Abortion - My Stance and Why I Can Still Be a Feminist

[Unvoiced_Apollo]

I believe you're conflating two different discussions. Basically, I solely brought up the example of a 1-year-old child to showcase the idea that you can't murder something because it isn't able to have an opinion about something. You have to agree, in that murder is not justified when somebody cannot form an opinion about their own bodily autonomy. It would be nonsense. If it were, somehow, justified, then people could kill 1-year-olds, 2-year-olds, people on life-support, people with autism, etc. Nobody can seriously defend this

...

I would have to consent to you using my organ.

The difference here, however, is that in the scenario of the failing kidney, the cause of death would be kidney failure. If I do nothing, then me not donating a kidney would indirectly lead to the person's life not being saved. They died from liver failure. I didn't cause that.

In the scenario of the unwanted child that hasn't been born yet, the cause of death would be murder. Why? Because going out of your way to kill the child would be just that -directly killing the child. If you did nothing, the child would survive. But in this scenario, you are actively seeking to end this person's life.

In short, one is indirectly not being able to save somebody. The other is actively going out of your way to murder somebody.


The question still stands, how is being an unwanted child a greater crime than murder? Let's say you disagreed with me, in that you don't believe pregnancy is two bodies working together with resources allocated to the child. Let's say you believed that pregnancy is solely the baby using the mother's organs. The question I ask is this: How is a baby "using the mother's organs" a greater crime than murdering a baby?

1. I know what you did and then I showed why we don't just look at "opinion" in determining right to life once a child is born

2. I didn't ask if you would consent. Read the question again:
Is it right for me to just take your kidney without your consent or would you have to consent to me using your organ?

3. It wouldn't matter if it's two bodies working in concert if the consciousness of one body does not consent to use of it. I.e., just because we might be in a situation where we ahould share reources equally does not mean either one of us has to do so.

4. No one considers being an unwanted child a crime so stop framing it that way as all you are doing is setting up a straw man.

[60sBornFeminist]

1. I know what you did and then I showed why we don't just look at "opinion" in determining right to life once a child is born

Again, you conflated two separate discussions. I brought up the 1-year-old child solely to debunk the idea that suggests "it is okay to kill someone just because they can't form an opinion about their own bodily autonomy". You went on to a different discussion about consenting to use one's organs. That's a separate discussion. By saying, "but as has already been pointed out, a fetus is wholly reliant on a mother's consent to use her body. The 1 yo on the other hand..." you made it seem like I was bringing up the 1-year-old child for that discussion.


Anyways I don't think this really matters. As long as you agree that it's wrong to kill something, solely because it can't form an opinion on its own bodily autonomy, I think we are good here.

2. I didn't ask if you would consent. Read the question again:
Is it right for me to just take your kidney without your consent or would you have to consent to me using your organ?

What? I literally answered your question:


"I would have to consent to you using my organ.

The difference here, however, is that in the scenario of the failing kidney, the cause of death would be kidney failure. If I do nothing, then me not donating a kidney would indirectly lead to the person's life not being saved. They died from liver failure. I didn't cause that.

In the scenario of the unwanted child that hasn't been born yet, the cause of death would be murder. Why? Because going out of your way to kill the child would be just that -directly killing the child. If you did nothing, the child would survive. But in this scenario, you are actively seeking to end this person's life.

In short, one is indirectly not being able to save somebody. The other is actively going out of your way to murder somebody."

(Link to my post: viewtopic.php?f=28&t=50685#p710553)



I literally told you that I would have to consent to you using my organ, and I didn't tell you at all if I would personally consent or not. But thanks for telling me to reread the question. Please keep the conversation civil. I read the question correctly.

3. It wouldn't matter if it's two bodies working in concert if the consciousness of one body does not consent to use of it. I.e., just because we might be in a situation where we ahould share reources equally does not mean either one of us has to do so.

4. No one considers being an unwanted child a crime so stop framing it that way as all you are doing is setting up a straw man.

