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

Moderators: Enigma, Sonic#

60sBornFeminist

Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 3:13 2017
Contact:

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

Post by 60sBornFeminist » Sun Jul 22, 18:03 2018

Hi everybody! I posted in the in the "New Members" section, but since I haven't gotten a chance to interact with most on here, I'll give a quick run down of who I am! I am a proud woman that was born in the 60's, and I have played an active part in feminist communities my entire life. I look forward to posting here! I enjoy talking about issues in a civil unheated manner, and I love talking about the ethics and philosophy surrounding many issues.
--



I have interacted with many feminists my entire life, and unfortunately, I have encountered a handful of people that have tried to "revoke" my "feminist card" for not sharing their views on abortion. Luckily, I have had the pleasure of having civil conversations with other women, and I have influenced many to share my stance. I am yet to have somebody sway my view on abortion, but I am eager to meet the person that will! (If such a person exists). So to be fair, I want this to be a healthy conversation (some people get heated, which is something I want to avoid), and I want to avoid straw men and character accusations! Let's get to this!



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. I will debunk some common pro-choice arguments:

"It is wrong to control what a woman can do with her body"
---- It is wrong to control whether or not a life can live or not. It is incorrect to suggest that denying an abortion is a bigger crime than committing murder.

"The unborn child cannot survive on their own"
---- This is a variable that has no influence on whether or not the unborn child is a life or not.



Believe it or not, there are some feminist that will argue for the right to abortion, even if they agree that the unborn child is a life. I consider these feminists radical and extreme, but I will debunk these viewpoints just in case.

"Even if it is considered to be a life, the unborn child still cannot survive on their own"
---- The easiest way to debunk this, is to simply ask this question: "If somebody is on life-support with the possibility of recovering, is it okay to kill them because they currently cannot survive on their own? "

"Even if it is considered to be a life, it doesn't have a right to use another person's body"
---- This argument suggests that it is a bigger crime to be an unwanted unborn child than it is to commit murder. This is incorrect.
---- Pregnancy, by design, consists of two bodies working together. Resources are specifically set aside for the unborn child to use. These resources are the unborn child's.
---- The cure (murder), is worse than the problem (an unwanted child).


And lastly,

“This has already been discussed. It’s boring."
---- This is typically said to avoid discussing about the issue, and oftentimes it’s an attempt to silence or shame the speaker.



And so, as you can see, my viewpoint has nothing to do with sex, and if men could bear children, my stance would be exactly the same. This is why I am pro-life, and why I can still be a feminist with my viewpoint!

I look forward to discussing this!
Last edited by 60sBornFeminist on Mon Jul 23, 17:52 2018, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
rowan
member
member
Posts: 10078
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 11:01 2004
Location: US

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

Post by rowan » Mon Jul 23, 15:57 2018

Nah. Feel free to go read old threads where we discussed this. It's boring.
spacefem wrote:All your logical argue are belong to us!

Skeezy
member
member
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Jun 9, 12:05 2017

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

Post by Skeezy » Wed Jul 25, 9:47 2018

Hmm.

Scared to even speak on this issue not being a woman. I understand the point of view.

However human life isnt as importantant to everyone and is a personal view. Perhaps based by faith in religion, morality etc. Life exists in many forms.

Taking of undeveloped life in broader circumstances than life threatening . It brings into question what is life and at what point are you considered equal to a human. That really doesn't matter though. Its all in, should women be able to choose. Morality itself has nothing to do with it since society is moving farther away from old standard religious morality and thinking.

In this people are going to feel differently as there is no right answer. Answer d themselves arent always easy or fair. At what point does sperm after entering the egg deserve to be protected by society and under what cirumstances is that void.

Personally, I believe under cirumstances of rape and similar, the woman should be able to choose. To me her life in its totality, matters just as much as the unborn baby. I do not value one over the other.

If somehow in freakishly unreal circumstances, a baby was raped and got pregnant and could somehow survive birth or C section with natural risks, would you force the baby to have the baby ? My point really being, everyone is somebodies child.

60sBornFeminist

Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 3:13 2017
Contact:

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

Post by 60sBornFeminist » Wed Jul 25, 18:52 2018

Interesting response. Is it cool if I address your points 1-by-1?


You say that you are scared to speak on this issue, due to your identity. You actually have nothing to be afraid of, besides the naive extremists that claim you can't have a moral say on something because of your identity. Well, the reality is that you absolutely can have a moral say on something, no matter your sex, race, sexual orientation, etc. You don't need to have female genitalia to know what is right and what is wrong, even if the issue surrounds what is inside of a woman's body. Take slavery, for example. It was predominantly well-to-do straight white men that fought to end slavery.

It's actually shocking how closely the pro-slavery argument is to the pro-choice argument. "It's my land, I can do whatever I want with whatever is on it". "It's my body, I can do whatever I want with what's inside of it." That's some food for thought.


You mentioned that "human life isn't as important to everyone and is a personal view". I agree with you -there are those that do not value human life as much as other people. Take for example, foreign armies that send their children out as suicide bombers. I'd say that I value their childrens' lives more than they do. However, in order for this conversation to go anywhere, we must surely agree that it is wrong to kill an innocent human being. Right? You can't just go out and kill your neighbor for no rhyme or reason. If you didn't agree with me on this, then this discussion would surely lead us nowhere.

You talk about how society is moving away from religious morality and thinking. And I'd agree that it seems to be doing so. However, this does not mean that we shouldn't strive to do what's right. Surely we should try to do the right thing. Suggesting that we shouldn't be an ethical or moral society isn't the course that society should take -by any means.


The most important question you've brought up is this: "At what point does sperm after entering the egg deserve to be protected by society and under what cirumstances is that void?" This is the most important and controversial question surrounding the entire debate of abortion. But to answer your question, abortion comes down to it being "a life" or not. If it's not a life, you can do whatever you want. If it is a life, it is wrong to murder it. Where do we draw the line? The problem with "drawing the line" at any point after conception, is that there is no philosophically consistent approach to doing so. Many people draw the line, and when they apply that rule to another situation, they realize that the rule doesn't hold up. For example, some people draw the line when the baby can survive on its own. However, if we are being philosophically consistent, wouldn't that suggest that it's okay to murder people on life support? People on life support can't survive on their own, hence the life support. Haha we cannot just kill them.

