|
|
Post by Darknezz on Nov 7, 2008 3:24:41 GMT -5
Another debate. This time, dealing with fetuses!
I'm not against it. I think that if the person having the child is not in a position to support said child, financially and/or emotionally, they should have every right to abort.
|
|
exocel
Devoted Member
Level up!
Posts: 510
|
Post by exocel on Nov 7, 2008 7:29:17 GMT -5
my views the same as gay marriage, im not gay or female, so i shouldn't have a say in either as it doesn't effect my personal life and each persons life is unique so you cant generalize on a subject like this, what might be right for one person wont be right for all, so it should be a choice for each woman to make, not to be told what they can and cant do , especially by male politicians who would never go through such an emotional process themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by skyliner12 on Nov 7, 2008 9:19:22 GMT -5
This is actually something I don't enjoy debating. Because it's usually with men. And men are typically the ones deciding it. So I'll just sum up:
My body, my vagina, my business, kbai.
|
|
|
|
Post by xtremepain on Nov 7, 2008 12:38:16 GMT -5
This is a very touchy subject, but I do not agree with abortion unless the mother has a great chance of dieing if she doesn't abort. It is a little selfish to abort a baby if it is not absolutely necessary, even if it ruins
|
|
|
|
Post by xtremepain on Nov 7, 2008 12:39:02 GMT -5
your future. Sorry I accidently pushed enter lol
|
|
|
|
Post by SnowOwl96 on Nov 7, 2008 13:29:06 GMT -5
This is an extremely touchy subject. I'm not for or against it. It just depends on the female and what she believes to be right and wrong.
I really don't want to go any further on this so I'll stop here.
|
|
|
|
Post by rabbeseking on Nov 7, 2008 13:30:18 GMT -5
I'm not a religious person, nor am I a woman, so I have no real interest in this topic. It's not really my place to argue.
|
|
Fridgenator
Devoted Member
I had 3 oranges, then I ate one, so I only had 12 left
Posts: 570
|
Post by Fridgenator on Nov 7, 2008 20:40:02 GMT -5
I agree with almost everything said here, Debate over.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dee-Rizzle on Nov 7, 2008 22:54:30 GMT -5
To be completely honest, I am pro-choice. And what made me completely sure that I was pro-choice was this; it's probably better for the baby to be aborted before it can be born into some horrible situation. I'm not saying that would always be the case, but I'm saying that if it is, it's probably better for the baby to never experience that then to become the child of some crack addict, or go through all these foster homes just to be tossed to another family, feeling unwanted, or be born into poverty.
I know that some adopted children have loving foster parents, but that is sometimes not the case.
|
|
|
|
Post by mypallyowndu on Nov 8, 2008 15:27:08 GMT -5
I should say upfront that I am strongly pro-choice. My reasons are those endorsed by sky: the state should have no say over how a woman uses her body.
But I thought it might be interesting to look at what moral philosophers have said on the topic.
Judith Jarvis Thomson, a philosopher at M.I.T., has an intriguing thought experiment to test our intuitions on abortion. I haven't read her paper in a while, but I think this is close enough:
Imagine a woman wakes up and sees that the greatest violinist ever has been attached to her side. Later on, she is informed that an orchestra secretly attached the violinist to her body while she slept. They explained that the violinist is in critical condition and needs another's organs in order to survive. If the woman detaches the violinist from her body, the violinist will die, but in 9 months he will have fully recovered.
Is it morally permissible for the woman to detach the violinist from her body? And, if it is morally permissible, then is it also morally permissible for a woman to abort a fetus?
