On the "reasons for abortion."

In this response to another thread, Ukonkivi said the following.

"Not having a baby because you're not prepared for it and don't want the toll of pregnancy on your body is one thing, selectively removing people from your pregnancy list because of what nose they'll have, what biological sex they'll be, what orientation they'll have, what personality type they'll fall into, are two very different ethical matters."

I probably could have responded in that thread, but I think this discussion is worth its own topic, and I think it's on some level the kind of thing this other thread was trying to address.

The way I see it, with so many potential reasons for abortion, a better approach to the issue would be to find something that applies to all of them. In my case, it is as follows:

If you don't trust their reason for getting an abortion, why would you expect them to nurture a fetus for 9 months?

Really, when you look at it that way, allowing an abortion seems preferable to the alternative, independently of the reason for said abortion. If abortion is "murder" then circumstances don't excuse it (except maybe the "danger to mother's life" circumstance, which would still be covered by the "murder" analogy as self-defense) but if not, then why is it only wrong if done for specific reasons?

EDIT: Come to think of it that wasn't a very good subjectline, could someone please come up with something better and replace it?

edited 27th Jan '11 8:13:33 AM by neoYTPism

Just because someone wants an abortion for poor reasons doesn't mean they will be a bad parent.

At the same time, poor reasons for abortion are not evidence to support abortion. I can make a poor reason why I'm robbing a bank, it doesn't give someone credence to support bank robbing does it?

Obviously only to a moderate on the issue. People who are adamant that women should have near total control over their own body, or people who are equally adamant that a fetus should have the same status as a born person, aren't going to concern themselves with the specific reasons someone might want an abortion. For the former, any reason is good enough, and for the latter, no reason is good enough (with maybe one or two exceptions). Only people who want abortion to be evaluated on a case by case basis will concern themselves with this.

edited 27th Jan '11 8:24:12 AM by DeMarquis

I feel that since a baby is the byproduct of a man and a women's decision to have sex, that it is the man's child, and he should have equal rights to decide its right to live.

"Obviously only to a moderate on the issue. People who are adamant that women should have near total control over their own body, or people who are equally adamant that a fetus should have the same status as a born person, aren't going to concern themselves with the specific reasons someone might want an abortion." - De Marquis

Actually, I'm somewhat of a moderate on this topic myself, in the sense that while I'm leniant towards keeping abortion legal, I feel that some of the arguments for keeping it legal just don't cut it.

As far as I can tell, the only real reason wasn't that abortion was good or bad, but that having abortions done by medical staff was better than the back-alley abortion "epidemic" that led to Roe V. Wade. As far as I can tel, at least.

@Neo: Exactly!

I feel that since a baby is the byproduct of a man and a women's decision to have sex, that it is the man's child, and he should have equal rights to decide its right to live.

So if he and the woman cannot agree, who gets the deciding vote? And how is that different from giving that person the deciding vote from the start?

More on-topic, there are some reasons for abortion that I consider immoral, and things like "The hair is the wrong color" are definitely on the list. But that doesn't mean I think women should be forbidden to have an abortion in those circumstances. It's still her uterus, even if her criteria for sharing or not sharing it are less than saintlike.

It's really amazing how the dilemma clears up when you look at it in terms of women's right to self-determination instead of hand-wringing over whether a fetus is a person, or not a person, or 3/5 of a person, or whatever.

I don't know, but I don't think the woman automatically gets to make the decision. Nor the man.

edited 27th Jan '11 9:18:00 AM by saladofstones

Yes, it is amazing how easily dilemmas clear up when you decide to identify with only one side...

@neo and DM: "some of their arguments are bad" is something that can be said for any position that has ever been made.

The useful criticism is "none of their arguments are good".

@salad: The reason the woman gets to abort is not that she made it but that it has to use her uterus for 9 months.

edited 27th Jan '11 9:25:08 AM by BlackHumor

I personally think whether or not a fetus is the person, which is a question that will never be answered because of political and feminist issues, is the most important question.

Look, we don't require people to give up parts of their body against their will in any other circumstance; why should pregnancy be any different? We don't even take organs from dead people unless they gave their consent while they were still alive. Yet some people think it's totally reasonable to force a woman to share her body for nine months.

Yes but you are born with an arm, a fetus doesn't just come from -your- decision. If it was a rape, then its a different issue, but if I'm part of the process to create that fetus I want a choice in the matter.

