These propositions, if used to defend abortion, assume pregnant women don't already have a child - which is exactly what people in favor of legal abortion need to prove (and not just merely assume).

These propositions, if used to defend abortion, assume pregnant women don't already have a child

That is true... but what if we do assume that for now?

which is exactly what people in favor of legal abortion need to prove

Do they need to prove it? Or do others need to prove otherwise? Or both?

first of all, I'm not an advocate of outlawing abortion. I'm also not an advocate of mean spirited protests and other forms of radical "prolife behavior". I'm not "typical" in any sense of the word when it comes to this issue.

I am however, fundamentally opposed to abortion even though I recognize it's a very complex issue.

disclaimer out of the way, here are a few thoughts:

1. BIRTHING a child does not necessarily mean having to RAISE a child which negates the premise off the bat.

2. the approach presented is ego centric, it does not take into account the life of the other

3. it's too simple, too clean, too "wrapped up" - taking care of the self is all well and good but that ignores the reality of emotional and often physical harm that is CAUSED by abortion. so one could easily assert that abortion is immoral because it ignores the well being of the mother.

oh, I also wanted to add that one of the reasons I am "pro life" is because I'm a feminist. Another reason is because I am pro ALL life - which means I oppose the death penalty, I'm striving to live a peace filled and peace making existence and I believe in justice across the board.

for me, it's not just an existential position but one of consistent ethics.

Thanks for the comment Mak.

BIRTHING a child does not necessarily mean having to RAISE a child which negates the premise off the bat.

I agree... but what does it mean in the context of those nine months where the mother IS responsible for raising a child/embryo/zygote/etc and she us unwilling/unable to take care of herself (and in turn the child/embryo/zygote/etc) properly?

that ignores the reality of emotional and often physical harm that is CAUSED by abortion

True, but those who are in favor of abortion will not agree to an assumption of emotional or physical harm to the mother.

I seems that the argument fails to consider the obligations owed to the fetus. It may be the case that the fetus does not have any obligations owed to it, but I don't see where or how he comes to it. I would guess that his argument is that any being that is dependent for life on another is not owed moral obligations. If that is indeed his position, I would argue that it is a wrong one.

Because of this issue, I think that his argument is at best incomplete and at worst has a faulty implied premise.

I agree Henry - which was my point when I said that the statement is ego centric.

I agree... but what does it mean in the context of those nine months where the mother IS responsible for raising a child/embryo/zygote/etc and she us unwilling/unable to take care of herself (and in turn the child/embryo/zygote/etc) properly?

We're talking about ethics/morality here, not the solutions or outcomes. Obviously, those who oppose abortion fundamentally, are responsible to answer these questions with proper response and aide. This involves WAY MORE than just abortion. Abortion is the end of a long line of issues and a long list of choices made and aide given or not given.

I think it's a false dichotomy/choice to say "would you rather have a drug addict mom who isn't caring for her unborn child or have that mom get an abortion" it's that whole issue in moral/ethical debate that is very frustrating.

True, but those who are in favor of abortion will not agree to an assumption of emotional or physical harm to the mother.

that's a broad statement. I have talked to MANY advocates of open, funded and easily accessed abortion (most of my friends feel this way) and they all acknowledge that there is a HUGE emotional component (a few have had abortions) and possible physical component that the "pro choice" radicals have failed miserably in addressing. In fact, I find that my friends and I agree on almost everything except that they are unwilling to go the next step and say that abortion is fundamentally or inherently unethical/immoral

that's a broad statement.

True... I don't mean to paint all advocates of open access to abortion with a broad brush. I guess I was more talking about many in the feminist blogosphere who are often unwilling to acknowledge the emotional/physical harm to the mother.

And I agree with you about the false dichotomy that the original argument contains.

I guess I was more talking about many in the feminist blogosphere who are often unwilling to acknowledge the emotional/physical harm to the mother.

yes, I certainly know many of those too. It's good to challenge those people with the many in their "sphere of belief" who speak loudly of the obligation of emotional and physical aftercare for women who have had abortions. It's actually rare for "pro choicers" to say that abortion is perfectly fine, doesn't have any negative effects and is pretty much just equal to having a pedicure in terms of emotional and physical concerns and that we should allow people to have abortions whenever, however and in whatever fashion they want.

