act.
, which was what I took issue with.
Now,
It just so happens that a woman being pregnant is no one else's business, nor is her decision to terminate that pregnancy.

You keep asserting this like it's an accidental fact of the universe that's long since settled, when in fact the rights of the unborn, and thus whether it is society's business--is the entire reason for the debate.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Abortion and Women's Rights

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Mar 15, 2011 5:53 pm UTC

Iulus Cofield wrote:I can't. Would you mind sharing some of the scenarios you're envisioning?

Any of the scenario's I listed, including those where the safety of the mother is threatened if it is discovered she had a child. Any situation where the state isn't particularly well equipped to deal with a glut of orphans. Maybe even an individual who went through the foster care system and vowed she'd never send a kid there.
Basically any situation where a woman is put in the position where safe havens aren't necessarily entirely safe.

Роберт wrote:Murder, regardless of the reason behind it, should be punished based on mental capacity etc.

Mostly, I agree. Except there are plenty of scenarios, real world scenarios, not simply hypothetical's involving people exploding because a woman had an abortion, wherein a woman had no options the entire way through her pregnancy, and/or killed the newborn out of desperation or fear, and incarcerating her, or punishing her, or even making her face legal ramifications for the already incredible difficult thing she's gone through just seems to be completely missing the point of the legal system.
pizzazz wrote:You can punch the air all day long, and no one can stop you, but if you do that where someone else is in the way, now it's a public issue.

Yes, a few times now in this very thread this issue has come up, and you claim that I am making unbiased claims. In light of the fact that we're now on page four of this debate, and have yet to raise an actual disagreement aside from generally being contrary, I'm simply going to ask you what about a woman's pregnancy makes it public. Just so we don't have any further confusion as to what you're trying to get at here. Because;
pizzazz wrote:You keep asserting this like it's an accidental fact of the universe that's long since settled, when in fact the rights of the unborn, and thus whether it is society's business--is the entire reason for the debate.

Is indeed sort of part of the debate. And I'm curious why you think it's settled that a woman's pregnancy is a public matter as opposed to a private one. Particularly, why your assumption is any more valid than my opinion.

EDIT: EEGAD, fuckingfuck, sorry mods for that mess, I'm way to tired to be juggling quote tags.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Abortion and Women's Rights

Postby Роберт » Tue Mar 15, 2011 6:06 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
Роберт wrote:Murder, regardless of the reason behind it, should be punished based on mental capacity etc.

Mostly, I agree. Except there are plenty of scenarios, real world scenarios, not simply hypothetical's involving people exploding because a woman had an abortion, wherein a woman had no options the entire way through her pregnancy, and/or killed the newborn out of desperation or fear, and incarcerating her, or punishing her, or even making her face legal ramifications for the already incredible difficult thing she's gone through just seems to be completely missing the point of the legal system.

Murder out of a desire for self-preservation is still murder. Say someone wants the CEO of EXXON dead, and he kidnaps a janitor's family and tells her that he'll kill them if she doesn't murder the CEO. So she does.

Say a soldier in an army is ordered to use lethal force against peaceful protesters. He's worried if he doesn't comply, he'll face death. So he complies.

Or a woman in an abusive relationship is worried for her safety if she keeps the baby, but for whatever reason, the baby is born alive. Now she's pretty certain that the baby will be killed by her abuser anyway if she doesn't kill it, and is frightened that she may be stabbed to death by him in his drunken rage if he finds the baby alive.

Murder is still murder and it should be punished, although certainly most judges will take circumstances into account when deciding the sentence for someone found guilty of it.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: Abortion and Women's Rights

Postby Iulus Cofield » Tue Mar 15, 2011 6:20 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
Iulus Cofield wrote:I can't. Would you mind sharing some of the scenarios you're envisioning?

Any of the scenario's I listed, including those where the safety of the mother is threatened if it is discovered she had a child. Any situation where the state isn't particularly well equipped to deal with a glut of orphans. Maybe even an individual who went through the foster care system and vowed she'd never send a kid there.
Basically any situation where a woman is put in the position where safe havens aren't necessarily entirely safe.


Um.

omgryebread wrote:I'll throw in one: vegetative state. Granted, I think this should be made like every end-of-life decision. With the help of a doctor and a clear legal framework.


