This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Do you think a woman who has killed a foetus could ever be a good mother?

Scroll to see replies

No, a fetus isn't a baby until 24 weeks by law and so it is not a potential baby and at the end of the day that baby wouldn't be yours anyway so why would you think you can decide it's life or not?

Well of course it's a potential baby, on the balance of probabilities a foetus will become a baby.

Original post by bethwalker85

So you don't agree with abortion but you would be ok to raise another man's child as your own? Even if it was because of rape that the child was conceived. At the end of the day, the body belongs to the woman and it is her choice.

A woman's body and a foetus inside of it are not the same thing. If they were then I should be able to go to a private hospital and say I want half of my left foot amputated and replaced by my right hand. You don't own your body, you can't mutilate it in anyway you want.

Original post by bethwalker85

Your body your choice. So if you decide to get a **** tattoo of Homer Simpson on your testicles, that's your choice and if a woman decides she doesn't want that baby in her body, that's her choice.

If I get Homer Simpson tattooed on my testicles that is my concern and nobody else's. If a woman aborts a baby there are other parties who potentially suffer.

You're not doing a good job at arguing in favour of abortion.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 81

Implication

Original post by kyragrace

I will simply refer you to BeastOfSyracuse's quote as it pretty much sums up my opinion

While I'm not anti-abortion (although I don't think it is ever the ideal choice), I also think that's slightly ludicrous. Of course a sperm cell is different to an actual foetus.

A foetus is a proto-human; if allowed to continue to grow, it will become a person. A sperm cell has no such future unless and until it meets an egg and they merge. The likelihood of that is very low (it's almost like winning the lottery for a sperm to actually fertilise an egg) and so already the foetus is something special in terms of raw probability.

Because in our experience being a human being is nothing special we forget that essentially each of us has won the lottery to be alive, that our sperm forefather met our egg mother and fertilisation happened, rather than the sperm next to him getting the egg. If that happened you wouldn't even be alive, someone else would be (an evil parallel universe twin?)

I'm not sure that response really captures the essence of the problem though. Sure, an individual sperm alone is very unlikely to become a human and so we could say that the potential for life is very small. But that's not really the point. There are other situations that do have a much higher potential for life that no one considers as controversial as abortions.

Every month, a healthy couple could produce a zygote that would develop into a fetus with a reasonable probability. Over the course of a year or several years, one could argue that the potential for life is far greater than that of a single fetus. But nobody thinks spending years not using contraception or otherwise not attempting to procreate is as bad as an abortion, even though a greater potential for life is being destroyed.

Now obviously there are other factors that make a difference, and I'm not arguing that it's really that straightforward. We can't really say that all abortions are obviously okay because using contraception for several years is okay. My point is that this holds if we consider the 'potential' argument alone, as it was presented. It simply does not stand up to scrutiny.

But really, where do you draw the line anyway? You're saying it's not okay to destroy a fetus. What about an embryo? What about a zygote? What about an individual sperm and egg moments before they form a zygote? What about 500 million sperm leaving a penis during ejaculation and heading toward a single egg in a female? Unless you think something magical and intangible happens at the formation of a zygote (as some religious people believe), we really are drawing an entirely arbitrary line by picking zygote formation in particular. I think it's far more sensible to focus on the capacity of a being to suffer when we consider how it should and shouldn't be treated. A collection of human cells in a womb is not the same as a grown human and, depending on the development, might have absolutely zero capacity for suffering.

Reply 82

thatbrownkid17

I agree; the "potential for birth" argument is really weak because as someone pointed out every time a man masturbates he's wasting the possibilities of life and don't tell me that that's different because the ridiculousness of the analogy is the same as the ridiculousness aid the argument.

