Abortion: The Ethics of Liberty

[arbygil]

I think parents should be allowed to destroy their offspring at any time any age.





How can you know anything without bias?

Good point. I should have said, "with as little misinformation/as much information as possible" or perhaps "with as little bias as possible" (in other words, the truth - as much as we know to this point).

 

[Milon]

There's a lot of focus today on defining boundaries and making sure everything falls within them. But we've forgotten something very important. It's not about what we can or cannot do. It's about the principle governing the behaviour. We want to live in a "good" world, so we should follow "good" principles. We need to ask what is the principle behind this? What is the motive? What do I hope to gain for myself? What do I hope to gain for others? Answering those questions (and others) honestly will help clarify the issue, but it must be done on a case by case basis. I don't think we can create a hard and fast rule here.

 

[Architectonic]

WE HAVE NOW ESTABLISHED each man’s property right in his own person and in the virgin land that he finds and transforms by his labor, and we have shown that from these two principles we can deduce the entire structure of property rights in all types of goods.

The problem is that 'property', 'life' and so forth cannot be defined effectively in a binary one dimensional way in the real world. The reality is that these are fuzzy concepts and it is about time the state accepted that fact.

Therefore is a non sequitur to derive laws on such a basis.

 

[54192&#cmy]

The whole point of having children is to pass your dna along thus keeping your dna alive and in circulation. If you as a person are willing to kill your own dna and not pass it on ok. My problem is are we not supposed to be evolving in life not devolving? It seems like we have started down the road to cheapening life. People don't take caring for life very serious anymore. Look at pet's, people ditch them to the pound when they cant take care of them. Now apply that to kids! Someone will have to be responsible for that life! I forgot what state it was but they passed a lay saying you could drop your kids off and they got teenagers! It seems to me that society is focused on the wrong things and dragging us all down in the process. Life is a wonderful gift maybe we should focus on that instead of our own selfish desires for self gratification.

 

[poetrygirl]

The basic rule is that we are not allowed to kill children, but we are not required to nurture them, either. It gives us the simple freedom to keep to ourselves.

Perhaps it's because my mother is a kindergarten teacher for head start which caters to children in poverty a lot of the time. And I have seen and heard about these children that are not properly cared for, "we are not required to nurture them". Strikes a nerve with me. We as people who are RESPONSIBLE for them being born in the first place ARE responsible for caring for them. They never asked to be here. The parents made a decision to do something that could potentially lead to them being born. That was the CHOICE. When you chose to have sex you also have another CHOICE; protection. And when you CHOSE not to use that I but change your mind tomorrow morning. You can CHOSE a morning after pill. As far as I'm concerned you've made enough choices by the time your pregnant, but even after that you have a CHOICE to put the child up for adoption. As human beings we are RESPONSIBLE for owning up to our decisions that includes pregnancy and taking care of our children when they've arrived. If you can't do that, the responsible thing is to put the child up for adoption. We should think of children on a human level not a scientific "what can we get away with", level. I certainly don't think of myself as just a mere extension of my parents DNA that they can dispose of.

 

[amethyst]

in my opinion the original argument is far too simplistic, cold, detatched and 'reasonable'. we as people are multifaceted, born with the ability to use logic as well as emotions to make decisions and govern our behaviour. this to me is purposeful and the best way for us to make decisions is to use both abilities. finding a balance and not denying either is what makes us uniquely human. abortion is a major grey area and i am sure that any person faced with a decision of this nature has no choice but to engage both processing facets and i feel that this should be reflected in any legistlation or argument regarding this issue.
Also i am aware that we have the consious ability to understand that alot of these emotive respsonses serve a more basic purpose, to motivate us to do what is necessary for the survival of our species. However they are an intrinsic part of us and i believe that rationalising and dismissing them too much is unhealthy both on a personal and societal level. If a theory like this was embraced in any legal fashion it would be used to excuse and even in some way condone the neglect of a child. (bypassing the feotus agrument for the moment) In my opionion this could be catastrophic for our society. can you imagine the effect this would have on a person? as it stands people can be quite damaged psychologically from much simpler, subtler forms of abandonment or lack of feeling valued. the resulting psychological probelms can create maladies of the soul or personality and keep us from achieving peace in life or reaching self actualisation. this psychological unrest also breeds and is contageous. therefore i see the importance of every individual and their conscious or unconscious contribution to our society, and i feel that parents play the biggest and most influential part in this contribution. whatever about actually conceiving and delivering the child.
it is my belief that we are at a stage in our development as humans where we are grappling with our relatively (in evolutionary terms) new found intelligence and consciousness and the worst thing we can do is not view the bigger picture.
people will never be able to agree on the feotus issue. i think we have to accept the fact that people will always have opposing views and choose to live their lives differently. i don't believe that abortion should be illegal and i think we need to face up to the fact that people will do it regardless if they feel they need to. what we need to do is work to limit the damage caused to the women who choose to go through with it for whatever reason.

