Considering the legal framework for abortion

[Vuk]

If I read this right...in a case where there is a choice between:

A) 40% chance of death for the mother. Guaranteed survival of baby.
B) Abortion.

You would say: A? Because they both weigh equally and the 100% > 40%.

I think that's very wrong.

Why? Is one person's life worth more than another's?
Honestly, I believe that abortion should be illegal other than in cases where a mother has a 50% or greater chance of dying. In those cases where you have two equally valuable and important lives with an equal chance at life or death, I think it should be the mother's choice to decide what will happen.
Dammit, just when I promised that I would not get involved. :P

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Why? Is one person's life worth more than another's?
Honestly, I believe that abortion should be illegal other than in cases where a mother has a 50% or greater chance of dying. In those cases where you have two equally valuable and important lives with an equal chance at life or death, I think it should be the mother's choice to decide what will happen.
Dammit, just when I promised that I would not get involved. :P

Is that what you'd want if it was your wife?

If you are sticking with "both lives equal" then you can't make 50% the cut off. At 90%, that's still less than 100%. And at a 100, you flip a coin, because there's no difference? That's nonsense.

[Vuk]

Is that what you'd want if it was your wife?

If you are sticking with "both lives equal" then you can't make 50% the cut off. At 90%, that's still less than 100%. And at a 100, you flip a coin, because there's no difference? That's nonsense.

That is what I would want for my child, and that is what I would want for my child if I was a woman carrying it as well. Children are a large responsibility; human life in your care. It is not something that should be entered into lightly or without love. I think most men and women out there would give their life for their children. Is it right to kill a baby who has ~100% chance at life when you have a <50% chance of living as well - to sentence that baby to a 100% chance of death so that you can enjoy a 100% chance at life even though it is likely that you will live? There are always risks with all pregnancies, and with proper medical treatment it is very rare that someone dies giving birth. You have to be aware of the risks when you enter into something like that. You make the choice to take that risk, whereas the child had no say in the matter. She did not choose to be brought into the world or to create a risk for anyone. The long and the short is that a baby is the responsibility of its parents, and parents need to take that responsibility seriously. If they cannot handle the responsibility, then they simply should not go creating life.

EDIT: I was my mother's third baby and her pregnancy had complications. She was warned that keeping me posed a risk to her, but she did it anyway. I came out with an umbilical cord choking me and with my mouth and nose clogged, but I lived because she considered the life she created to be important. If she didn't make that choice, I would not be alive to have this conversation. My mom survived and was mostly none the worse for wear. Maybe that prejudices me; maybe it gives me a stronger appreciation for parental responsibility and respect for life. You cannot just kill a baby whenever there is a possible complication or risk. When your life is in serious danger (like I said 50% or greater), I can understand people making that choice (no matter what they choose I can respect that), but if your chances of living are greater than your chances of dying, it is irresponsible, bordering on immoral to sentence the baby you chose to bring into the world to death.

[Samurai Waki]

If a fetus has human rights at the moment of conception, then I've half killed more children than there are in this country. I'm pro-Abortion, we've been over this subject enough times that quite frankly I don't really care to rehash it for the millionth time. Yay, you saved the babies life... now let it live a life of being unloved and uncared for. Congratulations for being so moral.

[Vuk]

If a fetus has human rights at the moment of conception, then I've half killed more children than there are in this country. I'm pro-Abortion, we've been over this subject enough times that quite frankly I don't really care to rehash it for the millionth time. Yay, you saved the babies life... now let it live a life of being unloved and uncared for. Congratulations for being so moral.

A) You have no right to deny someone life because YOU think their life is not worth living. B) Who is advocating not loving or caring for their children?

[Samurai Waki]

A.) Quite Frankly, Yes I do. I am talking from a position of personal experience. How dare you enclose people's thoughts, feelings, and situations into a "Yes" or "No" box. It isn't that simple.
B.) Maybe you haven't been to many children's homes.. maybe you should.

[Vuk]

A.) Quite Frankly, Yes I do. I am talking from a position of personal experience. How dare you enclose people's thoughts, feelings, and situations into a "Yes" or "No" box. It isn't that simple.
B.) Maybe you haven't been to many children's homes.. maybe you should.

How dare I? I'm sorry, I didn't know that I wasn't allowed to disagree with you. Spank me why don't you?
Talking from personal experience? Did you read what I wrote? You having participated in decision making that led to an abortion means you had the power, not the right. Many people can do things they have no right to do.
People come from messed up homes? What the heck else is knew? Does that mean that they are not worthy of life? Some of the greatest (and happiest) people in the world have come from messed up homes. I know a lot of people who have been extensively neglected and abused by their parents, including many of my best friends and my sister-in-law. Ask any of them if they are glad they have life, and can tell you with 100% certainty that their answer will be yes. Who are you to play God and dictate whether someone completely innocent lives or dies?

[CrossLOPER]

A) You have no right to deny someone life because YOU think their life is not worth living.

No one is saying that.

B) Who is advocating not loving or caring for their children?

No one said that either.

[Vuk]

No one is saying that.

