A question for those against abortion

[Little Maus]

In light of the recent Healthcare bill and the fact that it does not cover abortion, I'd like to open a debate with something new I learned recently.

For those of you who are anti-choice for whatever reasons;

Quote:

In the case of McFall V Shimp- a man in need of a bone marrow transplant to live had a cousin who was a compatible donor. The cousin however did not want to donate marrow, and the courts agreed that the cousin could not be forced to donate bone marrow to save the man's life; he died two weeks after the verdict was handed down.

When a woman is forced to bear a child it's 9 months of physical pain, social problems (loss of a job, getting kicked out of school, unable to complete education or work) as well as the painful procedure of childbirth and all the trauma that often follows even if the child is immediately given up for adoption. This is a long, hard, and very costly process. Going to the doctor for exams, ultrasounds, taking special prenatal vitamins, as well as the cost to simply have a baby, is very extreme.

This man would have undergone an admittedly very painful but short process of donating bone marrow, with no lasting side effects of mental trauma, and likely at no cost to himself, in order to save another persons life- and the courts decided that he did not have to do this.

People argue that these sparks of life deserve to live, and yet a man does not have to donate marrow to save another grown, currently living, thinking, feeling, hurting persons life? These fetuses that are aborted in order to save a woman's life (on many levels, so they can continue college or highschool or work without a severe interruption or permanent setback) do not have lives of their own, they are not thinking or feeling, and yet people expect women to have to carry them to term no matter what?

--- If abortion were illegal, then would the donation of things like bone marrow or organs we can spare without dying ourselves to save the lives of others have to be enforced? If not then why is a life less precious after it's been born?

[Embarassing questionz]

I'm for abortion ._.
Yeah even if it's made against the law.. everyone's going to start "Accidentally" having miscarriages ...
I mean seriously.. "Oh I think I'm going to faint, I'll just fall on this sharp stone pointing at my vulnerable stomach"

[mrs_chester_bennington]

I support the right for abortion. But I don't think you make a very good arguement. For starters, you're using the decision of one court and confusing it with the opinion of anti-abortionist people. That just doesn't make sense.

Also you'd do yourself favours not to sound so dramatic. I agree a woman has every right to an abortion but I wouldn't go so far as to say that it would "save her life" in the way that that guy could have saved his cousin's life.

But let's not get confused in the stupid example. Essentially it is wrong to take away a woman's choice to have an abortion, especially when you take into account that some need it because they were raped or couldn't afford to raise a child, and we all know that putting a baby into forster care isn't a nice option. And also as you pointed out, some just can't even afford the pregnancy, it is painful, and that's just how it is. Arguing that women should have to go through that when they don't want to is wrong.

[Little Maus]

mrs_chester_bennington

I support the right for abortion. But I don't think you make a very good arguement. For starters, you're using the decision of one court and confusing it with the opinion of anti-abortionist people. That just doesn't make sense.

Also you'd do yourself favours not to sound so dramatic. I agree a woman has every right to an abortion but I wouldn't go so far as to say that it would "save her life" in the way that that guy could have saved his cousin's life.

But let's not get confused in the stupid example. Essentially it is wrong to take away a woman's choice to have an abortion, especially when you take into account that some need it because they were raped or couldn't afford to raise a child, and we all know that putting a baby into forster care isn't a nice option. And also as you pointed out, some just can't even afford the pregnancy, it is painful, and that's just how it is. Arguing that women should have to go through that when they don't want to is wrong.

I was not comparing the woman's life to the man who died, I was comparing the fact that these people think a woman should have to carry every child they conceive under any circumstances to term when this man didn't even have to give bone marrow to save a man who is already living and breathing, and I think it's a very good argument.

[mrs_chester_bennington]

Little Maus

mrs_chester_bennington

I support the right for abortion. But I don't think you make a very good arguement. For starters, you're using the decision of one court and confusing it with the opinion of anti-abortionist people. That just doesn't make sense.

Also you'd do yourself favours not to sound so dramatic. I agree a woman has every right to an abortion but I wouldn't go so far as to say that it would "save her life" in the way that that guy could have saved his cousin's life.

But let's not get confused in the stupid example. Essentially it is wrong to take away a woman's choice to have an abortion, especially when you take into account that some need it because they were raped or couldn't afford to raise a child, and we all know that putting a baby into forster care isn't a nice option. And also as you pointed out, some just can't even afford the pregnancy, it is painful, and that's just how it is. Arguing that women should have to go through that when they don't want to is wrong.

I was not comparing the woman's life to the man who died, I was comparing the fact that these people think a woman should have to carry every child they conceive under any circumstances to term when this man didn't even have to give bone marrow to save a man who is already living and breathing, and I think it's a very good argument.

But what I'm saying is that the people who decided that the cousin didn't have to donate, are not the same people who think abortion is wrong.

[Little Maus]

mrs_chester_bennington

Little Maus

mrs_chester_bennington

I support the right for abortion. But I don't think you make a very good arguement. For starters, you're using the decision of one court and confusing it with the opinion of anti-abortionist people. That just doesn't make sense.

Also you'd do yourself favours not to sound so dramatic. I agree a woman has every right to an abortion but I wouldn't go so far as to say that it would "save her life" in the way that that guy could have saved his cousin's life.

