Check this anti-abortion site out.

[Kurieuo]

What I'm saying is that in a situation where abortion of an unborn child is the only method to save the mother's life, it is immoral to force a mother to die or to force a doctor to stand idly by while a mother dies. Most of the time, these pregnancies involve the death of the child as well. It is both illogical and immoral in my mind to claim that choosing two deaths over one is the proper and good thing to do. It is immoral to have the capability to save one life but not use it on supposed "moral grounds."

Obviously there is a moral dilemma when it comes to choosing one life over another, but I'm not saying that. I'm saying that pro-life legislation eliminates any possibility to save a mother in a situation where she would die from attempting to give birth. That is murder of the mother, and in most cases, the child is a casualty as well. I don't see the moral high ground that this logic uses to stand on.

Well, I personally don't know any prolife supporter, who says the mother must die if her life is at risk. I don't even know why you even started arguing this here, especially against me. Those I know, who argue persuasively and logically for the rights of unborn human babies, focus on the status of the unborn.

It seems to me simply emotional conjecture your assumption that profile legislation would eliminate any possibility to save a mother. Who or what prolife legislation are you talking about? Seems you're just projecting emotionally charged arguments onto me based on extreme points of views.

Deciding upon whether the mother or baby must die in extreme circumstances is simply a moral dilemma. And if both are to die, well obviously it is better one lives. I don't see that has any bearing whatsoever on me, nor many prolife advocates, nor my original questions you seemed to be responding to... (???)

Now my questions, as directed to Pierson were: "if a mother does not have either (was raped or has a life threatening situation), then [do you believe] laws should be changed to make abortion wrong based simply on the mother's whim or desire? If you still believe that a mother should be able to abort their unborn regardless whether or not there are exceptional circumstances, then where is the difference with aborting the baby after birth?"

[Pierson5]

Now my questions, as directed to Pierson were: "if a mother does not have either (was raped or has a life threatening situation), then [do you believe] laws should be changed to make abortion wrong based simply on the mother's whim or desire? If you still believe that a mother should be able to abort their unborn regardless whether or not there are exceptional circumstances, then where is the difference with aborting the baby after birth?"

So your saying, we certainly wouldn't want to harm a child outside the womb, what's the difference if we abort a child in the womb? If it's life in the womb, it should be protected just as if it was outside.

I understand your perspective, but the fundamental difference between a newborn infant and those that are still in the womb is: The ones still in the womb require the use of somebody's body in order to survive.

So the question becomes, does its right to life mean more than someones bodily autonomy? The right to govern and control what happens within your own body. When you are at a point when you are using someone elses body for survival, it's not a matter of "is this a person or not," it comes down to does this person, or baby, have the right to demand that somebody else give up their bodily autonomy for them. We are not allowed to do that as adult humans. We cannot approach our mothers or fathers right now and say "I'm about to die, I need blood or I need a kidney, I need something from you. Therefore by law you HAVE to give it to me as my parent." Adults, children and newborn infants are not allowed to do that. Why would anyone advocate that we should pass legislation entitling unborn babies to do that?

Let's say for example you get into a car accident. Your negligence caused it, you are at fault. The person in the other car needs a blood transfusion in order to live. You caused this person to be in this position. You are not legally required to donate a portion of your body to save this person's life. You have every right to say "I'm afraid of needles, I can't donate blood." You have that bodily autonomy. You have control to govern your own body to say "I do not want to give any part of my body for this person's life." You have the right to let that person die. NOT THAT ANY OF US WOULDN'T IMMEDIATELY DO IT. We would all do it. The point is, do we begin to legislate things like that? You are the cause of someone's near demise, you are required to give blood, or kidney, etc... if your blood matches. Do we take it out of their control?

We all love babies, and in many situations would give up our own lives to save them. BUT, how would you feel about the government stepping in and saying, this baby needs this from you, and it's probably going to take your life, but by law you have to do it. Like I said, you would probably do it anyway. The point is, how would you feel about the government stepping in and say you MUST, it's not a choice for you to make.

Why should we allow a fetus to have rights, that everybody else on the planet doesn't have? The right to demand resources from another human body.

[Reactionary]

the fundamental difference between a newborn infant and those that are still in the womb is: The ones still in the womb require the use of somebody's body in order to survive. So the question becomes, does its right to life mean more than someones bodily autonomy?

Yes, it does. Or, at least I believe it should...

The right to govern and control what happens within your own body.