Eek, what a glaringly obvious example to have overlooked. And you're right, there's already a clear legal framework for that situation and no reason to treat an infant or centenarian differently either legally or ethically.

Another situation I was an idiot to overlook: I've heard of a girl third-hand who was born without most of her brain. She had full autonomic functionality and could swallow and poop, but otherwise her mental output was zero. Her intelligence was on par with a tree, less than a normal newborn even. The poor mother was convinced her daughter would someday snap out of it and magically turn into a person, but had she wished to kill her daughter instead I wouldn't call that wrong. I don't think you can make an argument that it would be murder when there is no capacity to experience, any more than you could argue hitting a rock is assault.

I've also known a few people with Down's Syndrome. They had clearly expressed emotions, memories, and (greatly-diminished from normal) capacity to learn. Phenomenologically, they are people. I wouldn't dare say it's okay to commit infanticide on a Down's Syndrome child because of that, which is why I would oppose Diadem's interesting argument that abortion can sometimes be a moral imperative. Someone with Down's Syndrome can commit suicide, but the girl without a brain can't. We can't phenomenologically say someone else's life is worth or not worth living.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Abortion and Women's Rights

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Mar 15, 2011 6:24 pm UTC

Iulus Cofield wrote:Um.

Yes?

Iulus Cofield wrote:We can't phenomenologically say someone else's life is worth or not worth living.

Yes, and it works both ways. Who are we to tell a mother that her fetus/childs life is worth living, and thus deprive her of the right to choose whether or not to raise it?
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: Abortion and Women's Rights

Postby Iulus Cofield » Tue Mar 15, 2011 6:37 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
Iulus Cofield wrote:Um.

Yes?


I think "Um." is the limit of what I will say to that.

Izawwlgood wrote:
Iulus Cofield wrote:We can't phenomenologically say someone else's life is worth or not worth living.

Yes, and it works both ways. Who are we to tell a mother that her fetus/childs life is worth living, and thus deprive her of the right to choose whether or not to raise it?


I don't follow. Or maybe I understated the main word, phenomenologically. By that I mean suffering, happiness, or any other emotion is phenomenological, it is only measurable from the perspective of the experiencer. We can make fair assessments from body language, but if I'm wearing a shit-eating grin and I say this is the outward manifestation of the misery I'm enduring at that moment, no one can dispute me. I extend this, reasonably I hope, to valuation of life. You can certainly say "Iulus Cofield's life is not worth living and he should die," but that statement isn't phenomenologically true unless I say it's true. Ergo, we can't say anyone else's life is worth living and parents can't say their children's lives aren't worth living.

I'm also functioning under the assumption that life is not worth living when the miseries of life outweigh the joys. Of course it is entirely possible to measure the value life in objective ways, such as economic output, but in that case I think you'd be hard pressed to argue anyone other than a committee of statisticians and economics can judge accurately.

Edit: Clarity.

User avatar
ProverbialNoose
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 5:42 pm UTC

Re: Abortion and Women's Rights

Postby ProverbialNoose » Tue Mar 15, 2011 7:14 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
Iulus Cofield wrote:We can't phenomenologically say someone else's life is worth or not worth living.

Yes, and it works both ways. Who are we to tell a mother that her fetus/childs life is worth living, and thus deprive her of the right to choose whether or not to raise it?


Seeing as killing the fetus/child is the irreversible action in the matter, I'd say that the burden of proof falls squarely on you/the mother to prove that the fetus/child's life isn't worth living.

User avatar
sophyturtle
I'll go put my shirt back on for this kind of shock. No I won't. I'll get my purse.
Posts: 3474
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:19 pm UTC
Location: it's turtles all the way down, even in the suburbs
Contact:

Re: Abortion and Women's Rights

Postby sophyturtle » Tue Mar 15, 2011 7:34 pm UTC

It seems silly, all this talk of fetuses when for the most part we abort embryos. I suppose that does not matter much in this.

It is a personal decision to become a parent and start a family. People have all sorts of personal reasons for this. In the same vein, people have all sorts of personal reasons for not doing this.

