Are we talking past each other on abortion? What is your understanding of the issues?

Simply state what you think are the underlying arguments in the abortion debate.

Tags: abortion, abortion ad nauseum

Views: 280

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

In general one has that right, but as David Boonin argued -who is Pro-Choice philosopher- in principle that right can be overriden IFthe foetus has equal moral consideration, and is placed in a situation of dependency, thus owed compensation.

BTW from what I understand in RvW it was stated if the foetus was in fact a person that would change the ruling. The point being if placed another moral equal basic moral consideration entity eg infant in your home during a blizzard then say this is my property and forced it outside, the point that you have property rights is irrelevant you and you have a duty of care until another can take care of the entity. So it already has legal and moral precedent.
To me it's first and foremost a statistical issue.

Legalize it, and X babies will be aborted in safe conditions.

Criminalize it, and X babies will be aborted in unsafe conditions, and Y women will die in the process.

Since both are positive numbers, X < X + Y. Thus I contend that making abortion legal is the humane way to deal with the problem. You could always argue that making it legal increases its 'desirability', and I'd agree. Yet I think this factor would not be enough to reverse the inequality (of course, we'll never have reliable statistics on illegal abortions, so I admit I could be wrong on this).
Are you for or against sex slectiona nd designer babies?
I'm vehemently opposed to it. But to me it's another issue. For instance, in India, where sex-selective abortion is rampant, sex identification of fetuses is illegal while abortion is not.

Anyway, as long as you have access to identification tests, making abortion illegal will not prevent sex-selective abortion. So we're back to my initial argument.
No, the point is whether the abortion is for sex selection or the normal type the foetus has no moral worth and if in principle you wanted to make it illegal you could have it being done in unsafe conditions. & if that is a bad thing you should allow sex selction abortions as well.
And what's your solution? Fact is, whether it's legal or illegal, it happens, whatever the reason (sex-selection or 'normal'). But a woman will always find a way to abort if she wants to (doing it herself as last resort), while she can be barred from sex identification tests. Why would it be illogical to legalize one and not the other?

I'm not FOR abortion, by the way, not more than I am for smallpox or earthquakes. But when shit happens, shit happens. Our collective responsability is to keep casualties at a minimum. And in the case of abortion, to me that means legalizing it.

I stopped caring about sex-selective abortion. People who practice sex-selective abortion will get what they deserve, usually an extremely imbalanced sex ratio, most likely male, which will make the population reduce even quicker. There is no way to completely ban fetus viewing (just like abortion), and there is no way to know for sure if the fetus is being aborted because of its sex. Just like abortion it can't really be effectively banned.

This is my main pro-choice reasoning as well.

Additionally, without contraception there will be X abortions, but with readily available contraception that will be X-Y abortions. Therefore X > X-Y and contraceptives should be made readily available.
My arguments are simple.

1) a fetus cannot survive on it's own before 23 weeks, it is dependent on the female for it's survival, thus it is not it's own being.

and 2) and most importantly......you cant tell me what i can or cant do with my own fucking body!!!! (noticed i cursed, that's how important it is!!)
I forgot to add in my #1, that it is not it's own being, it is an extension of the female.
That Janine, is exactly how I see it as well. It's a shitty decision to have to make, but it is ultimately that person's choice whether or not to evict the parasite. And yes, until the fetus can reasonably exit/survive separate from the mother's womb, that's exactly what it is; a parasite.

Cruel, but that's nature.
Even Pro-Choice female philosophers see both these fall flat. A baby cannot care for itself and is dependent on caregivers, the only difference that care is internally for one but external for ther other.

Mary Anne Warren would be a good place to start.

& BTW society does tell people what you can and cannot do with your own body.

RSS

© 2015   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service