(Some people will draw the line based off of what is convenient to them. This is inherently evil.)

It's okay to not know where this line is, but it is absolutely not okay that we risk murder. If you were driving at night, and if you thought you saw somebody in the middle of the street, surely you would slow down? You wouldn't immediately convince yourself that it's just a box or an inanimate object. You wouldn't keep going the same speed and risk hitting somebody with your car. You would slow down, because you surely wouldn't want to risk hitting a person. The same principle applies to "drawing the line". You don't know where this line is, so it only makes sense to play it safe and draw this line at conception. (Some people draw the line at birth, but that's extreme and I don't even have to explain the flaw with that viewpoint).


You talk about how the woman should be able to choose in cases of rape, but I ask why? There are people that are pro-choice and there are people that are pro-life that will argue that rape does not influence the issue. Simple put, children whose parents were raped are just as much "lives" as children whose parents were not raped. Again, when it comes to abortion and being philosophically consistent, if we were to suggest that it's okay to abort a child because the mother was raped, then you would be suggesting that it's okay to murder a born child whose mother was raped. Rape and sexual assault are wrong. Be careful of people that suggest you are "pro rape" because you do not believe we should abort children whose mothers were raped.


Your last point is an interesting question. I won't answer because I fear that it would diverge from the discussion, but I would be willing to bring this topic back up once this thread starts to come to a conclusion.

User avatar
Unvoiced_Apollo
member
member
Posts: 578
Joined: Wed Sep 9, 9:54 2015

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

Post by Unvoiced_Apollo » Thu Jul 26, 5:19 2018

I would argue there's a false equivalence. A fetus that relies on the pregnant woman is not the same a a baby or child relying in its mother.

A fetus takes bodily resources from the pregnant woman and comes with a lot of prenatal costs not every woman consents to paying. The mother who bears a child has consented to have one, even if she did not consent to the act that caused it in the first place. Once that baby is viable and subsequently born, then bodily autonomy comes into play and murder would violate that ideation.

The key here is realizing that even if we agreed there were two lives, there would be a moral dilemma in forcing one life to go at least nine months to bear another life they didn't consent to or killing a life.

So my question to you is this: if both lives are equal, why do you give priority to the one that's unborn?

User avatar
Sonic#
member
member
Posts: 5578
Joined: Sat Nov 7, 9:37 2009
Location: Georgia, US

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

Post by Sonic# » Thu Jul 26, 11:17 2018

1. Just regarding the subject of your thread, the only part of the argument pertaining to why you can still be a feminist is this:
And so, as you can see, my viewpoint has nothing to do with sex, and if men could bear children, my stance would be exactly the same. This is why I am pro-life, and why I can still be a feminist with my viewpoint!
This hypothetical question of what you would do if men could get pregnant doesn't mean anything. When your stated policy preference would deny women the right to make their own decisions on a controversial topic such as when life begins, then what you're doing has everything to do with sex. We live in this world. Access to abortions affects women's well-being, including what women are allowed to do with their own bodies. You cannot be "sex-blind" any more than you can be "color-blind" when it comes to race - policy positions may affect a specific group whether you acknowledge it or not.

2. Regarding the overall argument you lay out, my main objection would be to how you define when a fetus has equal value to a born human life. In common law and in traditions I'm familiar with, birth is the point at which a human life is fully protected by law. Another historical point when a fetus is said to be living is after the quickening, or the point when fetal movement is detectable by a pregnant person. Why would either of those points of determination be set aside in favor of conception? You set up a spurious point that, in the absence of confidence over whether a fetus has equal value to a born human life, one should err on the side of caution. That's spurious because there is no such obligation to caution in similar situations where there is an open ethical question about the status of something. We also have an absence of confidence about the value of animal life - many people make a choice to avoid consuming or harming livestock, pets, and wild animals on the basis of the ability to feel emotion, the ability to make decisions, or the capacity to possess a soul. Because we don't know where that line lies, is that a reason to outlaw the consumption of beef, pork, and other animal products on grounds of murder, even for people who have decided that animals don't have that same stature? No. That's unlike driving in the dark.

In the absence of certainty, the choice of what's ethical comes down to the individual. Your analogy is flawed because it posits that someone may be in the middle of the street, but for many people there is no such misperception concerning the status of an embryo or fetus. They have come to their own determination, and given the evidence available there is no firm counterargument to their stances, no absolute way of saying that, say, a three-month fetus is equivalent to a born human being. In other words, there is no philosophically consistent case for establishing that a human fetus has the same moral and ethical status as a human being after birth, so aspiring to such certainty by urging any ambiguous point to be determined in your favor is opportunistic.

As an aside, there is no substance to what you call "philosophical consistency." That appears to be a term you use without justification to browbeat people who reach conclusions that do not resemble your own. If you were truly philosophically consistent, you would decide every ethically ambiguous situation in favor of caution: you would be a vegan, you wouldn't use any technology that adds greenhouse gases or pollutants to the environment, and so on. If you don't do all of those things, you're not philosophically consistent either. You make decisions based on the situation and context.

4. Your comparison to slavery seems misguided on multiple fronts. First, you make a bad claim: "It was predominantly well-to-do straight white men that fought to end slavery." The abolitionist movement was a broad coalition that included white women (like Harriet Beecher Stowe, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Abby Kelley Foster) , former slaves (like Frederick Douglass and James Forten), and other interested groups. If you have to erase black and women activists in order to make a point about protecting white men having opinions about something, you may not be using a good analogy. Second, you try to compare pro-slavery rhetoric to pro-abortion rhetoric, but the comparison doesn't land because there are obvious prima facie reasons why land would be different than a body, and there's a further conflation of the two different groups affected, born slave bodies and fetuses. That's literally a false equivalence.

5. Your edited reply to rowan undercuts your call for civil discussion - slipping that in was more an attempt to shame rowan into silence than rowan's reply was. No one is obligated to discuss this with you.

Skeezy
member
member
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Jun 9, 12:05 2017

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

Post by Skeezy » Fri Jul 27, 14:07 2018

@60'sBornFeminist

I'll try to keep mine a little short. Which if you've seen my posts is very hard for me lol.

