[Abortion][REVISED POLL] If you had the power...

[United Massachusetts]

That is a ridiculous standard. If you would call pregnancy life-threatening, you would have to call eating life-threatening as well: Far more die in the United States from food poisoning than from all complications of pregnancy, added to all complications and medical errors in delivery, combined.

But whereas eating is a risk we all take (and for good reason), pregnancy presents a very discernible risk that would not otherwise be present and that should not be forced on anyone. If the woman does not wish to take such risks upon herself, it would be wrong to deny her the capacity to rectify the situation.

Last Note: Would it not be even more wrong to deprive what you've acknowledged to be a living human, one which has committed no harm, its single and most fundamental right?

[Grand Byelorussia]

That is a ridiculous standard. If you would call pregnancy life-threatening, you would have to call eating life-threatening as well: Far more die in the United States from food poisoning than from all complications of pregnancy, added to all complications and medical errors in delivery, combined.

Consider the fact that we need to eat for our own survival, while we don't have to go through pregnancy to survive.

[Cedoria]

Perhaps in that circumstance it would be reasonable to tell God to go fuck himself?

Right. What type of god has you raped for a reason? There is no good reason at all to have someone raped.

Precisely...

[Washington Resistance Army]

I don't like abortion and I would do everything in my power to reduce a need for it but the state (or me, I guess) has no right telling ladies what they can or can't do with their bodies.

[Godular]

... through our rather lengthy discussion it seemed to result in him saying "I see your points, and they are all good ones, but it's still murder."

I find such a thing to be... abhorrent. Unspeakably so. How can such a thing be justified in any faith, WHILE the same person agrees with the idea of equal treatment before the law and the idea that no person should be able to use another person's body against their will.

If it's murder, it's murder. I think most people generally agree that murder is not okay.

If it's not murder, then it's a completely different question. Abortion is, in my view, a question of whether or not a fetus is a person (or when a fetus becomes a person). You can't make it into a different issue than that or else you'll have two people arguing about two different things. If someone believes abortion is murder, then it doesn't matter if they have a right to their body (which they obviously do). That right does not supersede someone else's right to their own body (you don't get to assault or kill people).

Imagine you were a psychic. You had the power to control people's minds for short periods of time. You're stuck in a chair, and can't move, and there's a man on the other side of the room who is about to shoot an innocent person in the head. Do you,

a) Use your psychic ability to control their hand and make them drop the gun, or
b) Let them shoot the gun

Option a) is an example of using another person's body against their will. It is also, I believe you will agree, totally justified. No, it is not the same as getting an abortion, but the principle stands: if a fetus is a person, you do not have the right to end that person's life.

I would counter again that a fetus' right to exist only holds insofar as it does not impose upon the woman within which it resides. If the woman does not consent to its presence, she should have the right to remove the fetus from the premises. That doing so would result in the fetus' death is unfortunate but also unavoidable. No born person has the right to use my body against my will. We have any number of words for such things taking place between born persons, and none of them are complimentary. A fetus, whether deemed a person or not, should not get a pass on this concern.

[United Massachusetts]

You might have a fair point. I'm still, for reasons I think you understand, quite uncomfortable with the notion.

Which is the thing I'm trying to get at. Clearly you think it's unjust to force a woman who has gone through rape to carry the pregnancy to term. I'd agree. The interesting bit is that you also believe that there is a certain quantity of suffering in the mother that outweighs the right of the fetus to live. Rape provides that necessary quantity, as does incest. But why doesn't anything else? I'm sure I can come up with any number of plausible-but-unlikely scenarios of great maternal suffering that would similarly not persuade you, even though you clearly care a great deal about the suffering those scenarios might cause.

I never said it outweighed the right of a human of live. I'm not sure anything can. I just feel deeply uncomfortable telling a rape victim to bring her pregnancy to term, though I would do it myself in a heartbeat. Logical deductions can only take us so far, and, unfortunately, there's nothing we can do to eliminate the trauma of the rape. At any rate, abortion is a tough issue, I'm tired, and I suggest that at somepoint we all take a moment to appreciate the fact that we're alive. What a wonderful thing! To deprive this from anyone would be, in my own eyes, reprehensible. Perhaps moreso than anything. And I know this isn't helping my cause, Widening Gyre.