That's actually a misconception that seems to be circulated by many extremists in the pro life camp.

it seems to me that people "on both sides" would rather there be fewer abortions and don't just point blank say that abortion is perfectly fine and completely benign

There are a lot of difference pieces to this.

a. "Unable to take care of herself/a child": in this case, what *should* happen is that the woman should receive help either to take care of her and her child, or to get her to a point where she can do so herself. That's just what people deserve in a decent society.

b. "Unwilling to take care of herself/a child": in this case, the answer depends on what obligations, if any, a pregnant woman has toward the being she carries.

b1. If one considers human beings to be persons over the entire course of their life spans, then a pregnant woman already has a child, and it's too late for her not to have one. She has obligations toward the child even if she would rather not fulfill them.

b2. If one considers human personhood not to be inherent, but instead to be acquired at some point after the organism has been developing for a while: it depends. Some people who hold this position consider the human embryo or fetus to be worth nothing, others say that there is a "potential person" there who has some value and should be considered in ethical decision-making. For the first group, abortion would probably be considered the moral choice in this situation. The second group might, like those of us who believe that the unborn are persons, see an ethical obligation that overrides her unwillingness.

b3. What can legally or ethically be done about a woman's unwillingness to take care of herself and her unborn child is yet another problem. After the child is born, he or she can be adopted by willing parents. Before birth, I favor approaches which encourage a women to take good care of herself and her child, rather than penalties for not doing so.

I like what people here have to say, but I think I want to throw a bit of a monkey wrench into it, that maybe is off topic. However here is my question. At what point are people expected to live with the consequences of their actions, no matter how unintended or how unwilling they are to deal with them?

At what point are people expected to live with the consequences of their actions, no matter how unintended or how unwilling they are to deal with them?

Smiles - I understand your question, but isn't exactly a black and white issue. Would you want a mother taking care of a child who was unwilling (or unable) to take care of that child?

Now I am not saying that the only answer is abortion, but I don't think that we want people to necessarily have to "live with consequences" all of the time.

I think if you're going to try to make an argument you have to do more than just assume the exact thing you need to prove to convince those who'd disagree with you. Begging the question is fun and games when you're with a bunch of like-minded people but fails once your confronted with someone who disagrees.

If we accept these propositions I'm wondering if they wouldn't also mandate us to forcibly abort the children of women who can't take care of themselves or their children.

Maybe there's a better solution than killing the unborn - like trying to help women who aren't able to care for themselves and their children to become able to do these things.

If we accept these propositions I'm wondering if they wouldn't also mandate us to forcibly abort the children of women who can't take care of themselves or their children.

Straw man, and you know it.

Maybe there's a better solution than killing the unborn - like trying to help women who aren't able to care for themselves and their children to become able to do these things.

First, I agree with you - we do need to do A LOT more to help with taking care of new children.

Second, many pro-lifers are un-wiling to do so, at least with tax dollars.

Third, it is not always possible to help some to the point that they are able (and willing) to take care of a child.

If we accept these propositions I'm wondering if they wouldn't also mandate us to forcibly abort the children of women who can't take care of themselves or their children.

Maybe there's a better solution than killing the unborn - like trying to help women who aren't able to care for themselves and their children to become able to do these things.

very adeptly put. Just because so far, society has failed in this area doesn't mean we throw up our hands and say "give everyone a free abortion!"

and just because we think abortion is morally in opposition to Jesus' ideals, doesn't mean we say "ban abortion, just let them all suffer with the consequences!"

for us to find workable solutions, we have to give up these crazy extremes and we have to stop thinking of the other side in crazy extremes as well.

as for "living with the consequences"...well, unfortunately, the one who pays the price in these situations is the innocent child who, more often than not, gets stuck in the cycle and ends up in the same situation as a teenager or adult. I am a strong advocate for personal responsibility and people taking ownership of their choices and the subsequent consequences...I'm just not sure it's so clear cut in this issue.

Jivin: If we accept these propositions I'm wondering if they wouldn't also mandate us to forcibly abort the children of women who can't take care of themselves or their children.

Dave: Straw man, and you know it.

not necessarily - ideas need to be processed to their end result. And if we're going to set precedent for a certain behavior - in this case, abortion - then we have to process the reason for the precedent to the end. I think that giving unfettered access to abortion and saying it's morally acceptable by using the argument that some women can't care for themselves or their child is really really wobbly and if a strawman points out the strawman - - then so be it.

