Is abortion wrong?

[Belindi]

If a human woman were forced to nurture a biological machine within her body until it's ready to be born, would the artificial foetus have rights?

No, it would not. Therefore foetal rights hinge on what a foetus is as the antiabortion people well know. The foetus is more akin to a pet animal than a person. We are morally responsible for the welfare of pet animals not excluding those that are foisted upon us. I conclude a woman who wants to abort her foetus ought not to abort it unless its presence makes heavy demands on her life and welfare. The pregnant woman's welfare should be a prime consideration including her moral welfare. Therefore a pregnant woman carrying a healthy foetus who wants to abort should be offered the alternative at public expense if need be of an ideally luxurious pregnancy plus almost unlimited opportunities for the new life once it's born.

If however the foetus is suffering or will have a miserable life then the foetus deserves for its own welfare to be aborted asap.

[Asd]

The word “wrong” is not an objective concept, it exists only from religion. The only objective reason that we shouldn’t kill is for the sake of existence. And that reason doesn’t apply to abortion.

[Sy Borg]

No, it would not. Therefore foetal rights hinge on what a foetus is as the antiabortion people well know. The foetus is more akin to a pet animal than a person.

Pets are sentient. Foetuses are not. Early term foetuses are more like amphibians than mammalian pets.

Women are having their lives ruined for the sake of immature entities that are less sentient than a frog. This, of course, makes clear the extent to which fundamentalist Christians value women.

[LuckyR]

Can someone point me to the "Is women dying from illegal abortions wrong?" thread.

[Belindi]

No, it would not. Therefore foetal rights hinge on what a foetus is as the antiabortion people well know. The foetus is more akin to a pet animal than a person.

Pets are sentient. Foetuses are not. Early term foetuses are more like amphibians than mammalian pets.

Women are having their lives ruined for the sake of immature entities that are less sentient than a frog. This, of course, makes clear the extent to which fundamentalist Christians value women.

I think that sort of Christian believes souls are separate entities from bodies and that soul enters ovum the moment it is fertilised.

[Sy Borg]

No, it would not. Therefore foetal rights hinge on what a foetus is as the antiabortion people well know. The foetus is more akin to a pet animal than a person.

Pets are sentient. Foetuses are not. Early term foetuses are more like amphibians than mammalian pets.

Women are having their lives ruined for the sake of immature entities that are less sentient than a frog. This, of course, makes clear the extent to which fundamentalist Christians value women.

I think that sort of Christian believes souls are separate entities from bodies and that soul enters ovum the moment it is fertilised.

Descartes is still causing pain, even today!

[Belindi]

No, it would not. Therefore foetal rights hinge on what a foetus is as the antiabortion people well know. The foetus is more akin to a pet animal than a person.

Pets are sentient. Foetuses are not. Early term foetuses are more like amphibians than mammalian pets.

Women are having their lives ruined for the sake of immature entities that are less sentient than a frog. This, of course, makes clear the extent to which fundamentalist Christians value women.

I think that sort of Christian believes souls are separate entities from bodies and that soul enters ovum the moment it is fertilised.

Descartes is still causing pain, even today!

The traditional Christian theory of existence is Cartesian. I imagine Judaism too is dualist, seeing as the Jews banned Spinoza from the Synagogue in Amsterdam.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/spinoza-s ... -to-visit/

[Sculptor1]

The anti-abortion states are now seeking to criminalise volunteers who are offering help for women wanting to cross state lines to get help.
Women who cannot afford to bring up children are seeing help to cross the Mississippi, from Missouri to Illinois. Apparently Missouri red necks don't like that.

Newsnight BBC

[Sy Borg]

Pets are sentient. Foetuses are not. Early term foetuses are more like amphibians than mammalian pets.

Women are having their lives ruined for the sake of immature entities that are less sentient than a frog. This, of course, makes clear the extent to which fundamentalist Christians value women.

I think that sort of Christian believes souls are separate entities from bodies and that soul enters ovum the moment it is fertilised.

Descartes is still causing pain, even today!

The traditional Christian theory of existence is Cartesian. I imagine Judaism too is dualist, seeing as the Jews banned Spinoza from the Synagogue in Amsterdam.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/spinoza-s ... -to-visit/

Spinoza made far too much sense for the Church. As did Bruno and Galileo.

[Mounce574]

I believe abortion is wrong. You were adult enough to engage in the act without taking the precautions to prevent the outcome of pregnancy.
Another view I see is that if a pregnant woman is murdered then federal laws dictate that 2 counts of murder are charged. One for the woman, One for the unborn child. So if following that line of thought, wouldn't abortion be murder since the unborn child holds value in legal terms?

