Wednesday, April 29, 2009

One comment on President Obama's press conference: This argument that you often hear that a person is pro-choice because the woman of all people can be best trusted to make a wise decision is just silly. The majority of abortions are to women and girls 25 and younger. In a typical situation, she's single, she accidentally gets pregnant and she's not in an ideal situation to have a baby. She's scared, she's in a pickle, and faces 18 years of motherhood or a quick trip to the clinic. Most of all she is very young, and very young means stupid, impulsive, and short-sighted. She probably knows next to nothing about what's inside her. She is just about the last person to make an objective, prudent decision.

22 comments:

Jewish Atheist said...

I don't think it's that the woman is more wise or trustworthy, but that it's her body, so ultimately it's her call. This strikes me as obvious and incontrovertible.

Unless you're an "abortion is murrrderrr!!" fanatic, I don't see how you can oppose letting women make the decision for themselves.

Anonymous said...

Plus since she is young and stuppid, it is highly likely that she has hooked up with the stupidest, thuggiest guy that she could find. The last thing we need is more of that guys gene's in the human gene pool. Far better to wait until she is older (and hopefully wiser) to have kids with a guy who is a little more promising.

Anonymous said...

Jewish Athiest, so what if it's her body? The child is 50% someone else's, too. Shouldn't he get a say? The courts certainly think that he's 50% responsible when it comes to paying child support.

Then there's the baby itself. Despite the stupid-sounding voice you used to write "abortion is murder" (very mature, by the way. That's a great debate tactic) it is murder. Just because it's still attached to the woman doesn't make it any less so.

Jokah Macpherson said...

The cops were never swayed by my obvious and incontrovertible right to place alcohol in my body during my late teenage years. Darn paternalistic state.

Jewish Atheist said...

Anonymous:

If you ARE an "abortion is murder" fanatic, nothing I can say will change your mind. If abortion is murder, you are absolutely right to oppose it. If abortion is murder, women who have them and the doctors who provide them should be locked up for 25 years. If abortion is murder, killing abortion doctors is moral.

That's why I mock the "abortion is murrrderrr" slogan -- because those who use it don't seem to genuinely believe it, or they would follow through as I described above. But who genuinely believes women should go to jail for having an abortion? Almost nobody? And how genuinely believes it's moral to kill an abortion doctor? (Please don't do this.) Even most pro-lifers claim that don't agree with that. But why not? You'd kill a man who was murdering thousands of actual children, wouldn't you?

In conclusion, I find the "abortion is murder" argument to be a piece of rhetoric meant to make the pro-lifer feel morally superior to the evil pro-choicer. A young fetus is not a person, it's a young fetus. All the rhetorical sleight-of-hand in the world won't change that.

Anonymous said...

Well stated JA, but the guy should still have some rights.

Anonymous said...

Even if a fetus was a person, what other person is given the right to use another living person's organ's, blood, and other body parts without their express consent? Under the law, you can't even force a parent to make a blood donation to their child, even if the child was dying. So why should a fetus have more rights than an actual person? Otherwise women become slaves to fetuses, and have no right to decide how their body should be used.

Anonymous said...

My strong feeling about abortion is actually a tangent - that "every embryo is a human being with full moral rights and thus should have full legal rights" leaves us as a society vulnerable to cloning fiascoes and even terrorism. Wouldn't it be nasty if someone cloned an egg a hundred thousand times, fertilized ten percent of them, and then left them on your doorstep, or the doorstep of an institution you were required to support with taxes. Any state could be impoverished overnight if we kept that moral system - just as soon as cloning technology improves a little.

Scrutineer said...

Anon 11:17 - Even if a fetus was a person, what other person is given the right to use another living person's organ's, blood, and other body parts without their express consent?If you woke up and found yourself chained to another person, you couldn't legally kill him to free yourself, especially if you're the one responsible for the situation.

The "violinist" argument is weak.

Jason said...

"Most of all she is very young, and very young means stupid, impulsive, and short-sighted. She probably knows next to nothing about what's inside her. She is just about the last person to make an objective, prudent decision."

Sounds like a good reason for her to abort. I mean, can you imagine a person like that with the responsibility of a helpless infant? I can. 'Cause I've seen it. If you think the pictures of aborted fetuses are ugly, try ulcers from unchanged diapers.

Truth(er) said...

Yes, abortion is murder.

A fetus is a stage in the life of a human being. Eliminate the person at that particular stage of life and you eliminate the person.

Today, I am an adult. Before I was a young adult. Before, I was a teen-ager. Before, I was a child. Before, I was a toddler. Before, I was a baby. Before, I was a fetus.

The real question is, is whether murder is useful. Since the vast majority of abortions are committed by liberals, I suggest that murder is useful.

Jewish Atheist said...

Before, I was a fetus.Before, you were a sperm and egg. Is contraception murder?

Anonymous said...

If you woke up and found yourself chained to another person, you couldn't legally kill him to free yourself, especially if you're the one responsible for the situation.If you woke up next to someone that was using your organs for themselves, to keep themselves alive, you most certainly could disconnect yourself from them, even if that disconnection killed them. Any other way would be slavery.

As far as responsibility goes, considering the arduous, and occasionally mortality-producing process known as pregnancy, you would have to rely on something a bit more than implied consent to have someone else use your body against your will. More like explicit consent.

Scrutineer said...

