A Newbie on the Abortion Issue.

Posted: Sat Jun 26, 2010 1:16 am

I was thinking of an analogy to counter these arguments. I shall call it the "Gay Bookie".

Fred goes to his gay bookie George. Fred knows George is gay and is also dying of aids. Fred is straight but really likes George, as a friend and a bookie, and knows that George is attracted to him.

George: "Hey Fred, how's it hangin' today?"

Fred: "Good George, how are you?"

George: "You know, some days are better then others."

Fred: *nods sadly

George: "Say Fred, I have an interesting proposition for you."

Fred: "What's that George?"

George: "See this lotto ticket here?"

Fred: "Yeah, it's dated tomorrow and worth like 100 million if you alone are the winner."

George: "Long odds eh?"

Fred: "Really long George, so?"

George: "Well, you know I'm really attracted to you and would do anything to get you in the sack."

Fred: "George... you know I'm straight and, well, as much as I like you, I just couldn't risk getting aids."

George: "That's where the bet comes in."

Fred: "Go on George..."

George: "Ok Fred, here's the gamble. If this ticket doesn't win the grand prize, I give you 10,000 dollars. However, if it does hit, I get to have sex with you and we split the grand prize."

Fred: "Holy shit George, that's an incredible gamble. It's like 40 million to 1 that I'll get 10k for nothing and just the opposite that I'll have to risk my health having sex with you."

Fred: "Ok George, you know I'm a mad gambler. I'll take the bet".

So here's the question. Assuming the lotto ticket wins (i.e. George is the winner) does Fred have the right to renege on the bet to protect his body?

Posted: Sat Jun 26, 2010 1:31 am

nogods wrote:

Would you agree that if a woman uses contraception, but through no fault of her own the contraception fails, that she would still find her self in the same moral position as the woman kidnapped and attached to the machine against her will?

mockinGods wrote:

Not necessarily. People that use contraceptive measures are usually aware of their fallibility. That said, even if contraception is used, there is still a chance of pregnancy. If the person knows this, then the culpability hasn't changed, in my opinion.

nogods wrote:

Let us say that the woman as a friend in the same hospital were the dying unconscious violinist is being cared for. Let us also say she has been warned that there is a danger - though small - that a fanatical musical appreciation group might use her visit to overpower the hospital staff and attach her to medical equipment against her will in order to save the violinists life. If the woman still decides to visit her friend, and despite taking precautions, is forcibly attached by the music appreciation group to the medical equipment, would you say that she must now agree to remain attached for nine months to save the violinists life. After all she knew of the risk and did not have to visit the hospital.

mockinGods wrote:

This analogy, while good, doesn't address my point that consensual sex isn't forced. In both the original argument and this argument, there is force used against the person's will, force that directly leads the "attachment". In the case of pregnancy, the act that leads to the "attachment" of the fetus is not, in most cases, forced.

nogods wrote:

Would you agree that an accidental pregnency, like a pregnency caused by rape, does not obligate the woman to allow the embryo/fetus/'person' to use her body for nine months - and that an abortion to terminate such a pregnency cannot be said to be morally objectionable?

mockinGods wrote:

Think of this way, there is no guarantee that sex will yield a pregnancy, just as there is no guarantee violinist contraception will prevent it. The act has a chance to produce a pregnancy in either case, albeit to a lesser degree using contraception. The act alone should be seen as the culpable factor. In my opinion, unless you believe people c'an have "accidental sex" can there be such a thing as "accidental pregnancy", as long as the people involved are aware that sex is what causes pregnancy.

Hi MockinGods,
I remember from other threads over the years that you are not anti-abortion, so understand it is the argument you are challenging, not abortion

I disagree with your standard. You seem to be arguing that if a woman has sex then she has to accept the possibility of pregnency. Of course we all know the possibility is there, that is why the woman is using contraceptives. But to say that if a woman becomes accidentally pregnent she has therefore agreed to the pregnency strikes me as wrong.