You can either agree that pregnancy, by design, allocates resources to the baby and that those resources are rightfully the babies. If you agreed with this, then the baby is not taking anything from the mother that isn't theirs, and it's solely two bodies working together.


Or, you could believe that pregnancy, by design, is the baby "using the mother's organs". If this is what you believe, then again, tell me how being an unwanted child is a greater crime than murdering one.


And no, I'm not literally talking about crime and law. I'm asking, from a moral viewpoint: if we are in a situation where we have these two options:

1. A baby is murdered
2. A baby is "using the mother's organs" without her consent

Why would killing the baby be the better option?

[Unvoiced_Apollo]

But that's the issue. Trying to separate the criteria as you are, you're creating strawmen when no one looks only at whether or not an entity can form opinions

Even if I agreed that it's two bodies working in concert, that does not mean one body has to consent to other body's need for teamwork.

There are plenty of reasons why someone would rather not take care of a fetus and/or child that would prove to be a detriment to both if one gave birth. I would suggest you look into those reasons

You have yet to provide any new arguments on this matter, so I am done with this topic as well.

[60sBornFeminist]

But that's the issue. Trying to separate the criteria as you are, you're creating strawmen when no one looks only at whether or not an entity can form opinions

It's not a strawman.


"I'm not ignoring the bodily autonomy of the fetus. If it had an opinion on what to do with its own body parts I'd be all for obeying them."

"I meant if a fetus had strong feelings about their organs being donated, or being used for stem cell research we should follow it's lead."


Yes, a user literally said these.

Imagine this conversion: "Why did you murder her?" "She didn't have an opinion on what to do with her own body parts." Just to reiterate, this is complete nonsense, and it's a dangerous way to go about justifying murder. If somebody isn't able to have an opinion on what to do with its body parts, that doesn't justify murdering them. If it did, then people would be justified for killing 1-year-olds, 2-year-olds, people with brain damage, people making a recovery on life support, etc.

But that's the issue. Trying to separate the criteria as you are, you're creating strawmen when no one looks only at whether or not an entity can form opinions

Even if I agreed that it's two bodies working in concert, that does not mean one body has to consent to other body's need for teamwork.

There are plenty of reasons why someone would rather not take care of a fetus and/or child that would prove to be a detriment to both if one gave birth. I would suggest you look into those reasons

You have yet to provide any new arguments on this matter, so I am done with this topic as well.

I haven't provided any new arguments, because you are still refusing to answer my question (meaning, my counterargument is yet to be debunked). It seems convenient for you to leave the converstaion without answering it.

It's a simple question that I'm asking, and I welcome anybody here to answer this:


If the argument for being pro-abortion comes down to bodily autonomy, and if you believe that pregnancy is "a baby using the mother's organs", these are the 2 options:

1. A baby is murdered
2. A baby is "using the mother's organs" without her consent

Why would killing the baby be the better option? How is that the more ethical choice?

[Unvoiced_Apollo]

But that's the issue. Trying to separate the criteria as you are, you're creating strawmen when no one looks only at whether or not an entity can form opinions

It's not a strawman.


"I'm not ignoring the bodily autonomy of the fetus. If it had an opinion on what to do with its own body parts I'd be all for obeying them."

"I meant if a fetus had strong feelings about their organs being donated, or being used for stem cell research we should follow it's lead."


Yes, a user literally said these.

Imagine this conversion: "Why did you murder her?" "She didn't have an opinion on what to do with her own body parts." Just to reiterate, this is complete nonsense, and it's a dangerous way to go about justifying murder. If somebody isn't able to have an opinion on what to do with its body parts, that doesn't justify murdering them. If it did, then people would be justified for killing 1-year-olds, 2-year-olds, people with brain damage, people making a recovery on life support, etc.