I 9can see and understand your comparison of slavery but the black in me has to fix one thing with this link

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... zA&ampcf=1

I think Unvoiced Apollo hit what I was really trying to say on the head. Why give the unborn priority over the other life.

Throughout history unwanted pregnancies have been an issue. A portion of women (hopefully most) will give the baby up for adoption. Others will make far more grim choices that we have all seen, abandoned babies, drowned babies, babies in dumpsters, extreme child abuse leading to death etc. Even far in the past brothels wouldn't be far from baby graveyards.

So should we do what we feel is right? (which differs from person to person) Or.. Should we look at the reality of the situation regardless of how we feel and do what may need to be done, because its more humane than these women doing their own "abortions," regardless of the dismay?

Lastly, thank you for attempting to rest my fears of ridicule.

60sBornFeminist

Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 3:13 2017
Contact:

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

Post by 60sBornFeminist » Sat Jul 28, 20:48 2018

Unvoiced_Apollo wrote:
Thu Jul 26, 5:19 2018
I would argue there's a false equivalence. A fetus that relies on the pregnant woman is not the same a a baby or child relying in its mother.

A fetus takes bodily resources from the pregnant woman and comes with a lot of prenatal costs not every woman consents to paying. The mother who bears a child has consented to have one, even if she did not consent to the act that caused it in the first place. Once that baby is viable and subsequently born, then bodily autonomy comes into play and murder would violate that ideation.

The key here is realizing that even if we agreed there were two lives, there would be a moral dilemma in forcing one life to go at least nine months to bear another life they didn't consent to or killing a life.

So my question to you is this: if both lives are equal, why do you give priority to the one that's unborn?
The moral dilemma,"forcing one life to go at least nine months to bear another life they didn't consent to or killing a life", has an easy answer: Murder does not compare to forcing somebody to bear their child. Murder is by far the greater crime. In fact I wouldn't consider it wrong (at all) to force somebody to not kill an unborn child.


I agree that there are differences between the born and unborn regarding what they rely on, and how they rely on things. Babies rely on others to feed them, give them water, clean them, etc. And obviously, the unborn child relies on the mother's body while the two are working together during the course of a pregnancy.

That difference doesn't make the murder any more justified, however. An unborn child is just as much "a life" as a born child, and the fact that the unborn child is on life support (in the mother's womb) is not sufficient enough to justify killing it.


You say that a fetus takes resources from the pregnant woman, however, this is part of a pregnancy. A pregnancy is two bodies working together, where one is developing inside of the other, and where resources are specifically set aside to be the unborn child's. The resources are for the unborn child. Even if you were to disagree with this, you would at that point have to argue that being an unwanted child is a greater crime than murdering a life. We can agree that this would be very incorrect.


You brought up prenatal costs. Being forced to pay prenatal costs is not a greater crime than murdering a life. We should, however, help those that are struggling to pay for prenatal costs, as we surely do not want anyone to die. We must preserve life. I do believe that our society should pay for the prenatal costs of people that get pregnant due to rape.


You said, "Once that baby is viable and subsequently born, then bodily autonomy comes into play and murder would violate that ideation". I'm not sure if this argument is supporting abortion up until the point of birth, but I can assure you that birth is not the point that bodily autonomy comes into play. Unborn children have bodies of their own, and we cannot murder them. Imagine a child 1 day before it is born. Or, imagine a child 1 day before it can survive on its own outside of the mother's body.


"If both lives are equal, why do you give priority to the one that's unborn?" I don't give priority to the one that's unborn. In cases where there is a life-threatening condition, abortion is justified to preserve the life of the mother.



Skeezy wrote:
Fri Jul 27, 14:07 2018
@60'sBornFeminist

I'll try to keep mine a little short. Which if you've seen my posts is very hard for me lol.

I 9can see and understand your comparison of slavery but the black in me has to fix one thing with this link

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... zA&ampcf=1

I think Unvoiced Apollo hit what I was really trying to say on the head. Why give the unborn priority over the other life.

Throughout history unwanted pregnancies have been an issue. A portion of women (hopefully most) will give the baby up for adoption. Others will make far more grim choices that we have all seen, abandoned babies, drowned babies, babies in dumpsters, extreme child abuse leading to death etc. Even far in the past brothels wouldn't be far from baby graveyards.

So should we do what we feel is right? (which differs from person to person) Or.. Should we look at the reality of the situation regardless of how we feel and do what may need to be done, because its more humane than these women doing their own "abortions," regardless of the dismay?

Lastly, thank you for attempting to rest my fears of ridicule.
Haha you have nothing to fear! Just a good honest conversation with back-and-forth points. Some people do the "news panel" approach to political conversations, where they just try to get a funny one-liner in to roast the other person. I'm not going to do that!


This article you've linked me to is interesting, and it reminds me of another similar article I was reading the other day about the issue. I am definitely inclined to agree that slavery does exist through our prison system. I definitely support ending slavery of every kind. (Our prison system in the United States has so many flaws might I add, such as how frequently sexual assault occurs to inmates).


"Why give the unborn priority over the other life." I'll give you the same answer I gave Unvoiced Apollo: I don't give priority to the one that's unborn. In cases where there is a life-threatening condition, abortion is justified to preserve the life of the mother.


I agree that unwanted pregnancies have been an issue, and unwanted pregnancies will continue to occur for a long time. Some have argued that abortion should be legal, just to prevent people from doing the atrocious acts in your list. The better course of action, however, would be to crack down on those crimes as well, so that we can simultaneously ban abortions and prevent those crimes from occurring.
Last edited by 60sBornFeminist on Sat Jul 28, 21:55 2018, edited 1 time in total.