Forcing women to keep their babies is so inherently sexist because are you also going to force the father to support her? Oh no? He gets a free pass on his one-night stand but the women lives a life she didn't want just because some random people irrelevant to her said their morals can't support abortion? That's messed up. Nowhere have people who were anti-abortion called for support from the father; just dump all the responsibility on the women. And if you say it's her fault for not using contraceptive, maybe she did but no contraceptive is 100% efficient. People talk of the wasted "potential" that comes from losing children to abortion but what about the women who lose their lives, their careers because someone told them they have to stick with the child they didn't want. They probably had more potential.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 83

thatbrownkid17

Original post by kyragrace

You're quick to judge. But for the record I really don't take those things for granted, I know I'm lucky because of where I live, and I have seen and met adults and children who are nowhere near as lucky as me, and I've seen how they still manage to succeed. But quite frankly in this day and age in amongst all the poverty there are loads of people and projects to help them, aborting the child just takes away it's opportunity to have a life and do something with it.

Why does living in poverty always lead to 'inevitable death', what's wrong with a little hope that the child will survive. And if people are so horrified by the situations that make it 'better' to have an abortion why don't you try and do something to change those situations so the 'better' option is to let the child live.

I apologize for seeming quick to judge but frankly if it was that easy to do something to try and change these situations so the "better' option is to let the child to live, it would've been done already! The UN, governments, NGOs are all trying their hardest but there are still situations where it's just better for the woman's life if she wasn't weighed down by a baby she didn't even want. Can you consider having a baby right now? To have so much extra responsibility, she probably wouldn't even be happy if she didn't want it. She'd just see it as a burden.

Also, aborting it doesn't significantly so take away its opportunity. Look at the human population growth rate; we're overcrowded. And I think I specified "abject poverty", not just poverty.

Reply 84

thatbrownkid17

Original post by LeftWingMoron

Laughable argument. Abortions cost money just like the internet does. If you took some responsibility and stopped trying to cheat mother nature then you wouldn't get pregnant. It's clear that sexual intercourse is for solely for reproduction and the pleasure is to entice you into wishing to reproduce more. Trying to have flings and living like depraved hedonists means you have to deal with the consequences, period.

I knew rape would get brought up (always does). Simple fact is it accounts for a MINUSCULE amount of the millions upon millions of careless women who kill their own child. Also ever read/watch 'Room'? So you're saying the kid should've been aborted yeah?

You really like using the word "laughable" to cover up weak arguments don't you when this statement is the only laughable thing "It's clear that sexual intercourse is for solely for reproduction and the pleasure is to entice you into wishing to reproduce more. Trying to have flings and living like depraved hedonists means you have to deal with the consequences, period."

If this were true then contraceptives wouldn't even be allowed to work effectively, ever, and every single time a couple had unprotected sex the woman would HAVE to get pregnant, otherwise they just had sex for fun and that can't be a purpose for sex is it? But they do, and not always does the egg get fertilized by the sperm. And the pleasure is to entice you into wishing to reproduce more? I'm guessing once married couples have had however many kids they want they go back to contraceptives and so there, they get pleasure and no more reproduction. I'm understanding your username more and more every post.

Reply 85

AperfectBalance

Yes, a abortion that saves a child from living in a bad life is a far more loving thing to do, and if someone can look past emotion and see the logic in that then yes she is a great mother

Reply 86

F.SA

Original post by LeftWingMoron

Actually I'm pretty sure abortions are free on the NHS.

Reply 87

username1723547

Of course they can - a foetus isn't a reasonable person in being. It's not a person. A child is. Aborting a foetus has no bearing on ability to raise a child.

Reply 88

acupofgreentea

A woman having an abortion and how she would care for a child should she have one are two seperate entities. Just as someone who hasn't had an abortion can be a bad mother, having an abortion doesn't mean you wouldn't be a good mother. One does not dictate the other.

Also, to what extent are you applying this? If a woman has an abortion for medical reasons, does this apply to her? If a sixteen-year-old has an abortion because she knows she couldn't care for a child in a good manner at that age whereas she could at an older age, does this apply to her? What about cases of rape?

Also, no, there's no way of knowing if a woman has had an abortion or not apart from her disclosure. It would be up to the woman to share that information.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 89

Farm_Ecology

Original post by thatbrownkid17

I
Forcing women to keep their babies is so inherently sexist because are you also going to force the father to support her? Oh no? He gets a free pass on his one-night stand but the women lives a life she didn't want just because some random people irrelevant to her said their morals can't support abortion? That's messed up. Nowhere have people who were anti-abortion called for support from the father; just dump all the responsibility on the women. .

