Firstly, I accept that you have a different viewpoint on this and am totally cool with that. It's quite likely that we're going to hit an 'agree-to-disagree' point fairly shortly but we might as well enjoy the debate while it lasts. =3
Secondly: "Does the same logic extend to infertile and post-menopause women?"
In a specific case, yes. In general, I feel that women's opinions carry more weight purely because they can empathize - a post-menopausal woman may have had children, an infertile woman may have had a pregnancy scare.
I exclude men from the metaphorical vote for two main reasons, the first being that pregnancy is never something they will have to face no matter how long the odds. This means that they will approach this decision from a purely academic standpoint which leads to them oversimplifying (understandably so) the issue and that helps foster the idea that abortion is a black-and-white issue which polarizes the debate in a manner I consider profoundly unhealthy.
Secondly, men - even if they devote the cultural average of time, money and resources to fatherhood - can walk away from their children in a way mothers can't. If a prospective mother cannot abort, the fetus will stay in her body for nine months to huge physical and psychological impact. Men are not asked by our culture to subordinate their lives to a child which means they are not a good judge of the impact a child will have on a woman.
Second point, I see anything that prevents the fetus becoming a baby as birth control but I am willing to agree to disagree on this.
I honestly believe that men are capable of approaching it in an emotional manner, many men are so closely linked with lovers or female friends or relations that they can practically feel what they feel.
I also think that many women are capable of making their decision from a purely academic point of view, whether that is because they've always known they'd be infertile, they are celibate or they simply believe themselves to be incapable of getting pregnant for whatever reason.
I just think 'women get a say, men don't' is far, far too black and white. And that's before even mentioning transgender individuals.
prevents the fetus becoming a baby Can I ask when you think this happens? Is it when the child is born or when they could survive if they were born?
Well, yes. The above post does tend to paint things black and white. It was more a way to vent than an attempt to describe the nuances of my personal beliefs.
And I think men should be involved in the debate but the problem I find with debating abortions with men is that they want to view abortion as it reflects on them as an method of reproductive control.
This is (obviously) not true of all men but the majority of men who have defended abortion to me couch in those terms and I frankly resent it. A lot.
But I do feel that this highlights my main problem with the abortion 'debate' as it stands. Abortion can never be a purely black and white issue and so much depends on the individual case that I think most legislation involving it would be flawed from the outset.
Regarding the point at which fetus becomes baby, my personal belief is that from the time the baby could survive outside the womb, they're a person with all the inherent and implied rights that entails.
Regarding the point at which fetus becomes baby, my personal belief is that from the time the baby could survive outside the womb, they're a person with all the inherent and implied rights that entails. But then it seems to me that you face one or the other of the following: 1) A fetus becomes a baby earlier now than it used to. In that case, why does a fetus gain the right to life earlier simply because of medical technology? 2) There are fetuses (how do you pluralise that?) out there completely free of their mothers, living because of machines.
1) The right to life applies from the time you have a life to have a right to. Fetuses (Fetusi? I have no idea) develop working cardiovascular systems, etc at a fairly fixed rate. I think it's roughly 22 weeks they can survive outside the womb. That would be my personal cut-off point.
2) I'm going to need to ask for a little more context here, to be sure of what you're asking. I'm assuming you mean fetuses/fetusi (this is getting annoying) for use in IVF treatment?
1) The right to life applies from the time you have a life to have a right to. Fetuses (Fetusi? I have no idea) develop working cardiovascular systems, etc at a fairly fixed rate. I think it's roughly 22 weeks they can survive outside the womb. That would be my personal cut-off point. Do you mean survive outside the womb with or without medical help? Because there's a huge gap between the point at which a child will survive without medical help and the point at which they will survive with it and it's getting wider all the time.
2) I'm going to need to ask for a little more context here, to be sure of what you're asking. I'm assuming you mean fetuses/fetusi (this is getting annoying) for use in IVF treatment? No. Sorry for not being clear. What I mean by this is that if you say that the point at which a fetus gains the right to life is the point at which it could survive without medical technology then all the babies born pre-mature that survive only because of medical technology are not actually babies but rather fetuses.