...exactly because of this. That child came to be because of governance and control of someone's bodies - the mother's and the father's, more precisely. They knew the potential consequences of unprotected sex - yet they still did it. And so, once the mother got pregnant, she starts to appeal to "choice". Wrong, dear, you had your choice when you decided to have irresponsible, unprotected sex. Because the majority of pregnancies that result in abortion, were caused by irresponsible sex.

When you are at a point when you are using someone elses body for survival, it's not a matter of "is this a person or not," it comes down to does this person, or baby, have the right to demand that somebody else give up their bodily autonomy for them. We are not allowed to do that as adult humans. We cannot approach our mothers or fathers right now and say "I'm about to die, I need blood or I need a kidney, I need something from you. Therefore by law you HAVE to give it to me as my parent." Adults, children and newborn infants are not allowed to do that. Why would anyone advocate that we should pass legislation entitling unborn babies to do that?

While your argument does make sense, I still hold to what I said - the baby was a result of its mother's actions - consent to sex (in a vast majority of situations), and as the proverb says, 'you reap what you sow'. Doing otherwise would be irresponsible.

NB - Still, there is a flaw in your comparison. To refuse to give someone (be it your children or whoever) your organs is exactly that - refusal, and although that act may consequently lead to this person's death, the death would be an indirect consequence. Someone who refuses to give an organ didn't technically kill the person in question. Which can't be said about abortion.

Let's say for example you get into a car accident. Your negligence caused it, you are at fault. The person in the other car needs a blood transfusion in order to live. You caused this person to be in this position. You are not legally required to donate a portion of your body to save this person's life. You have every right to say "I'm afraid of needles, I can't donate blood." You have that bodily autonomy. You have control to govern your own body to say "I do not want to give any part of my body for this person's life." You have the right to let that person die. NOT THAT ANY OF US WOULDN'T IMMEDIATELY DO IT. We would all do it. The point is, do we begin to legislate things like that? You are the cause of someone's near demise, you are required to give blood, or kidney, etc... if your blood matches. Do we take it out of their control?

Good idea.

We all love babies, and in many situations would give up our own lives to save them. BUT, how would you feel about the government stepping in and saying, this baby needs this from you, and it's probably going to take your life, but by law you have to do it. Like I said, you would probably do it anyway. The point is, how would you feel about the government stepping in and say you MUST, it's not a choice for you to make.

There are many musts in our lives, Pierson. How about vaccination? I'm certainly no fan of it, but I had to do it, I was obliged to. Even though I had nasty side effects. Nobody asked me about my bodily autonomy. In the future I expect more musts, and less personal freedoms. Apparently, since the next year, I won't be able to buy incandescent light bulbs anymore, though I've always preferred using them. On the face of it, it's a meaningless example, but there are more of them, and together they make the image that we're not as free to choose as it may seem. Think about it.

[Pierson5]

...exactly because of this. That child came to be because of governance and control of someone's bodies - the mother's and the father's, more precisely. They knew the potential consequences of unprotected sex - yet they still did it. And so, once the mother got pregnant, she starts to appeal to "choice". Wrong, dear, you had your choice when you decided to have irresponsible, unprotected sex. Because the majority of pregnancies that result in abortion, were caused by irresponsible sex.

What about when birth control fails? What about rape victims? Problem pregnancies? Just because they are a minority, doesn't mean we should ignore them. Anyway, this goes on to the car crash example.

NB - Still, there is a flaw in your comparison. To refuse to give someone (be it your children or whoever) your organs is exactly that - refusal, and although that act may consequently lead to this person's death, the death would be an indirect consequence. Someone who refuses to give an organ didn't technically kill the person in question. Which can't be said about abortion.

The point of this argument was to compare bodily autonomy to life, not the methods used. Even so, I think if anybody who is having their bodily autonomy, their personal rights violated by somebody else who needs it to survive, they have a right to say no. We might think it's not a good thing and morally, they should. But no one has the right to tell them they must. So I would argue, they have the right to take life for the sake of their own. Within our society, that is one way in which it is legal to take a life, it's self defense (let's compare it to say... problem pregnancies).

Good idea.

Even if it goes against someone's religious beliefs? There are many people who refuse to give organs/blood based on their religious beliefs. I think you can see where we run into serious problems if this was a "good idea."

There are many musts in our lives, Pierson. How about vaccination? I'm certainly no fan of it, but I had to do it, I was obliged to. Even though I had nasty side effects. Nobody asked me about my bodily autonomy. In the future I expect more musts, and less personal freedoms. Apparently, since the next year, I won't be able to buy incandescent light bulbs anymore, though I've always preferred using them. On the face of it, it's a meaningless example, but there are more of them, and together they make the image that we're not as free to choose as it may seem. Think about it.

