5 ms·

I don’t support abortion in the case of rape or incest, under the concern that it will simply be a check box that gets ticked to allow all abortion. From an e

by zionic 4y ago

I don’t support abortion in the case of rape or incest, under the concern that it will simply be a check box that gets ticked to allow all abortion. From an ethical standpoint, the unborn child has a right to life that is not invalidated by the means or character of their parents. Unless of course you’re arguing from a eugenics point of view, but I doubt that’s the angle you’re coming from. The two major exceptions I see are: 1) medical experts determine the life of the mother is in danger, such that the child will kill the mother. 2) scientific, repeatable evidence shows the fetus is non viable

maxerickson 4y ago
If a method to transfer those pregnancies existed, would your ethics require you to continuously accept them?
sauwan 4y ago
>From an ethical standpoint, the unborn child has a right to life that is not invalidated by the means or character of their parents. Why would this situation differ from requiring people donate kidneys or a living liver donation when another humans life is at stake? Why don't I have a right to your kidney if you can go on living just fine after the procedure?
- JohnTHaller 4y ago
  It's deeper than that. The courts have ruled that others can't have your organs to survive even if you're dead. Hence why we have thousands dying every year on waiting lists and tons of useful organs, blood, and tissue being incinerated and buried.
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    So what you're saying is that per the leaked opinion, a dead woman has more rights than a living one?
- meragrin_ 4y ago
  The situation is more like someone who has donated their organ demanding it back. The donation has already occurred. The recipient is already dependent on the donation. The donor is demanding a reversal. Do you think a donor has the right to their organ back after it has been donated?
  - anonporridge 4y ago
    This isn't really a very good analogy, because an organ donation is a one time event with no continuous, parasitic relationship between donor and receiver. A much better analogy might be where you have a special blood type, and there's a person somewhere who needs regular transfusions of your blood in particular to continue living. No other blood will do, only yours. In this analogy, we can first agree that the healthy person has no obligation to begin donating to the sick person, and this is strongly supported by legal precedent in the US at least. If there exists a frozen embryo, it is not legally justifiable to force some healthy woman to have it implanted. We could also probably agree that if the healthy person is kidnapped and their blood taken against their will, they have no obligation to continue. This would give us an abortion exception for the cases rape and incest. But the open question might be, if the healthy person consents to start donating, do they have the right to rescind their consent at anytime, say after 3 months of consistently donating blood? Do they have the right if they learn that donating blood so regularly is rapidly destroying their own health and is putting their own life at risk? Do they have the right revoke consent if the doctors are quite certain that the sick person will die in 3 months? Do they have a right to revoke consent just because they don't want to do it anymore, even though the sick person will die?
  - simonh 4y ago
    It's much more like someone agreeing to be hooked up to someone else to use their kidney, while it's still in their own body, and then deciding they don't want to be hooked up like that anymore.
- edflsafoiewq 4y ago
  If your kid is starving and you don't feed them and they die, you go to jail. But if it is a stranger you met in the street, you don't go to jail. Why?
  - sauwan 4y ago
    Because a parent has either implicitly or explicitly agreed to take a legal guardianship of the child. This is clearly not the case where mothers have decided to have an abortion.
anonporridge 4y ago
You might be interested in this philosophical argument, "Beyond Roe: Why Abortion Should be Legal--Even if the Fetus is a Person". From the book description... > Most arguments for or against abortion focus on one question: is the fetus a person? In this provocative and important book, David Boonin defends the claim that even if the fetus is a person with the same right to life you and I have, abortion should still be legal, and most current restrictions on abortion should be abolished. Beyond Roe points to a key legal precedent: McFall v. Shimp. In 1978, an ailing Robert McFall sued his cousin, David Shimp, asking the court to order Shimp to provide McFall with the bone marrow he needed. The court ruled in Shimp's favor and McFall soon died. Boonin extracts a compelling lesson from the case of McFall v. Shimp--that having a right to life does not give a person the right to use another person's body even if they need to use that person's body to go on living-and he uses this principle to support his claim that abortion should be legal and far less restricted than it currently is, regardless of whether the fetus is a person. https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Roe-Abortion-Should-Legal-Even/dp/0190904836 https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Roe-Abortion-Should-Legal-Even... So, the ethical and legal question of abortion is not just one of if or when the fetus is a full human deserving of equal protection under the law, but one of when it is legally permissible to coerce a person into having their body used to preserve the life of another. Answering that question the wrong way is a potential legal slippery slope for all people, not just fertile females. As a person who was raised fiercely pro-life, these are the kinds of ethical, philosophical, and legal considerations that I was never taught. All you ever hear in that world is "It's a baby! Murderers!" I am now fiercely pro-choice, but I still consider the question of abortion to be a difficult one with no easy answer. However, I fundamentally believe that one’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone, so even if you could prove to me that the fetus is conscious at the moment of conception, I would still never surrender a woman's right to sovereignty over her body.
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  That is the first interesting argument on abortion that I've seen in decades. I'm not sure that I agree, but it's interesting. I'm going to have to think about that.
  - 4y ago
ModernMech 4y ago
> I don’t support abortion in the case of rape or incest Fundamentally this means you are fine with children giving birth to children. Today, usually when an 11 or 12 year old girl is raped by her relative or authority figure, the pregnancy is aborted and that little girl is allowed to move on with their life. After this decision comes down, abortion will be criminalized to the point of charging it as homicide. Young girls will be forced into social isolation at a young age to bear children that may in fact be their siblings. That, or they will undergo illegal and dangerous abortions which will end up killing them or putting them in jail for 30 years. Either way, the "Save The Children" crowd think they won one for babies, but the horror stories are just beginning.
- zionic 4y ago
  I’m not “fine” with such evil, but I do not support committing a far greater evil (murder) to cover up for the original evil.

by zionic 4y ago

maxerickson 4y ago

If a method to transfer those pregnancies existed, would your ethics require you to continuously accept them?

sauwan 4y ago

>From an ethical standpoint, the unborn child has a right to life that is not invalidated by the means or character of their parents. Why would this situation differ from requiring people donate kidneys or a living liver donation when another humans life is at stake? Why don't I have a right to your kidney if you can go on living just fine after the procedure?