You argue that 'accidental' pregnency is itself an oxymoron. That to me is like saying that crossing a very busy road could lead to you being hit by a car, despite all one's percautions, and since you know this is a possibility you should not coss the road, but if you do and are hit by a car, you cannot refer to the incident as an accident.

I am not sure that the fact the woman in the violinist analogy is attached to the machine without her consent is relevent to the argument. The important thing is that the woman does not consent to the proceedings.

Let us say that we live in a magical world, and that the mere presence of the woman in the same hospital ward is itself enough to save the violinists life, so long as she remains in the ward for nine months. She has not been forced by anyone - remember she is visiting a friend who happens to be in the same ward - would she still be morally bound to remain in the hospital ward?

I do not believe the woman is under a moral obligation to remain in the hospital ward for nine months, just as if the woman finds herself pregnent though a failure of contraceptive measures is obligated to carry the embryo/fetus 'person' to full term.

I still find the view that a woman who has sex, and takes precautions agianst becoming pregnent as therefore made herself morally obligatted to give birth simply becasuse the condom splits. That would mean a woman cannot enjoy sex for sex sake, she must always be obligated to the possibility of having a child each time she consents to sexual activity.

Is this not sexist? Men can enjoy all the sex they want without having to worry about becoming pregnent and then being morally obligated to carry the child to term - but a woman does not have the same freedom.

Posted: Sat Jun 26, 2010 2:00 am

MockingGods wrote:

I was thinking of an analogy to counter these arguments. I shall call it the "Gay Bookie".

Fred goes to his gay bookie George. Fred knows George is gay and is also dying of aids. Fred is straight but really likes George, as a friend and a bookie, and knows that George is attracted to him.

George: "Hey Fred, how's it hangin' today?"

Fred: "Good George, how are you?"

George: "You know, some days are better then others."

Fred: *nods sadly

George: "Say Fred, I have an interesting proposition for you."

Fred: "What's that George?"

George: "See this lotto ticket here?"

Fred: "Yeah, it's dated tomorrow and worth like 100 million if you alone are the winner."

George: "Long odds eh?"

Fred: "Really long George, so?"

George: "Well, you know I'm really attracted to you and would do anything to get you in the sack."

Fred: "George... you know I'm straight and, well, as much as I like you, I just couldn't risk getting aids."

George: "That's where the bet comes in."

Fred: "Go on George..."

George: "Ok Fred, here's the gamble. If this ticket doesn't win the grand prize, I give you 10,000 dollars. However, if it does hit, I get to have sex with you and we split the grand prize."

Fred: "Holy shit George, that's an incredible gamble. It's like 40 million to 1 that I'll get 10k for nothing and just the opposite that I'll have to risk my health having sex with you."

Fred: "Ok George, you know I'm a mad gambler. I'll take the bet".

So here's the question. Assuming the lotto ticket wins (i.e. George is the winner) does Fred have the right to renege on the bet to protect his body?

Hi MockingGods,

Not sure the analogy applies.

A woman having sex surely does not have to see it as a gamble that she must be willing to have a child - no matter the odds, even if having a child is the last thing she desires.

Fred is not morally obligated to keep his word as a result of a reckless bet, just as George is not morally obligated to part with his money as a result of such a reckless bet.

I find the analogy faulty. Having sex with someone who is HIV positive, or with Aids, does not mean one will become HIV+, so long as one has safe sex. Agreed, there is the possibility that the condom will split, but there is always the risk of having unsafe sex with a complete stranger could lead to one becoming HIV+. If Fred has unsafe sex with a woman, the odds may be higher that the woman could possibly be (knowingly or not) an HIV carrier. Knowing how rare it is for a condom to split I wonder which odds are greater, unsafe sex with a stranger, or safe sex with someone who is HIV+? Unrtil I settled in to my present relationship, now 17 years strong, I had a boyfriend who was HIV+ - we had a good sex life - I remain HIV-.

Posted: Sat Jun 26, 2010 6:52 am

nogods wrote:

Fred is not morally obligated to keep his word as a result of a reckless bet,

Fred's bet isn't reckless, in fact, it's very sound. Still, there's a small chance, if he's an honoralbe man, he will keep his end of the bargain.