You are right, there are many "musts." Vaccination is a different story. If you did not get vaccinated you are at a much higher risk for catching a serious contagious disease. You then walk around in public and give that to other people. You are endangering the lives of the community and impeding on THEIR rights. If you do have a contagious serious illness, you are quarantined. This is another example of someones rights being infringed upon for the rights of the community. I can see where you are going with this (we are impeding on the fetus' rights), but I think it's apples and oranges. You would already be assuming that this fetus has rights that no one else on the planet has (the right to use someone else's body without their permission), and we are impeding on them.

A more apt comparison would be that of organ donation (a woman donating her uterus for the fetus). Do we force everybody to give up their organs after they die for the good of the community? Do we force people to give blood for the good of the community? No, we respect peoples bodily autonomy and religious rights to say no.

You are basically arguing that life trumps bodily autonomy. Let's say a woman is about to give birth and the doctor says "You are not able to have this baby vaginally, you have to have a C-section or it will die." Would we make that legal? At what point are people suddenly not allowed to be granted legal domination over another person's body? If you pass legislation to force a woman to have a C-section to protect this life, why could it not be done after birth? Why could you not then, through legislation, ask a mother or father offer up their body to save the life of the child. Do we have responsibility to do this up until the child is 18? If we cause a car accident are we required to give up parts of our body? Are we required to have that person be hooked up to our body for a certain amount of time in order to protect that human life, or send the person to prison?

Now when a person dies, do we just cherry pick whatever organs we need without their permission? Or do we allow them to take their organs into the ground to rot, knowing it could potentially save a few lives? Do we take organs from people regardless if they want to give them up or not? Do we not respect people's wishes in death to not be an organ donor? When does the body become community property?

Those are my issues with the whole abortion situation. Bodily autonomy (this was to address the previous comment, comparing a fetus to a newborn), and (if you look on the previous page) outlawing abortion does not save lives. I have yet to hear a better solution than the one I proposed earlier, which truly does save lives.

[Reactionary]

...exactly because of this. That child came to be because of governance and control of someone's bodies - the mother's and the father's, more precisely. They knew the potential consequences of unprotected sex - yet they still did it. And so, once the mother got pregnant, she starts to appeal to "choice". Wrong, dear, you had your choice when you decided to have irresponsible, unprotected sex. Because the majority of pregnancies that result in abortion, were caused by irresponsible sex.

What about when birth control fails? What about rape victims? Problem pregnancies? Just because they are a minority, doesn't mean we should ignore them.

I agree that we shouldn't. But my point was to demonstrate the sexual irresponsibility of the society. Birth control fails, I'm afraid, shouldn't be treated as exceptions because again, people know what they're getting into. Every birth control method has a failure rate, and as far as I know, not a single one has zero probability (unless it's surgical). So, everyone should be aware that their sexual acts may result with a pregnancy.

Regarding rape victims... Well, it's a tough topic. It would be unfair to get rid of the child because of its father's crime, and I would certainly advise those women to give birth (not necessarily keep the child after) as I believe it would be easier to get through those 9 months and then "sleep peacefully", rather than live the rest of their lives knowing that they had an abortion. That's my opinion, but I wouldn't go any further.
As for problematic pregnancies, of course, if the mother's life is in danger, or her health could be seriously damaged, then I believe her life should be prioritized (if there are no other options).

NB - Still, there is a flaw in your comparison. To refuse to give someone (be it your children or whoever) your organs is exactly that - refusal, and although that act may consequently lead to this person's death, the death would be an indirect consequence. Someone who refuses to give an organ didn't technically kill the person in question. Which can't be said about abortion.

The point of this argument was to compare bodily autonomy to life, not the methods used. Even so, I think if anybody who is having their bodily autonomy, their personal rights violated by somebody else who needs it to survive, they have a right to say no. We might think it's not a good thing and morally, they should. But no one has the right to tell them they must. So I would argue, they have the right to take life for the sake of their own. Within our society, that is one way in which it is legal to take a life, it's self defense (let's compare it to say... problem pregnancies).

But your argument still doesn't fully apply to the situation. Your example was about person A who causes an incident which harms the person B, and is fully responsible for it. The baby, however, can't be deemed responsible firstly because it didn't decide to be conceived, and secondly, because it was created as a result of responsible acts of its parents. Problem pregnancies are another matter. We're talking about having irresponsible sex, and killing the unborn because they don't fit into their parents' lives, although their sexual intercourse created them. Self defense? You're talking like pregnancy is a disease...

