Is Abortion Murder?

They're women -- they can enter into the legislative side of things. And, BTW, I never said that men can't have an opinion. Likewise, dolphins can have an opinion -- but only female dolphins get to vote on it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But infertile women, like men, will never be in a position where the legislation on abortion effects them in any way. They'll never become pregnant and have to decide for themselves what is the best choice for their personal situation.

If you're going to restrict people from discussion on the issue of abortion, you should restrict them based on their ability to become pregnant, not on their gender.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

God grief, you guys are starting with the faux outrage now? I guess when all other left-winger rhetoric fails, you have to fall back on shaming your opponent for a view that don't hold.

Capracus stated that if his 23 year old daughter got pregnant, he'd urge her to get an abortion. What's so scandalous about that? As her father, he has a responsibility to warn her before making a life-changing decision whose consequences she is poorly equipped to deal with. He feels that she isn't ready for children, and that starting a family would decrease her quality of life and prevent her from reaching her full potential. He can't force her to do anything, it is ultimately up to her whether or not she has children, and Capracus didn't state otherwise. Feminists love to act as thought they champion women, but when a man attempts to do the best by his daughter, they all develop a bad case of butthurtitis.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I bet if a "liberal" said that he'd urge his daughter to get an abortion, you'd orgasm about how it proves that liberals are anti-life sociopaths and child murderers.

 

“Notwithstanding their claim to be neutral on the moral status of the fetus, liberals cannot defend the right to abortion without implicitly denying that the fetus is a person. For consider: if the Catholic doctrine were correct—if the fetus were morally equivalent to a child—then even the important principle of the woman’s right to choose would be morally outweighed by the importance of respecting human life. This is why Nagel is wrong to insist that the distinction between public and private morality can, by itself, decide the question. If abortion were tantamount to infanticide, it would not be a merely private choice. Where one draws the public/ private distinction depends on how one resolves the underlying moral question.

Like Nagel, I am against banning abortion. But unlike Nagel, I do not think it is possible to decide this question without taking a stand, implicitly or explicitly, on the moral status of the fetus. How we debate such questions matters politically as well as philosophically: defending abortion rights while claiming to be neutral on the underlying moral question insults rather than respects those who disagree. Liberals would do better to engage their opponents on the moral merits, rather than retreat to an unconvincing neutral ground.”

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2006/oct/05/the-case-for-liberalism-an-exchange/

 

Where did Capracus say he would force her to have an abortion?

I understand. It's convenient for Capracus' detractors to feign outrage, as it's yet another attempt to demonize and misrepresent him.

 

Do you not understand what the word "urge" means?

 

And why do you find it outrageous to persuade a woman to do something that may be in her benefit? Ultimately the choice still rests with his daughter, and she's able to seek counsel outside of her father.

Just out of curiosity, would you urge your 23 yr old adult son to wear a condom (or get a vasectomy) if he was sexually promiscuous? Would you urge your husband to see a doctor if he was having bad headaches, night sweats, and had lost weight?

 

That depends on whether your "thinking" is honest and makes sense.

We might compare the anti-abortion fanatic, for example, first to the historical figure of the person who thought slavery was a horrible evil, and second to the slaveowner who buried their sexual attraction to and economic dependence on black people under the justification that black people were subhuman and amoral and must be kept enslaved for their own and the community's good.

The anti-abortion crowd is more like the second than the first - including being in large part the heirs of the same culture and political bent. Is there really a paradox of tolerance involved, in their case?

In the first place, the assertion is false - the right to an abortion can be defended on grounds of self defense and bodily integrity for the woman, whether the developing embryo or fetus is a person or not.

In the second, the Catholic Church is inconsistent and conveniently slippery in its declaration that an embryo - not a fetus, the Catholic Church is ruling on all stages of pregnancy - is a person. The Catholic Church has never considered a six week embryo to be a person in any other context than abortion - it does not give last rites and burial in consecrated ground to early miscarriages or ectopic pregnancies, even in Catholic hospitals, for example.

