Abortion Discussion

Jack Kyle

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

There are many valid reasons for having an abortion which do not include physical harm to the mother, for example being too poor to properly raise the child (would you rather the child living in abject poverty), the physical maladies of the child, the child being as a result of rape or incest, and so on.



I'm ashamed that we still don't have laws which properly safeguard the rights of living women during pregnancies.



How about keeping the woman alive long enough that we can treat the suicidal tendencies by removing the immediate focus of those tendencies. Is that not reason enough?

The fact of the matter is that abortion in suicidal ideation is not about "curing" it, but to give the woman the time and relieve the pressure on her, so that she may find the solution with the help of properly trained doctors.



a) it is not murder becaue b) the foetus is not alive, and c) it is not a person.

Just because something has a potential for personhood and life doesn't mean it carries either of those two attributes right now. If they did, well then we'd never do anything for fear of killing all the potential sentient lives out there.

So should we just murder children because they are poor?

The pro life side always seek to muddy the waters with nonsensical examples.

Mandatory organ donation and abortion have nothing to do with each other.

Permitting abortion is more akin to permitting someone who has already donated an organ to "change their mind" and rip it out.

iwantmydinner

Jack Kyle, do you want to address this now?

iwantmydinner wrote: »

FFS, how could I possibly misrepresent something that I have actually quoted, verbatim, twice??

Again:

Your second post says she loses no autonomy.

My response to that asked how you can say her autonomy remains 100% intact when she is prevented from exercising her bodily autonomy and removing an unwanted foetus from her uterus. Your response, and once again, I quote, was:



If this doesn't mean that you cannot say her bodily autonomy remains 100% intact on becoming pregnant, then explain what it does mean.

You even mentioned that she gets the lost part of her bodily autonomy back "after the child is born." You cannot lose none AND some of a right.

If you're going to accuse me of derailment and nefarious tactics, then you'd better be prepared to illustrate same.

kylith

Jack Kyle wrote: »

So should we just murder children because they are poor?

Should we force a woman to have a child she can't afford to feed and clothe?

Permitting abortion is more akin to permitting someone who has already donated an organ to "change their mind" and rip it out.

Even if that organ was taken without consent?

PopePalpatine

He hasn't addressed this either:

gaynorvader wrote: »

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Again, a tough question.

On balance, I think that it's the illegal termination of another being's life...on that basis you'd have to be talking about the usual sanction for that...custodial sentence etc.

Life imprisonment or the death penalty?

Bannasidhe

Jack Kyle wrote: »

So should we just murder children because they are poor?

The pro life side always seek to muddy the waters with nonsensical examples.

Mandatory organ donation and abortion have nothing to do with each other.

Permitting abortion is more akin to permitting someone who has already donated an organ to "change their mind" and rip it out.

You have used the word permitted twice in that sentence - now how about considering that in the case of pregnancy 'permission' is not always granted - in fact every effort had been made to refuse 'permission.'

You do realise that pregnant woman do not give written permission for a fetus to lodge in her womb and use her organs?


It is more like the organ is taken regardless of the donors wishes.

Frito

Bannasidhe wrote: »

But if arguing from a 'every life is unique and must be preserved even if this means another person's body must be utilised against their will' perspective - which many have - then why do we draw a line which states this applies only when the life which must be preserved is in utero?

THis would be my position exactly. You could donate bone marrow to me, and create a dependency. Should I need further bone marrow from you, ie I need you to maintain the dependency, you have every right to decline. Jack's position is you must maintain that dependency once it already exists.
If Jack were to argue that post-birth, an existing dependency cannot be maintained involuntarily, then it begs the question as to why the dependency in utero must be maintained.

Brian Shanahan

Jack Kyle wrote: »

The pro life side always seek to muddy the waters with nonsensical examples.

Yes you are right. The anti-abortion misogynists always use nonsensical examples in an attempt to guilt trip the rest of us.

Thank you for acknowledging the moral vacuum at the centre of your ideology.

recedite

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Imagine a mother can donate an organ to save the life of her child. Would you compel her to donate the organ?
What do you think?

I wouldn't compel her in particular, mainly because she is not the only possible organ donor. Also, she loses an organ in the process.