But that's the issue. Trying to separate the criteria as you are, you're creating strawmen when no one looks only at whether or not an entity can form opinions

Even if I agreed that it's two bodies working in concert, that does not mean one body has to consent to other body's need for teamwork.

There are plenty of reasons why someone would rather not take care of a fetus and/or child that would prove to be a detriment to both if one gave birth. I would suggest you look into those reasons

You have yet to provide any new arguments on this matter, so I am done with this topic as well.

I haven't provided any new arguments, because you are still refusing to answer my question (meaning, my counterargument is yet to be debunked). It seems convenient for you to leave the converstaion without answering it.

It's a simple question that I'm asking, and I welcome anybody here to answer this:


If the argument for being pro-abortion comes down to bodily autonomy, and if you believe that pregnancy is "a baby using the mother's organs", these are the 2 options:

1. A baby is murdered
2. A baby is "using the mother's organs" without her consent

Why would killing the baby be the better option? How is that the more ethical choice?

You're taking the most basic point of an argument and ignoring the rest of the pieces instead of trying to understand the whole. That is a form of strawman. That is why I brought up autonomy; because as I said opinion is not the only thing we look at.

I have already answered your question, and it has been asked and answered in previous threads and bymany different websites. I suggest you search them out and come back with a better, new argument rather than one we've all heard before.

I'm done responding to this thread

[60sBornFeminist]

You're taking the most basic point of an argument and ignoring the rest of the pieces instead of trying to understand the whole. That is a form of strawman. That is why I brought up autonomy; because as I said opinion is not the only thing we look at.

There have been multiple arguments thrown around left and right, ranging from "it's sexist to be pro-life" to "it's hypocritical to eat meat and be pro-life". The "it can't form an opinion on it's own bodily autonomy" was another argument thrown out there that was easily shot down.

I have already answered your question, and it has been asked and answered in previous threads and bymany different websites. I suggest you search them out and come back with a better, new argument rather than one we've all heard before.

I'm done responding to this thread

You actually didn't answer the question at all. You can say that you answered the question, or that there are places elsewhere I can look for that answer, but it doesn't change the fact that it hasn't been answered in this discussion. Nowhere in this thread have you, or anybody else, given the answer to this very question.

And I'll repeat it, because I welcome anybody here to answer this. This question must be answered for your argument to stand, because it is the foundation for the argument you're trying to make.


If the argument for being pro-abortion comes down to bodily autonomy, and if you believe that pregnancy is "a baby using the mother's organs", these are the 2 options:

1. A baby is murdered
2. A baby is "using the mother's organs" without her consent

Why would killing the baby be the better option? How is that the more ethical choice?

[Taurwen]

a) murder implies person hood, I'm not convinced a fetus should have that designation.
b) we're also not talking about personal ethics. No one is making someone have an abortion, we must be discussing the legality of abortion.
c) if you're talking about the United states you are talking about a country with the death penalty. The legal system can actually decide to end someone's life, but they won't force someone to donate their organs. The rights to bodily autonomy is legally more important than the right to life.

It's definitely possible to value bodily autonomy more than right to life. Even if you think abortion is actively ending a life (which again, I'm not convinced it is). So the question is at what point can a government decide to legislate morality.

Personally I don't think morality should be legislated at all. Government should be concerned with the good of society as a whole. It's in the interest of society to not let murderers continue to move freely through the population, it's in the interest of society to dissuade theft. That kind of thing.
We know through history that making abortion illegal doesn't stop abortion, it just causes desperate people to partake in risky behaviour. Which is bad for society when they either lose an adult whom they has already put a lot of resources into, sometimes it leaves children without one of their primary caretakers. Or it has to put more resources into dealing with the medical ramifications of a botched abortion.
Furthermore, even if people don't try to abort, it means more children born into circumstances where their parents don't want them, or can't care for them. Which isn't exactly a boon to society.
As such, it doesn't make sense to legislate against abortion on several levels.