Those that use the argument of rape or incest as a reason for abortion- that is an extremely low percentage of unplanned pregnancies. There is still the ability for adoption. In the latter case, there should be charges brought against the other person. If the rapist is known, the same should be done. This argument justifying crime means you have the right to commit a crime against another innocent person.

[Sy Borg]

I think Mounce's attitude is a recipe for destroying the lives of teenage girls.

If a teenage girl is forced to give birth, then the boy who made her pregnant must be traced via DNA and be forced to pay full alimony for 18 years.

Any failure to pay must result in prison. If he cannot pay, then his family must pay. If they cannot pay, then any assets they have will be claimed until the full amount is paid in a timely fashion.

Fair's fair.

Or ... she can be allowed to abort the embryo or foetus.

[LuckyR]

I think Mounce's attitude is a recipe for destroying the lives of teenage girls.

If a teenage girl is forced to give birth, then the boy who made her pregnant must be traced via DNA and be forced to pay full alimony for 18 years.

Any failure to pay must result in prison. If he cannot pay, then his family must pay. If they cannot pay, then any assets they have will be claimed until the full amount is paid in a timely fashion.

Fair's fair.

Or ... she can be allowed to abort the embryo or foetus.

Well, the arguments you cite are standard antiabortion fodder. Nothing new here.

Of course, you can point out the reality that no birth control is 100% effective, which, of course makes the second sentance invalid.

Similarly one could explain to any amateur lawyers that the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 that he is referring to, specifically does not apply to abortion.

The rape and incest argument is a false trail and distraction in my opinion, the central issue with abortion, philosophically is the concept of competing and comflicting interests. Autonomy in the case of a sentient woman and survival for a nonviable fetus (or embryo). Choosing one interest over the other is required and thus reasonable by definition. Personally I choose to support women, but there are those who would never have an abortion. No problem, they're not required. Avoiding having an abortion is actually what most prospective parents choose to do. Great. No one I know wants that choice to be altered.

[Sy Borg]

I think Mounce's attitude is a recipe for destroying the lives of teenage girls.

If a teenage girl is forced to give birth, then the boy who made her pregnant must be traced via DNA and be forced to pay full alimony for 18 years.

Any failure to pay must result in prison. If he cannot pay, then his family must pay. If they cannot pay, then any assets they have will be claimed until the full amount is paid in a timely fashion.

Fair's fair.

Or ... she can be allowed to abort the embryo or foetus.

Well, the arguments you cite are standard antiabortion fodder. Nothing new here.

Of course, you can point out the reality that no birth control is 100% effective, which, of course makes the second sentance invalid.

It's only logical. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I don't understand your comment about the second sentence. How does birth control ineffectiveness change the situation of "If a teenage girl is forced to give birth, then the boy who made her pregnant must be traced via DNA and be forced to pay full alimony for 18 years".

If the lad's family doesn't don't pay alimony then the girl not only loses career opportunities but has to pay for it all too. If the law is to be cruel, it should at least apportion its cruelty fairly.

[Belindi]

I believe abortion is wrong. You were adult enough to engage in the act without taking the precautions to prevent the outcome of pregnancy.
Another view I see is that if a pregnant woman is murdered then federal laws dictate that 2 counts of murder are charged. One for the woman, One for the unborn child. So if following that line of thought, wouldn't abortion be murder since the unborn child holds value in legal terms?

Those that use the argument of rape or incest as a reason for abortion- that is an extremely low percentage of unplanned pregnancies. There is still the ability for adoption. In the latter case, there should be charges brought against the other person. If the rapist is known, the same should be done. This argument justifying crime means you have the right to commit a crime against another innocent person.

If a woman chooses to kill her foetus she has the right to do so a) because the foetus is part of her body and b) because if the foetus comes to term and is born the mother will be responsible for the new human being for at least sixteen years, often a lot longer when you take account of emotional bonding.

A murderer who kills the woman and her foetus has no right whatsoever to kill either the woman or her foetus.

To blame someone for making the wrong choice is sometimes reasonable. However when the wrong choice probably will result in decades of suffering for two persons it's best to stop the pregnancy.

Nobody favours elective abortion. Sometimes elective abortion is the lesser of two evils.

[CIN]

If a woman chooses to kill her foetus she has the right to do so a) because the foetus is part of her body...

No. The foetus's body is connected to her body and contained within her body; it is not part of her body, any more than you are part of a hospital bed when you are on an intravenous drip.