You are right, there are many "musts." Vaccination is a different story. If you did not get vaccinated you are at a much higher risk for catching a serious contagious disease. You then walk around in public and give that to other people. You are endangering the lives of the community and impeding on THEIR rights.

However, everyone who uses the right to get vaccinated is safe from that contagious disease in question. So I don't see a problem.

This is another example of someones rights being infringed upon for the rights of the community. I can see where you are going with this (we are impeding on the fetus' rights), but I think it's apples and oranges. You would already be assuming that this fetus has rights that no one else on the planet has (the right to use someone else's body without their permission), and we are impeding on them.

A more apt comparison would be that of organ donation (a woman donating her uterus for the fetus). Do we force everybody to give up their organs after they die for the good of the community? Do we force people to give blood for the good of the community? No, we respect peoples bodily autonomy and religious rights to say no.

You are basically arguing that life trumps bodily autonomy. Let's say a woman is about to give birth and the doctor says "You are not able to have this baby vaginally, you have to have a C-section or it will die." Would we make that legal? At what point are people suddenly not allowed to be granted legal domination over another person's body? If you pass legislation to force a woman to have a C-section to protect this life, why could it not be done after birth? Why could you not then, through legislation, ask a mother or father offer up their body to save the life of the child. Do we have responsibility to do this up until the child is 18? If we cause a car accident are we required to give up parts of our body? Are we required to have that person be hooked up to our body for a certain amount of time in order to protect that human life, or send the person to prison?

Now when a person dies, do we just cherry pick whatever organs we need without their permission? Or do we allow them to take their organs into the ground to rot, knowing it could potentially save a few lives? Do we take organs from people regardless if they want to give them up or not? Do we not respect people's wishes in death to not be an organ donor? When does the body become community property?

The right to use someone else's body without their permission? You're talking like a baby is a parasitic disease or something. It just appeared in the woman's body without permission, now how did it dare?! What about the penis from which came the semen that fertilized the ovum? It entered with permission, now did it? Of course, sex is pleasurable, yet pregnancy is less than so - morning sickness, cramps, weight, and apart from everything, it lasts 9 months! Now who on Earth would put up with that?!

OK, now seriously. The most important right is the right to life. The embryo/fetus/baby/whatever we may call it, has been scientifically proven to be an independent life. It has its own DNA, which makes it not a part of its mother's body, but a person for itself. However, removing it forcefully from its mother's body kills it. And that's where the discussion should end. No right, except for its mother's right to life, should be put above it. No excuse, except for saving its mother's life, is sufficient to morally justify the termination of pregnancy. We can talk all we want about bodily autonomy and statistics, but forceful termination of a person's life has its term. Murder.

Those are my issues with the whole abortion situation. Bodily autonomy (this was to address the previous comment, comparing a fetus to a newborn), and (if you look on the previous page) outlawing abortion does not save lives. I have yet to hear a better solution than the one I proposed earlier, which truly does save lives.

You may be right that outlawing abortion as a measure by itself wouldn't greatly reduce the number of abortions. That's what education is for. You say bodily autonomy, I say responsibility. If we educate young people and teach them that causes lead to effects, and that we should take responsibility for our actions (and demonstrate it with our own actions), the situation will improve. As long as the society encourages teens to start having sex as early as possible so they could be trendy, we won't get too far. Regarding what you said about illegal abortions that would take place if we outlaw them, well, that's like saying that we should legalize robbery because the robber could be injured or killed by a security guard during the process. I might take a knife and cut myself now, but if that kills me, nobody is to blame but me. Again, it all boils down to responsibility for one's actions.

[RickD]

Reactionary, you show wisdom well beyond your years.

[Reactionary]

Reactionary, you show wisdom well beyond your years.

I utmostly appreciate your words of encouragement, kind sir.

[Pierson5]

Regarding rape victims... Well, it's a tough topic. It would be unfair to get rid of the child because of its father's crime, and I would certainly advise those women to give birth (not necessarily keep the child after) as I believe it would be easier to get through those 9 months and then "sleep peacefully", rather than live the rest of their lives knowing that they had an abortion. That's my opinion, but I wouldn't go any further.
As for problematic pregnancies, of course, if the mother's life is in danger, or her health could be seriously damaged, then I believe her life should be prioritized (if there are no other options).