But let's not get confused in the stupid example. Essentially it is wrong to take away a woman's choice to have an abortion, especially when you take into account that some need it because they were raped or couldn't afford to raise a child, and we all know that putting a baby into forster care isn't a nice option. And also as you pointed out, some just can't even afford the pregnancy, it is painful, and that's just how it is. Arguing that women should have to go through that when they don't want to is wrong.

I was not comparing the woman's life to the man who died, I was comparing the fact that these people think a woman should have to carry every child they conceive under any circumstances to term when this man didn't even have to give bone marrow to save a man who is already living and breathing, and I think it's a very good argument.

But what I'm saying is that the people who decided that the cousin didn't have to donate, are not the same people who think abortion is wrong.

True, because the people who decided were the courts.

I'm trying to make people who are anti-choice realize that if they want abortion to be illegal then they would also have to enforce the donation of bone marrow or organ transplants (kidneys and things we can live without) to people who need them to live.

[mustangssgt]

it's impossible to convince anybody one way or another on the abortion debate. Really, to think about it pragmatically, a person has to be in the situation herself, and even then it's going to be swayed by things like convenience, or feelings about the father, or concerns about societies view of her one way or another. On a moral level, it's impossible to argue. Unless I'm wrong, and there are a s**t load of pro life atheists out there, the very basis of it is essentially whether or not this creature containing human DNA has a soul.

As for the dying man, I would have done everything in my power to make sure every person in the united states knew who his cousin was, what he looked like, and that he left him to die. That's really lame.

[BaeKim]

Yea, abortion during or after the second trimester is wrong after 20 week a baby can survive out side the womb with intensive medical care. And comparing abortion to McFall V Shimp is not a very solid argument.

Proof.

[Rayne Nightrose]

Little Maus

social problems (loss of a job, getting kicked out of school, unable to complete education or work) as well as the painful procedure of childbirth and all the trauma that often follows even if the child is immediately given up for adoption.

This statement is EXTREMELY subjective. You do not have to drop out of school, and you are allowed paid maternity leave from work. I see no social "problems" with a woman having a child. It's a natural cycle of life and your life will not be over if you decide to have one.

Little Maus

People argue that these sparks of life deserve to live, and yet a man does not have to donate marrow to save another grown, currently living, thinking, feeling, hurting persons life?

You can not compare an abortion of a child to a man refusing to donate bone marrow to his cousin. Have you thought of the reasons why this man may not have wanted to donate?

Little Maus

These fetuses that are aborted in order to save a woman's life (on many levels, so they can continue college or highschool or work without a severe interruption or permanent setback) do not have lives of their own, they are not thinking or feeling, and yet people expect women to have to carry them to term no matter what?

Again, this is very subjective. Where is your proof? After 20 weeks (I do believe) a fetus can live without the mother. I do believe that is thinking and feeling. As for high school and work, again, there is no "severe interruption". I've seen high school girls go through pregnancy and only miss a week of school. I've missed several weeks of school due to asthma, and yet, I still passed that class. Again, with work, there is a little something you are given called paid maternity leave.

I'm all for abortion. It's a woman's choice, but I think it needs to be thought through first.

[Jaishirri]

The problem with your argument is that you are comparing two different senarios, and essentially bringing up the debate of killing vs. letting die. Let me explain,

In Winston Nesbitt's article "Is Killing No Worse Than Letting Die?" (1995), he further compares two senarios brought about by James Rachels (1975). In the First, "Smith will gain a large inheritance should his six-year-old nephew die. With this in mind, Smith one evening sneaks into the bathroom where his nephew is taking a bath, and drowns him. In the other case, that of Jones, is identical, except that as Jones is aout to drown his nephew, the child slps, hits his head, and falls, face down and unconscious, into the bath-water. Jones, delighted at his good fortune, watches as his nephew drowns." (Rachels, 1975)

Nesbitt concludes that these two senarios are two similar. He thus proposes, "Jones happens to be on hand when his nephew slips, hits his head, and falls unconscious into his bath-water. It is clear to Jones that the child will drown if he does not intervene. He remembers that the child's death would be greatly to his advantage, and does not intervene." This is morally acceptable, because, though he is prepared to let the child die, he would not have been prepared to kill him, as Jones draws the line at killing for gain. (Nesbitt, 1995).

We can conclude, that killing is indeed morally worse than letting die, because we'd rather have Jones walking around than Smith. That is to say, Smith is dangerous to society and may make threats on peoples lifes. Jones actually might save your life, if he is to gain nothing from your death, and he certainly is no moredangerous than an incapacitated person, or a rock, or a tree.

Back to the original examples, not agreeing to a marrow donation is simply letting someone die, thus morally okay, while aborting, in this context of examples, is killing, and morally wrong.

EDIT: I am pro-abortion, and while different, I guess, the original argument is unsound.

[The20]

Since when does childbirth cause a trauma?

[Rayne Nightrose]

The20

Since when does childbirth cause a trauma?

I'm guessing she is talking about special circumstances.

[I got bored one day]

The entire OP is an appeal to emotion.

[pulchritudinous soup]

The20

Since when does childbirth cause a trauma?

Squeezing something through a smaller hole is slightly traumatizing especially when you didn't even want to have the baby in the first place and will be giving it up for adoption as soon as it comes out of you.

neutral

[I got bored one day]

pulchritudinous soup

The20

Since when does childbirth cause a trauma?

Squeezing something through a smaller hole is slightly traumatizing especially when you didn't even want to have the baby in the first place and will be giving it up for adoption as soon as it comes out of you.

neutral

BTA