To try to make the same original point, but a bit clearer. If you believe that a fetus has the right to life as soon as it could survive with medical technology then it happens earlier than it used to, which seems to me unreasonable. If you believe that a fetus has the right to life as soon as it could survive without medical technology then there are pre-mature babies that have already been born that do not have the right to life yet, which also seems unreasonable to me.
Secondly: "Does the same logic extend to infertile and post-menopause women?"
In a specific case, yes. In general, I feel that women's opinions carry more weight purely because they can empathize - a post-menopausal woman may have had children, an infertile woman may have had a pregnancy scare.
I exclude men from the metaphorical vote for two main reasons, the first being that pregnancy is never something they will have to face no matter how long the odds. This means that they will approach this decision from a purely academic standpoint which leads to them oversimplifying (understandably so) the issue and that helps foster the idea that abortion is a black-and-white issue which polarizes the debate in a manner I consider profoundly unhealthy.
Secondly, men - even if they devote the cultural average of time, money and resources to fatherhood - can walk away from their children in a way mothers can't. If a prospective mother cannot abort, the fetus will stay in her body for nine months to huge physical and psychological impact. Men are not asked by our culture to subordinate their lives to a child which means they are not a good judge of the impact a child will have on a woman.
Second point, I see anything that prevents the fetus becoming a baby as birth control but I am willing to agree to disagree on this.
Reply
I also think that many women are capable of making their decision from a purely academic point of view, whether that is because they've always known they'd be infertile, they are celibate or they simply believe themselves to be incapable of getting pregnant for whatever reason.
I just think 'women get a say, men don't' is far, far too black and white. And that's before even mentioning transgender individuals.
prevents the fetus becoming a baby
Can I ask when you think this happens? Is it when the child is born or when they could survive if they were born?
Reply
And I think men should be involved in the debate but the problem I find with debating abortions with men is that they want to view abortion as it reflects on them as an method of reproductive control.
This is (obviously) not true of all men but the majority of men who have defended abortion to me couch in those terms and I frankly resent it. A lot.
But I do feel that this highlights my main problem with the abortion 'debate' as it stands. Abortion can never be a purely black and white issue and so much depends on the individual case that I think most legislation involving it would be flawed from the outset.
Regarding the point at which fetus becomes baby, my personal belief is that from the time the baby could survive outside the womb, they're a person with all the inherent and implied rights that entails.
Reply
But then it seems to me that you face one or the other of the following:
1) A fetus becomes a baby earlier now than it used to. In that case, why does a fetus gain the right to life earlier simply because of medical technology?
2) There are fetuses (how do you pluralise that?) out there completely free of their mothers, living because of machines.
Reply
2) I'm going to need to ask for a little more context here, to be sure of what you're asking. I'm assuming you mean fetuses/fetusi (this is getting annoying) for use in IVF treatment?
Reply
Do you mean survive outside the womb with or without medical help? Because there's a huge gap between the point at which a child will survive without medical help and the point at which they will survive with it and it's getting wider all the time.
2) I'm going to need to ask for a little more context here, to be sure of what you're asking. I'm assuming you mean fetuses/fetusi (this is getting annoying) for use in IVF treatment?
No. Sorry for not being clear. What I mean by this is that if you say that the point at which a fetus gains the right to life is the point at which it could survive without medical technology then all the babies born pre-mature that survive only because of medical technology are not actually babies but rather fetuses.
To try to make the same original point, but a bit clearer. If you believe that a fetus has the right to life as soon as it could survive with medical technology then it happens earlier than it used to, which seems to me unreasonable. If you believe that a fetus has the right to life as soon as it could survive without medical technology then there are pre-mature babies that have already been born that do not have the right to life yet, which also seems unreasonable to me.
Reply
Leave a comment