You're talking about the right and duty to make decisions about their children's lives that are in the best interest of their children. Even when we disagree on what is in their best interest (Raise them with religion? Home-school them? Allow them to drink soda?), we almost always let the parents make the decision. But we don't allow parents to make the decision to end their children's lives because they no longer want to raise them, can't afford to raise them, or regret having had them. Many believe a fetus should have the same consideration as a child.Some think a fetus is a stage in the life of a human being, so nobody should have the right to choose what to do with the fetus' body.
— Patterner
That's absurd. Parents (biological or other) not only have the right, but the duty to make decisions about their children's lives. Why should there not be a similar right and duty to make decisions about a foetus? After all, we allow people to make decisions for their relatives when they are ill and unable to make the decisions themselves. — Ludwig V
True. So they must have the right and duty not to bring a child into the world. So they must have the right and duty to abstain or use contraception. But all contraceptive methods (including just say no) have a failure rate. So why do people think that they have the right and duty to prevent them using the last-ditch opportunity not to bring a child into the world - early stage abortion? (I'm not saying that abortion is OK, just that it is better than the alternative, which is positively cruel.)Parents don't have the right and duty to end their child's life. — Hanover
.... and many do not. Should not the parents have the right to their own conscience? It's not as if anybody seriously believes that abortion should not be controlled. I don't know if it is universal but many legal systems prohibit late stage abortions except in very exceptional circumstances.Many believe a fetus should have the same consideration as a child. — Patterner
Many believe not.Many believe a fetus should have the same consideration as a child.
— Patterner
.... and many do not. Should not the parents have the right to their own conscience? — Ludwig V
Fair point. But the question whether there is a child or not. I'm trying to prompt "pro-lifers" to think about all this, so it seems best to talk of parents meaning, the individuals who have primary responsibility for the situation.But if we aren't talking about a child, I don't think "parents" is the right word. There is only a pregnant woman. — Patterner
I don't understand. It doesn't harm her if she want the abortion, so sneaking would not be necessary. But it sneaking is necessary, then it's likely that she does not want the abortion and in that case, it definitely does harm her.And, again, sneaking drugs into a pregnant woman's food so that she aborts, as long as it doesn't harm her, is no worse than breaking her window. — Patterner
Further, most of the laws have been written by men -- I don't see our representative democracy as a palliative for the history of patriarchy that has dominated women's bodies so that men knew that their fucking made a kid. — Moliere
What I meant is, if she wants to have the baby, and you sneak drugs into her food so it aborts, it's not murder. Men have been known to punch a woman in the stomach so they abory. Sad if she wanted to have a baby. But if it's not a child, and had no status on the eyes of the law, then the man is only guilty of assault & battery. The fetus is irrelevant, as far as criminal acts goes.I don't understand. It doesn't harm her if she want the abortion, so sneaking would not be necessary. But it sneaking is necessary, then it's likely that she does not want the abortion and in that case, it definitely does harm her. — Ludwig V
Oh, I see. Interesting.What I meant is, if she wants to have the baby, and you sneak drugs into her food so it aborts, it's not murder. — Patterner
I've seen this argument. I find it very persuasive. But I don't think that a "pro-lifer" would. The analogy with organ donation is not strong enough. And there's always the argument that the future mother has "signed up" when she consents to sex.In this it doesn't matter when a fetus 'becomes human' what matters is the bodily autonomy of the mother. In other words, no person is morally obligated to use their body to sustain another life against their will, even if that life is dependent on them. Just as one cannot be forced to donate organs to save another person, a woman cannot be compelled to use her body to support a fetus. — Tom Storm
Yes. On the face of it, it's a very unsatisfactory situation. But in practical terms, it's one way of coping with the difficulty of arriving at a consensus.Here in Australia, abortion is still technically illegal in some states, but it's never enforced, and it's not nearly so much a matter of controversy as in the USA. — Wayfarer
I think that's true. They seem to take the immorality of abortion as a fixed point in the argument and adjust all the other concepts involved to fit in with that.Fair point. A 'pro-lifer' is a member of a tribe, no matter how persuasive an argument might be, the matter is settled for them. — Tom Storm
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.