In the third: You have noticed that every "liberal" (and conservative pro-choicer) here has taken the explicit position that a developing embryo is not morally equivalent to a child, right? The notion that the only people taking moral positions and reasoning morally are the religious prolifers is an arrogant slander.

 

It depends on the context of the situation. In Capracus' situation, I would have no moral objections if he urged his daughter to have an abortion.

Why not? How is attempting to persuade someone to do something anti-choice? Attempting to convincingly put forward a point of view is not the same as forcibly strapping someone down to the operation table.

If Capracus were successful in persuading his daughter in our hypothetical scenario, then by definition she *would* want to have the abortion, hence making the decision her choice.

Being able to influence someone's decisions is not the same as forcing them to do something.

The same as? No. However, they are both similar in that you are urging an adult to act a certain way in regards to their reproductive behavior. By your logic, since you would have influence with your son, then you would be *forcing* him to wear condoms. And you didn't answer my question about the hypothetical vasectomy. Would you urge your adult son to have a vasectomy, if he was promiscuous and refused to wear condoms?

So you'd urge your reluctant husband to go to the doctor? Do you think you are removing his agency in that situation?

 

Yes, but you're a terrible Human being.

An actual moral person would want their daughter to decide for herself what to do with her own body, and be there for her regardless of that choice.

 

There is nothing in my interpretation of Tiassa‘s Dry Foot Policy that is in conflict with his own presentation of it. If I had included a woman taking the aborted fetus to Disneyland it would not alter the substantive description of his policy.

No, his statement isn’t simply that a woman has control over her body, it’s says that a woman has the right to terminate the life of a fetus up to the point of delivery. There have been fetuses delivered at 21 weeks that have developed to normalcy, so what this policy does in effect is to take a range of qualified fetuses that would be considered persons outside the womb, and relegate them to the status of (insert preferred form of property here) in the womb. On the late end of the range, a full term fetus is developmentally indistinguishable from a newborn baby, yet according to the Tiassa Dry Foot Policy, this nonperson is still eligible for termination as long as it remains in the womb with an unsevered umbilicus. To illustrate the absurdity of his position I asked: what if the umbilical cord was reattached and the baby stuffed back into the womb, would it cease to be a person? So rather than own up to the obvious implications of the policy, you and Tiassa launch into this ridiculous expos'e on the repugnance of the illustration, and then suiting the imagery to your own taste by suggesting a vaginal procedure. The difference between my illustration and Tiassa’s proposal is that mine is intended as fantasy and his to be real policy, yet you idiotically continue to equate the two.

Fetuses aren’t aborted late term for a variety of reasons, such as legal restriction, physician and patient ethical objection, and medical risk. The Tiassa Dry Foot Policy takes none of this into consideration, and without these mediating factors the policy would theoretically allow for the termination of a healthy full term fetus.

As I stated to Beer w/Bong, without knowing my daughter's life situation, ability to deal with a pregnancy, or her relationship with myself, why would you or anyone else in this thread presume themselves fit to judge my advice to her in such a matter? I know my daughter's intentions regarding maternity because our relationship is such that she openly express her thoughts on such matters to my wife and myself. I have counseled her since she was a teenager on her options regarding pregnancy, and she would expect no less of me now. In fact you may recall your own advice on her reproductive health.

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/a-...iforums-atheists.141126/page-106#post-3195797

I don’t know what kind of relationship you have with your children, but mine expect and value my input, and to withhold it for some twisted notion of propriety would be irresponsible on my part. When someone like my daughter is on birth control, it’s rather obvious that they are trying to avoid pregnancy. If they should discover they are pregnant during a period when abortion is permissible, then there is a sense of urgency regarding meeting the imposed deadline. In her case it wouldn’t even be necessary to urge her to get the procedure, but I’d still do it anyway, because that’s what people who know and care for each other do in such situations. Like my daughter, I see abortion as a second line of defense against unwanted pregnancy. Ideally proper birth control is usually sufficient, but if it fails, abortion is the only option for those wanting to avoid pregnancy. And for any woman who wishes to avoid pregnancy, I would urge them to take advantage of these options, regardless of what any self appointed guardians of social etiquette advise to the contrary.