You would advise these women to give birth and give it up for adoption. But, we aren't telling them they must. You can say you believe it would be easier to go through the 9 months bearing a rapist's child, but that comes down to personal preference. I'm sure many women would disagree. No one is forcing them to get an abortion if they do not wish to. It's their choice now if they want to bear the rapist's child or not.

So, if I'm reading this correctly, you are proposing abortion be illegal, except under certain circumstances?

But your argument still doesn't fully apply to the situation. Your example was about person A who causes an incident which harms the person B, and is fully responsible for it. The baby, however, can't be deemed responsible firstly because it didn't decide to be conceived, and secondly, because it was created as a result of responsible acts of its parents. Problem pregnancies are another matter. We're talking about having irresponsible sex, and killing the unborn because they don't fit into their parents' lives, although their sexual intercourse created them. Self defense? You're talking like pregnancy is a disease...

The car accident was caused by the irresponsible person (ex; parents) to which the other individual is put in this situation (ex; child). Even if the irresponsible person (parents) are at fault, are they required, by law, to give up their bodily autonomy for this person? If yes, we get into all those other situations I discussed. The self defense remark was directed towards problem pregnancy (see parenthesis), where if the fetus is not removed, the mother dies.

Well, I never said I was a religious pluralist.

Could you expand on this? I'm vaguely familiar with term. I mean, if you aren't, does this mean you would deny the people the right to deny blood transfusions, not being organ donors, etc, based on religious beliefs? I never said all religions were equally valid, but it's their right. They have the same rights that you have. I'm sure you would be opposed to people using the same reasoning against your religion. We can take a look at the U.S. Constitution if you want

However, everyone who uses the right to get vaccinated is safe from that contagious disease in question. So I don't see a problem.

This is a common misconception with "anti-vacciners," and results in the deaths of many people. I have a huge problem with this.

Vaccines work for 85-95% of immunized individuals. Those who are not vaccinated for measles, for instance, have around a 95% chance of contracting the diseases if they are exposed. So, by not getting vaccinated and contracting the disease, you are still impeding on the rights of those who are vaccinated by greatly increasing the chance they get the disease (they still have a chance, and some do contract the virus).
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/6mi ... tyofpeople

The right to use someone else's body without their permission? You're talking like a baby is a parasitic disease or something. It just appeared in the woman's body without permission, now how did it dare?! What about the penis from which came the semen that fertilized the ovum? It entered with permission, now did it? Of course, sex is pleasurable, yet pregnancy is less than so - morning sickness, cramps, weight, and apart from everything, it lasts 9 months! Now who on Earth would put up with that?!

OK, now seriously. The most important right is the right to life. The embryo/fetus/baby/whatever we may call it, has been scientifically proven to be an independent life. It has its own DNA, which makes it not a part of its mother's body, but a person for itself. However, removing it forcefully from its mother's body kills it. And that's where the discussion should end. No right, except for its mother's right to life, should be put above it. No excuse, except for saving its mother's life, is sufficient to morally justify the termination of pregnancy. We can talk all we want about bodily autonomy and statistics, but forceful termination of a person's life has its term. Murder.

We can get into definitions all you want (ex; parasite) but it's simply a play on words and irrelevant. Assuming sex was consensual, yes, it entered with permission. But, people can, and do take measurements to prevent pregnancy, and sometimes they fail. It's more than just "putting up with pregnancy" and a burden. We could get into the statistics correlating the legalization of abortion and the resulting decline in crime the following years, but it's a stretch I'll admit.

I won't dance around words here. Call it what you want. I'll agree, it's taking a life, and making it dead. We can call it murder. I think they have the right to do that. If another human is occupying their body, violating their bodily autonomy and they are saying "no," then they have that right. This goes back to my previous point about self defense.

You may be right that outlawing abortion as a measure by itself wouldn't greatly reduce the number of abortions. That's what education is for. You say bodily autonomy, I say responsibility. If we educate young people and teach them that causes lead to effects, and that we should take responsibility for our actions (and demonstrate it with our own actions), the situation will improve. As long as the society encourages teens to start having sex as early as possible so they could be trendy, we won't get too far. Regarding what you said about illegal abortions that would take place if we outlaw them, well, that's like saying that we should legalize robbery because the robber could be injured or killed by a security guard during the process. I might take a knife and cut myself now, but if that kills me, nobody is to blame but me. Again, it all boils down to responsibility for one's actions.

