Abortion's immorally practical benefits

Discussion in 'Abortion' started by Tyche, Mar 4, 2020.

?

Should abortion be legalized?

  1. Yes

  2. No

Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. Tyche

    Tyche Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2020
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Abortion has proven itself to be a massively controversial topic, with both opposing and supporting sides featuring interesting arguments. The modern conservative argument focuses on the centerpiece that performing an abortion is virtually the same as killing, even if the person inside is not quite sentient during the time the abortion was performed, as I'd be expecting everyone reading this ought to know. Though a large portion of this argument is based on a subjective perspective, it makes sense - that dead child could very well have had a brilliant life robbed from them.
    This moral perspective begins to fall apart, however, when the potential unseen effects of making abortion illegal come into play. The mother herself could very well be harmed, or killed (See: https://www.marchofdimes.org/compli...h-maternal-death-and-maternal-mortality.aspx#) during the course of the birth of the child, and the child itself could also die in the process. Situations like these require back doors to save at least one of the two peoples involved in the childbirth process. Now, the immediate argument against this is the "You did this, you're gonna deal with it" argument. While yes, this argument applies perfectly well to two naughty teenagers that find themselves parents, the irresponsible mother should not be put into a situation where her life is at risk without any medical intervention to help save her life, even if she was responsible. A problem shouldn't be left unfixed simply because the victim of the problem was also the one behind its cause.
    Other times, the unborn child isn't at the root of any one person's doing. According to the Planned Parenthood organization, condoms only are effective 98% of the time, and as such means that any one couple being responsible and using a condom certainly aren't the cause of a condom's failure.
    That prior argument does have a catch, though. The vast majority of pregnancies won't wind up in a fatal injury, and simply killing a child because you don't want it is, well, horrible. Abortion certainly shouldn't be so widely available that it allows for members of the population to continue having reckless intercourse and producing multiple deaths by abusing the system. Not that the majority of the population will abuse the system in such a way, but it's obviously flawed such that some very well can if they care to. In most cases, if you don't want a child for one reason or another (e.g. lack of finances), the adoption system can handle the child far better than death ever could.
    My stance on all of this, while still relatively fluid, is that abortion should be kept. As immoral as it may be to some, it can very well save the life of the mother, and certain other cases that create situations where the benefits outweigh the sacrifices. However, the current state of the abortion system creates a flawed outcome that can be taken advantage of or could be handled in ways other than death, and needs to have some restrictions put that allow for more lives to be saved while keeping the emergency switch for abortion at the ready so those in danger can still use it, and those in undesirable situations can appeal for it.
     
  2. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    12,982
    Likes Received:
    1,102
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is what we came up with a while back following a Ranked Vote on the subject:

    http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/pf-abortion-reform-compromise.550627/
    It basically legalizes abortion as long as the women get it done before a fetus becomes viable, before a fetus can perceive pain, before fetal consciousness, and all that jazz. If they wait past 24 weeks, then they have to take responsibility for that, as abortions in general would be outlawed past that point, though in line with what you were saying about special circumstances, there would be exceptions made in cases of serious threats to the life/health of the mother, rape, incest, or certain fetal abnormalities. Improving the effectiveness and availability of contraceptives of all types, including the long-lasting forms, is also a key part of the proposal, which would likely go a long ways to helping reduce the number of cases that even get close to those latter stages of development... i.e. reduce the need for abortion in the first place.

    -Meta
     
    LiveUninhibited and Derideo_Te like this.
  3. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    40,348
    Likes Received:
    30,986
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The question in the OP Poll makes the fallacious assumption that abortion is illegal and thus still needs to be "legalized".

    Abortion is LEGAL now and must remain so in the future because it is a reproductive right protected under the Constitution.

    For those who whine about the "immorality" of abortion their position rings hollow when it is pointed out that they are opposed to children receiving healthcare and food.

    Those same people who oppose abortion also opposed Obamacare that provided free contraceptives that would have PREVENTED the need for abortions.

    Spouting "morality" while acting immorally effectively negates all of the arguments of those opposed to abortion.
     