No one said that either.

Actually, the response I quoted said the first thing, and accused me of saying the second.

[Ronin]

A) You have no right to deny someone life because YOU think their life is not worth living. B) Who is advocating not loving or caring for their children?

in a general sense you do not have the right to deny someone else their life.
but.
during a pregnancy the fetus is directly dependent and connected to the woman's body, my position comes from the fact that the woman has the right to decide she does not want her body doing that....the fetus death is a consequence yes, but still she has the right to make that choice.
this is a very different situation from normal day to day life, because at no other moment there is no way to have someone physically dependent of another like this.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If I read this right...in a case where there is a choice between:

A) 40% chance of death for the mother. Guaranteed survival of baby.
B) Abortion.

You would say: A? Because they both weigh equally and the 100% > 40%.

I think that's very wrong.

Why? You are choosing the certain death of one human being over the possible (not even probable) death of another, when there is a probable outcome that both will survive. In such cases I would have to say that the guiding principle should be to save the most lives.

If a fetus has human rights at the moment of conception, then I've half killed more children than there are in this country. I'm pro-Abortion, we've been over this subject enough times that quite frankly I don't really care to rehash it for the millionth time. Yay, you saved the babies life... now let it live a life of being unloved and uncared for. Congratulations for being so moral.

Half-killed? Is that because you signed off on millions of abortions, or because you masturbate? You shed skin too, those could be used to extract your genetic code and clone you. The fact is, most of the sperm your produce expires before ever even leaving your body, just like all the other types of cells you produce.

A.) Quite Frankly, Yes I do. I am talking from a position of personal experience. How dare you enclose people's thoughts, feelings, and situations into a "Yes" or "No" box. It isn't that simple.
B.) Maybe you haven't been to many children's homes.. maybe you should.

If you believe morality is binary all your moral decisions are yes/no.

As regards children's homes - I've met children who grew up in care, I've met several who were given up for adoption. None of them have expressed a desire to have been aborted, most have expressed dissinterest in their birth parents though. The fact is, all life strives, including children, and to essentially claim that children in care would be better off dead is at best absurd.

Hello gang

That's nonsense. Even if we'd concede that abortion in the absence of any danger towards the carrier's life should be illegal on moral grounds, accepting the fact that a human being should be forced to risk one's life, even marginally, to save another is preposterous. It is unconscionable to deny personal option in this case.

I submit that the role of the state, and of the law, is to protect the vulnerable, most especially the young, the old and the infirm. Once upon a time in Britain you were considered to have a moral and legal responsibility to risk your safety to save another's life. Pregnancy is inherrently dangerous, I should know because I almost killed my mother a couple of times and she almost killed me, and I believe that a woman has already taken on that responsibility when she engaged in consenual sex, with all its attendant risks. As such, I don't believe she has the right to change her mind just because she regrets her initial decision, not if the result is to cost another human being its life. THAT is unconcionable, just as execution for judicial crime is uncontionable.

A reasoning from the wrong vantage point. Creation and nourishment of a child do involve the father. Getting a pregnancy to term does not, biologically. The female is the sole carrier, with all the physical and mental issues it entails. She is the only one who can award a male rights onto her body. To re-quote a point I made earlier:

At most one could ensure a widely accessible and very simplified legal procedure where the couple would agree on the need for consent of both parties in regards to the fate of an eventual embryo resulting from their relationship.
It is the only possible solution acknowledging a male’s right to safeguard the existence of his potential offspring through his own choice.
Bar this type of pre-emptive legally binding agreement, the male completely waves off any rights by default, even if the father, once the pregnancy is underway, offers to raise the child on his own.

It cannot be a "Right" that you are allowed to execute anonother human being, that would not be a right under any other circumstances and, as noted above, the woman has already made an informed decision and I see no reason why she should have any "right" to make it again when the man does not. A man also has the right to consent to sexual congress, his right to consent can be violated just as a woman's can. You are speaking from a sexist discource based on a fallacious reading of traditional gender roles as popularised by feminist writers. If women have equal rights, so do men, accidents of biology notwithstanding.

in a general sense you do not have the right to deny someone else their life.
but.
during a pregnancy the fetus is directly dependent and connected to the woman's body, my position comes from the fact that the woman has the right to decide she does not want her body doing that....the fetus death is a consequence yes, but still she has the right to make that choice.
this is a very different situation from normal day to day life, because at no other moment there is no way to have someone physically dependent of another like this.

Two things:

1. I do not accept "but" when talking about moral rights, if it is not universal applicable it is not moral or a right. One cannot say, "you have the right to life except when you are old" so one equally cannot say, "you have the right to life except when you are utterly dependant on your mother as a fetus", without modern technology ALL children would die without their mothers shortly after birth, just because we have not succeeded in inventing an artificial womb does not allow us to fudge the moral issue.

2. The woman has already made the decision to have sex, if she cannot bear to be pregnant she should not have had sex.

[ajaxfetish]

and that is what I would want for my child if I was a woman carrying it as well.

A rather cavalier statement to make when you are not a woman and have never been pregnant.