Educating responsibility, as opposed to education on birth control and contraceptive? If you are advocating "responsibility" and saying if you aren't ready to handle these responsibilities, don't have sex... I have some bad news for you. Abstinence education doesn't work. I can point to a number of references citing this. In areas where proper sex education is taught, do you think they are not taught about pregnancy and the repercussions of sexual intercourse? Of course they are! And the results are lower instances in teen pregnancy, abortion and STD's.

Comparing abortion to robbery is not an apt comparison. You can take a look back at the references I cited earlier. Outlawing abortion does cause an increase in illegal abortions, puts more lives at risk and does not solve the problem. We have the evidence for this. I think a better comparison would be having the statistics on prohibition of alcohol. Outlawing doesn't work (we've seen that), education does. And by education I mean, drinking responsibly and in moderation. Not abstinence (which doesn't work).

[Reactionary]

I won't dance around words here. Call it what you want. I'll agree, it's taking a life, and making it dead. We can call it murder. I think they have the right to do that. If another human is occupying their body, violating their bodily autonomy and they are saying "no," then they have that right. This goes back to my previous point about self defense.

In that case, there's not much more I can tell you, I'm afraid. I tried to explain to you why abortion is murder, and you responded that you support murder. That would be all from me in this discussion then. Good luck with defending against the invasion of fetuses, who so shamelessly occupy unsuspecting women's bodies. Sigh.

[Pierson5]

In that case, there's not much more I can tell you, I'm afraid. I tried to explain to you why abortion is murder, and you responded that you support murder. That would be all from me in this discussion then. Good luck with defending against the invasion of fetuses, who so shamelessly occupy unsuspecting women's bodies. Sigh.

Are the women with problem pregnancies we discussed earlier murderers? Is self defense murder? This goes back to my previous point, again.

We both agree a high rate of abortions is not a good thing. We know what works and what doesn't. I have yet to hear a better solution that the one I proposed. If you truly are "pro-life," than do what really saves lives. Don't outlaw abortion and support sexual education.

[jlay]

You would advise these women to give birth and give it up for adoption. But, we aren't telling them they must. You can say you believe it would be easier to go through the 9 months bearing a rapist's child, but that comes down to personal preference. I'm sure many women would disagree. No one is forcing them to get an abortion if they do not wish to. It's their choice now if they want to bear the rapist's child or not.

So, if I'm reading this correctly, you are proposing abortion be illegal, except under certain circumstances?

So, you suggest that the way to help a mother cope is to kill the unborn life inside her? How is that sane? Why should the unborn be punished for the crimes of the rapist father. Last I checked we punished the criminall.
Is it unfortunate for the woman? Absolutely. It is a tragedy. But I fail to see how compounding one wrong with another helps the situation.

Let's say that the woman took the pregnancy to term. Should she not love the child? Should she abandon the child? Should the child have any less rights than any other?

I won't dance around words here. Call it what you want. I'll agree, it's taking a life, and making it dead. We can call it murder. I think they have the right to do that. If another human is occupying their body, violating their bodily autonomy and they are saying "no," then they have that right. This goes back to my previous point about self defense.

VIOLATNG??? That is how you see an unborn human. A violater? I don't like ad-hominems, but you need serious help, if you think that a child, unborn or otherwise is the equivalent to some virus or bacteria. You sir, are sick.

[Byblos]

I won't dance around words here. Call it what you want. I'll agree, it's taking a life, and making it dead. We can call it murder. I think they have the right to do that. If another human is occupying their body, violating their bodily autonomy and they are saying "no," then they have that right. This goes back to my previous point about self defense.

In that case, there's not much more I can tell you, I'm afraid. I tried to explain to you why abortion is murder, and you responded that you support murder. That would be all from me in this discussion then. Good luck with defending against the invasion of fetuses, who so shamelessly occupy unsuspecting women's bodies. Sigh.

Such is the inevitability of a godless, morally bankrupt society that idolizes the self and reduces a defenseless life to mere bacteria. The Bible says from dust we came and to dust we shall return. Perhaps there's some wisdom in that after all, from bacteria we came and as bacteria we shall die.

[Jac3510]

I won't dance around words here. Call it what you want. I'll agree, it's taking a life, and making it dead. We can call it murder. I think they have the right to do that. If another human is occupying their body, violating their bodily autonomy and they are saying "no," then they have that right. This goes back to my previous point about self defense.

In that case, there's not much more I can tell you, I'm afraid. I tried to explain to you why abortion is murder, and you responded that you support murder. That would be all from me in this discussion then. Good luck with defending against the invasion of fetuses, who so shamelessly occupy unsuspecting women's bodies. Sigh.