    Zeffy and FoxHastings like this.
  4. Tyche

    Tyche Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2020
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Thanks! I’ll be sure to use this as a resource for building further on concepts in my head, this system is exactly what we need.
     
  5. Tyche

    Tyche Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2020
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    3
    This is an interesting perspective, and I never considered that. While I don’t quite like generalizing everyone’s beliefs about everything into two sides (Fallacy of Composition), the objectives of the major opposing party do contradict a fair bit of what they do.
     
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2020
  6. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    3,651
    Likes Received:
    797
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This supposes a working adoption system. Unless you are outside the US, the adoption/foster system is flawed, and majorly so. There is no problem is a parents with diabetes has a child, but it's next to impossible for an adoption if either parent has diabetes. Our system is so flawed that there are children without parents and parents without children. The adults try and bend over backwards trying to meet the qualifications, but the requirements are so stringent it's amazing we do any adoptions at all.

    You are also missing from your analysis the basic concept of bodily autonomy. Of we make a presumption that a ZEF has the right to override the woman's autonomy, because it requires such for life, then the logical conclusion is that no one has a right to bodily autonomy if it comes to preventing the loss of a life. If I am dying and need a kidney, and yours matches, I now have a right to that kidney, regardless of your desires. Likewise, if you require regular transfusions from me to live, then I have no right to stop you from hooking up to me to use my body as the resources you need. As you can see, simply the saving of a life is not enough to go on, unless you are willing to deny the same to all what would be denied the woman.
     
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2020
    edna kawabata likes this.
  7. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    44,214
    Likes Received:
    7,600
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You assume above that a child exists - through all stages of pregnancy. Assumed premise fallacy.

    It is the woman's choice whether or not to assume risk. You are trying to make a Utilitarian justification for law - and law on such a basis alone is an anathema to the founding principles.



    Commits the same assumed premise fallacy as above. You are claiming "Defacto" that a child exists through all stages of pregnancy.


    Your argument is based in fallacy.
     
  8. edna kawabata

    edna kawabata Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2018
    Messages:
    1,041
    Likes Received:
    209
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Here are my rationalizations about abortion that have been seen here before.

    All living things have basic rights not to be abused or tortured and a right not to be killed without sufficient reason which is subjective. A fetus has basic rights and an adult has many more rights and one is bodily autonomy which is the one that may come in conflict with fetal rights. In other words, no matter the reason, a woman has a right not to be pregnant, but it has been decided by society that the woman's rights outweigh fetal rights until viability and restrictions are then applied. Fetal rights never surpass the woman's. If a choice of who must survive the woman is chosen.

    I think society has chosen the correct compromise.
     
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2020
  9. LiveUninhibited

    LiveUninhibited Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,930
    Likes Received:
    484
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Maybe in the same sense that potential children are "destroyed" when women aren't impregnated as much as possible. Fortunately potential children aren't real children and so do not need rights.
     
  10. Ritter

    Ritter Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2015
    Messages:
    6,919
    Likes Received:
    1,985
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Advocating for legalisation and illegalisation is a massively masochistic premise as it is one that undermines the autonomy of the individual in favour of State power.

    It should not even be disputed whether it should be legal or not since any rational being would want it to be legal even if they are against it. Illegalising alcohol did not rid the demand and illegalisation of drugs has not rid the demand.
     
  11. edna kawabata

    edna kawabata Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2018
    Messages:
    1,041
    Likes Received:
    209
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Laws against underage drinking have not stopped underage drinking, laws against speeding have not stopped speeding, laws against theft have not stopped thieves, laws against murder have not stopped murder......

    Does that mean laws are useless? We live in a society and the laws are behavior standards that society sets for it's members. We may not agree with some. Protest and vote
     
  12. Ritter

    Ritter Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2015
    Messages:
    6,919
    Likes Received:
    1,985
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, that's not my argument at all. My argument is that laws that infringe upon individual autonomy are immoral and should not be enforced.

    The problem with the Pro Life-position is that it is one that is a highly altruistic one; It suggests the individual should be sacrificed for the "common good of the group". They are not against abortion "because it is murder", but rather are they against abortion because it is the result of sex. In this sense what they really are is Anti Happiness. Since they also oppose contraceptives there is no other conclusion to be drawn. Pro Lifers are only against Big Government as long as lights and clothes sttay on. As soon as lights go off and clothes come off, they are screaming for Mama State to come cover their innocent little eyes.