Now, if the goal is fewer/no abortions, we know the answer isn't to make them illegal. We know that doesn't work.
We know what does work is more options and resources for families, we know what works is more access to birth control and more comprehensive sexual education.
So why the hell do we have people out on the street harassing people about abortion instead of doing things that might actually reduce the number of abortions? Because it makes them feel superior? Because it's easier? Because heaven forbid women have a say in what they do with their body (whether that means deciding when/with whom they have sex, or when to bear children)?

Eta: I'm obviously just yapping, I'm hardly a scholar in any of the topics. But I do feel my right to my organs is more important than the life of another person, as well as I think the right of other people to their organs is more important than my life.

[melsbells]

Basically, first I will state my stance on abortion:
-- An adult human has something that makes it wrong for somebody to kill it (whatever this may be, I will simply refer to it as "a life"). There comes a point where the unborn child has this.
-- Once the unborn child has this (considered to be "a life"), it makes it wrong for somebody to kill it, for the same reasons it is wrong to kill an adult human being.
-- There are many variables that do not have any influence over whether or not something is a life. This includes whether or not the mother was raped (children whose mothers were raped are just as much "lives" as children whose mothers were not raped). This includes the financial status of the mother (children whose mothers are poor are just as much "lives" as children whose mothers are well off). This includes socioeconomic status of the mother. This includes how inconvenient it is to have a child. I think you get the idea!
-- An abortion is ONLY acceptable when there is a life-threatening condition in the picture
-- I fully encourage birth control




That's my stance in a nutshell.

Sorry, if I'm being obtuse here; It's not intentional. Is your stance that abortion should be illegal? Or do you accept that abortions should be legal and accessible, but maintain that abortion is immoral? I've gone back and forth on your opinion here. If you think abortion is immoral, yet still believe abortion should be legal and accessible, then I for one will not take your feminist card from you. But if your goal is to force someone else's moral decision through legal action, then I will revoke that card in an instant.

Here's a couple of the more interesting threads where this has already been talked about.
Feminism and pro-life

Can you be a pro-life feminist?

[60sBornFeminist]

a) murder implies person hood, I'm not convinced a fetus should have that designation.
b) we're also not talking about personal ethics. No one is making someone have an abortion, we must be discussing the legality of abortion.
c) if you're talking about the United states you are talking about a country with the death penalty. The legal system can actually decide to end someone's life, but they won't force someone to donate their organs. The rights to bodily autonomy is legally more important than the right to life.

It's definitely possible to value bodily autonomy more than right to life. Even if you think abortion is actively ending a life (which again, I'm not convinced it is). So the question is at what point can a government decide to legislate morality.

Personally I don't think morality should be legislated at all. Government should be concerned with the good of society as a whole. It's in the interest of society to not let murderers continue to move freely through the population, it's in the interest of society to dissuade theft. That kind of thing.
We know through history that making abortion illegal doesn't stop abortion, it just causes desperate people to partake in risky behaviour. Which is bad for society when they either lose an adult whom they has already put a lot of resources into, sometimes it leaves children without one of their primary caretakers. Or it has to put more resources into dealing with the medical ramifications of a botched abortion.
Furthermore, even if people don't try to abort, it means more children born into circumstances where their parents don't want them, or can't care for them. Which isn't exactly a boon to society.
As such, it doesn't make sense to legislate against abortion on several levels.

Now, if the goal is fewer/no abortions, we know the answer isn't to make them illegal. We know that doesn't work.
We know what does work is more options and resources for families, we know what works is more access to birth control and more comprehensive sexual education.
So why the hell do we have people out on the street harassing people about abortion instead of doing things that might actually reduce the number of abortions? Because it makes them feel superior? Because it's easier? Because heaven forbid women have a say in what they do with their body (whether that means deciding when/with whom they have sex, or when to bear children)?

Eta: I'm obviously just yapping, I'm hardly a scholar in any of the topics. But I do feel my right to my organs is more important than the life of another person, as well as I think the right of other people to their organs is more important than my life.

