...exactly because of this. That child came to be because of governance and control of someone's bodies - the mother's and the father's, more precisely. They knew the potential consequences of unprotected sex - yet they still did it. And so, once the mother got pregnant, she starts to appeal to "choice". Wrong, dear, you had your choice when you decided to have irresponsible, unprotected sex. Because the majority of pregnancies that result in abortion, were caused by irresponsible sex.
What about when birth control fails? What about rape victims? Problem pregnancies? Just because they are a minority, doesn't mean we should ignore them.
I agree that we shouldn't. But my point was to demonstrate the sexual irresponsibility of the society. Birth control fails, I'm afraid, shouldn't be treated as exceptions because again, people know what they're getting into. Every birth control method has a failure rate, and as far as I know, not a single one has zero probability (unless it's surgical). So, everyone should be aware that their sexual acts may result with a pregnancy.
Regarding rape victims... Well, it's a tough topic. It would be unfair to get rid of the child because of its father's crime, and I would certainly advise those women to give birth (not necessarily keep the child after) as I believe it would be easier to get through those 9 months and then "sleep peacefully", rather than live the rest of their lives knowing that they had an abortion. That's my opinion, but I wouldn't go any further.
As for problematic pregnancies, of course, if the mother's life is in danger, or her health could be seriously damaged, then I believe her life should be prioritized (if there are no other options).
Reactionary wrote:NB - Still, there is a flaw in your comparison. To refuse to give someone (be it your children or whoever) your organs is exactly that - refusal, and although that act may consequently lead to this person's death, the death would be an indirect consequence. Someone who refuses to give an organ didn't technically kill the person in question. Which can't be said about abortion.
The point of this argument was to compare bodily autonomy to life, not the methods used. Even so, I think if anybody who is having their bodily autonomy, their personal rights violated by somebody else who needs it to survive, they have a right to say no. We might think it's not a good thing and morally, they should. But no one has the right to tell them they must. So I would argue, they have the right to take life for the sake of their own. Within our society, that is one way in which it is legal to take a life, it's self defense (let's compare it to say... problem pregnancies).
But your argument still doesn't fully apply to the situation. Your example was about person A who causes an incident which harms the person B, and is fully responsible for it. The baby, however, can't be deemed responsible firstly because it didn't decide to be conceived, and secondly, because it was created as a result of responsible acts of its parents. Problem pregnancies are another matter. We're talking about having irresponsible sex, and killing the unborn because they don't fit into their parents' lives, although their sexual intercourse created them. Self defense? You're talking like pregnancy is a disease...
Pierson5 wrote:You are right, there are many "musts." Vaccination is a different story. If you did not get vaccinated you are at a much higher risk for catching a serious contagious disease. You then walk around in public and give that to other people. You are endangering the lives of the community and impeding on THEIR rights.
However, everyone who uses the right to get vaccinated is safe from that contagious disease in question. So I don't see a problem.
Pierson5 wrote:This is another example of someones rights being infringed upon for the rights of the community. I can see where you are going with this (we are impeding on the fetus' rights), but I think it's apples and oranges. You would already be assuming that this fetus has rights that no one else on the planet has (the right to use someone else's body without their permission), and we are impeding on them.
A more apt comparison would be that of organ donation (a woman donating her uterus for the fetus). Do we force everybody to give up their organs after they die for the good of the community? Do we force people to give blood for the good of the community? No, we respect peoples bodily autonomy and religious rights to say no.
You are basically arguing that life trumps bodily autonomy. Let's say a woman is about to give birth and the doctor says "You are not able to have this baby vaginally, you have to have a C-section or it will die." Would we make that legal? At what point are people suddenly not allowed to be granted legal domination over another person's body? If you pass legislation to force a woman to have a C-section to protect this life, why could it not be done after birth? Why could you not then, through legislation, ask a mother or father offer up their body to save the life of the child. Do we have responsibility to do this up until the child is 18? If we cause a car accident are we required to give up parts of our body? Are we required to have that person be hooked up to our body for a certain amount of time in order to protect that human life, or send the person to prison?
Now when a person dies, do we just cherry pick whatever organs we need without their permission? Or do we allow them to take their organs into the ground to rot, knowing it could potentially save a few lives? Do we take organs from people regardless if they want to give them up or not? Do we not respect people's wishes in death to not be an organ donor? When does the body become community property?
The right to use someone else's body without their permission
? You're talking like a baby is a parasitic disease or something. It just appeared in the woman's body without permission, now how did it dare?!
What about the penis from which came the semen that fertilized the ovum? It entered with
permission, now did it? Of course, sex is pleasurable, yet pregnancy is less than so - morning sickness, cramps, weight, and apart from everything, it lasts 9 months! Now who on Earth would put up with that
OK, now seriously. The most important right is the right to life
. The embryo/fetus/baby/whatever we may call it, has been scientifically proven to be an independent life. It has its own DNA, which makes it not a part of its mother's body, but a person
for itself. However, removing it forcefully from its mother's body kills it. And that's where the discussion should end. No right, except for its mother's right to life, should be put above it. No excuse, except for saving its mother's life, is sufficient to morally justify the termination of pregnancy. We can talk all we want about bodily autonomy and statistics, but forceful termination of a person
's life has its term. Murder.
Pierson5 wrote:Those are my issues with the whole abortion situation. Bodily autonomy (this was to address the previous comment, comparing a fetus to a newborn), and (if you look on the previous page) outlawing abortion does not save lives. I have yet to hear a better solution than the one I proposed earlier, which truly does save lives.
You may be right that outlawing abortion as a measure by itself wouldn't greatly reduce the number of abortions. That's what education is for. You say bodily autonomy, I say responsibility
. If we educate young people and teach them that causes lead to effects, and that we should take responsibility for our actions (and demonstrate it with our own actions), the situation will improve. As long as the society encourages teens to start having sex as early as possible so they could be trendy, we won't get too far. Regarding what you said about illegal abortions that would take place if we outlaw them, well, that's like saying that we should legalize robbery because the robber could be injured or killed by a security guard during the process. I might take a knife and cut myself now, but if that kills me, nobody is to blame but me. Again, it all boils down to responsibility for one's actions.