JohnTHaller 4y ago
It's deeper than that. The courts have ruled that others can't have your organs to survive even if you're dead. Hence why we have thousands dying every year on waiting lists and tons of useful organs, blood, and tissue being incinerated and buried.
- ModernMech 4y ago
  So what you're saying is that per the leaked opinion, a dead woman has more rights than a living one?
meragrin_ 4y ago
The situation is more like someone who has donated their organ demanding it back. The donation has already occurred. The recipient is already dependent on the donation. The donor is demanding a reversal. Do you think a donor has the right to their organ back after it has been donated?
- anonporridge 4y ago
  This isn't really a very good analogy, because an organ donation is a one time event with no continuous, parasitic relationship between donor and receiver. A much better analogy might be where you have a special blood type, and there's a person somewhere who needs regular transfusions of your blood in particular to continue living. No other blood will do, only yours. In this analogy, we can first agree that the healthy person has no obligation to begin donating to the sick person, and this is strongly supported by legal precedent in the US at least. If there exists a frozen embryo, it is not legally justifiable to force some healthy woman to have it implanted. We could also probably agree that if the healthy person is kidnapped and their blood taken against their will, they have no obligation to continue. This would give us an abortion exception for the cases rape and incest. But the open question might be, if the healthy person consents to start donating, do they have the right to rescind their consent at anytime, say after 3 months of consistently donating blood? Do they have the right if they learn that donating blood so regularly is rapidly destroying their own health and is putting their own life at risk? Do they have the right revoke consent if the doctors are quite certain that the sick person will die in 3 months? Do they have a right to revoke consent just because they don't want to do it anymore, even though the sick person will die?
- simonh 4y ago
  It's much more like someone agreeing to be hooked up to someone else to use their kidney, while it's still in their own body, and then deciding they don't want to be hooked up like that anymore.
edflsafoiewq 4y ago
If your kid is starving and you don't feed them and they die, you go to jail. But if it is a stranger you met in the street, you don't go to jail. Why?
- sauwan 4y ago
  Because a parent has either implicitly or explicitly agreed to take a legal guardianship of the child. This is clearly not the case where mothers have decided to have an abortion.

anonporridge 4y ago

You might be interested in this philosophical argument, "Beyond Roe: Why Abortion Should be Legal--Even if the Fetus is a Person". From the book description... > Most arguments for or against abortion focus on one question: is the fetus a person? In this provocative and important book, David Boonin defends the claim that even if the fetus is a person with the same right to life you and I have, abortion should still be legal, and most current restrictions on abortion should be abolished. Beyond Roe points to a key legal precedent: McFall v. Shimp. In 1978, an ailing Robert McFall sued his cousin, David Shimp, asking the court to order Shimp to provide McFall with the bone marrow he needed. The court ruled in Shimp's favor and McFall soon died. Boonin extracts a compelling lesson from the case of McFall v. Shimp--that having a right to life does not give a person the right to use another person's body even if they need to use that person's body to go on living-and he uses this principle to support his claim that abortion should be legal and far less restricted than it currently is, regardless of whether the fetus is a person. https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Roe-Abortion-Should-Legal-Even/dp/0190904836 https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Roe-Abortion-Should-Legal-Even... So, the ethical and legal question of abortion is not just one of if or when the fetus is a full human deserving of equal protection under the law, but one of when it is legally permissible to coerce a person into having their body used to preserve the life of another. Answering that question the wrong way is a potential legal slippery slope for all people, not just fertile females. As a person who was raised fiercely pro-life, these are the kinds of ethical, philosophical, and legal considerations that I was never taught. All you ever hear in that world is "It's a baby! Murderers!" I am now fiercely pro-choice, but I still consider the question of abortion to be a difficult one with no easy answer. However, I fundamentally believe that one’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone, so even if you could prove to me that the fetus is conscious at the moment of conception, I would still never surrender a woman's right to sovereignty over her body.

AnimalMuppet 4y ago
That is the first interesting argument on abortion that I've seen in decades. I'm not sure that I agree, but it's interesting. I'm going to have to think about that.
- 4y ago

ModernMech 4y ago

> I don’t support abortion in the case of rape or incest Fundamentally this means you are fine with children giving birth to children. Today, usually when an 11 or 12 year old girl is raped by her relative or authority figure, the pregnancy is aborted and that little girl is allowed to move on with their life. After this decision comes down, abortion will be criminalized to the point of charging it as homicide. Young girls will be forced into social isolation at a young age to bear children that may in fact be their siblings. That, or they will undergo illegal and dangerous abortions which will end up killing them or putting them in jail for 30 years. Either way, the "Save The Children" crowd think they won one for babies, but the horror stories are just beginning.

zionic 4y ago
I’m not “fine” with such evil, but I do not support committing a far greater evil (murder) to cover up for the original evil.