Thank you for the civil response. I condone responses like this, as it opens the thread up for an interesting discussion. We need more responses like this.

~


You talk about how you aren't sure that a fetus implies person hood. This actually supports my stance, in that the abortion debate isn't about bodily autonomy at all. It's about whether it is murder or not, which means, it's about where you draw the line for something being "a life" or not. If it is a life, then it would be murder. If it's not a life, then it would not be murder, and there would be no issue with removing it from one's body. The debate solely revolves around when it becomes a life, and why you choose to draw the line there.


You mention the legal system. The legal system isn't what decides morality. It was once legal to own somebody and have them be your slave. Clearly this isn't moral now, nor was it moral at the time it actually was legal. Morality should influence the law, not the other way around. Which is why pro-lifer's strive to outlaw abortion. Aborting a life is immoral, as it is murder. Murder should not be allowed.


And so, when it comes to weighing bodily autonomy vs. the right to life, simply saying "the rights to bodily autonomy is legally more important than the right to life" is an invalid argument.



When we are talking about murder, that absolutely should be legislated. I'll break down the levels you have provided, that argue why abortion should be legal:

You suggest that "for the good of society", it is okay to have abortions. The problem with utilitarian arguments, is that it infringes on individual rights. For example, one could argue that eugenics is for the good of society. They would say that sterilizing those with bad genes would lead to a healthier, smarter, more athletic, superior pool of human beings. They would say that it would actually be improving the human gene pool. This is clearly unethical, immoral, and wrong, as it infringes on an individual's rights to reproduce.

One could argue that murdering unborn children would be "for the good of society", as it would reduce pollution, starvation, overpopulation, and poverty. However, this is clearly unethical, immoral, and wrong, as it infringes on an individual's right to life.


You also suggest that outlawing abortion would lead to more abortions. The problem with this argument, is that it fails to take into account the fact that we can improve the enforcement of abortion. If we allow abortions, believing that it will cut down on abortions, then we are limiting ourselves. Meaning, if the abortion rate drops, you still have abortions out there that are still happening. If we instead outlaw abortion, we won't be limiting ourselves, as we can further enforce the law to lower the rate of abortion.



So now, on to the "right to life" vs "right to bodily autonomy" discussion around abortion. When there is a pregnancy, we are dealt with two options:
1) A baby is murdered
2) A baby is "using the mother's organs"

Now, if you don't believe the unborn child is "a life", then I will refer you to the idea again that the discussion is about when it becomes "a life" and when it becomes murder, and not about bodily autonomy. But if you are one that advocates for abortion, even it if is considered "a life", then I'll address that. Simply put, actively murdering somebody is a far greater crime than having somebody's organs be used without their consent. *Again* one of these two has to happen in the case of an unwanted child. When you murder somebody, you are infringing more on their organs compared to when a baby is using a mother's organs. Murder is literally killing 100% of its organs (and ending a life).

[60sBornFeminist]

Sorry, if I'm being obtuse here; It's not intentional. Is your stance that abortion should be illegal? Or do you accept that abortions should be legal and accessible, but maintain that abortion is immoral? I've gone back and forth on your opinion here. If you think abortion is immoral, yet still believe abortion should be legal and accessible, then I for one will not take your feminist card from you. But if your goal is to force someone else's moral decision through legal action, then I will revoke that card in an instant.

Here's a couple of the more interesting threads where this has already been talked about.
Feminism and pro-life

Can you be a pro-life feminist?

My stance is that murder is wrong, and that by legal force, we shall prohibit murder. If somebody is trying to make a moral decision by asking themselves, "Hmm should I murder this person or should I not murder this person"? Then yes, I will advocate to force them to not murder. Because aborting a life is murder, I will advocate to force people not to abort. (The exception is when a life-threatening condition is in the picture).

This is where the conversation gets fun. You want to "revoke my feminist card"?