Abortion: whose wishes should predominate?

Abortion, euthanasia, genetic engineering, Just War theory and other such hot topics.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Abortion: whose wishes should predominate?

Post by Philosophy Explorer »

Should it be the birth mother? The natural father? The state?

Closely associated questions are: when does life begin? How should the child be raised to give it the best chance at life? Why not let someone else take care of the child instead of having an abortion? How does technology relate to this?

What do you have to add?

PhilX
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Abortion: whose wishes should predominate?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Oh great. ANOTHER red flag to all the pea-brained religio males on here. Weren't your umpteen other abortion threads enough for you?
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Abortion: whose wishes should predominate?

Post by thedoc »

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Should it be the birth mother? The natural father? The state?

Closely associated questions are: when does life begin? How should the child be raised to give it the best chance at life? Why not let someone else take care of the child instead of having an abortion? How does technology relate to this?

What do you have to add?

PhilX
The natural father should certainly have some say in the matter, the State less so, and if the mother doesn't want the child, her health should be the only concern.

I would contend that life begins at conception and the life inside a woman's body is not part of her body and therefore not subject to her decisions but has it's own rights to life. I was a bit surprised when someone I know expressed the opinion that life didn't start till birth when the baby took it's first breath, and she quoted the Bible to support her position.
Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: Abortion: whose wishes should predominate?

Post by Philosophy Explorer »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Oh great. ANOTHER red flag to all the pea-brained religio males on here. Weren't your umpteen other abortion threads enough for you?
This is my first one And I have you to thank for inspiring this one.

PhilX
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Abortion: whose wishes should predominate?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

thedoc wrote:
Philosophy Explorer wrote:Should it be the birth mother? The natural father? The state?

Closely associated questions are: when does life begin? How should the child be raised to give it the best chance at life? Why not let someone else take care of the child instead of having an abortion? How does technology relate to this?

What do you have to add?

PhilX
The natural father should certainly have some say in the matter, the State less so, and if the mother doesn't want the child, her health should be the only concern.

I would contend that life begins at conception and the life inside a woman's body is not part of her body and therefore not subject to her decisions but has it's own rights to life. I was a bit surprised when someone I know expressed the opinion that life didn't start till birth when the baby took it's first breath, and she quoted the Bible to support her position.
When you get pregnant then your opinion might be valid (but it would still only apply to you of course).
And yes, the foetus is totally dependent on the mother. It can't survive without her--it's not an equal partnership. Even if the embryo is 'alive', that doesn't automatically give it the inalienable right to use someone else's body for its own survival, or negate her right not to continue to support it.
So 'doc', if it's not 'part of a woman', has equal rights with her, and is not subject to her decisions, then you won't mind her removing it from her body so it can go and exercise its 'rights' somewhere else? Perhaps your place? You could have a collection of small red blobs of cell clusters in jars in your basement.
Every pregnancy and birth is a health concern. Without medical advances childbirth is always going to be dangerous for women and babies, and often with them as well.
You say the embryo is a separate human being with rights. You don't think women have any rights? You don't think it's wrong to force a child on an unwilling mother? What if there is no means of support, financial or otherwise? You can't work when you have just had a baby. A baby is a 24 hour job. Where is the money going to come from?
There is no valid anti-abortion argument. The anti-choice 'argument' consists of only two things; misogyny and lies. Women (especially single women) must be punished for having sex, and forcing women to give birth against their will is the most suitable punishment. Anti-choicers don't give a damn about embryos OR babies. They just hate women, especially single women who might be having sex for something other than breeding.
IVF clinics flush countless viable embryos down the drain every day. These are all 'living human beings with souls', according to the 'pro-lifers'. Why don't they ever protest about that?? They don't protest because they are all dirty kkkristian hypocrites. In reality they don't mind abortion at all, as long as it's in a back street with quacks and unsterile instruments (but only for all those sinful 'other people'. For themselves they prefer proper, clean abortion clinics).
commonsense
Posts: 5114
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Abortion: whose wishes should predominate?

Post by commonsense »

From a gender-based point of view, I have no opinion -- and that's how it should be. From a political point of view, I have no comment. From the standpoint of ethics only, this is how I see it:

The unborn child, the birth mother, the natural father, and the state all have rights and values. In a conflict of values, it's the hierarchy that will bring resolution.

The unborn child has life and the potential to become a living human being. The birth mother has life and is a living human being. The natural father's rights are trivial in comparison. The rights of the state play no role here at all.

(If the common good were involved, it could be argued that the rights of the state are actually involved. But the argument fails because the common good is not served one way or the other in this situation.)

In the end, the question of rights hinges, ethically, on the status of a potential human being vs that of an actual human being.

If the ethical rights of an actual human being we're to be conferred upon others, the hierarchy of status and rights would break down, leaving no practicable means of resolving the conflict ethically. Considering that political resolutions and male opinions are inapplicable, there would be no means of resolving an ethical conflict whatsoever.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Abortion: whose wishes should predominate?

Post by Greta »

Obviously men should be granted control over women's bodies at ALL times (Blackstone 1765), but once a woman is fertilised then she ceases to become a human and becomes the male's property.

Of course, women are weak intellectually and morally (Aristotle) and thus cannot be trusted with important decisions, so it must be the male's job to decide in all things (Koran). This is because women are not quite properly human, they are slightly subhuman (Acidalius 1595).