Hmmm... I disagree. I think that bringing up the idea that this will lead to forced abortions is pretty silly and unrealistic.

I think you can break down the original argument without using straw man arguments that rely on extremely unlikely outcomes.

I understand...but I still disagree..esp. since "forced abortion" is not exactly an unheard of practice. infanticide (which is beyond even what we are discussing here) is an accepted choice in many parts of the world...as is forced abortion. So to suggest that that could be a logical end point is not far fetched.

I wanted to talk more about the consequences issue.

I think stronger enforcement of our consequences would help people be more responsible for their actions.

We have spoiled our citizens by revoking certain laws and punishments.

Example (and it is a silly example): If capital punishment was strictly enforced , by this I mean court, sentence, and death happened within seven days of the crime...I believe we would see on a larger scale less murder. Remember, my point is not about capital punishment here, just using the example of this made up issue to paint a picture of stronger enforced laws would make us more disciplined with our actions.

Would you go 2 miles over the speed limit if you know that would guarantee a speeding ticket?

Abortion: Maybe, taking away the option would make more people more responsible for their actions.

Is abortion a selfish action? I believe so.

one thing I learned about parenting pretty quickly by living out my own philosophy and watching other with a different philosophy is that there is a big difference between behavior modification and internalized discipline.

taking away the option of abortion is not a natural consequence, it's an imposed moral that might modify the behavior of having abortions but it won't do anything to change the choices that got the person in that position in the first place.

I think we do the issue and the population a HUGE disservice to make this about abortion alone...when, as I said before, abortion is the end point of a long string of issues that need to be addressed.

I'm not saying don't have laws or don't have consequences but there are many issues like this that just simply will not be solved with a law unless you're purely looking at behavior modification.

and it seems to me, if we are to live the way of Christ, we need to be interested in more than just end game external behaviors.

Dave,
How is it a strawman? For one, how is a statement which starts "I'm wondering" be a strawman.

Second, read the propositions - "A woman who is unable and/or unwilling to properly care for a child should not have a child." - So if we accept that a woman in those circumstances should not have a child - what happens if she is willing to have one? You're coming at it from the perspective that she wouldn't want one but what about women who are supposedly unable yet willing? According to the proposition they shouldn't have a child. So what would we do? Do we force those women to abort? Do we take the children away once they're born?

These propositions certainly don't tell us.

According to the proposition they shouldn't have a child. So what would we do? Do we force those women to abort? Do we take the children away once they're born?

I agree with you that we would need to ask that question about what we do when a person wants a child but is "unable" to take care of one.

But I think that strawman comes in when the concept of forces abortion is brought up. Are forced abortions an issue in other countries? Absolutely. But I really do not think that forced abortions will ever be a discussion that occurs in this country. Just as I don't like extreme solutions (on either side) related to abortion, I also don't like extreme arguments.

Now the question about taking away children is a different one. The government (DCFS, family court, etc) takes away children from their parents all the time, for exactly this reason - because a court (or social worker) makes the decision that the parent is unable and incapable of raising a child.

And I am not sure why you say "You're coming at it..." - I simply posted propositions that I saw elsewhere because I believed it would lead to interesting discussion. And it had. They are not my propositions.

I never said they were your propositions nor did I think they were. The only way my comments would be a strawman is if you ignore the "or unwilling" part of the propositions.

My wondering wasn't about if America would ever institute a law forcing women to have abortion (I don't think that will happen) - I was merely trying to get to where these proposition would lead if they were accepted.

What are the consequences of believing that a pregnant woman who can't take care of herself shouldn't have a child, regardless of her willingness? Especially if someone believes abortion isn't morally wrong.

One option seems to be taking the child from the mother after birth but if abortion is viewed as less dangerous than birth and not at all morally wrong - what argument would proponents of these propositions have against forcing certain women to abort?

I'm not saying such an argument doesn't exist but these propositions certainly don't provide it.

I'm not saying such an argument doesn't exist but these propositions certainly don't provide it.

That is fair... I understand where you are coming from.

There is no question that these propositions are extremely limited.

But I do think it is a necessary conversation to deal with regarding what to do with someone who gets pregnant and is unwilling/unable to take care of the child properly.