 

[alcyone]

The whole point of having children is to pass your dna along thus keeping your dna alive and in circulation. If you as a person are willing to kill your own dna and not pass it on ok. My problem is are we not supposed to be evolving in life not devolving? It seems like we have started down the road to cheapening life. People don't take caring for life very serious anymore. Look at pet's, people ditch them to the pound when they cant take care of them. Now apply that to kids! Someone will have to be responsible for that life! I forgot what state it was but they passed a lay saying you could drop your kids off and they got teenagers! It seems to me that society is focused on the wrong things and dragging us all down in the process. Life is a wonderful gift maybe we should focus on that instead of our own selfish desires for self gratification.

That state was Nebraska. *grins* They called an emergency session and changed the law from one of the most liberal to the countries most conservative.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

I'm sure you are aware of the forum I am speaking about and the argument I made was generally that a woman's womb was a "residence" and since it was her property she had the right to "evict" the fetus.

I am not from the U.S., so I don't know the laws. If there is an unwelcome guest or intruder on your property, who cannot be removed without danger of death (eg. if someone injures their neck and cannot be moved), are you allowed to remove them from your property regardless of whether they die or not?

It would seem absurd if one were alowed to use lethal means to remove people from one's property.

However, if one cannot endanger the life of an unwelcome guest, and that guest cannot be removed without danger, is one obliged to put up with the guest?

(This is a hypothetical scenario, which might help understand the principles in play when considering abortion).

 

[Satya]

I am not from the U.S., so I don't know the laws. If there is an unwelcome guest or intruder on your property, who cannot be removed without danger of death (eg. if someone injures their neck and cannot be moved), are you allowed to remove them from your property regardless of whether they die or not?

The laws vary by state. In my home state, intruders can be shot without warning if you can make a case for self defense.

It would seem absurd if one were alowed to use lethal means to remove people from one's property.

I don't advise that you move to Montana or Texas.

(This is a hypothetical scenario, which might help understand the principles in play when considering abortion).

In an ideal world, there would be no abortion. Life is too precious to waste. However, a person is entitled to their own body. It's one of those conflicts that doesn't have a right answer and perhaps when technology is developed that allows fetuses to develop outside their mothers' bodies, then it will be solved, but not until.

 

[IndigoSensor]

I don't advise that you move to Montana or Texas.

*Eastern Montana

 

[alcyone]

The laws vary by state. In my home state, intruders can be shot without warning if you can make a case for self defense.

I don't really give a shit about what the laws here say. Or anywhere for that matter. If someone is breaking into my home, I'm going to shoot and ask questions afterward.

 

[steerthestars]

This is the argument I posted to the INTJ forum, and I think it holds true here.

I support abortion in 100% of cases in which the pregnant woman wants an abortion for the following reasons:

1) How the woman got pregnant is irrelevant. Obviously, rape is terrible and incest can cause birth defects, but birth defects can also be caused by the mother and father both carrying a recessive gene for a birth defect. Eeven if a woman knowingly and consensually had sex without birth control, abortion is her decision. We do not inflict pregnancy as a punishment on a woman for not following other people's rather Victorian values regarding sex and procreation. Pregnancy causes infants. Babies shouldn't be born simply because "it was the woman's fault." The point of pregnancy is that the woman wants to have a baby, not carry through the pregnancy.

2) Whether or not a fetus is a person is more of a philosophical question than a medical one. However, the evidence is in and guess what-- women are definitely people. As such, they have control over their bodies and if they don't want to go through with nine months of invasive physical and emotional difficulty that culminates in extremely painful labour and life-lasting medical side effects, that I think they have the option not to do that. Remember, fetuses don't live in incubators, they live in women. Women are people. What if the fetus is female? Then, does it matter whether we abort her or not? After all, she might die from the medical hazards involved in carrying on her own forced pregnancy.

3) With all due respect, no, the father does not have a say in this. Abortions are risky, so is pregnancy. I believe that when men are pregnant, they have 100% choice in the matter of abortion vs. pregnancy.

4) This one's purely selfish. I'm female. I know for sure that if I found mysel pregnant, for whatever the reason, I would sure as hell not want to have what goes on in my body decided by someone else. For that reason, I support other women's choices. Because I'm female, I need, need, NEED, to be pro-choice.

 

[Azure_Knight]

IMHO, people should act maturely and take responsibility for their actions; the issue of abortion is no exception to the previous statement.