60sBornFeminist

Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 3:13 2017
Contact:

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

Post by 60sBornFeminist » Sat Jul 28, 21:40 2018

Sonic# wrote:
Thu Jul 26, 11:17 2018
1. Just regarding the subject of your thread, the only part of the argument pertaining to why you can still be a feminist is this:
And so, as you can see, my viewpoint has nothing to do with sex, and if men could bear children, my stance would be exactly the same. This is why I am pro-life, and why I can still be a feminist with my viewpoint!
This hypothetical question of what you would do if men could get pregnant doesn't mean anything. When your stated policy preference would deny women the right to make their own decisions on a controversial topic such as when life begins, then what you're doing has everything to do with sex. We live in this world. Access to abortions affects women's well-being, including what women are allowed to do with their own bodies. You cannot be "sex-blind" any more than you can be "color-blind" when it comes to race - policy positions may affect a specific group whether you acknowledge it or not.
Let me ask you this, and it's a fun question to ask. Imagine if we lived in a world where men didn't have arms, and women were the only sex with arms. In regards to safety, if one were propose a law that states, "It is forbidden that somebody punch another person", would that be sexist? The reasoning for the law has nothing to do with sex, but yet, only women would be applicable. Would this be sexist?

In our world, women are the only sex that can bear children. If you believe nature is sexist, then so be it, but my reasoning for being pro-life is not sexist, no matter which sex can bear children. Who knows, maybe in the future men will be able to get medical procedures for bearing children. My reasoning for being pro-life will not be impacted.


Sonic# wrote:
Thu Jul 26, 11:17 2018

2. Regarding the overall argument you lay out, my main objection would be to how you define when a fetus has equal value to a born human life. In common law and in traditions I'm familiar with, birth is the point at which a human life is fully protected by law. Another historical point when a fetus is said to be living is after the quickening, or the point when fetal movement is detectable by a pregnant person. Why would either of those points of determination be set aside in favor of conception? You set up a spurious point that, in the absence of confidence over whether a fetus has equal value to a born human life, one should err on the side of caution. That's spurious because there is no such obligation to caution in similar situations where there is an open ethical question about the status of something. We also have an absence of confidence about the value of animal life - many people make a choice to avoid consuming or harming livestock, pets, and wild animals on the basis of the ability to feel emotion, the ability to make decisions, or the capacity to possess a soul. Because we don't know where that line lies, is that a reason to outlaw the consumption of beef, pork, and other animal products on grounds of murder, even for people who have decided that animals don't have that same stature? No. That's unlike driving in the dark.
You brought up how there is no such obligation to err on the side of caution in similar situations. We could discuss other individual situations and dissect how we should approach them. However, it is important to emphasize that those are, indeed, other separate conversations to be had. I will point out that we must always err on the side of caution when you could potentially rob someone of their life.

You bring up animal life. I have encountered those that accuse pro-lifers of being hypocrites for being meat eaters. This is something that you will have to talk with one-on-one with individuals that are pro-life. I cannot speak for each individual. However, many pro-lifers have an interesting take on this one. Some are okay with animals consuming other animals, as they find beauty in it by viewing it as life sustaining another life. Other meat-eaters, such as myself, will go out of their ways to consume animals that were given the opportunity to have a life-experience free of torture or cruelty. We do not support places that give animals a cruel and/or short life experience, as the idea behind being pro-life is to prevent someone's life from being robbed of them.

Sonic# wrote:
Thu Jul 26, 11:17 2018
As an aside, there is no substance to what you call "philosophical consistency." That appears to be a term you use without justification to browbeat people who reach conclusions that do not resemble your own. If you were truly philosophically consistent, you would decide every ethically ambiguous situation in favor of caution: you would be a vegan, you wouldn't use any technology that adds greenhouse gases or pollutants to the environment, and so on. If you don't do all of those things, you're not philosophically consistent either. You make decisions based on the situation and context.
It is important to be philosophically consistent so that we do not wrongly apply double-standards. I ask that you do not make this a conversation about my character by suggesting it "appears to be a term you use without justification to browbeat people who reach conclusions that do not resemble your own." When brought up, I've full on explained why certain things are not philosophically consistent.

Sonic# wrote:
Thu Jul 26, 11:17 2018
4. Your comparison to slavery seems misguided on multiple fronts. First, you make a bad claim: "It was predominantly well-to-do straight white men that fought to end slavery." The abolitionist movement was a broad coalition that included white women (like Harriet Beecher Stowe, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Abby Kelley Foster) , former slaves (like Frederick Douglass and James Forten), and other interested groups. If you have to erase black and women activists in order to make a point about protecting white men having opinions about something, you may not be using a good analogy. Second, you try to compare pro-slavery rhetoric to pro-abortion rhetoric, but the comparison doesn't land because there are obvious prima facie reasons why land would be different than a body, and there's a further conflation of the two different groups affected, born slave bodies and fetuses. That's literally a false equivalence.
Keep in mind, that my argument was to point out that identity politics is toxic, and that we should not judge the validity of somebody's opinions based on immutable traits such as sex, race, sexual orientation, etc. I'm unsure why you are trying to poke holes in my argument, but I will address what you have written.

I didn't erase black or female activist to make my point. I said that it was predominantly well-to-do white men that fought to end slavery. My point being, these well-to-do white men recognized that slavery was wrong. One does not need to be a member of a certain group to recognize when something is ethically wrong.

We should be welcoming of the men that want to discuss abortion, and we should not make a fellow member on this board that is male feel fearful when voicing their opinions on abortion. @Skeezy, this thread welcomes you and your opinion.

My analogy is clear. "It's my land, I can do whatever I want on it". "It's my body, I can do whatever I want to it". The connecting similarity between the two is that there could be another person's life inside of them. And obviously, people should not be able to kill things because they are on their land or inside of their bodies.

Sonic# wrote:
Thu Jul 26, 11:17 2018
5. Your edited reply to rowan undercuts your call for civil discussion - slipping that in was more an attempt to shame rowan into silence than rowan's reply was. No one is obligated to discuss this with you.
You're right, nobody is obligated to discuss this. However, I can point out those that try to enter a conversation or thread just to say, “This has already been discussed. It’s boring."

User avatar
Sonic#
member
member
Posts: 5578
Joined: Sat Nov 7, 9:37 2009
Location: Georgia, US

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

Post by Sonic# » Sun Jul 29, 6:51 2018

If you create a policy that knowingly affects one sex and not the other, then it has everything to do with sex. It may or may not strictly be sexist, but it's definitely related to sex in effect. "Pro-life" is not a stance nature takes, and so it is not nature that risks being sexist here, but whoever advocates for and implements restrictions on women.