I think you will find men already are forced to support the child and mother.

Original post by Mactotaur

Of course they can - a foetus isn't a reasonable person in being. It's not a person. A child is. Aborting a foetus has no bearing on ability to raise a child.

Why does it matter if its a person or not? A dog isnt a person but it is highly immoral for ones owner to kill it because they dont want to look after it.

Reply 90

username1723547

Original post by Farm_Ecology

I think you will find men already are forced to support the child and mother.

Why does it matter if its a person or not? A dog isnt a person but it is highly immoral for ones owner to kill it because they dont want to look after it.

You choose to get a dog. There's no anti-dog condom.

Reply 91

Farm_Ecology

Original post by Mactotaur

You choose to get a dog. There's no anti-dog condom.

Why is that relevant? Knowing that you had a choice is great for hindsight, but doesnt change the situation.

As a side note. You dont always choose to get a dog.

Reply 92

username1723547

Original post by Farm_Ecology

Why is that relevant? Knowing that you had a choice is great for hindsight, but doesnt change the situation.

As a side note. You dont always choose to get a dog.

You can always say no to the dog, or put it up to be rehomed, or have it put down. So many dogs are put down, yet abortions are somehow evil? Don't bring the 'but humans are worth more' when you brought up dogs in the first place.

Reply 93

Farm_Ecology

Original post by Mactotaur

Youre assuming i dont think putting dogs down because someone doesnt want to look after it is immoral. I think its an absolutely terrible thing to do.

People will sometimes inherit animals even if they didnt want to. Its unfortunate, but it becomes their responsibility. The same with pregnancy, wishing it didnt happen doesnt change the fact that it did.

Reply 94

BankOfPigs

To put things into another perspective, we might ask 'Do you think a woman who is a psychopath could be a good parent?'. We are trying to reason from this trait they have and see whether this quality inherently stops them from effective parenting. In response to the example question, we might argue that 'yes, as this quality stops them from having the necesary empathy to be a good mother'. It is certainly possible to construct a similar argument reasoning from morality about having an abortion.

With respect to the original question, I think it is certainly possible for a woman who had an abortion to be a good mother. After all, one can learn to become a good parent over time, and you are not fundamentally restricted from this learning just because you had an abortion.

I think many pro-choice posters here greatly simplify the argument with regards to Abortion. We are not free to kill people as we so choose. There needs to be a more convincing argument on why a foetus should not be given the same rights.

The original post is asking whether we can judge a woman's parenting ability using knowledge about their morality. I think it is very important to seperate the moral issue and the political issue as the former is of concern in this situation. As a result, arguments from feminism or law seem somewhat meaningless here. Instead, we need to consider the woman's moral reasoning on why they had an abortion, which unfortunately is extremely complicated.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 95

shawtyb

of course she can!
i dont agree wtih abortion but she can be a good mother if she choose to have any others.

Reply 96

niamhemily99

Original post by LeftWingMoron

Is there any way to tell if a woman has had an abortion in case she lies about it?

Any woman who would be for it in any way would be removed of my list of potential partners. #1 turn off for sure. Utterly barbaric, killing your own potential child.

Its not any of your business whether a woman has had an abortion, and you should not ask. Having an abortion doesn't make you a bad person and in fact has no relation to the persons personality or character. Also its so very easy for you to sit there and call women who've had abortions nasty names but at the end of a day you'll never experience what they've had to go through and so your opinion on abortion and what women should do is completely and utterly irrelevant.

Reply 97

username1560589

Original post by IFoundWonderland

Anyone who uses contraceptionor doesn't get pregnant on every period: utterly barbaric, killing your own potential child.

Being pregnant reduces the number of periods, so anyone who doesn't figure out how to build artificial wombs, get pregnant on every period and get the embryo transplanted into an artificial womb: utterly barbaric, killing your own potential child.