 |
published by |  |
Abortions
Abortions are a tough subject, even though I'm male, we have our own cross to bear on the subject.
First, in principle:
Abortion is an unpleasant factor in our society however, I feel they're necessary, for the following reasons:
- Some mothers don't feel the child's quality of life will be good enough, this could be for social reasons or perhaps the baby will have a debilitating disease
- Some will go for backstreet abortions which are dangerous
- Sometimes the mother's life is at risk during pregnancy
- Victims of rape or incest
I don't believe that removing a few cells that WOULD develop into a foetus is murder. There are many things in the world that could potentially be something significant, but whilst its a few cells, it really isn't aware of anything, doesn't feel pain. Until a brain is developed and the foetus becomes aware of its own existence, I think abortions are OK. I don't know how many weeks in that is, but I'm sure someone out there does know.
For men, its tough, in the UK at least, women have all the rights regarding abortions.
If I found that someone I'd slept with was pregnant, I feel that right now, I am in a position to take care and raise the child - even if the mother doesn't want it.
So even if I can take the child myself and raise it, if the mother wants to have an abortion, there's nothing that could be done legally to stop her. I don't think thats particularly fair. When you have sex, you're entering into a 'contract' of sorts that if there are consequences, you should deal with them together, women are able to just leave and do whatever they want. It'd be so easy just to have the baby and then the father who wants to care for it could just take it and she'd never have to think of it again if she wanted.
I don't feel the choice of one parent should decide the fate of a foetus that has been created by BOTH parents. I'd be interested to see what women think to this one.
| |
Posts: 2
First, what is murder? Murder is the killing of an innocent human being. (If you so choose, you can leave out the innocent part, it wont hurt my argument.) So in order for something to be murdered, it must be
1. A human
2. Alive (you cannot kill something that is not alive)
3. innocent (self-defense argument)
Well, I am sure most everyone will agree that a fetus is the definition of innocent. Well is a fetus alive? From a scientific standpoint, yes it is. Some may take issue with this, but can you really? Bacteria are considered alive, viri are considered alive. These are very simple organisms. Compare a bacterium with a fetus. A bacterium possesses a collection of amino-acids and chemicals which form walls and organelles (in the case of prokaryotes). Fetus cells also have these characteristics. Bacteria break down sugars and produce ATP. This ATP is then used to power the cells machinery. So do Fetus cells. Finally Bacteria replicate themselves genetically through mitosis and fission. So do fetuses, in addition to which they can eventually reproduce via meiosis.
What about it being human? Well, from a scientific standpoint, it possesses all the DNA of a human. Each cell has characteristics that make them uniquely human. So it can be said, indeed must be said that is possesses all the traits of being human. So a fetus is innocent, human and alive. Therefore killing it would be, by definition, murder.
Some may argue that the fetus is 'not complete enough' to be a human/ considered alive. Well I ask what is complete enough? Perhaps you think it must be intelligent like a human, a thinking biped. If it must be intelligent then apparently people with a severe case of down syndrome are cut out of the mix. So also are people with low IQs, neural degradative diseases (like schizophrenia) and head trauma. Would I be correct then in assuming that I can kill someone with down syndrome with no consequences? You must think I am a monster, but would I be really if you follow this line of reasoning?
What if we define it as looking human. This would irritate anyone who wished to abort a child past two to three weeks where the head and eyes already begin to differentiate but what about earlier than that? What is human like? If someone was born with nine fingers can I kill them? Can I kill someone with scoliosis? How about conjoined twins? No? What does it mean to not look human then?
These arguments are all examples of poor reasoning. On the bright side these all employ some reasoning whereas the rape argument does not. Suppose a woman was brutally raped and beaten into a coma? When she wakes up from this coma two years later she finds out she carried the rapists baby to term and that the baby was now over a year old. Would it be all right for her to kill that child? No of course not. "But she could give it away for adoption!" You say. True, and so can the pregnant mother soon to be. It is after all the same thing.
What about this idea that the baby cannot yet live on its own? So then I can kill a one year old child once again. Outside the mothers womb? What difference does that make? What percentage do you use for deducing the viability of such a fetus? Would this percentage not also then apply to a child in a coma whose parents are seeking to take their kid off life support?
"But it is the woman's right to choose!" What about the offspring's? Are you telling me that the mere fact that a woman wants to kill her child gives her the right to do so? You wonder why we look at you with such disgust for your position on 'something as important as the right to choose'. It is because we see all these correlations and similarities. Do not say you don't either. These are not difficult to deduce. Leibniz's law is common sense.
Posts: 2
What you seem to be saying that men should have power to veto abortions for their sexual partners.
I assume that as part of this joint facing of responsibilities a man would have to pay child support for any baby he fathers? This could theoretically lead to a situation where a man decides that a child is too expensive. In this situation could he force a woman to abort?
Posts: 116
Does the father, or the state, also have the right to prevent her from drinking, smoking, or taking risks? If so what consequences would you place on her for doing this? If not, what about the effect this would have upon the child which she does not want to have?
I'm just not so sure that a contract is a particularly good metaphor in this case. It carries uncomfortable associations and ideas, such as that two people who have sex are then able to make claims upon one another with moral justification.
Post Edited: 25th Mar 2009 (8:43am)
Posts: 119
Why do you find the idea of a contract worrying? I used it as a metaphor only. In reality all I'm saying is that everyone has to face the consequences of their actions. Sex is just one that involves more than 1 person facing consequences of their actions together.
Posts: 116
As to sex being entering a contract, that's an idea I find somewhat worrying to say the least.
However in principle I can see your point, I just do not believe there is a simple resolution to this issue.