Why do you think its reasonable that I may very much, as a male, want this child but because my wife, who I disagree with this on this matter and AFTER we had consensual sex, decides she wants an abortion be forced to accept her decision?

edited 27th Jan '11 9:26:52 AM by saladofstones

Because it's her body, not yours. You don't own her. You don't get to force her to be a brood mare for you. If you can't agree, it may point to problems within your relationship, but you still don't get to force her, and it's monstrous that you would even argue in that direction.

edited 27th Jan '11 9:28:16 AM by Karalora

What, that its my child too?

If she didn't want a child, at all, she shouldn't have agreed to consensual sex then.

As for who ultimately decides, I feel that unless its a rape or otherwise forced upon the woman, I feel that there has to be an agreement on both parties for there to be an abortion unless there are medical issues.

edited 27th Jan '11 9:30:30 AM by saladofstones

No, that it being "your" child means you should get to force a woman to carry and birth it. Anyway, it's much more hers than yours. All you did to make this "child" so far was shoot your load. She's doing all the actual work.

Maybe she loves you and wanted to be intimate with you! Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy and childbirth.

edited 27th Jan '11 9:31:29 AM by Karalora

How is it not my child, to a point equal than hers? We've already established it was consensual so its her fault for agreeing to it since in this example, I didn't force it. She can't use it just because she wants to back out now. Its too late, I'm afraid, and she can decide to leave the relationship with me afterward if she doesn't want to raise it, but I don't think she has that right.

Then don't consent to unprotected sex!

edited 27th Jan '11 9:32:04 AM by saladofstones

How is it not my child, to a point equal than hers?

Because you are not carrying it in your body. Your orgasm is not equal to the WORK her body is doing.

We've already established it was consensual so its her fault for agreeing to it since in this example, I didn't force it.

But you want to force it now? Some loving husband you are. Why would you want to make your wife have a baby she doesn't want to have?

Its too late, I'm afraid, and she can decide to leave the relationship with me afterward if she doesn't want to raise it, but I don't think she has that right.

Well, fuck what you think. Her body, her right to decide. End of story. You don't own her.

Then don't consent to unprotected sex!

Unless I missed something, this is the first time an absence of protection has been brought up. I agree that it's foolish to have unprotected sex when you don't want a pregnancy, but guess what? It's still her body and her decision.

You are basically arguing that men should get to use women as brood mares against the women's wishes. That's a form of sex-based slavery. We don't do that in the free world, so sorry to inform you. If you want a baby that badly, hook up with a woman who wants one too.

I never said that. You said that I think that way which means that you have a problem with your reading comprehension.

That said, anytime you consent to sex, unprotected or not, you understand the risk of pregnancy. So just because she bears the child doesn't mean that she was the sole person in creating that child so by default she cannot ethically deny me the right I have as the father of OUR, not HER, child to decide what will be done. I don't mean that the male has the sole decision, only that its a shared decision. If you want to deny this, fine, but don't say its for anything other than give the women more right to their child than the men.

I find your stance a lot more morally wrong because 1.) You use a strawman to define why I believe what I do, which is fucking wrong on top of it

2.) You are denying an entire element of the creation of a child any voice in the matter.

Simply, don't have sex, for pleasure or otherwise, if you are unprepared for the risk of a child. This doesn't include rape, again. Or medical issues or what not.

You believe this in the views of self-determinism of women which I think is irrelevant to the issue here.

edited 27th Jan '11 9:42:09 AM by saladofstones

It can't be a shared decision if the two people disagree. There is no possible compromise between "carry to term" and "don't carry to term." And if you say both parents must agree to the abortion before it can happen, then the one who says "carry to term" gets their way automatically, which means it still isn't a shared decision.

You do not have the right to choose what is to be done with another competent adult's body. Period. "You poke it, you own it" DOES NOT APPLY here.

No, I said it had to be shared. How does share translate to "one side gets their way automatically."

That said, its her body but my child. Or rather, our child. And in the event of disagreement, the abortion doesn't continue. Too bad for her, I guess, because it was her choice to let her body accept my sperm, isn't it?

The idea that I could very much want this child and my wife could decide to abort it anyways because its "her" body seems very wrong.

Respond in a way that doesn't involve the Horse example because it doesn't apply.

edited 27th Jan '11 9:45:59 AM by saladofstones

It may seem wrong, but it's how things are. You don't own your wife/girlfriend/one-night-stand/whoever. You don't get to make her medical decisions for her, you don't get to force her to continue a pregnancy she doesn't want. What exactly are you afraid of losing? The embryo that so far has cost you nothing? You're like a toddler whining because your mom won't buy you an expensive toy.

Right because a fetus never grows up to be anything. :V

edited 27th Jan '11 10:00:24 AM by saladofstones