There's more you can say, for there are more serious implications our friend doesn't seem to see, accept, or hasn't granted, yet.

There are, of course, a multitude of problems with that position. Let me only mention three.

1) It assumes moral volunteerism, that is, the view that we are only morally obligated to those things we explicitly volunteer for. But that is obviously false and our society has long recognized it. Let's keep it in the sexual/pregnancy realm to keep things close. Suppose a man sleeps with his girlfriend. Suppose they used protection and were, as such, not expecting children. Yet suppose the woman becomes pregnant anyway. Suppose further the man says he does not want to be a father--he has not accepted that obligation, and in fact, took precautions to avoid just such a possibility. Yet his girlfriend decides to keep the baby (being pro-choice and all!). She then sues her now ex-boyfriend for child support, which the judge readily grants.

Why does he grant the child support? Because the man is morally obligated to provide for the child he fathered. It does not matter that he did not choose to accept that responsibility. This is just one of many, many examples in which things we don't volunteer for explicitly are things we still have to bear the responsibility for.

2) His view can only stand if he accepts that pregnancy is prima facie a wrong that the woman has to choose to accept. He has already characterized pregnancy as the violation of the body by another person, and that this other person has to receive explicit permission for being there. But on this view, consider the following scenario:

A woman is brought in to a hospital unconscious following a severe accident. While assessing her, the doctor discovers she is pregnant. He asks about and discovers that she did not know she was pregnant. On person's view, the doctor would be morally obligated to remove the "intruder." To see why this is so, imagine that the doctor were to walk in and see a man having sex with the unconscious patient. He would obviously stop the act, even if the man proved he was her husband and that she had consented many times to the act. Only if pregnancy is a prima facie good would the doctor not be morally obligated to remove the child. Yet if pregnancy is a prima facie good, then his position does not stand at all (sinc eit assumes pregnancy is not a prima facie good).

3) It compares the child to a home-invader, an intruder. But that comparison obviously fails, since the intruder chooses violate another person's rights. Yet in the case of pregnancy, the child has made no such choice. Quite the opposite, it was the mother's choice that resulted in the conception. Or, if the conception happened as a result of the rape, it was the father's choice. In either case, the child is not an intruder, but is the product of the choices (perhaps bad choices) the parents made.

As such, the argument our misguided friend is making assumes that the mother's decision to engage in sexual activity does not place her in a position of responsibility for the consequences of her actions. In fact, he so distances her from the consequences that he allows her to murder another human being to avoid them. But if THAT were consistently applied, then why stop at all at pregnancy? Certainly, the child in utero places demands on the mother's body. But the same can be said, only to a lesser degree, once the child is born. For the child needs to be fed, changed, cared for, etc. The mother has to provide those things with her body. If, then, she can murder someone who is taking unaccepted claims on her body in the case of pregnancy, why not in the case of any other dependents, regardless of their physical location?

Peirson's position is not only immoral, it is pooly thought out and absurd. That said, the fact that he is willing to admit that he endorses murder is good enough for me. If pro-choice advocates would say that plainly, most people still have enough moral sensibility that they would reject that argument out right, so in that one regard, I at least appreciate his candor. Why is he pro-choice? Because he thinks it is okay to murder childern if they are of a certain level of inconvenience.

[Echoside]

A more apt comparison would be that of organ donation (a woman donating her uterus for the fetus). Do we force everybody to give up their organs after they die for the good of the community? Do we force people to give blood for the good of the community? No, we respect peoples bodily autonomy and religious rights to say no.

You are basically arguing that life trumps bodily autonomy. Let's say a woman is about to give birth and the doctor says "You are not able to have this baby vaginally, you have to have a C-section or it will die." Would we make that legal? At what point are people suddenly not allowed to be granted legal domination over another person's body? If you pass legislation to force a woman to have a C-section to protect this life, why could it not be done after birth? Why could you not then, through legislation, ask a mother or father offer up their body to save the life of the child. Do we have responsibility to do this up until the child is 18? If we cause a car accident are we required to give up parts of our body? Are we required to have that person be hooked up to our body for a certain amount of time in order to protect that human life, or send the person to prison?

I'd like to ask you a question. From a strictly moral standpoint most all of these questions I answer with a resounding yes. It seems all of your (or anyone's) objections to making abortion illegal aren't grounded in morality, but legality. And because of this legal justification people make the mistake of being MORALLY assured that they are in the right.

