About Abortion

Right & Wrong
User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: About Abortion

Post by mattrose » Mon Apr 04, 2016 9:27 am

steve7150 wrote:My sister in law said to me that even if the fetus is a human being the women (mother) should have the right to kill it because its' her body so its' not always a matter of education.
To me, that definitely IS still a matter of education.

It makes no educated sense to say:
A. that a fetus IS a human being, and
B. She still has a right to kill "it" because its 'her body'

Those are contradictory statements that show a lack of thought

One could (try to) argue
A. That a fetus IS a human being, but
B. Bigger humans have the right to kill smaller humans

Or
A. That a fetus IS a human being, but
B. Older humans have the right to kill younger humans

Those are terrible opinions, but at least they have a basis in thought

But to say a fetus is a human being, but is still just part of the woman's body is simply nonsense

Educated people know that an unborn baby has distinct DNA and is a human being. It is not just part of the woman's body. It is a whole other body.

User avatar
Candlepower
Posts: 239
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 3:26 pm
Location: Missouri

Re: About Abortion

Post by Candlepower » Mon Apr 04, 2016 11:13 pm

Paidion said:
I, as one who does not believe anyone does should receive punishment(in the sense of "penalties." See my signature statement), of course, do not agree to it for women who have abortions either, (though I do regard abortions as murder).
These are two very confusing sentences, brother. Normally I overlook grammar and spelling errors and just try to discern what the writer is trying to say. But in this case, your construction is preventing me from clearly getting your meaning.

The first sentence reads: "I, as one who does not believe anyone does should receive punishment(in the sense of "penalties."

This appears to be either an incomplete sentence (no predicate), or one that is missing a word, or should be missing one. I'm guessing you didn't mean to include the second does. Is that right? However, it would still be an incomplete sentence. But if you replace the second does with a comma, the sentence would read, "I, as one who does not believe anyone, should receive punishments in the sense of penalties." Now that's a complete sentence and makes sense, sort of, but it probably misses your meaning.

The second sentence reads: "See my signature statement), of course, do not agree to it for women who have abortions either, (though I do regard abortions as murder).

Obviously, the stand-alone parenthesis bracket (between statement and of) is straddling over from the opening bracket in your first sentence. I actually understand the first part of the second sentence ("See my signature statement),...") but I can't make heads or tails of the remainder.

You have me guessing at what you meant to say, but I'd rather you erase all doubt by untangling those sentences for me.

Thanks.

Singalphile
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:46 pm

Re: About Abortion

Post by Singalphile » Tue Apr 05, 2016 7:36 am

It's a wonderful opportunity to be given this question in front of millions of people: "What is your stance on women’s rights and their right to choose in their own reproductive health?"

Yet, had the host not followed up, Mr. Trump's entire answer apparently would have been "OK, well look, I mean I'm, as you know, I’m pro-life. I think you know that, and I -- with exceptions, with the three exceptions. But pretty much, that’s my stance. Is that OK? You understand?"

It would be nice if he spoke about this important issue with a fraction as much passion as he does when he talks about making Mexico pay for a wall, or making China or Europe pay more, or how great he is. Rather, he acted as if had not thought about this question and just wanted it to go away.

Please watch the video: Video - 09:40, Transcript.
... that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. John 5:23

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: About Abortion

Post by steve7150 » Tue Apr 05, 2016 8:38 am

Rather, he acted as if had not thought about this question and just wanted it to go away.









It would have been fine with me if he replied that he needs to give this more thought and get back, but it often looks like he must respond in some way.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: About Abortion

Post by Paidion » Tue Apr 05, 2016 12:46 pm

I wrote:I, as one who does not believe anyone does should receive punishment(in the sense of "penalties." See my signature statement), of course, do not agree to it for women who have abortions either, (though I do regard abortions as murder).
Thank you, Candlepower, for pointing out the lack of clarity in the above quote.
I neglected to edit these statements. I wrote the second "does" and then neglected to remove it after writing "should."

Here is my revised version with additions:
I do regard abortion as murder, but I do not believe anyone should be penalized for wrongdoing of any kind—including murder. For what does it accomplish except to cause pain and/or death to the wrongdoer? Such penalties supposedly provide satisfaction to those against whom the wrong was committed. But in actuality, they don't. Nor do they usually deter the wrongdoer from continuing in his wrongdoing. He is just more careful in the future not to get caught. Nor do penalties deter others from doing the same. For example, in the U.S. states in which capital punishment is carried out, the murder rate has not decreased as a result. Ironically, the murder rate is greater in the states that have capital punishment. In Canada, the murder rate did not increase when capital punishment was abolished.