Quote:

just as George is not morally obligated to part with his money as a result of such a reckless bet.

George is dying, his bet signifies a last chance at pleasure with someone he basically has no chance at pleasure with. I'm sure George would be compassionate and take every precaution as not to harm Fred, and if George looses, his loss (giving Fred the 10k) might actually bring him some happiness. Perhaps I'm reading to much into my tale. Wink

The use of HIV in my example was merely placed there to put Fred's body at risk. If he honored the bet, he would have to give up some personal autonomy temporarily and do something against his will, just as the pregnant woman who doesn't wish to carry a fetus to term does. Fred would also be taking a chance with his health, just as any pregnant woman does. Fred is aware of what his gamble will lead to if he honors it, and the risks involved, just as any consenting adult should be aware when engaging in unforced, heterosexual sex.

Quote:

Having sex with someone who is HIV positive, or with Aids, does not mean one will become HIV+, so long as one has safe sex.

Just as engaging in heterosexual sex doesn't guarantee a pregnancy, which I think is the crux of my little tale. Anyone willfully engaging in heterosexual sex, who understands the risk of pregnancy, no matter how small, should be willing to accept the consequences. This is why my argument for abortion always revolves around the self-awareness of the fetus. Again, the violinist analogy fails to acknowledge the consensual component of most pregnancy. The women in the argument is forced against her will from the top down, which I believe makes the argument only valid in cases of rape or when the person(s) is unaware of the reproductive consequences of heterosexual sex.

Let's back off a second here and think about something else. Would you be willing to have a fetus aborted if it could be absolutely proven to be a self-aware individual also having the ability to understand the consequences of its life or death (at any stage of development)? If this could be proven, abortion then, in my honest opinion would have to be considered murder. If something like this could be proven, it would become seriously unlikely I could maintain my pro-abortion stance, even in cases of rape or ignorance.

Quote:

You seem to be arguing that if a woman has sex then she has to accept the possibility of pregnency. Of course we all know the possibility is there, that is why the woman is using contraceptives.

It seems we both agree she must be willing to accept the possible consequences, that being pregnancy. The possibility remains even if precautions are taken, and I'd assume most women who use contraceptives are aware of this.

Quote:

But to say that if a woman becomes accidentally pregnent she has therefore agreed to the pregnency strikes me as wrong.

This seems to be our most obvious sticking point. I'm going to rephrase your argument here just slightly to see if it can bring some clarity to our discussion.
"But to say that if a woman becomes unintentionally pregnant she has therefore agreed to the pregnancy strikes me as wrong."

It's obvious the women's intent was not to become pregnant and therefore it's also obvious the pregnancy would be unwanted. The women's intent was to have sex, while minimizing the consequences to the best of her/their ability. However, if the woman understands the consequential chance, no matter how small, she/they must should be willing to accept responsibility for the outcome. Under my current abortion ideology, the consequence would be to abort the unaware, human fetus. But your example is unlike the "violinist" analogy on two levels.

1) The women is completely forced into the situation.
2) The person she is supporting is NOT the product of an understood risk.

As I think about this, #2 may be an even stronger argument.

Posted: Sat Jun 26, 2010 7:16 am

nogods wrote:

Let us say that we live in a magical world, and that the mere presence of the woman in the same hospital ward is itself enough to save the violinists life, so long as she remains in the ward for nine months. She has not been forced by anyone - remember she is visiting a friend who happens to be in the same ward - would she still be morally bound to remain in the hospital ward?

I'm not sure, would you feel "good" about leaving someone to die, if a mere 9 month sacrifice of your time could save them? I'm not sure I could feel good about leaving and I'm not sure I'd feel good about another person leaving, in the same situation. I might understand and accept why they'd leave, but not sure if it would strike me as moral/good thing to do. Would I find for punitive measures if they did leave... no. So... legally bound no, morally bound, perhaps yes.