    Pro Choicers are shooting themselves in the foot and walk straight into the traps layed out by the opposition by accepting their premise that it is a question of "life vs non-life". The most useful strategy would be to just call them out for being the zealous, happiness-hatingg Statists that they are.

    I believe in individual autonomy and thus do not care what consenting adults do in their bedrooms. However, I do believe that an adult should be able to make a basic consequence-analysis and use contraceptives if they want sex without reproduction.

    If "sleeping around" is what brings you happiness, then be my guest. But, if your goal is to have sex without pregnancy, it means that sex with pregnancy will result in unhappiness. Thus, it is important to take the precautions needed to stop that.

    Religious Pro Lifers are not any better. Their worldview already tells them that God has the final say, so why can they not let the sinners sin and leave the judgement to God instead of asking for the State to step in?
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2020
  13. edna kawabata

    edna kawabata Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2018
    Messages:
    1,041
    Likes Received:
    209
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Individual autonomy is not a basic human right if it infringes on the rights of others or threatens public safety but bodily autonomy is. The pro-life people deny that right. It's as simple as that.
     
  14. Ritter

    Ritter Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2015
    Messages:
    6,919
    Likes Received:
    1,985
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There is no divide between individual autonomy and bodily autonomy.

    My personal opinion is that abortion is wrong because it is a solution to a problematic situation that one does not want to be in to being with, which means that one was not cautious enough when engaing in what put them in that situation.This should not be controversial at all since it is an disputable fact.

    However, I do not consider abortion to be a legal issue. Abortion is a service and as the Capitalist that I am, I believe it is not up to the government to regulate that market. Rather is it up to culture; Culture has to change organically to lower the demand for abortions. Until (if) that happens, it should remain legal. No question about it and if you think otherwise, you are the type of person who would be prepared to allow the government install cameras in your bathroom if the argument was "for society's and the collective's best".

    I do not label myself as neither Pro Choice nor Pro Life because the labels are tinsufficient and unprincipled for my liking. I support both choice and life because you cannot have one without the other.
     
  15. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,191
    Likes Received:
    3,255
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I really enjoyed reading your post and have a bit to add myself.

    The mother has a right to her own body and has the choice of whether to use it to preserve another life or not, even if that choice is morally controvercial. In the same way, I can't be forced to donate a kidney to someone who is about to die. Yes, that donation will save a life, and yes I still have a kidney left, but nobody has the right to force me to go through a medical procedure and take a part of my body from me.

    In the same way, A woman should not be forced to go through the procedure of delivery, and shouldn't be forced to provide her uterus for the support of another life. Some people might personally believe for moral and religious reasons that women shouldn't have an abortion, or that people should donate their kidneys, but these morals shouldn't be forced onto the bodies of women.
     
  16. edna kawabata

    edna kawabata Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2018
    Messages:
    1,041
    Likes Received:
    209
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Individual autonomy is an idea that is generally understood to refer to the capacity to be one's own person, to live one's life according to reasons and motives that are taken as one's own and not the product of manipulative or distorting external forces.

    Bodily autonomy is defined as the right to self governance over one's own body without external influence or coercion. It is generally considered to be a fundamental human right.

    Maybe you can see the difference?

    Your opinions are a little suspect:
    Abortion is wrong because those who need it lacked caution? In others words irresponsible women get abortions?
    A democratic government reflects the culture. It puts limits on behavior that usually reflects the general society's will. I am all for lowering the demand for abortion. It is a crude form of birth control. The government can assist in that by making reliable effective birth control available to everyone and ensuring a social safety net for those that need it. That is hardly capitalistic and the only known ways to lower the abortion rate.
    Pro-choice and pro-life are "unprincipled" and pro-life people are "zealous, happiness-hating Statists" are both silly and insulting statements.
     
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2020
  17. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    3,651
    Likes Received:
    797
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I used underline since you already used bold.