One might say that one benefit in capital punishment would be to prevent the killer from repeating his crime. That is true if one KNOWS who the killer is. But hundreds of people have been mistakenly put to death for murder. This fact has come out through DNA evidence, and should be sufficient to eliminate the death penalty.

My stance does not imply that I think there should be no consequences for wrongdoing. Wrongdoers need to understand that they have done wrong, and that their behaviour is unacceptable. They can come to this understanding through education and through psychological treatment, and they can be influenced not to repeat their actions through social pressure, and through encouragement to behave rightly.

Thus I believe that the crime of killing one's preborn child should not result in penalizing the mother, but educating her, and encouraging her to allow any future fœtuses to live.

Some people think there should be an exception if the pregnancy were caused through rape. However, one wrong act does not justify another, especially if that other is even worse (For what crime can be worse than murder?). Also a significant number of women who have been raped, have allowed the child to be born, and afterward were thankful that they had not aborted.

For raped women who fear they would take out on the resulting child their resentment against the rapist, there is always the option of adoption. There are many who are eager to find a child to adopt.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
psimmond
Posts: 438
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 7:31 pm
Location: Sharpsburg, GA
Contact:

Re: About Abortion

Post by psimmond » Wed Apr 06, 2016 3:17 pm

I also thought it was interesting the way Christians and pro-life orgs went after Trump on this.

Not all women who get abortions are coerced into doing it. I'd guess most in this country do not happen under a level of coercion that would legally remove culpability "if" abortions were illegal.

Sounds like a feminist double standard to me...
Let me boldly state the obvious. If you are not sure whether you heard directly from God, you didn’t.
~Garry Friesen

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: About Abortion

Post by steve7150 » Wed Apr 06, 2016 4:54 pm

It makes no educated sense to say:
A. that a fetus IS a human being, and
B. She still has a right to kill "it" because its 'her body'









What if the response were that its "my body" and I can't be forced to carry the fetus whether its' a human being and even if its' not a part of my body. In other words if the response is that no matter what, you can't force the women to give up 9 or so months of her life to carry a fetus/baby if she doesn't "choose" to, what would your response be?

thrombomodulin
Posts: 431
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 6:59 am

Re: About Abortion

Post by thrombomodulin » Wed Apr 06, 2016 9:39 pm

steve7150 wrote:It makes no educated sense to say:
A. that a fetus IS a human being, and
B. She still has a right to kill "it" because its 'her body'


What if the response were that its "my body" and I can't be forced to carry the fetus whether its' a human being and even if its' not a part of my body. In other words if the response is that no matter what, you can't force the women to give up 9 or so months of her life to carry a fetus/baby if she doesn't "choose" to, what would your response be?
Walter Block is a notable advocate of this view. He follows Murray Rothbard in reasoning that the unborn child is trespassing, and thus can be removed by the property owner (mother), at any time, regardless of the magnitude of the inconvenience.

Block used a parallel example where person A owns an airplane and then invites person B for a ride. If A tires of B's company, Block would say that A is within his rights to remove B from his property - if the plane is on the ground so that B can exit into the same condition as when he was brought on board. Block concedes it is unethical for A to do this while the plane is aloft - because of the invitation to come on board. For then A is not returning B to his former state.

I think a point at which to attack this argument is that the mother has made a choice, by having sexual relations, to place a person in this position of vulnerability and thus she cannot have the abortion (or deprive her child of the necessities of life once born). Unfortunately, he doesn't see an ethical problem with throwing stowaways out while in flight. Thus, for him, the extrapolation to abortion being against the law doesn't follow as he sees the unborn as a stowaway becoming present without the mothers consent.

User avatar
psimmond
Posts: 438
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 7:31 pm
Location: Sharpsburg, GA
Contact:

Re: About Abortion

Post by psimmond » Thu Apr 07, 2016 6:36 am

thrombomodulin wrote: Thus, for him, the extrapolation to abortion being against the law doesn't follow as he sees the unborn as a stowaway becoming present without the mothers consent.
Which would be the case if the pregnancy resulted from rape...
Let me boldly state the obvious. If you are not sure whether you heard directly from God, you didn’t.
~Garry Friesen

thrombomodulin
Posts: 431
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 6:59 am

Re: About Abortion

Post by thrombomodulin » Thu Apr 07, 2016 12:56 pm

psimmond wrote:
thrombomodulin wrote: Thus, for him, the extrapolation to abortion being against the law doesn't follow as he sees the unborn as a stowaway becoming present without the mothers consent.
Which would be the case if the pregnancy resulted from rape...
Correct. My proposed response does not cover all cases, but it is better than nothing. How would you respond to this for cases of pregnancy from rape?

Post Reply

Return to “Ethics”