This is why I shy from the moral implications of this issue. It gets much more murky in my opinion.

Posted: Sun Jun 27, 2010 6:43 am

MockingGods wrote:

nogods wrote:

Let us say that we live in a magical world, and that the mere presence of the woman in the same hospital ward is itself enough to save the violinists life, so long as she remains in the ward for nine months. She has not been forced by anyone - remember she is visiting a friend who happens to be in the same ward - would she still be morally bound to remain in the hospital ward?

I'm not sure, would you feel "good" about leaving someone to die, if a mere 9 month sacrifice of your time could save them? I'm not sure I could feel good about leaving and I'm not sure I'd feel good about another person leaving, in the same situation. I might understand and accept why they'd leave, but not sure if it would strike me as moral/good thing to do. Would I find for punitive measures if they did leave... no. So... legally bound no, morally bound, perhaps yes.

This is why I shy from the moral implications of this issue. It gets much more murky in my opinion.

I do not share your view that it is some how immoral to be unwllling to give up nine months of one life. I do not believe one has a moral obligation to agree to such a proposition. If we were talking about 9 hours, I would agree; 9 days I would be inclined to agree; nine weeks and I would disagree and a 'mere' nine months I would strongly disagree.

Do you still think an accidental pregnency is an oxymoron. I realise oxymoron is my wording but that seems to be what your post implied.

Posted: Sun Jun 27, 2010 3:19 pm

MockingGods wrote:

nogods wrote:

Let us say that we live in a magical world, and that the mere presence of the woman in the same hospital ward is itself enough to save the violinists life, so long as she remains in the ward for nine months. She has not been forced by anyone - remember she is visiting a friend who happens to be in the same ward - would she still be morally bound to remain in the hospital ward?

I'm not sure, would you feel "good" about leaving someone to die, if a mere 9 month sacrifice of your time could save them? I'm not sure I could feel good about leaving and I'm not sure I'd feel good about another person leaving, in the same situation. I might understand and accept why they'd leave, but not sure if it would strike me as moral/good thing to do. Would I find for punitive measures if they did leave... no. So... legally bound no, morally bound, perhaps yes.

This is why I shy from the moral implications of this issue. It gets much more murky in my opinion.

A follow up to my last postA comment about the morally good. It would be a great kindness to offer to share one's body for nine months to save a person's life, however, it would not be a moral obligation. If it was a moral obligation then by definition it would not be a great kindess.

We are not obliged to do acts of great kindess and it is not a moral 'evil' to refain from them.

nogods

Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2010 3:51 am

nogods wrote:

Do you still think an accidental pregnency is an oxymoron. I realise oxymoron is my wording but that seems to be what your post implied.

As I said before, pregnancy can be unintentional, but any time you have intentional, heterosexual sex (unless one of the persons involved is sterile) the resulting fetus shouldn't been seen as an accident. At best, it should be seen as a probability, with the risk being dependant on various factors. The probability can be increased or decreased, but generally is never 100 percent sure(for or against) in any scenario. So while the phrase "accidental pregnancy" is common, I do view it as somewhat oxymoronic.

On this same line of thought. What if the persons involved were intentionally trying to have a pregnancy. Then after the women became pregnant, changed her mind. Does that change anything in your opinion? Say the male partner still wanted the child. Would she be more obligated to carry it?

Quote:

A follow up to my last postA comment about the morally good. It would be a great kindness to offer to share one's body for nine months to save a person's life, however, it would not be a moral obligation. If it was a moral obligation then by definition it would not be a great kindess.

We are not obliged to do acts of great kindess and it is not a moral 'evil' to refain from them.

What to you would constitute a "moral obligation"? If they offered to compensate you for your time (reciprocal) would you be more willing to save the persons life? I'm not sure we're technically obligated to do anything because of morals. Would it be the right thing to do, the good thing to do... yes, but I doubt anyone would think they are obligated to do it. What if this person held knowledge that could save millions of other people, but the only way to get to that knowledge was to keep them alive for the period of time? Would this make you feel more "obligated"? BTW, I wouldn't consider refraining 'evil'... selfish perhaps.