MrPudding wrote: »

A man is out one night and gets rather drunk. He wakes up and finds himself in a hospital bed attached by tubing to various machines ...........Can this man request that he be disconnected, even though the patient will certainly die?

Yes, because he bears no responsibility for the original predicament of the other man.

I refer you both to Akrasia's car crash scenario above which is more analagous to a pregnancy. How would you judge the "donor's"responsibilities/obligations there?

El_Duderino 09

recedite wrote: »

I wouldn't compel her in particular, mainly because she is not the only possible organ donor. Also, she loses an organ in the process.
Yes, because he bears no responsibility for the original predicament of the other man.

I refer you both to Akrasia's car crash scenario above which is more analagous to a pregnancy. How would you judge the "donor's"responsibilities/obligations there?

You seem to be resting your argument on the mother being the only person who can save the life in both cases.

I think that the choice to permit your body to be used to help the dependant person is morally preferable in both cases.
However i still think the mother/driver has a choice as its their body.

Morally preferable but not at the expense if bodily autonomy

Akrasia

I think in the driver scenario, it is the persons choice to participate and save the other person and that choice would depend on that persons life circumstances

I don't think it would be morally acceptable to force the driver of the car to participate in the treatment against her will

We can expand the thought experiment to mirror the kinds of real life situations where a woman may seek an abortion, for example if the driver was only a learner driver aged 17 and participating in the treatment would mean that he/she would not be able to complete his/her education

MrPudding

recedite wrote: »

Yes, because he bears no responsibility for the original predicament of the other man.

I refer you both to Akrasia's car crash scenario above which is more analagous to a pregnancy. How would you judge the "donor's"responsibilities/obligations there?

I like the car crash example. That said, you statement arou d responsibility smells slightly of the old punishing the dirty slut line.

MrP

aloyisious

Jack Kyle wrote: »

The pro life side always seek to muddy the waters with nonsensical examples.

pro life side: Typo....?

Jack Kyle

iwantmydinner wrote: »

Jack Kyle, do you want to address this now?

You could say that she loses no autonomy in that she remains unable to terminate a human life.

You could also say that she loses a degree of autonomy.

So what either way...what's your point?

It doesn't change the fact that murdering a baby is wrong.

Equally, introducing organ donation into the mix just skews the argument. Maybe organ donation should be compulsory? Either way, it doesn't change the fact that abortion is generally wrong.

MrPudding

Jack Kyle wrote: »

You could say that she loses no autonomy in that she remains unable to terminate a human life.

You could also say that she loses a degree of autonomy.

So what either way...what's your point?

It doesn't change the fact that murdering a baby is wrong.

It. Is. Not. Murder.

MrP

gaynorvader

Jack Kyle wrote: »

You could say that she loses no autonomy in that she remains unable to terminate a human life.

You could also say that she loses a degree of autonomy.

So what either way...what's your point?

It doesn't change the fact that murdering a baby is wrong.

What should be the punishment for a woman getting an illegal abortion? Should it be life imprisonment, the death penalty, incarceration in a psych facility until she's deemed sane?

recedite

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You seem to be resting your argument on the mother being the only person who can save the life in both cases.

That's part of it, but also an organ donor is not normally responsible for the predicament (organ failure) in the other person.

In Akrasia's car crash scenario, I would compel the driver to save the other person.

In the case of a pregnancy, IMO a zygote has almost no human rights, but as it grows it's human rights increase until the moment of birth, when it has almost equal rights to the mother.

In practical terms then, a morning after abortion is acceptable if pregnancy is even mildly inconvenient to the mother. A late term abortion; only if the mother's life is in danger.

Turtwig

MrPudding wrote: »

It. Is. Not. Murder.

MrP

I'd say you must be close to punching squirrels now every time you see that.:D

Jack Kyle

gaynorvader wrote: »

What should be the punishment for a woman getting an illegal abortion? Should it be life imprisonment, the death penalty, incarceration in a psych facility until she's deemed sane?

The same penalty that applies for premeditated murder.

iwantmydinner

Jack Kyle wrote: »

You could say that she loses no autonomy in that she remains unable to terminate a human life.

You could also say that she loses a degree of autonomy.

So what either way...what's your point?

It doesn't change the fact that murdering a baby is wrong.

My point in asking the question was to discern your stance on female bodily autonomy on becoming pregnant. You think she both loses no autonomy, but also loses some (or all) autonomy. I think...