Otherwise, I think you apply philosophical consistency in a way that justifies your own stances even when they're inconsistent, but use it to attack others even when they have "interesting take[s]." Finding beauty in eating animals or having an abortion is beside the point of the possibility that their life may matter. If you really do err on the side of caution - taking every proposal that something has value as correct at the earliest possible point it has value - then you should treat animal life like human life. Otherwise, you may as well add "philosophical consistency" the other way, and say that you should find beauty in eating fetuses or animals - all is "life sustaining other life," after all.

If that's not true, then using "caution" and "philosophical consistency" as an argument for being pro-life is not philosophically sound - there are valid reasons for not accepting that argument that come down to context (animal life, not human life), aesthetics (the "beauty" of eating an animal), and other factors. The other problem with the caution argument is that it forces one to accept the most extreme premise of an idea, even if that premise isn't one we accept. I don't think you should have to believe that eating animals could be wrong, just as I don't have to believe your assumption about when an embryo's life becomes more important than their pregnant parent's.

And then back to slavery:
I said that it was predominantly well-to-do white men that fought to end slavery.
And that's not true. It wasn't predominantly well-to-do white men. It was a broad coalition of people, none of whom was truly predominant by themselves. Identity politics isn't toxic (that's another post), but the irony here is that you leaned heavily on a kind of identity politics (imagining white men alone as feeling unable to speak up) when you could have equally well made your point by acknowledging the broad support for abolition and making your point work or acknowledging the error as a historical detail that doesn't change your point and moving on.
My analogy is clear. "It's my land, I can do whatever I want on it". "It's my body, I can do whatever I want to it". The connecting similarity between the two is that there could be another person's life inside of them. And obviously, people should not be able to kill things because they are on their land or inside of their bodies.
You again did not address that land is not materially equivalent to being within someone's body, and that born human bodies are not equivalent to embryos or fetuses. Nothing here qualifies why the embryo "could be another person's life." If witty sayings alone are sufficient to demonstrate a point, how about "you aren't in sanctuary until you enter the church door" and "you aren't a fully protected human life until you exit your parent's womb?" "The connecting similarity between the two" is that the life doesn't matter regarding a given quality until some large change in their status. "And obviously," someone's life isn't protected until they're in a church or outside of the womb. These analogies are flimsy arguments because they rely on what's obvious to the writer, and do not argue for a positive re-evaluation of someone else's premises.
You're right, nobody is obligated to discuss this. However, I can point out those that try to enter a conversation or thread just to say, “This has already been discussed. It’s boring."
The breach of etiquette was also editing the post without acknowledgement to try to get ahead of her reply. If you had replied quite simply with what you said, it would still be rude in one way (reading intentionality into her post), but it would at least not obfuscate the order of what you said. It would be rhetorically honest about whether rowan replied in disregard to what you said or whether you pointed out after the fact what rowan said.

60sBornFeminist

Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 3:13 2017
Contact:

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

Post by 60sBornFeminist » Thu Aug 2, 16:59 2018

Sonic# wrote:
Sun Jul 29, 6:51 2018
If you create a policy that knowingly affects one sex and not the other, then it has everything to do with sex. It may or may not strictly be sexist, but it's definitely related to sex in effect. "Pro-life" is not a stance nature takes, and so it is not nature that risks being sexist here, but whoever advocates for and implements restrictions on women.
Again, I ask you to answer this question: If we lived in a world where only women had arms, would it be sexist or wrong to prohibit punching?

Sonic# wrote:
Sun Jul 29, 6:51 2018
Otherwise, I think you apply philosophical consistency in a way that justifies your own stances even when they're inconsistent, but use it to attack others even when they have "interesting take[s]." Finding beauty in eating animals or having an abortion is beside the point of the possibility that their life may matter. If you really do err on the side of caution - taking every proposal that something has value as correct at the earliest possible point it has value - then you should treat animal life like human life. Otherwise, you may as well add "philosophical consistency" the other way, and say that you should find beauty in eating fetuses or animals - all is "life sustaining other life," after all. If that's not true, then using "caution" and "philosophical consistency" as an argument for being pro-life is not philosophically sound - there are valid reasons for not accepting that argument that come down to context (animal life, not human life), aesthetics (the "beauty" of eating an animal), and other factors.

My underlying stance is clear: it is wrong to rob someone of their life. Hence, murdering an unborn child is wrong. Murdering animals when they are young is wrong. Abusing animals their entire lives is wrong, as I believe that is robbing them of their life experience. I see no issue consuming an animal that lived a life full of experience, which is why I go out of my way to consume meat from sources that treats animals humanely.

The “you must be vegetarian to be pro-life” argument is not valid and it never works. Simply put, robbing the unborn child of their life experience is wrong.


Sonic# wrote:
Sun Jul 29, 6:51 2018

And then back to slavery:
I said that it was predominantly well-to-do white men that fought to end slavery.
And that's not true. It wasn't predominantly well-to-do white men. It was a broad coalition of people, none of whom was truly predominant by themselves. Identity politics isn't toxic (that's another post), but the irony here is that you leaned heavily on a kind of identity politics (imagining white men alone as feeling unable to speak up) when you could have equally well made your point by acknowledging the broad support for abolition and making your point work or acknowledging the error as a historical detail that doesn't change your point and moving on.
My point is that we should judge an argument based on its validity, not the identity of the speaker. Which is why I believe that we should welcome @Skeezy to share his opinion, even though he is a male. His words should be judged by the content of what he has to say, not by his sex. I brought this up because he expressed that he feared expressing his opinion here because he was a male.

You seem to have an issue with this, or else you wouldn't be arguing with me over it. I could cite how the Union Army was 90% white males, but I don't see a point further arguing about the civil war here with you. Identity politics is toxic, and it should not happen in this discussion.