    I would disagree with influence. Force, sure, which I would hold separate from coercion. But there are all kinds of influences out there. We can't really avoid them.
     
    edna kawabata likes this.
  18. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    11,018
    Likes Received:
    6,953
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Even the most reliable birth control is only 98% effective. While the majority may be the result of irresponsibility, nothing can ever be as irresponsible as our own government. Thats why the government can never be trusted with the responsibility of deciding what people do with their own bodies.

    While most so called "pro life" people are doing nothing more than appearing sanctimonious, some actually do care about human life and end up adopting unwanted children.
     
  19. edna kawabata

    edna kawabata Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2018
    Messages:
    1,041
    Likes Received:
    209
    Trophy Points:
    63
    "nothing can ever be as irresponsible as our own government" is hyperbole and the government is trusted to sometimes decide what we can do with our bodies. We have seat belt and helmet laws, certain drugs are outlawed, there are strictures against euthanasia and forced restraint of the suicidal.
    Pro-life people do not seem to believe bodily autonomy is a fundamental human right and hold the rights of the fetus above the woman's.
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2020
  20. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    11,018
    Likes Received:
    6,953
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Trust in our government shows gullibility on your part, not trustworthiness on theirs. Pro-life is more about pro-image except for those who are willing to provide care for the precious lives they care about.

    Currently, most of our illnesses are the result of consuming government subsidized food and drugs. Drug laws have provided criminals with a monopoly and have caused more harm than good. Im glad you moved the goalpost to drugs as it is an example of failure and irresponsibility on the governments part.
     
  21. edna kawabata

    edna kawabata Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2018
    Messages:
    1,041
    Likes Received:
    209
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I did not say I trusted the government, I was commenting on your ridiculous statement.
    I don't think the pro-life people are as superficial as you seem to think, just wrong.
    An interesting theory that government subsidies cause most of the illness. Is it unique to you?
     
  22. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    11,018
    Likes Received:
    6,953
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So is your position that everyone but you should trust the government?

    I don't think pro-life people are superficial. Only those who point a righteous finger at others demanding they do that which they are unwilling to do themselves. Many of them adopt and foster unwanted children. They are heroes in my book.

    The American diet is extremely unhealthy and mostly subsidized by tax payers. 1/3 of Americans are diabetic or pre-diabetic. Once symptoms show up, government subsidized pharm products will mask symptoms so that the unhealthy habits can continue. I do not consume these products even though our government says its safe.
     
  23. edna kawabata

    edna kawabata Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2018
    Messages:
    1,041
    Likes Received:
    209
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Where did you get I think everyone should trust the government? Blind trust is lazy and ignorant.

    "Pro-life is more about pro-image" is the definition of superficial and then you try to qualify it by pointing out a small minority who are "heroes".

    Then its back to your old topic. Americans choose the diet they eat not the government. Business manipulates taste (sugar, salt, fat) in order to sell as much of their product as they can. The medical community tells citizens what not to eat and treat their medical conditions. There is no government conspiracy.
     
  24. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    11,018
    Likes Received:
    6,953
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Good. We agree not to trust the government and therefor the decision on abortion stays with the mother.

    Wearing a T-shirt doesn't make someone pro-life, being part of the solution does.

    I did not say it was a conspiracy. Its simple, gov pays to grow corn, Americans are sucking down sweetened beverages and developing conditions. 10% of welfare/food stamps/SNAP/EBT subsidies are spent on these sweetened beverages. Once they develop symptoms, gov subsidized pharm products are waiting so they can mask symptoms and continue their bad habits. Corn/HFCS is a triple subsidy.

    There was a bill to prevent welfare money from being spent on these products, but PepsiCo lobbyists made sure that didn't happen.

    You're right, its a choice, but its not difficult to get people addicted to these products. Results speak for themselves.
     
  25. edna kawabata

    edna kawabata Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2018
    Messages:
    1,041
    Likes Received:
    209
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Nope, I did not say not to trust the government, but trust needs to be earned and citizens should remain informed.
    I suggest you read the entire column: https://www.npr.org/sections/thesal...-we-should-eat-less-of-does-this-fatten-us-up
     

Share This Page