[Godular]

But whereas eating is a risk we all take (and for good reason), pregnancy presents a very discernible risk that would not otherwise be present and that should not be forced on anyone. If the woman does not wish to take such risks upon herself, it would be wrong to deny her the capacity to rectify the situation.

Last Note: Would it not be even more wrong to deprive what you've acknowledged to be a living human, one which has committed no harm, its single and most fundamental right?

Any perceived right to life does not give one the right to impose upon the rights of another. If you required an organ transplant to survive, and I happened to be the only person on earth who was compatible, it would be wrong to force me onto the operating table (and I guarantee I'd make sure that anybody who tried would need immediate medical attention as well).

Incidentally, consider the idea that in allowing the woman to control when and how she becomes a parent that you increase the chance that when she DOES become a parent the circumstances would be much more conducive to ensuring the overall happiness of all involved. Though that first fetus would be aborted and would not see the light of day, it is not capable of feeling pain, or disappointment at its lot. It would not be capable of the former until around 20-24 weeks into the pregnancy, and it would not be capable of the latter until some time after it has been born.

[Godular]

Which is the thing I'm trying to get at. Clearly you think it's unjust to force a woman who has gone through rape to carry the pregnancy to term. I'd agree. The interesting bit is that you also believe that there is a certain quantity of suffering in the mother that outweighs the right of the fetus to live. Rape provides that necessary quantity, as does incest. But why doesn't anything else? I'm sure I can come up with any number of plausible-but-unlikely scenarios of great maternal suffering that would similarly not persuade you, even though you clearly care a great deal about the suffering those scenarios might cause.

I never said it outweighed the right of a human of live. I'm not sure anything can. I just feel deeply uncomfortable telling a rape victim to bring her pregnancy to term, though I would do it myself in a heartbeat. Logical deductions can only take us so far, and, unfortunately, there's nothing we can do to eliminate the trauma of the rape. At any rate, abortion is a tough issue, I'm tired, and I suggest that at somepoint we all take a moment to appreciate the fact that we're alive. What a wonderful thing! To deprive this from anyone would be, in my own eyes, reprehensible. Perhaps moreso than anything. And I know this isn't helping my cause, Widening Gyre.

Indeed, living is great. Living as a second-class citizen who can't control your own body though... that seems like it has all kinds of pitfalls.

[Godular]

Incidentally... would it be wrong of me to note that right now the poll results look like an extended middle finger?

[The Widening Gyre]

I never said it outweighed the right of a human of live. I'm not sure anything can. I just feel deeply uncomfortable telling a rape victim to bring her pregnancy to term, though I would do it myself in a heartbeat.

But not with the power of law, even with OP-given absolute authority. Why can you say it to a rape victim's face but not through a lawbook?

Logical deductions can only take us so far, and, unfortunately, there's nothing we can do to eliminate the trauma of the rape.

And within the strictures of the OP's scenario and the real world, neither can we eliminate the trauma of poverty or a broken home or mental illness or any number of sufferings. But again, you consider measures like free childcare enough to grant the state authority to ban abortion in those cases - and not counselling or treatment after rape.

[Cylonarus]

Very rarely is abortion in self-defense. 92% of abortions are for social or economic circumstances. What makes you say a fetus is not worthy of a Right to Life?

See what I did there?

This guy gets it

I know this game all too well, *COUGH COUGH*.

I would recommend getting yourself sources, and making longer posts.

[San Marlindo]

Pass the buck off to someone stronger than I and not open this massive can of worms.

[Donut section]

I would make it completely legal, remove governments abilities to make restrictions on clinics and give women who are unable to pay a interest free loan on the costs.

I would also change parental responsibilities and rights. But that's a different thread.

[San Marlindo]

I would make it completely legal, remove governments abilities to make restrictions on clinics and give women who are unable to pay a interest free loan on the costs.

I would also change parental responsibilities and rights. But that's a different thread.

Where would the loan money come from?

[Donut section]

I would make it completely legal, remove governments abilities to make restrictions on clinics and give women who are unable to pay a interest free loan on the costs.

I would also change parental responsibilities and rights. But that's a different thread.

Where would the loan money come from?

Tax churches.

[Godular]

Where would the loan money come from?

Tax churches.

And that horrible Ark Encounter theme park, if it isn't already happening. Seriously, that place is a freaking travesty.

Anyway...

I find it interesting that there's such a variety in the responses that people are making. Seems 'god says so' shows up a lot though. Are there any secular arguments against abortion that would not be addressed simply by providing the relevant welfare benefits and not outright banning it?