After all, would you let your dog make decisions about being desexed or how much to eat? No, the dog cannot make informed decisions on its own behalf. Ditto women, who reportedly have a brain about the size of a squirrel's (Cohen 2006).

[sic]
Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: Abortion: whose wishes should predominate?

Post by Philosophy Explorer »

Greta wrote:Obviously men should be granted control over women's bodies at ALL times (Blackstone 1765), but once a woman is fertilised then she ceases to become a human and becomes the male's property.

Of course, women are weak intellectually and morally (Aristotle) and thus cannot be trusted with important decisions, so it must be the male's job to decide in all things (Koran). This is because women are not quite properly human, they are slightly subhuman (Acidalius 1595).

After all, would you let your dog make decisions about being desexed or how much to eat? No, the dog cannot make informed decisions on its own behalf. Ditto women, who reportedly have a brain about the size of a squirrel's (Cohen 2006).

[sic]
What else does your scrapbook contain?

PhilX
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Abortion: whose wishes should predominate?

Post by Greta »

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
Greta wrote:Obviously men should be granted control over women's bodies at ALL times (Blackstone 1765), but once a woman is fertilised then she ceases to become a human and becomes the male's property.

Of course, women are weak intellectually and morally (Aristotle) and thus cannot be trusted with important decisions, so it must be the male's job to decide in all things (Koran). This is because women are not quite properly human, they are slightly subhuman (Acidalius 1595).

After all, would you let your dog make decisions about being desexed or how much to eat? No, the dog cannot make informed decisions on its own behalf. Ditto women, who reportedly have a brain about the size of a squirrel's (Cohen 2006).

[sic]
What else does your scrapbook contain?
The internet is everyone's scrap book ...

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=Lk ... er&f=false
Londoner
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: Abortion: whose wishes should predominate?

Post by Londoner »

thedoc wrote:
I would contend that life begins at conception and the life inside a woman's body is not part of her body and therefore not subject to her decisions but has it's own rights to life. I was a bit surprised when someone I know expressed the opinion that life didn't start till birth when the baby took it's first breath, and she quoted the Bible to support her position.
It could be later. The argument is that our life doesn't start until we are self-aware and that is not true of new born babies. I think this is how an ancient Greek or Roman would argue.

If we don't hold to that position, if we think that life-is-life, such that we think a fertilized egg is just as alive as a newborn baby, because it shares the basic characteristics of living things, then shouldn't we treat all creatures, and perhaps plants, as having the same rights as humans?
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Abortion: whose wishes should predominate?

Post by thedoc »

Londoner wrote:
The argument is that our life doesn't start until we are self-aware and that is not true of new born babies.
This is part of the debate, When does a human become self-aware? Unfortunately much of the argument on both sides is of an emotional nature and the truth is often obscured and hard to find.
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Abortion: whose wishes should predominate?

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

A pregnant woman has the burden of carrying the foetus. It is her wishes that should predominate - OBVIOUSLY.

However, since the state has made the genetic father financially responsible for the next 16+ years it has forced a moral dilemma. If the pregnancy is not planned, and the "father" does not want the pregnancy to go full term then either the woman should abort, or take full responsibility for the up-keep of the child, releasing the father from his legal responsibility, and, of course, any parental rights.

A foetus has no rights, naturally. However the state decides who does or does not enjoy rights. As a foetus is not a person, and not viable without the support of the pregnant woman, the state judges when personhood is viable, and as early births become more viable, personhood can be bestowed on younger foetuses.

It's my view that every effort must be made to help any woman to make an informed choice is as timely manner as is possible. Current cut offs for elective abortions are about right, as long as systemic delays do not impede the rights of women to abort as they see fit.
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Abortion: whose wishes should predominate?

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

thedoc wrote:
Londoner wrote:
The argument is that our life doesn't start until we are self-aware and that is not true of new born babies.
This is part of the debate, When does a human become self-aware? Unfortunately much of the argument on both sides is of an emotional nature and the truth is often obscured and hard to find.
I don't think self aware is the only criteria. ~Sheep to slaughter are self aware, easily as much as a foetus of any age.
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Abortion: whose wishes should predominate?

Post by thedoc »

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
I don't think self aware is the only criteria.
I agree, that is why I said "This is part of the debate".
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Abortion: whose wishes should predominate?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Hobbes' Choice wrote:A pregnant woman has the burden of carrying the foetus. It is her wishes that should predominate - OBVIOUSLY.

However, since the state has made the genetic father financially responsible for the next 16+ years it has forced a moral dilemma. If the pregnancy is not planned, and the "father" does not want the pregnancy to go full term then either the woman should abort, or take full responsibility for the up-keep of the child, releasing the father from his legal responsibility, and, of course, any parental rights.

A foetus has no rights, naturally. However the state decides who does or does not enjoy rights. As a foetus is not a person, and not viable without the support of the pregnant woman, the state judges when personhood is viable, and as early births become more viable, personhood can be bestowed on younger foetuses.

It's my view that every effort must be made to help any woman to make an informed choice is as timely manner as is possible. Current cut offs for elective abortions are about right, as long as systemic delays do not impede the rights of women to abort as they see fit.
I agree with you in principle with the question of financial responsibility, but I have a feeling there would be a minefield of loopholes and legalities in there, and as usual it would be the wrong people getting hurt by it.
Post Reply