Most people have a similar intuition about the thought experiment. There is also a common objection to Thomson's thought experiment. But I'll leave it for you guys to figure out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Darknezz on Nov 8, 2008 15:34:56 GMT -5
I should say upfront that I am strongly pro-choice. My reasons are those endorsed by sky: the state should have no say over how a woman uses her body. But I thought it might be interesting to look at what moral philosophers have said on the topic. Judith Jarvis Thomson, a philosopher at M.I.T., has an intriguing thought experiment to test our intuitions on abortion. I haven't read her paper in a while, but I think this is close enough: Imagine a woman wakes up and sees that the greatest violinist ever has been attached to her side. Later on, she is informed that an orchestra secretly attached the violinist to her body while she slept. They explained that the violinist is in critical condition and needs another's organs in order to survive. If the woman detaches the violinist from her body, the violinist will die, but in 9 months he will have fully recovered. Is it morally permissible for the woman to detach the violinist from her body? And, if it is morally permissible, then is it also morally permissible for a woman to abort a fetus? Most people have a similar intuition about the thought experiment. There is also a common objection to Thomson's thought experiment. But I'll leave it for you guys to figure out. I'm pretty sure there's a difference between giving birth and being life support. |
|
|
|
Post by mypallyowndu on Nov 8, 2008 15:41:21 GMT -5
Giving birth is certainly different than life support, but is pregnancy so different from life support that the thought experiment fails?
In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court held that an abortion cannot occur after the point of "viability": that is, after the point at which mechanical life support could keep the fetus alive. That, to me, means that the Court views pregnancy as a sort of organic life support which can be terminated so long as inorganic life support is not possible. The fetus is "alive" but for being attached to the mother, depending on her for blood, food, getting rid of waste and toxins, etc.
That sounds a lot like life support to me
|
|
|
|
Post by Darknezz on Nov 8, 2008 16:10:46 GMT -5
Giving birth is certainly different than life support, but is pregnancy so different from life support that the thought experiment fails? Yes. Yes it is. When you're pregnant, you actually have to raise the child, you have to financially and emotionally support it. In dumb b*tch's thing, it's a grown, successful person attached to a stable person. In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court held that an abortion cannot occur after the point of "viability": that is, after the point at which mechanical life support could keep the fetus alive. That, to me, means that the Court views pregnancy as a sort of organic life support And that to me says that the supreme court is objective. But again, it doesn't really matter. |
|
|
|
Post by mypallyowndu on Nov 8, 2008 16:22:54 GMT -5
But look, you have obligations to financially support a child ONCE it has been born.
Moreover, it is not necessarily the case that you have to raise the child once you give birth to it. We could imagine a world where women give birth to children because they make fantastic snacks. But, even in this absurd world, it is still the case that the woman's body acts as a form of organic life support for the gestating fetus.
But let's say you are right that pregnancy and life support are distinct. What moral relevance does that have for Thomson's thought experiment? The upshot of Thomson's thought experiment is that the woman can detach the violinist from her body because no one has a claim over a person's body, even if it is a matter of life and death for the other person. Likewise, during a pregnancy, it is the case that the fetus' current/potential life depends on being attached to the mother, but that fetus, like the violinist, does not have some special claim on the woman's body. If the woman chooses to "detach" her body from the fetus, doing so is morally permissible.
|
|
|
|
Post by Darknezz on Nov 8, 2008 16:39:40 GMT -5
But look, you have obligations to financially support a child ONCE it has been born. Moreover, it is not necessarily the case that you have to raise the child once you give birth to it. We could imagine a world where women give birth to children because they make fantastic snacks. But, even in this absurd world, it is still the case that the woman's body acts as a form of organic life support for the gestating fetus. But let's say you are right that pregnancy and life support are distinct. What moral relevance does that have for Thomson's thought experiment? The upshot of Thomson's thought experiment is that the woman can detach the violinist from her body because no one has a claim over a person's body, even if it is a matter of life and death for the other person. Likewise, during a pregnancy, it is the case that the fetus' current/potential life depends on being attached to the mother, but that fetus, like the violinist, does not have some special claim on the woman's body. If the woman chooses to "detach" her body from the fetus, doing so is morally permissible. Oh, so now we get in to "Abortion is murder!" And now, I'm done with this conversation. |
|