I think to further clarify my position on the "violinist argument", I'll rework the argument so you can more clearly see my POV and why it doesn't mirror the typical pregnancy well.

Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2010 4:37 am

nogods wrote:

Imagine a woman is kidnapped and wakes up to find her self in a hospital bed, attached by medical equipment to an unconcious person next to her. It is explained to her that the person is a great violinist who is dying. Is life can only be saved if the correct doner can be found. Her kidnappers (a musical society) explain that she is the only person who is a suitable donar, and that for the violinist to survive she must remain attached to the medical equipment for nine months. At the end of the nine months the violinist will have recovered consciousness and will be able to survive and eventually completely recover without the help of the medical equipment or the use of her body. At that point she will be removed from the equipment, and can resume her life with no ill effects upon her own lhealth whatsoever.

The original argument lacks several key compenants to mirror a typical human pregnancy.

Firstly, it lacks the causal relationship between the mother's action and the resulting fetus.

Secondly, it lacks any culpabilty to the resulting fetus. We certainly can't hold the fetus responsible for its position.

Thirdly, in the violinist argument, the woman is force into her position by an external intelligence. In a typical pregnancy a woman is forced into her position by unintelligent biology.

So my rough rework will go something like the following. We don't need to use a woman for this, or even for the original, so it will be just a generic "person".

I wrote:

A person is driving down the road. A horrible song comes on the radio causing the person to be abruptly distracted and change the station. During this brief period of time, the person doesn't see a hazard approaching, which punctures a tire causing them to swerve into oncoming traffic. The person smashes into the driver side door of an oncoming car, gravely injuring the occupant, but remains mostly uninjured themselves. Upon reaching the hospital, the person is told the only way to save the other driver is to have someone hooked up to them bodily for a period of nine months and by some freak set of circumstance they are but one of just a very few who are capable of doing this. The doctor gives them the option of agreeing to the procedure but warms them that if they refused it's extremely unlikely the other driver will survive.

My example and the original do not address one key component, that being the life in question is, or at least was, most certainly self-aware and could understand its impending death.

My example does address the necessary causal relationship between the mother and fetus. While there was no intent to harm, a direct intentional action was taken by the person which caused the situation. It also addresses culpability, in that while not again intentional, the person was at least responsible for the situation, and like the fetus, the other driver should be held innocent.

Just Arrived Joined: Jul 04, 2011 Posts: 1

A female's right to choose in KS may shortly be blown away like dust in the wind. The Associated Press states that the State Rules and Regulations Board all approved abortion limitations that will bring Kansas that much nearer to becoming the first state in the nation without even one abortion provider. By this Friday, the KS Department of Health and Environment can start enforcement. Here is the proof: New Kansas abortion rules will usurp the right to choose .

Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2011 8:15 pm

Welcome LawrenceB Very Happy

LawrenceB wrote:

A female's right to choose in KS may shortly be blown away like dust in the wind. The Associated Press states that the State Rules and Regulations Board all approved abortion limitations that will bring Kansas that much nearer to becoming the first state in the nation without even one abortion provider. By this Friday, the KS Department of Health and Environment can start enforcement. Here is the proof: New Kansas abortion rules will usurp the right to choose .

Yes, I've been seeing this in the news of late. It seems very unlikely it will stand.

BTW, I'm not pro-choice... I'm pro-abortion Shocked

I dislike the wishy washy term "pro-choice".

Just Arrived Joined: Jan 07, 2012 Posts: 1

The poll doesn't present valid choices. I'm pro-choice and pro-life. I'm against killing anyone who was actually born. I'm against teen rape victims dying in back alley abortions, or at the hands of their "honor killing" relatives. I'm not against a woman's right to control her own body even if that means she elects to have an abortion. I'm against a woman being forced to have an abortion. Everyone should have complete control over their own body.


Login/Register New account	Home · FAQ · News · Shows · Videos · Forums · Arcade · Listen & Chat · Book Store · Contact Us · Go Mobile