[United Massachusetts]

Tax churches.

And that horrible Ark Encounter theme park, if it isn't already happening. Seriously, that place is a freaking travesty.

Anyway...

I find it interesting that there's such a variety in the responses that people are making. Seems 'god says so' shows up a lot though. Are there any secular arguments against abortion that would not be addressed simply by providing the relevant welfare benefits and not outright banning it?

Ahem...I believe my arguments were not based on religion, although I got involved in the religious aside. At any rate, it is the humanist in me that opposes abortion moreso than the Catholic.

[Godular]

And that horrible Ark Encounter theme park, if it isn't already happening. Seriously, that place is a freaking travesty.

Anyway...

I find it interesting that there's such a variety in the responses that people are making. Seems 'god says so' shows up a lot though. Are there any secular arguments against abortion that would not be addressed simply by providing the relevant welfare benefits and not outright banning it?

Ahem...I believe my arguments were not based on religion, although I got involved in the religious aside. At any rate, it is the humanist in me that opposes abortion moreso than the Catholic.

Actually, you did not provide a rationale as to why you consider abortion to be murder. Does it go against the legal definition, or are you applying some other definition?

[Jamzmania]

If I had the power I would make abortion illegal in all cases but one, being the life of the monther is endangered.

[Mavorpen]

I'd maintain the current laws but I would also get rid of the attempt to infringe upon the "right" to an abortion in the form of an appeal to "State's rights." In other words, States don't get to pick what they feel is in their interest and arbitrarily limit access. The only things that would be in their interest would be also in the interest in the mother, so regulation of abortion under the umbrella of it being, naturally, a medical procedure.

[Jamzmania]

I'd maintain the current laws but I would also get rid of the attempt to infringe upon the "right" to an abortion in the form of an appeal to "State's rights." In other words, States don't get to pick what they feel is in their interest and arbitrarily limit access. The only things that would be in their interest would be also in the interest in the mother, so regulation of abortion under the umbrella of it being, naturally, a medical procedure.

It would also be in a state's interest to maintain a stable population.

[Godular]

I'd maintain the current laws but I would also get rid of the attempt to infringe upon the "right" to an abortion in the form of an appeal to "State's rights." In other words, States don't get to pick what they feel is in their interest and arbitrarily limit access. The only things that would be in their interest would be also in the interest in the mother, so regulation of abortion under the umbrella of it being, naturally, a medical procedure.

It would also be in a state's interest to maintain a stable population.

That can be done without banning abortion.

[United Massachusetts]

Ahem...I believe my arguments were not based on religion, although I got involved in the religious aside. At any rate, it is the humanist in me that opposes abortion moreso than the Catholic.

Actually, you did not provide a rationale as to why you consider abortion to be murder. Does it go against the legal definition, or are you applying some other definition?

Very well, now I shall.
1.) Homicide is defined as: "the killing of one human being by another" by Dictionary.com. Presuming you accept this definition, as well as that abortion is the intentional destruction, or killing, of a fetus, then the question becomes: is a fetus a living human, a point which you have already accepted. As such, in abortion, another human being kills another; abortion is homicide.
2.) However, some forms of homicide are generally considered tolerable, namely, when homicide is committed in self-defense. If it is not in self defense, it constitutes murder. Here's where you and I differ: Is a mother legitimately threatened by the fetus' existence, and, if so, is abortion, or homicide, the only solution?
For reasons backed up by other people on this forum, I contend that pregnancy, in the vast majority of circumstances does not propose a significant enough danger to the mother to justify murder. For the reason you've said, I make an exception also in a case of serious, provable threats to maternal health. In the US, at least, pregnancy is far safer than eating, driving a car, etc.

[Mavorpen]

I'd maintain the current laws but I would also get rid of the attempt to infringe upon the "right" to an abortion in the form of an appeal to "State's rights." In other words, States don't get to pick what they feel is in their interest and arbitrarily limit access. The only things that would be in their interest would be also in the interest in the mother, so regulation of abortion under the umbrella of it being, naturally, a medical procedure.

It would also be in a state's interest to maintain a stable population.

Right, which abortion assists in.

[United Massachusetts]

It would also be in a state's interest to maintain a stable population.

That can be done without banning abortion.

Yes. I begrudgingly agree with my colleague on this point.

100th post. Yay!