Sonic# wrote:
Sun Jul 29, 6:51 2018
My analogy is clear. "It's my land, I can do whatever I want on it". "It's my body, I can do whatever I want to it". The connecting similarity between the two is that there could be another person's life inside of them. And obviously, people should not be able to kill things because they are on their land or inside of their bodies.
You again did not address that land is not materially equivalent to being within someone's body, and that born human bodies are not equivalent to embryos or fetuses. Nothing here qualifies why the embryo "could be another person's life." If witty sayings alone are sufficient to demonstrate a point, how about "you aren't in sanctuary until you enter the church door" and "you aren't a fully protected human life until you exit your parent's womb?" "The connecting similarity between the two" is that the life doesn't matter regarding a given quality until some large change in their status. "And obviously," someone's life isn't protected until they're in a church or outside of the womb. These analogies are flimsy arguments because they rely on what's obvious to the writer, and do not argue for a positive re-evaluation of someone else's premises.
To make my point, I don't have to prove that land is materially equivalent to being inside of someone's body. This is an artificial goal post that you have created.

User avatar
Unvoiced_Apollo
member
member
Posts: 578
Joined: Wed Sep 9, 9:54 2015

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

Post by Unvoiced_Apollo » Sat Aug 4, 6:05 2018

60sBornFeminist wrote:
Thu Aug 2, 16:59 2018
Sonic# wrote:
Sun Jul 29, 6:51 2018
If you create a policy that knowingly affects one sex and not the other, then it has everything to do with sex. It may or may not strictly be sexist, but it's definitely related to sex in effect. "Pro-life" is not a stance nature takes, and so it is not nature that risks being sexist here, but whoever advocates for and implements restrictions on women.
Again, I ask you to answer this question: If we lived in a world where only women had arms, would it be sexist or wrong to prohibit punching?
Yes, it would be wrong. Luckily, we have laws against assault, which would cover punching as well as kicking and other forms of nonlethal violence. So even in a society where only women had arms, it's still preventing a form of violence in general, including punching. These would be laws that protect both men and women from any form of assault, including punching. Even in a society where only women had arms, the generalized laws against assault would not be targeting only women.

Abortion laws on the other hand specifically target women and are of no consequence to men in terms of making that decision. since it's impossible for them to be pregnant.


[Edit]
To be clear: categorizing punching as assault has a net positive for both genders and their respective lives, no matter which gender has arms. Categorizing abortion as murder specifically targets women with no thought to their own life

60sBornFeminist

Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 3:13 2017
Contact:

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

Post by 60sBornFeminist » Mon Aug 6, 18:40 2018

Unvoiced_Apollo wrote:
Sat Aug 4, 6:05 2018
60sBornFeminist wrote:
Thu Aug 2, 16:59 2018
Sonic# wrote:
Sun Jul 29, 6:51 2018
If you create a policy that knowingly affects one sex and not the other, then it has everything to do with sex. It may or may not strictly be sexist, but it's definitely related to sex in effect. "Pro-life" is not a stance nature takes, and so it is not nature that risks being sexist here, but whoever advocates for and implements restrictions on women.
Again, I ask you to answer this question: If we lived in a world where only women had arms, would it be sexist or wrong to prohibit punching?
Yes, it would be wrong. Luckily, we have laws against assault, which would cover punching as well as kicking and other forms of nonlethal violence. So even in a society where only women had arms, it's still preventing a form of violence in general, including punching. These would be laws that protect both men and women from any form of assault, including punching. Even in a society where only women had arms, the generalized laws against assault would not be targeting only women.

Abortion laws on the other hand specifically target women and are of no consequence to men in terms of making that decision. since it's impossible for them to be pregnant.


[Edit]
To be clear: categorizing punching as assault has a net positive for both genders and their respective lives, no matter which gender has arms. Categorizing abortion as murder specifically targets women with no thought to their own life
Thanks for the civil response , and for the sake of people reading this discussion, I'm glad we are talking about one thing in particular. This is where it gets fun. We can now take the time to focus on our logic and approach to the subject.


Just to reiterate what you believe: In a world where only women had arms, you are suggesting it would be sexist and wrong to prohibit punching, because it targets only women.

I simply think this is a radical statement for you to defend.



But let's go with it. With the reasoning you have provided, I understand that you are not suggesting that women should be allowed to punch in that society. Punching would be umbrellaed under "assault", and banning assault would subsequently ban women from punching. I understand what you're trying to say.

So what if told you, I believe murder is wrong? Abortion is umbrellaed under murder, and so, banning murder would subsequently ban abortion.



In a world where only women have arms, why is it okay for a ban on assault to cover a ban on punching (a rule that is only applicable to women who who have arms)? And in a world where only women can bear children, why is it not okay for a ban on murder to cover a ban on abortion (a rule that is only applicable to women who can get pregnant)?

User avatar
Sonic#
member
member
Posts: 5578
Joined: Sat Nov 7, 9:37 2009
Location: Georgia, US

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

Post by Sonic# » Mon Aug 6, 19:16 2018

In a world where only women have arms, why is it okay for a ban on assault to cover a ban on punching (a rule that is only applicable to women who who have arms)? And in a world where only women can bear children, why is it not okay for a ban on murder to cover a ban on abortion (a rule that is only applicable to women who can get pregnant)?
In the former the status of the person being punched is not in doubt; in the latter the status of the fetus is the central question, with no conclusive ethical argument for personhood prior to birth. Bluntly, abortion is not "umbrellaed [sic] under murder" in the US legal code or in a generalized human morality. It takes adopting the additional (and peculiar - many people don't share it) assumption that personhood begins at conception to believe that murder applies.

Again, if you create a policy that knowingly affects one sex and not the other, then it has everything to do with sex. You can argue that your sexism is justified, but it's still present. You're still forcing anyone who can get pregnant (mostly women) to comply with your belief system and carry any unwanted embryos to term, imposing substantial financial and physical burdens that others do not share.

Also, you've glossed over the evidential requirement here at least twice:
You wrote:To make my point, I don't have to prove that land is materially equivalent to being inside of someone's body.
What you replied to from me wrote:You again did not address that land is not materially equivalent to being within someone's body, and that born human bodies are not equivalent to embryos or fetuses. Nothing here qualifies why the embryo "could be another person's life."
Again, if you don't show these things, they're flimsy analogies to people who don't agree with your assumptions. "Philosophical consistency" is a similarly flimsy appeal - you remain philosophically inconsistent in insisting that there's no harm in killing animals. When you set preconditions based on assumptions about young animals and life experience, that only suggests that similar preconditions can be set on abortion. So first trimester abortion is okay because the capacity for experience has not been formed, so nothing is being robbed, right? Not that I share your reasoning about experience, but that seems entirely consistent.