So let's just make it simple. Do you agree that in many of the scenario's you provided, the right thing to do is to give up your "right"(this is a legal term, not moral) to your body for the good of others? Not that it should be the forced thing to do but is actually the correct thing?

I ask because It makes me uneasy that I live in a society where people's justification is grounded in a confused -moral- viewpoint. People do, and will continue to have abortions. And because of this whole illegal/legal debate their immoral acts are somehow regarded as acceptable. Society refuses to acknowledge the evil that runs rampant, I don't care if abortion is legal it's also legal to amass 20 billion dollars and keep it in a bank account forever when it could be used to feed millions. The legality doesn't make the act IMO any less disgusting. But people refuse to see the difference.

[Jac3510]

A more apt comparison would be that of organ donation (a woman donating her uterus for the fetus). Do we force everybody to give up their organs after they die for the good of the community? Do we force people to give blood for the good of the community? No, we respect peoples bodily autonomy and religious rights to say no.

You are basically arguing that life trumps bodily autonomy. Let's say a woman is about to give birth and the doctor says "You are not able to have this baby vaginally, you have to have a C-section or it will die." Would we make that legal? At what point are people suddenly not allowed to be granted legal domination over another person's body? If you pass legislation to force a woman to have a C-section to protect this life, why could it not be done after birth? Why could you not then, through legislation, ask a mother or father offer up their body to save the life of the child. Do we have responsibility to do this up until the child is 18? If we cause a car accident are we required to give up parts of our body? Are we required to have that person be hooked up to our body for a certain amount of time in order to protect that human life, or send the person to prison?

I'd like to ask you a question. From a strictly moral standpoint most all of these questions I answer with a resounding yes. It seems all of your (or anyone's) objections to making abortion illegal aren't grounded in morality, but legality. And because of this legal justification people make the mistake of being MORALLY assured that they are in the right.

So let's just make it simple. Do you agree that in many of the scenario's you provided, the right thing to do is to give up your "right"(this is a legal term, not moral) to your body for the good of others? Not that it should be the forced thing to do but is actually the correct thing?

I ask because It makes me uneasy that I live in a society where people's justification is grounded in a confused -moral- viewpoint. People do, and will continue to have abortions. And because of this whole illegal/legal debate their immoral acts are somehow regarded as acceptable. Society refuses to acknowledge the evil that runs rampant, I don't care if abortion is legal it's also legal to amass 20 billion dollars and keep it in a bank account forever when it could be used to feed millions. The legality doesn't make the act IMO any less disgusting. But people refuse to see the difference.

The abortion/organ-donation argument comparison fails in multiple ways. First, it assumes that the child's conception is unrelated to the mother's choice of sexual activity. That is, if I die and I choose not to have my organs donated, my choice not to donate my organs had nothing to do with causing another person's illness that required them to need a new organ (particularly mine).

Second, they differ in that abortion intends the death of a child, whereas refusal of organ donation certainly does not intend the death of another. It may, rather, intend the upholding of (say) one's religious preference.

Third, it is a widely recognized and legally established principle in society that children have a moral, legal, and social claim to their caregivers fullest attention with reference to their health and well-being. Those who do not provide such attention to their children (or those children they are caring for) can be charged with neglect and are rightly punished for so doing. A person needing an organ, however, does not have the same moral or legal claim to my organs, even after I am dead, since they do not have a moral, legal, or social claim to my fullest attention with reference to their health and well-being.

Finally, they differ in the strictly pragmatic sense that most organ donation comes from brain dead patients; but there is very good reason for thinking that brain dead patients are, in fact, living persons, and therefore, to procure their organs for donation is to be the efficient cause of their death (that is, the surgeon is killing the patient). The legal definition of death incorporating the notion of brain death comes directly from the Uniform Determination of Death Act (1981), which resulted from the report titled Defining Death of a commission established by Carter in '78, itself was commissioned by Carter in large part to resolve the "legal fiction" of Harvard's forerunning ad hoc committee's report titled "A Definition of Irreversible Coma: Report of the Ad Hoc Committee of the Harvard Medical School to Examine the Definition of Brain Death" (1968). All that is to say, the legal question is not at all identical to the moral question, for morally, much (not all -- there is a procedure known as non-beating-heart donation (NBHD) that is controversial and not preferred for technical--NOT MORAL--reasons) of the modern organ-donation industry may well be a holocaust in and of itself on just the same level of abortion.

So, again, for these four reasons (and others--this is just more than sufficient), the analogy fails miserably.