So I guess a uterus is just for surplus storage of Bloody Marys, and not for gestating human beings. Thanks for the biology update.

As a liberal atheist, I approve this message.

 

The problem with this is the daughter choice will often extrapolate to others, who can become impacted in terms of the obligations or social liabilities her choice creates. She is not in a vacuum and those impacted by the ripple effect have rights to. Even the tax payer is caught in a ripple current.

For example, the fathers of the unborn should also have a say, since after the birth or the abortion, burdens can and will be passed on to him. The father might have to become a slave; child support, and therefore have no control over the labors of his body for 18 years, even of he has to support a Ho, who uses his child's money for drugs. Women should have as little say over 9 month since men may have to go 18 years as a slave.



The other problem is science defines life as: the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death. This definition applies right down to individual cells and is used by evolution to mark the first appearances of life on earth. The embryo is alive since it meets all these criteria of science. The embryo is not an inanimate state like a rock.

Liberalism has used a liberals arts definition of life; fiction, and says this trumps the definition of science. This position is not supported by science, but only by subjective arguments, since science has not changed its definition to suit liberal arts.

This is a paradox for atheism in that they side with a liberal arts definition of life, while claiming to be based exclusively on science. They will argue evolution and that life began on earth as cells, and not a human birth, and then do the opposite.

Religion has always used the modern science definition. How did religion know to choose the way of science, before science defined life, if religion is considered all about fairy tales; just liberal arts? Religion is more about science that it is given credit for. The deception is about modern liberal arts and atheist spin being used to confuse the facts of science, with liberal theatre.

The daughter can be confused by the liberal arts spin and may need help making sure she is aware of science. There might be an internal ripple effect for unnatural behavior, that may fester in the future; cause and effect. She is being exploited by the abortion industries who make money off her. Do these industries have to pay for side effects? This may be good law suit to bring on the behalf of some women; deep pockets.

 

I really dont understand the faux outrage over Capracus "urging" a family member one way or another (assuming advice/opinion was sought); nor do I associate that with being 'pro-abortion'.

People ask their family/friends for advice/opinions all the time and I prefer an honest answer when I ask such things rather than a 'politically correct' canned response.

And it makes me wonder if any of these 'aghast' opinions are related to real life or just more neatly packaged responses to present a palatable image.

Real life- My great aunt had an illegal abortion. In the late 1930s early 1940s. I dont remember the exact year. Her husband was fully involved in this decision. So I disagree that men who are the father do not have a right to voice their opinion. As I understood a number of comments to imply.
Real life - I had a number of people ask me " what would you do if...?" I assumed they wanted my honest opinion and not a 'well you gotta decide for yourself what is best' politically correct so as not to offend anyone answer. They seemed to me to be wanting an honest answer; likely gauging impact for their own life should they choose abortion.
Real life - I have suggested to people without being asked my opinion "if it was me I would..." or the "why would you have a baby when you cant even support yourself" when finding out a young friend (some under the age of 18) was pregnant.
Real life - I have encouraged women to lie about their name when obtaining legal abortions to deny the right to lifers access to their phone numbers. And I have received the "how could you kill your baby" phone harassment. 1985 and 1986. It was unnerving even for me, someone whos never had an abortion to hear this harassment first hand, unprovoked, in the privacy of my own home (via telephone call).
Real life - an acquaintance was forced by family to give her child up for adoption because abortion was out of the question and raising a child as a teen mother would 'look bad' for grandpas political aspirations (1979).

Point being people do discuss their options, even back in the 1930s/40s and to deny that is the reality, or to refuse to give an honest answer/opinion, is to deprive people access to information/input.