If you woke up next to someone that was using your organs for themselves, to keep themselves alive, you most certainly could disconnect yourself from them, even if that disconnection killed them.
If you connected yourself to the other person, you aren't in a strong position to complain about it after the fact.

As far as responsibility goes, considering the arduous, and occasionally mortality-producing process known as pregnancy, you would have to rely on something a bit more than implied consent to have someone else use your body against your will. More like explicit consent.
Who said anything about implied consent? If you voluntarily caused another person to become attached to and dependent on you, then you're responsible for the situation.

Scrutineer said...

why is blogger killing paragraph breaks after closing < /i > tags?

Anonymous said...

Who said anything about implied consent? If you voluntarily caused another person to become attached to and dependent on you, then you're responsible for the situation.Hmm so if I was giving blood directly to another person, but changed my mind halfway through the procedure, I wouldn't be allowed to break it off? I think I would be, even if breaking it off meant that I would kill the other person.

But the your notion of voluntary needs some work. I would venture toguess that most people don't have sex with the intention of getting pregnant. It is a known possible consequence, but not a welcome one for most people. Like if you drive, it is known that you may get into an accident, even if you try to prevent it, and take all possible precaution. But I don't think engaging in sex is the same as volunteering to have another person use your organs, or possibly kill you in a few months time.

Scrutineer said...

Hmm so if I was giving blood directly to another person, but changed my mind halfway through the procedure, I wouldn't be allowed to break it off? I think I would be, even if breaking it off meant that I would kill the other person.

If you caused the other person to become dependent on the transfusion, then you'd be liable for their death if you ended the procedure.

But the your notion of voluntary needs some work. I would venture toguess that most people don't have sex with the intention of getting pregnant. It is a known possible consequence, but not a welcome one for most people. Like if you drive, it is known that you may get into an accident, even if you try to prevent it, and take all possible precaution. But I don't think engaging in sex is the same as volunteering to have another person use your organs, or possibly kill you in a few months time.

I will guess that you don't think having sex is the same as implicitly volunteering to carry a potential fetus to term because you don't think conception instantly produces a "person."

But that's beside the point. Pretend that zygote does = "person." If you know that having sex entails some significant risk that a "person" will appear inside you and be utterly dependent on you to remain alive, what responsibility would you have to this "person" if you voluntarily take the risk?

Anonymous said...

Let's see if it works, even if it wasn't about sex. If I knew that if I slept outside, that there was a likelyhood that a person would attach themselves to me as I slept, would I, by choosing to sleep outside, lose all rights to detach myself from that person when I woke up? I would argue that the person gains no rights to use my body, even if I engaged in an activity that I had knowledge would possibly risk a person becoming attached to me. You simply can't make a person risk their body and life for the service of another person. To do so makes a that person a slave.

Scrutineer said...

Let's see if it works, even if it wasn't about sex. If I knew that if I slept outside, that there was a likelyhood that a person would attach themselves to me as I slept, would I, by choosing to sleep outside, lose all rights to detach myself from that person when I woke up? I would argue that the person gains no rights to use my body, even if I engaged in an activity that I had knowledge would possibly risk a person becoming attached to me.

You want to phrase it so that the parent is passive: "a person would attach themselves to me". I phrase it differently: "you attach yourself to another person." Which is more accurate, or at least better conveys the relative responsibility of the parties?

If you could attach yourself to another person and make them as physically dependent on you as a fetus is on its mother, what responsibility would you have to the dependent person? None at all? If you attached yourself, and then immediately caused the other person to die by detaching them, do you think for a moment that you could not at the very least be held liable in a "wrongful death" suit?

You simply can't make a person risk their body and life for the service of another person. To do so makes a that person a slave.

US maternal mortality stats are 13 deaths per 100,000 or about 1 in 7k. Can (do?) we compel a parent to take a 1-in-7k chance of death to save his post-fetal child's life? I'm guessing that we already do this.

The "slave" rhetoric seems weak, too. Can the state require that a parent pay child support? Can it jail a parent for failure to pay? Poor slaves ...

Anonymous said...

Is it just the "attachment" process that makes a woman responsible for the fetus. I rather doubt most women are willfully attaching themselves to fetuses, especially as the attachment process is not detectable and quite invisible in most cases. Once it does become dectable, then I think that a person has a right to detach themselves from another person, and prevent them from using their blood, organs, and rest of their body if they so choose.

Anonymous said...

While the "when men can be pregnant" feminist fantasy is tiresome, nevertheless, I do think that someday it may be possible. So, if the pregnancy is from rape, and the rapist were caught, an artificial womb could be installed in the rapist, and he could grow huge with "his" baby, and birth (an artificial birth canal would be built as well) the rapist-baby-thing. He can raise it too, or get it adopted, and then have it grow up and track down his sorry ass. He will be haunted by his crime for all his life and not the victim.
Of all the things that can be done to a person, forcing a woman, much less a young girl, to carry an unwanted fetus is one of the worst.
btw, a disproportionate number of "rapists babies" grow up to be rapists.
Abortion has been practiced in all societies, everywhere, even when 100% of the people say it's wrong. Women ultimately do what they think they must, even when it risks their lives.

Anonymous said...

"child is 50% someone else's"

Wrong. No, it is not. The *fetus,* not child at that point, but specifically *fetus,* is NOT 50% someone else's. It is 99 percent the woman's. The man does not have to do anything whatsoever to support and grow the fetus.

The woman houses it, it is a part of HER body, therefore the fetus is hers to do with it what she pleases.