60sBornFeminist

Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 3:13 2017
Contact:

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

Post by 60sBornFeminist » Mon Aug 6, 21:31 2018

Sonic# wrote:
Mon Aug 6, 19:16 2018
In a world where only women have arms, why is it okay for a ban on assault to cover a ban on punching (a rule that is only applicable to women who who have arms)? And in a world where only women can bear children, why is it not okay for a ban on murder to cover a ban on abortion (a rule that is only applicable to women who can get pregnant)?
In the former the status of the person being punched is not in doubt; in the latter the status of the fetus is the central question, with no conclusive ethical argument for personhood prior to birth. Bluntly, abortion is not "umbrellaed [sic] under murder" in the US legal code or in a generalized human morality. It takes adopting the additional (and peculiar - many people don't share it) assumption that personhood begins at conception to believe that murder applies.
And so... the abortion debate boils down to whether or not it is a life. What do you know? It has everything to do with the status of the unborn child, not sexism.

In a world where only women have arms:
If it is a life, it is okay to outlaw assault, with the intention of having that subsequently outlaw punching

In a world where only women can bear children:
If it is a life, it is okay to outlaw murder, with the intention of having that subsequently outlaw abortion


We've landed here: The "outlawing abortion is sexist" argument simply doesn't work, because when it is a life we are talking about, it becomes a matter of murder, not sexism.



Sonic# wrote:
Mon Aug 6, 19:16 2018
What you replied to from me wrote:You again did not address that land is not materially equivalent to being within someone's body, and that born human bodies are not equivalent to embryos or fetuses. Nothing here qualifies why the embryo "could be another person's life."
Again, if you don't show these things, they're flimsy analogies to people who don't agree with your assumptions. "Philosophical consistency" is a similarly flimsy appeal - you remain philosophically inconsistent in insisting that there's no harm in killing animals. When you set preconditions based on assumptions about young animals and life experience, that only suggests that similar preconditions can be set on abortion. So first trimester abortion is okay because the capacity for experience has not been formed, so nothing is being robbed, right? Not that I share your reasoning about experience, but that seems entirely consistent.

Okay so I'm going to reiterate the comparison again.

"It's my land, I can do whatever I want with whatever is on it". (referring to limiting the life experience of slaves)
"It's my body, I can do whatever I want with whatever is inside of it." (referring to limiting the life experience of the unborn child)

I said that these arguments are similar. It's clear what the connecting similarity is between the two.






How about we go one line-item at a time from this point forward?

User avatar
Sonic#
member
member
Posts: 5578
Joined: Sat Nov 7, 9:37 2009
Location: Georgia, US

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

Post by Sonic# » Tue Aug 7, 5:28 2018

The comparison becomes no less flimsy when you repeat it. Land is not a body; a born slave is not a fetus. The connecting similarity does not hold if you disagree about the status of a fetus or a body.

Also, the sexism in being anti-choice is still there. You're taking a question with no clear answer (ex. when does personhood begin?) and deciding it in a way that only some people agree with. That's fine to believe it personally. Once you make a personal ethical decision into a policy or a social more that people must comply with, you are responsible for the sexism in its effects.

I'm not learning anything new from this discussion and I don't have a lot of time, so I won't reply again. Cheers

Taurwen
member
member
Posts: 358
Joined: Sat Jul 2, 9:33 2016

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

Post by Taurwen » Tue Aug 7, 6:47 2018

Out of curiosity 60sBornFeminist, have you ever been pregnant? I don't think it strengthens or weakens your position, while I think the abortion debate is absolutely sexist, I don't think people's ability to conceive, or experience with pregnancy lends more or less weight to their argument. As I said just curious.

Personally, it's absolutely an issue of bodily autonomy to me. You can try to make some kind of comparison to land, but I don't think people own land the same way they own their bodies so it's not a compelling comparison. Even less so when you're talking about the states where it seems legitimately legal to shoot someone on your land because you didn't want or expect them to be there (if that's not the case then you can blame pop culture and the news for skewing my view).

For me, abortion is more akin to letting someone die (if you must award person hood to a zygote), which we do all the time, after all, both sexes can donate livers with much less effort and fewer long term health ramifications than pregnancy, but to have the government come in and demand that someone donate their liver is a pretty terrifying thought. Hell, it seems bad to force people to give up their information to be put on a bone marrow registry even if they aren't forced to make a donation if they are a match.
But some people are totally cool with forcing a women through the not-risk-free body changing experience of pregnancy and birth because the idea of them actively partaking in their bodily autonomy instead of passively protecting it is more visceral.

60sBornFeminist

Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 3:13 2017
Contact:

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

Post by 60sBornFeminist » Tue Aug 7, 14:23 2018

Sonic# wrote:
Tue Aug 7, 5:28 2018
The comparison becomes no less flimsy when you repeat it. Land is not a body; a born slave is not a fetus. The connecting similarity does not hold if you disagree about the status of a fetus or a body.

Also, the sexism in being anti-choice is still there. You're taking a question with no clear answer (ex. when does personhood begin?) and deciding it in a way that only some people agree with. That's fine to believe it personally. Once you make a personal ethical decision into a policy or a social more that people must comply with, you are responsible for the sexism in its effects.

I'm not learning anything new from this discussion and I don't have a lot of time, so I won't reply again. Cheers
Again, I don't have to argue that land and body are equal. As mentioned earlier, this is an artificial goalpost that you have created -one that I don't have to reach to make my point. One is flesh, and one is dirt.


I'll further break down how the two arguments are similar, one last time:

"It's my body, I can do whatever I want with whatever is inside of it."
"It's my land, I can do whatever I want with whatever is on it."

These both fit the template:
It's my <container>, I can do whatever I want with <something encapsulated by the container>.

Clearly this logic is not logic that we should go by. Just because something is inside or on something that is yours, it doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with whatever is inside or on it. You can't force somebody to do work for free because they are on your land. You can't murder a baby 8 months into the pregnancy because they are inside of your body.