Children are a large responsibility; human life in your care. It is not something that should be entered into lightly or without love.

And yet you think a mother should be legally obligated to risk sacrificing her life for the unborn child, meaning it would grow up without a mother to take responsibility and care for it. In situations where there is no father in the picture, this seems particularly inconsistent. Children are a large responsibility . . . which you should just hope someone will accept on your behalf.

I think most men and women out there would give their life for their children. Is it right to kill a baby who has ~100% chance at life when you have a <50% chance of living as well - to sentence that baby to a 100% chance of death so that you can enjoy a 100% chance at life even though it is likely that you will live?

I hope you're right, and that most men and women would be prepared to give their lives for their children. I'm sure that at least a great many are. But should the government tell them that they have to? Is it really a sacrifice if you're forced to do it, anyway? Again, it's very easy for a man, who will never face this risk, to decide that others should be required to give up their lives for the things he cares about.

I'm afraid I can't agree with you on this point at all, Vuk.

Ajax

edit:

You have no right to deny someone life because YOU think their life is not worth living.

As I noted above, that sounds an awful lot like what you yourself are doing, though only on a probabilistic level.

edit 2: As far as other posters' contributions, I find BG's and PVC's arguments both very compelling. I think this is a very tangled and morally difficult question, and I have been unable to fully determine my own thoughts on the matter. I shall definitely be considering your posts as I leave my thoughts on this to continue fermenting.

[Vuk]

A rather cavalier statement to make when you are not a woman and have never been pregnant.


And yet you think a mother should be legally obligated to risk sacrificing her life for the unborn child, meaning it would grow up without a mother to take responsibility and care for it. In situations where there is no father in the picture, this seems particularly inconsistent. Children are a large responsibility . . . which you should just hope someone will accept on your behalf.


I hope you're right, and that most men and women would be prepared to give their lives for their children. I'm sure that at least a great many are. But should the government tell them that they have to? Is it really a sacrifice if you're forced to do it, anyway? Again, it's very easy for a man, who will never face this risk, to decide that others should be required to give up their lives for the things he cares about.

I'm afraid I can't agree with you on this point at all, Vuk.

Ajax

edit:

As I noted above, that sounds an awful lot like what you yourself are doing, though only on a probabilistic level.

Because I am not a woman and have never been pregnant I cannot know that I would be willing to risk my life for and sacrifice for someone I love? I have been in situations before where I have had to put my life at considerable risk to save a family member. I can say with certainty that I would put everything on the line for them, and I know for a fact that they would put everything on the line for me. It is not cavalier; it is family. You have a responsibility to your family. You have a responsibility for the safety. My dad died when I was 14 and I had 3 younger brothers and two older sisters who looked up to me in many ways for the security and leadership that he used to provide. I was put in a position where I was largely responsible for the safety of my family if any should happen, and I was committed to fulfilling that responsibility, even if there were risks. I am not saying I am a great person (as I said, I know anyone in my family would put it on the line for anyone else in the family), but simply that I do not have to be a woman to understand what it is like to risk one's safety or one's life for their family.
I had no choice in being born into my family, but still felt a responsibility toward them. If someone doesn't think they can handle that responsibility, they simply do not have to get pregnant!

You would not be forcing people to sacrifice (pregnancies with a high chance of harm or death to a woman are extremely rare), because they would choose to get pregnant or not. You would simply be forcing them to take responsibility for the life they create. To reiterate, if they do not want the responsibility, they do not need to create the life.

[ajaxfetish]

Because I am not a woman and have never been pregnant I cannot know that I would be willing to risk my life for and sacrifice for someone I love?

That's a very bizarre conclusion to come to, since I said nothing of the kind. Your original quote was:

That is what I would want for my child, and that is what I would want for my child if I was a woman carrying it as well.

In context, you said that you would want your wife to risk dying to bear your child, and that if you were a woman in that circumstance, you would want to risk dying yourself. I did not at all claim that you cannot know whether you would be willing to risk your life for someone else, I suggested that you cannot know how you would feel if you were a pregnant woman. Would you want to take the risk? Maybe. But it's awful hard to know how you would react in an extremely emotional and dangerous situation you've never been in, and guesses from the safety of a computer seat might be way off the mark. One way or another, it's not a risk you might ever actually face, and so it's not particularly flattering that you would demand that others face it. It's rather like if I were disabled in such a way that I could never be put into the military, and I argued that our forces should have a no-retreat policy and all be forced to die in a losing battle, because I would want to die for my country rather than run away if I were in their position.

Ajax

[Viking]

We treat our own species differently from a moral perspective.

Until we have encountered another specie considered just as smart as humans, we haven't really tried out moral dilemmas like that. I think the moral equation would have a different perspective then; and that's why I seek out creatures of similar intellectual capacity as foetus. It is what an abortion kills, only that it is part of the same specie as us.

Btw, 'eating' here implies 'killed'. What you do with the dead cow is not important in this aspect..

[rory_20_uk]

When did establishing a legal framework become a chance to throw morals and moralistic blackmail around?