Abortion is not murder. Murder is a legal term.

Sarky

Jernal wrote: »

I'd say you must be close to punching squirrels now every time you see that.:D

It gets really bloody frustrating when the same misinformation gets trotted out over and over again. Especially from the same person. You may have noticed my temper beginning to wear a little thin lately...

Honestly I don't know how the regulars of this forum maintain the level of patience that they do.

El_Duderino 09

recedite wrote: »

That's part of it, but also an organ donor is not normally responsible for the predicament (organ failure) in the other person.

In Akrasia's car crash scenario, I would compel the driver to save the other person.

In the case of a pregnancy, IMO a zygote has almost no human rights, but as it grows it's human rights increase until the moment of birth, when it has almost equal rights to the mother.

In practical terms then, a morning after abortion is acceptable if pregnancy is even mildly inconvenient to the mother. A late term abortion; only if the mother's life is in danger.

In fairness your position on both cases are consistent. I disagree with your conclusions but i see your pont.

I have no idea how you would assign rights to the unborn child as it grows.

I still think the mothers bodily autonomy is the deciding factor. Its in the mother/drivers hands

iwantmydinner

Jack Kyle wrote: »

The same penalty that applies for premeditated murder.

So, in states that apply the death penalty for murder, you would support the death penalty for women who obtain abortions?

And you're pro-life, right?

gaynorvader

Jack Kyle wrote: »

The same penalty that applies for premeditated murder.

Thank you, do you believe in the death penalty for murder?

Bannasidhe

Jack Kyle wrote: »

The same penalty that applies for premeditated murder.

So you would have a 15 year old who gets pregnant as the result of a rape and has an abortion locked up for longer than her rapist?

You would have a woman with cancer who has an abortion so she can avail of life-saving treatment locked up for the same length of time as John Dundon?

Have the baby or die/go to jail is the choice you would give women.
How very humanitarian of you.

iwantmydinner

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So you would have a 15 year old who gets pregnant as the result of a rape and has an abortion locked up for longer than her rapist?

You would have a woman with cancer who has an abortion so she can avail of life-saving treatment locked up for the same length of time as John Dundon?

Have the baby or die/go to jail is the choice you would give women.
How very humanitarian of you.

Have the baby OR ELSE!

swampgas

Jack Kyle wrote: »

It doesn't change the fact that murdering a baby is wrong.

Says you.

Murder is not a fact, and never has been: it is a subjective ethical/moral/legal judgement.

Is a soldier killing another soldier in battle murder? Some would say yes.
Is the state hanging a criminal murder? Some would say yes.
Is killing animals murder (as in "meat is murder")? Some would say yes.
Is reducing foreign aid to developing countries murder? It could be argued that it might be, if it leads to higher infant mortality.
Is cutting ambulance services to rural areas murder? If not, why not?

All are debatable to some extent, as they involve subjective human values.

You are entitled to your own opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts: and it is not an agreed fact that abortion is murder.

Bannasidhe

iwantmydinner wrote: »

Have the baby OR ELSE!

That is the sum of it.

Never mind the circumstances of the resulting child's life - all that matters is that it is born.

That is the thinking that brought us the laundries and the Industrial schools and inflicted so much misery on so many women and children. It is sad that some would have us return to those days.

Jack Kyle

gaynorvader wrote: »

Thank you, do you believe in the death penalty for murder?

These are classic pro choice tactics.

Attempt to derail the argument with ludicrous analogies and examples.

No I do not believe in the death penalty.

Bannasidhe

Jack Kyle wrote: »

These are classic pro choice tactics.

Attempt to derail the argument with ludicrous analogies and examples.

No I do not believe in the death penalty.

But if that is the penalty for pre-meditated murder do you still assert a woman who has an abortion face the penalty?

Care to answer what you would have happen to the 15 year old rape victim and the cancer patient?

gaynorvader

Jack Kyle wrote: »

These are classic pro choice tactics.

Attempt to derail the argument with ludicrous analogies and examples.

No I do not believe in the death penalty.

No, I'm simply following through with the consequences of passing into law what you are suggesting.

There is no point in blindly passing a law until all outcomes of that potential law have been examined.

Now, why do you think that imprisonment is a good punishment for murderers?