60sBornFeminist

Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 3:13 2017
Contact:

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

Post by 60sBornFeminist » Tue Aug 7, 14:43 2018

Taurwen wrote:
Tue Aug 7, 6:47 2018
Out of curiosity 60sBornFeminist, have you ever been pregnant? I don't think it strengthens or weakens your position, while I think the abortion debate is absolutely sexist, I don't think people's ability to conceive, or experience with pregnancy lends more or less weight to their argument. As I said just curious.

Personally, it's absolutely an issue of bodily autonomy to me. You can try to make some kind of comparison to land, but I don't think people own land the same way they own their bodies so it's not a compelling comparison. Even less so when you're talking about the states where it seems legitimately legal to shoot someone on your land because you didn't want or expect them to be there (if that's not the case then you can blame pop culture and the news for skewing my view).

For me, abortion is more akin to letting someone die (if you must award person hood to a zygote), which we do all the time, after all, both sexes can donate livers with much less effort and fewer long term health ramifications than pregnancy, but to have the government come in and demand that someone donate their liver is a pretty terrifying thought. Hell, it seems bad to force people to give up their information to be put on a bone marrow registry even if they aren't forced to make a donation if they are a match.
But some people are totally cool with forcing a women through the not-risk-free body changing experience of pregnancy and birth because the idea of them actively partaking in their bodily autonomy instead of passively protecting it is more visceral.
Thank you for the civil response. To answer your question, I have two teens -a boy and a girl.


The problem with the bodily autonomy argument for being pro-abortion, is that this argument ignores the bodily autonomy of the unborn child.

Being forced to carry an unwanted child is not a greater crime than murder.

Taurwen
member
member
Posts: 358
Joined: Sat Jul 2, 9:33 2016

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

Post by Taurwen » Tue Aug 7, 19:07 2018

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. But bodily autonomy doesn't really have much to do with location, and it doesn't have the right to demand the use of someone's organs.

And I think at a legal level protecting a person's right to bodily autonomy should be on the same level as protecting someone's right to continue living. I absolutely think a murderer should get the same punishment as someone who steals someone's organs. Those are both people who should have their freedom to move among other citizens severely restricted.

60sBornFeminist

Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 3:13 2017
Contact:

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

Post by 60sBornFeminist » Wed Aug 8, 19:12 2018

Taurwen wrote:
Tue Aug 7, 19:07 2018
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. But bodily autonomy doesn't really have much to do with location, and it doesn't have the right to demand the use of someone's organs.

And I think at a legal level protecting a person's right to bodily autonomy should be on the same level as protecting someone's right to continue living. I absolutely think a murderer should get the same punishment as someone who steals someone's organs. Those are both people who should have their freedom to move among other citizens severely restricted.

Just because something doesn't have an opinion on a matter -that doesn't mean it's okay to kill them. That's insane. If you ask a 1-year-old child what their opinion is of their bodily autonomy, they wouldn't be able to tell you. They can't form sentences. That doesn't mean we should ignore their bodily autonomy, nor does it mean the door is open to murder them.


Moving on from that, you talk about how an unborn child doesn't have the right to use someone's organs. So I ask, why is being an unwanted child a greater crime than murder?

User avatar
Unvoiced_Apollo
member
member
Posts: 578
Joined: Wed Sep 9, 9:54 2015

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

Post by Unvoiced_Apollo » Thu Aug 9, 5:59 2018

60sBornFeminist wrote:
Wed Aug 8, 19:12 2018


Just because something doesn't have an opinion on a matter -that doesn't mean it's okay to kill them. That's insane. If you ask a 1-year-old child what their opinion is of their bodily autonomy, they wouldn't be able to tell you. They can't form sentences. That doesn't mean we should ignore their bodily autonomy, nor does it mean the door is open to murder them.

Moving on from that, you talk about how an unborn child doesn't have the right to use someone's organs. So I ask, why is being an unwanted child a greater crime than murder?
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 has a physical, measurable body that the mother consented to have because it was her decision to have the child. The child is now a recognizable separate entity with its own autonomy.

The question you should ask is this: Let's say we're parent & child. I have a failing kidney and we have matching blood types and you have a healthy kidney that is perfect for me. The wait list is incredibly long for a donor kidney not from you. Is it right for me to just take your kidney without your consent or would you have to consent to me using your organ?

Taurwen
member
member
Posts: 358
Joined: Sat Jul 2, 9:33 2016

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

Post by Taurwen » Thu Aug 9, 9:04 2018

You missed the part where I said bodily autonomy doesn't have much to so with location. 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. It doesn't mean the mother can't still refuse to let it use her organs.

Abortion isn't about punishing an unwanted fetus, anymore than not donating a liver is punishing someone for having a failing liver.

60sBornFeminist

Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 3:13 2017
Contact:

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

Post by 60sBornFeminist » Thu Aug 9, 17:56 2018

Unvoiced_Apollo wrote:
Thu Aug 9, 5:59 2018
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 has a physical, measurable body that the mother consented to have because it was her decision to have the child. The child is now a recognizable separate entity with its own autonomy.
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.



Unvoiced_Apollo wrote:
Thu Aug 9, 5:59 2018
The question you should ask is this: Let's say we're parent & child. I have a failing kidney and we have matching blood types and you have a healthy kidney that is perfect for me. The wait list is incredibly long for a donor kidney not from you. Is it right for me to just take your kidney without your consent or would you have to consent to me using your organ?

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?
Last edited by 60sBornFeminist on Thu Aug 9, 18:05 2018, edited 1 time in total.

60sBornFeminist

Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 3:13 2017
Contact:

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

Post by 60sBornFeminist » Thu Aug 9, 18:03 2018

Taurwen wrote:
Thu Aug 9, 9:04 2018
You missed the part where I said bodily autonomy doesn't have much to so with location. 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. It doesn't mean the mother can't still refuse to let it use her organs.

Abortion isn't about punishing an unwanted fetus, anymore than not donating a liver is punishing someone for having a failing liver.


This isn't logic that we should follow by any means. Just because someone cannot form an opinion about something, it doesn't mean you're allowed to kill them.

Locked