They extend throughout this debate. Real people make decisions based on their personal knowledge and experience. There are women who not only do not want to be mothers, but who do not want offspring running round with their own genetic material. You say 'they don't want to be a mom so they can just give it up for adoption' but that still makes them a mother. In 18 years they might still get a phone call from a scared confused person who wants to know them, and this is a terrifying possibility. They might worry about overpopulation and think they will go to an equivalent of hell for adding another person to the planet. They might have hereditary disease(s) and feel horribly guilty putting not only a child through that but leaving some other person to try to figure out how to be a parent through it.

There are lots and lots of personal reasons behind this personal decision. It is none of your or my business. We should leave it to them to take care of.
I want to get to a place where I am neither conforming nor rebelling but simply being.

User avatar
ProverbialNoose
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 5:42 pm UTC

Re: Abortion and Women's Rights

Postby ProverbialNoose » Tue Mar 15, 2011 7:42 pm UTC

sophyturtle wrote:It seems silly, all this talk of fetuses when for the most part we abort embryos. I suppose that does not matter much in this.

It is a personal decision to become a parent and start a family. People have all sorts of personal reasons for this. In the same vein, people have all sorts of personal reasons for not doing this.

They extend throughout this debate. Real people make decisions based on their personal knowledge and experience. There are women who not only do not want to be mothers, but who do not want offspring running round with their own genetic material. You say 'they don't want to be a mom so they can just give it up for adoption' but that still makes them a mother. In 18 years they might still get a phone call from a scared confused person who wants to know them, and this is a terrifying possibility. They might worry about overpopulation and think they will go to an equivalent of hell for adding another person to the planet. They might have hereditary disease(s) and feel horribly guilty putting not only a child through that but leaving some other person to try to figure out how to be a parent through it.

There are lots and lots of personal reasons behind this personal decision. It is none of your or my business. We should leave it to them to take care of.


There are a lot of personal things about it, but that doesn't mean that you can automatically conclude that it is solely the mother's prerogative. Taking your scenario, only with a mother who had the kid and put him up for adoption, would it be permissible for the mother to at a later time have the child killed, for the exact reasons you listed?

If you don't feel that this is permissible, then you admit that abortion is more than just a matter of privacy, and that no conclusion can be reached without deciding explicitly what the rights (or lack thereof) of the embryo/fetus/child are, and at what points different rights are conferred.

User avatar
sophyturtle
I'll go put my shirt back on for this kind of shock. No I won't. I'll get my purse.
Posts: 3474
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:19 pm UTC
Location: it's turtles all the way down, even in the suburbs
Contact:

Re: Abortion and Women's Rights

Postby sophyturtle » Tue Mar 15, 2011 7:47 pm UTC

You seem to not understand the gigantic difference between an embryo and a child.

Now, if you really think those two things deserve the same protections, then you highly undervalue actual people.
I want to get to a place where I am neither conforming nor rebelling but simply being.

User avatar
ProverbialNoose
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 5:42 pm UTC

Re: Abortion and Women's Rights

Postby ProverbialNoose » Tue Mar 15, 2011 7:53 pm UTC

sophyturtle wrote:You seem to not understand the gigantic difference between an embryo and a child.
Now, if you really think those two things deserve the same protections, then you highly undervalue actual people.


The whole point I was making was that there are differences between the rights of an embryo and the rights of a child, and as those differences are unclear, that is at the heart of the entire debate over abortion. It is not, as people try to claim, exclusively a women's rights issue.

User avatar
sophyturtle
I'll go put my shirt back on for this kind of shock. No I won't. I'll get my purse.
Posts: 3474
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:19 pm UTC
Location: it's turtles all the way down, even in the suburbs
Contact:

Re: Abortion and Women's Rights

Postby sophyturtle » Tue Mar 15, 2011 8:02 pm UTC

ProverbialNoose wrote:Taking your scenario, only with a mother who had the kid and put him up for adoption, would it be permissible for the mother to at a later time have the child killed, for the exact reasons you listed?
If you don't feel that this is permissible, then you admit that abortion is more than just a matter of privacy, and that no conclusion can be reached without deciding explicitly what the rights (or lack thereof) of the embryo/fetus/child are, and at what points different rights are conferred.
Right here you connect killing children and abortion. They are different. B does not follow A in this case. You have not shown me why in the world they would be connected, except that a embryo might one day become a fetus might one day become a child. If you have difficulty with crush videos involving chickens are you also offended to see someone throw an egg?
I want to get to a place where I am neither conforming nor rebelling but simply being.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests