The Abortion/Homosexuality Paradox

[PureX]

"Manifested" autonomy is not, nor has ever been a valid way to decide what lives or dies.

No, but it does determine who decides what happens inside a pregnant woman's body. This seems to be the part that many of you refuse to recognize.

No one is "pro-abortion". That was never the issue. The issue is who determines what happens inside a pregnant woman's body. And most Americans believe that the woman's physical body is autonomous (it exists apart from the state, the church, and the control of others): that it is for her, only, to decide what happens inside it.

Both animals and humans clearly manifest a will to not be killed. Yet, it is considered murder to kill a human, but not an animal.

Why is that? What difference brings about the distinction?

That's because we humans are biased in our own favor, and we are making up the definition.

Clearly the difference cannot be as simple as "manifested" autonomy, since both possess this.

They don't both exhibit autonomy. In fact, the fetus is not autonomous at all. It is physically dependent in every way on the woman's body.

You still don't seem to grasp the idea that this isn't about a fetus' right to life. It's about the woman's right to decide what happens inside her own body.

Every life form has a "right to live". But not every life form is going to be allowed to live, by us. We humans will kill and eat many of them. We will kill others to ward of disease, or to increase our own wealth, to to make our lives easier, or to live longer, or whatever. Life forms annihilate each other all the time in their struggle for survival, pleasure, and dominance.

There is no question that the fetus has a right to live; same as any other life form. The question is; will it be allowed to live, and who will decide that. Most of us believe that because the fetus is dependent upon a woman's body for it's existence, and the woman has autonomy over her own body, that she then gets to decide if the fetus can develop inside her, or not. It's not about us agreeing with her decision or not agreeing. It's about respecting her right to decide for herself.

And I can't think of any good reason why anyone else should be able to over-ride her autonomy. Nor have I heard any of you explain to me why your moral ideology should trump her physical autonomy (and her own moral ideology).

 

[glassjester]

They don't both exhibit autonomy. In fact, the fetus is not autonomous at all. It is physically dependent in every way on the woman's body.

A point of clarity - when I stated that "both" exhibit autonomy, I was referring to animals and humans, not the fetus and mother.

You still don't seem to grasp the idea that this isn't about a fetus' right to life. It's about the woman's right to decide what happens inside her own body.

Enough condescension, Brother. I "get" what you're saying, just as you "get" what I'm saying. We simply disagree.

Not everyone that disagrees with your opinion is doing so out of inferior comprehension.

Every life form has a "right to live". But not every life form is going to be allowed to live, by us.

Yep.

We humans will kill and eat many of them. We will kill others to ward of disease, or to increase our own wealth, to to make our lives easier, or to live longer, or whatever. Life forms annihilate each other all the time in their struggle for survival, pleasure, and dominance.

Yep.

There is no question that the fetus has a right to live; same as any other life form. The question is; will it be allowed to live, and who will decide that.

Yes. It's just that this life form happens to be human.

Most of us believe that because the fetus is dependent upon a woman's body for it's existence, and the woman has autonomy over her own body, that she then gets to decide if the fetus can develop inside her, or not. It's not about us agreeing with her decision or not agreeing. It's about respecting her right to decide for herself.



And I can't think of any good reason why anyone else should be able to over-ride her autonomy. Nor have I heard any of you explain to me why your moral ideology should trump her physical autonomy (and her own moral ideology).

You can only champion bodily autonomy for so long. When someone's exercise of bodily autonomy necessarily spells out death for another human, then "bodily autonomy" has to take a back seat.

When the laws contradict reason (meaning they are unreasonable), then they should be changed. Is there no such thing as an unjust law?

 

[bybee]

And suicide? And the right to refuse treatment? And the right to force treatment?

 

[PureX]

A point of clarity - when I stated that "both" exhibit autonomy, I was referring to animals and humans, not the fetus and mother.

Enough condescension, Brother. I "get" what you're saying, just as you "get" what I'm saying. We simply disagree.

And yet your previous comment would indicate that you don't "get" it at all. We humans do not respect the physical autonomy of animals. There are still a lot of humans that don't respect physical autonomy of other humans, even. It's a fairly new ideal. And yet it is a part of the ideological basis for our rejection of rape, and of murder, and of various forms of enslavement. Which is why a lot of people feel it's important, even though it does open the door for things like suicide, mercy-killing, and abortion.

Not everyone that disagrees with your opinion is doing so out of inferior comprehension.

I don't really care who agrees with me or who doesn't. All I'm interested in IS the comprehension. Yours and mine.

It's just that this life form happens to be human.

So what? I understand how that plays into our bias, but I don't see how that contributes anything to this debate. We already agree that all life forms, including humans, deserve to live. We also agree that many life forms will be denied that right, by us, for all kinds of reasons.

So the only debate remaining is who is going to determine when and under what circumstances a life form will be denied it's right to life. That's when our hierarchy of bias comes into play, along with our presumptions of self-righteousness. And the answers will often be all over the map.

The general consensus here in the U.S. at the present time, however, regarding fetuses in the first 5 months, is that it's the woman within whom's body the fetus is developing that gets to make the decision. That consensus is based on the importance of the ideal of individual physical autonomy. And there are some good reasons why people hold this ideal as being important. Namely, that it is central to a human experiencing "life" vs simply experiencing existence. A lot of modern humans are beginning to adopt the idea that just existing isn't good enough. They believe we need autonomy to live a life that has any meaning.

Authoritarians, of course, find this intrinsically objectionable. And a lot of religious folks are authoritarians.

You can only champion bodily autonomy for so long. When someone's exercise of bodily autonomy necessarily spells out death for another human, then "bodily autonomy" has to take a back seat.

Yes, any form of individual autonomy has to be balanced against both the individual's needs, and if they are social beings, as we humans are, then also the needs of society.

But I think what you're missing is that our concept of life is becoming something greater than just our continued existence. To truly live, we need to make our own decisions, good or bad. We need to be able to act autonomously. And people are now recognizing this. Which is why abortion remains legal in this country. And why we are beginning to legalize assisted suicide (mercy killing), gender reassignment, and other forms of physical self-transformation.

When the laws contradict reason (meaning they are unreasonable), then they should be changed. Is there no such thing as an unjust law?

These laws are not contradicting reason. You just don't want to acknowledge the reasoning. And that's your shortcoming, not the law's, or your fellow human's.

 

[quip]

Her hair and her fingernails are rooted into her physical being. The roots stay. The extensions project and stop projecting when life ceases.
The fertilized egg has been so programmed to expect to have nine months in which to develop in safety and then detach itself into the world. After the baby comes the placenta, the root if you will. Then it detaches itself and dies.
the mother is still alive and may have more babies. The baby that is born is now a separate entity yet carrying it's mother with it genetically. Fingernails and hair do not become anything once detached from their origins.

So make up your mind. Is the baby an "extension" of the mother or not?

 

[glassjester]

The general consensus here in the U.S. at the present time, however, regarding fetuses in the first 5 months, is that it's the woman within whom's body the fetus is developing that gets to make the decision.

And if she decides she no longer wants to be pregnant in the 6th month?

Would you say doctors should remove the baby from the mother the very day she demands it, even if it's month six? If not, why not?

Would you say she would have to give up her bodily autonomy for 3 more months?

 

[The Horn]

Poverty isn't a "justification " for abortion . It's an explanation for why abortion happens . It's not a question of "justification ".
Abortion happens. Period. It always has and always will . There is no way around this fact . You can make it illegal, but there is absolutely no way to enforce laws against it, unlike for murdering someone who is born and not a fetus .
But I still think it's disgustingly hypocritical when anti-choicers rejoice that this or that woman was prevented from having an abortion for whatever reason and are so relieved that fetus was not aborted , yet if that baby were to grow up to be gay , they would want it to be denied rights and be happy to see that gay person maltreated, discriminated against or even persecuted by the government .

 

[PureX]

And if she decides she no longer wants to be pregnant in the 6th month?

Currently, abortion is not an option after that point unless there are medical conditions that threaten her life.

Would you say doctors should remove the baby from the mother the very day she demands it, even if it's month six? If not, why not?

Not currently an issue.

Would you say she would have to give up her bodily autonomy for 3 more months?

Yes. But she's had 5 months to make her choice. After that, the fetus is considered autonomous, as well (if it were necessary), and so has equal consideration.

 

[Rusha]

Poverty isn't a "justification " for abortion . It's an explanation for why abortion happens .

ALL abortions are due to poverty?

It's not a question of "justification ".

Apparently it is, otherwise, you wouldn't keep bringing it up.

Abortion happens. Period. It always has and always will . There is no way around this fact . You can make it illegal, but there is absolutely no way to enforce laws against it, unlike for murdering someone who is born and not a fetus .

There most certainly is ... and like murder, SOME do get away with it. (interesting that *you* brought up murder).

But I still think it's disgustingly hypocritical when anti-choicers rejoice that this or that woman was prevented from having an abortion for whatever reason and are so relieved that fetus was not aborted , yet if that baby were to grow up to be gay , they would want it to be denied rights and be happy to see that gay person maltreated, discriminated against or even persecuted by the government .

Actually, it's two separate issues. I only speak for myself, however, my concern is not about gender or sexuality of a baby but rather that an innocent child is allowed the chance to grow up and hopefully live a productive life.

Interestingly enough, YOU are the person who is is willing to kill these children PRIOR to birth. I am not.

 

[Town Heretic]

Poverty isn't a "justification " for abortion . It's an explanation for why abortion happens . It's not a question of "justification ".
Abortion happens. Period. It always has and always will . There is no way around this fact . You can make it illegal, but there is absolutely no way to enforce laws against it, unlike for murdering someone who is born and not a fetus .
But I still think it's disgustingly hypocritical when anti-choicers rejoice that this or that woman was prevented from having an abortion for whatever reason and are so relieved that fetus was not aborted , yet if that baby were to grow up to be gay , they would want it to be denied rights and be happy to see that gay person maltreated, discriminated against or even persecuted by the government .

I answered the problems with this parrot routine of yours. You don't appear to be interested in thinking, only restating the same indefensible and vacuous positions ad nauseam.

 

[glassjester]

Currently, abortion is not an option after that point unless there are medical conditions that threaten her life.

And do you think this disregard for the mother's bodily autonomy is just?

 

[PureX]

And do you think this disregard for the mother's bodily autonomy is just?

Justice is relative. We do the best we can given our limitations. I think the law as it stands is the best we can do at the present time. When we can remove unwanted pregnancies from the womb and grow babies in test tubes, then we can make abortions illegal. In the meantime, we can try and prevent unwanted pregnancies via contraception, education, and providing good mental and physical health services. And then we can make carrying a pregnancy to term a more viable option for those who do get pregnant.

None of which, we must note, the anti-abortion folks seem to be interested in doing.

 

[glassjester]

Justice is relative. We do the best we can given our limitations. I think the law as it stands is the best we can do at the present time. When we can remove unwanted pregnancies from the womb and grow babies in test tubes, then we can make abortions illegal.

This is truly interesting!

I am sincerely curious to know: Why do you consider the highlighted portion of the above text to be preferable to the current legal situation?

In the meantime, we can try and prevent unwanted pregnancies via contraception, education, and providing good mental and physical health services.

This doesn't seem to be working.
See below:

RESULTS: In 2006, the median state unintended pregnancy rate was 51 per 1,000 women aged 15–44. Most rates fell within a range of 40–65 unintended pregnancies per 1,000 women. The highest rate was in Mississippi (69); the lowest rate was in New Hampshire (36). Rates were generally highest in the South and Southwest, and in states with large urban populations. In 29 states and the District of Columbia, more than half of pregnancies were unintended; in nine, a consistent upward trend in unintended pregnancy rates between 2002 and 2006 was apparent; no state had a consistent decline

Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2011, 43(2):78–87, doi: 10.1363/4307811

And...

Results: Nearly half (49%) of pregnancies were unintended in 2006, up slightly from 2001 (48%). The unintended pregnancy rate increased to 52 per 1000 women aged 15-44 years in 2006 from 50 in 2001. Disparities in unintended pregnancy rates among subgroups persisted and in some cases increased, and women who were 18-24 years old, poor or cohabiting had rates two to three times the national rate. The unintended pregnancy rate declined notably for teens 15-17 years old. The proportion of unintended pregnancies ending in abortion decreased from 47% in 2001 to 43% in 2006, and the unintended birth rate increased from 23 to 25 per 1000 women 15-44 years old.

CONCLUSIONS:
Since 2001, the United States has not made progress in reducing unintended pregnancy. Rates increased for nearly all groups and remain high overall. Efforts to help women and couples plan their pregnancies, such as increasing access to effective contraceptives, should focus on groups at greatest risk for unintended pregnancy, particularly poor and cohabiting women.

Contraception. 2011 Nov;84(5):478-85. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2011.07.013. Epub 2011 Aug 24.

This is happening despite increased availability and education regarding contraception.

And then we can make carrying a pregnancy to term a more viable option for those who do get pregnant.

This would be good. I agree.

None of which, we must note, the anti-abortion folks seem to be interested in doing.

No one wants unwanted pregnancies to happen. Not even anti-abortionists.

Pregnancy is a natural consequence of sex. People just won't own up to that fact. And this mentality infects modern attitudes toward everything bodily - not just pregnancy.

People want to eat like pigs, without the natural consequence of obesity.
People want to lie about like sloths, without the natural consequence of poor cardiovascular health.
People want to screw like rabbits, without the natural consequence of pregnancy.

And when these natural consequences inevitably occur, people feel entitled to a quick fix. Meanwhile, in almost all of these cases, they could have easily prevented unwanted consequences by not histrionically clinging to their hedonistic habits.

 

[PureX]

This is truly interesting!

I am sincerely curious to know: Why do you consider the highlighted portion of the above text to be preferable to the current legal situation?

Because it would satisfy more of our concerns.

This doesn't seem to be working. (attempts at minimizing unwanted pregnancies)

This is happening despite increased availability and education regarding contraception.

That's misleading, and basically untrue.

Unwanted pregnancy has dropped dramatically in some places, and increased dramatically in others. And the key factors in dropping those rates are education, health care (including the availability of contraception), and economic opportunity. This has been proven by many studies in many places over the years. Making contraception available without proper education, health care, and life incentives isn't going to do much. Because people have to USE them, not just have them available.

This would be good. I agree.

No one wants unwanted pregnancies to happen. Not even anti-abortionists.

Pregnancy is a natural consequence of sex. People just won't own up to that fact.

And sex is a natural consequence of being human. But the anti-abortion religious zealots just won't own up to THAT fact. So there we are.

And this mentality infects modern attitudes toward everything bodily - not just pregnancy.

I agree. The anti-abortion religious zealots are more interested in seeing women punished for having sex without their permission than they are in actually preventing unwanted pregnancies or helping young pregnant women have and raise the babies.

The very same people who squeal so loudly about the horror of abortion are too often also the people who cry loudest to end all forms of social welfare. Which is why the general population has become less and less interested in their complaints. And rightly so, as they are self-contradicting and hypocritical.

People want to eat like pigs, without the natural consequence of obesity.
People want to lie about like sloths, without the natural consequence of poor cardiovascular health.
People want to screw like rabbits, without the natural consequence of pregnancy.

Yep, that's all true. And it has been true since the dawn of time. We want what we want and we don't want what we don't want. Yet the one often causes the other.

It's time for the religious zealots to grow up and start taking their own religions seriously … especially the part about how we are all sinners, and how we all fall short of perfection, and about how we should love each other, anyway, through our forgiveness, and kindness and generosity.

But this stuff never seems to come up. All that comes up is the finger-pointing, and the name-calling. And desire to see other people suffer.

And when these natural consequences inevitably occur, people feel entitled to a quick fix. Meanwhile, in almost all of these cases, they could have easily prevented unwanted consequences by not histrionically clinging to their hedonistic habits.

That's never going to happen. So you claiming that they could have "easily" prevented their own human failure is absurd. No human, ever, has found a way to do that, except perhaps Jesus himself. And I'd bet even he would admit to a few shortfalls.

 

[glassjester]

That's misleading, and basically untrue.

Unwanted pregnancy has dropped dramatically in some places, and increased dramatically in others.

And overall?

And sex is a natural consequence of being human. But the anti-abortion religious zealots just won't own up to THAT fact. So there we are.

I regularly compare the human appetite for sex to the human appetite for sleep or for food. I completely acknowledge that it is part of our humanity.

I agree. The anti-abortion religious zealots are more interested in seeing women punished for having sex without their permission than they are in actually preventing unwanted pregnancies or helping young pregnant women have and raise the babies.

I can't say I fall into that category.

The very same people who squeal so loudly about the horror of abortion are too often also the people who cry loudest to end all forms of social welfare.

I agree. That is hypocritical.

Have you read much of where the Catholic Church stands on the issues of social justice and welfare?

It's time for the religious zealots to grow up and start taking their own religions seriously … especially the part about how we are all sinners, and how we all fall short of perfection, and about how we should love each other, anyway, through our forgiveness, and kindness and generosity.

Absolutely. These zealots sounds horrible.

So you claiming that they could have "easily" prevented their own human failure is absurd.

I am not saying people can easily put an end to all human failure. I am saying it is a big problem when people feel justified or proud in actively pursuing failure, and intentionally make a habit or lifestyle of these failures.

When a society markets materialism, glorifies gluttony, and puts perversion on a pedestal, we're setting people up for misery.

The problem occurs when people refuse to see failures as failures.

 

[PureX]

I am not saying people can easily put an end to all human failure. I am saying it is a big problem when people feel justified or proud in actively pursuing failure, and intentionally make a habit or lifestyle of these failures.

In the case of unwanted pregnancies, however, that is exceedingly unlikely. Do you really believe women are wantonly having unprotected sex so they can get pregnant and have an abortion? Do you think woman are "proud" of having had an abortion? Because I don't think either of those things is happening at all.

I think some women get pregnant so they can collect welfare and move out of their house. But that doesn't have anything to do with abortion.

When a society markets materialism, glorifies gluttony, and puts perversion on a pedestal, we're setting people up for misery.

It's "we" who are doing these things. "We" ARE society. How many anti-abortion proponents make their living promoting materialism, gluttony, and using sex to sell their products and services? How many of them vote for politicians who preach the mantra "greed is good" and "wealth = value"? How many of them cheat on their spouses or abuse their own children while they denigrate strangers for having sex without their permission and then getting abortions?

We are what we are, and that is far from righteous, or perfect. And that isn't going to change. Telling women not to have sex is NOT going to work. Not even for those who propose it! So why all the hypocrisy? At least the abortion rights people are willing to acknowledge the problem, and are trying to come up with some kind of a reasoned solution.

The problem occurs when people refuse to see failures as failures.

Failure is often in the eye of the beholder, as they beholding someone else.

 

[glassjester]

Do you really believe women are wantonly having unprotected sex

Yes. Men, too.

so they can get pregnant and have an abortion?

No.

Do you think woman are "proud" of having had an abortion?

Definitely not. But people are proud of their promiscuity.

I think some women get pregnant so they can collect welfare and move out of their house. But that doesn't have anything to do with abortion.

Agreed. I don't think that really happens much, anyway.

How many anti-abortion proponents make their living promoting materialism, gluttony, and using sex to sell their products and services?

I don't know. I don't do that. Do you?

How many of them vote for politicians who preach the mantra "greed is good" and "wealth = value"? How many of them cheat on their spouses or abuse their own children while they denigrate strangers for having sex without their permission and then getting abortions?

Yes, all of those things are immoral. My religious beliefs show that I am opposed to all of those things.

I do not think abortion is the only sin in the world. But it is the topic of this thread.

We are what we are, and that is far from righteous, or perfect. And that isn't going to change. Telling women not to have sex is NOT going to work. Not even for those who propose it!

You're right; telling women not to have sex will probably not be very convincing. But when their deliberate actions directly lead to the existence of a new human life, it is horribly unjust to allow them to end that life.

And your appeals to relativism don't negate the fact that the goal of criminal law is justice.

So why all the hypocrisy?

How exactly have I been hypocritical?

 

[glassjester]

Look.

You and I both believe a mother should not be legally allowed to exercise her bodily autonomy in a way that directly leads to the death of her child at age 5 years.

You and I both believe a mother should not be legally allowed to exercise her bodily autonomy in a way that directly leads to the death of her child at age 1 day.

You and I both believe a mother should not be legally allowed to exercise her bodily autonomy in a way that directly leads to the death of her child at 7 months in the womb.

You and I both believe a mother should not be legally allowed to exercise her bodily autonomy in a way that directly leads to the death of her child by some specific time following conception.

All we disagree about is when that time is.

 

[PureX]

Look.

You and I both believe a mother should not be legally allowed to exercise her bodily autonomy in a way that directly leads to the death of her child at age 5 years.

You and I both believe a mother should not be legally allowed to exercise her bodily autonomy in a way that directly leads to the death of her child at age 1 day.

You and I both believe a mother should not be legally allowed to exercise her bodily autonomy in a way that directly leads to the death of her child at 7 months in the womb.

You and I both believe a mother should not be legally allowed to exercise her bodily autonomy in a way that directly leads to the death of her child by some specific time following conception.

All we disagree about is when that time is.

No, we also disagree about who makes the decision. You want to decide for her, if and when she can abort. I do not want to decide for her, and I am only willing to allow society as a whole to decide for her for the sake of it's own well-being.

The real bone of contention here, all along, has been the woman's autonomy, which means she gets to make the decision, not you, and not me. I am not pro-abortion. I am pro-choice. If I were a woman I would choose not to abort. But that's neither here nor there. As I am not a woman, and I am not someone else. So I don't get to choose for them.

 

[Rusha]

No, we also disagree about who makes the decision.

It should be the person who the decision affects the most ... THE UNBORN BABY.

Regardless of whether or not the *mother* acknowledges that she is pregnant with a child, she is still the mother.

Mothers are suppose to protect their children, not dispose of them because they are temporarily inconvenienced.