Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Term Limit for Abortion watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I am quite firmly on the left politically, and I identify with many women's rights causes and would consider myself to be a feminist.

    However, I struggle to morally justify the 24 week term limit on abortion. Abortion is a cause celebre for many of my fellows on the left - that if you support a shorter term limit, you are right-wing and anti-women. However, I will always stand with the oppressed, and in this case I think the unborn child is oppressed.

    Many of the arguments that people make sound like libertarian/right-wing points. "Abortion is a women's decision" - I disagree with this because I think that decisions should be collectively taken by society and the unborn child has no choice to be aborted. I find it morally unjustifiable for it to be acceptable to abort a 24 week old baby still in the womb, while if that same baby was out, killing them would be murder.

    Would like to get thoughts on this.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PAFCStan)
    I am quite firmly on the left politically, and I identify with many women's rights causes and would consider myself to be a feminist.

    However, I struggle to morally justify the 24 week term limit on abortion. Abortion is a cause celebre for many of my fellows on the left - that if you support a shorter term limit, you are right-wing and anti-women. However, I will always stand with the oppressed, and in this case I think the unborn child is oppressed.

    Many of the arguments that people make sound like libertarian/right-wing points. "Abortion is a women's decision" - I disagree with this because I think that decisions should be collectively taken by society and the unborn child has no choice to be aborted. I find it morally unjustifiable for it to be acceptable to abort a 24 week old baby still in the womb, while if that same baby was out, killing them would be murder.

    Would like to get thoughts on this.
    What makes it morally opposing - is it just a presence of oppression or more? In what way would there be a similarity of who the person is in the womb vs. outside?
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Agree with you there, 24 weeks is too extensive. If you're going to have any kind of consistency regarding this issue, you would want to ensure above all else that a fetus could not be aborted at any stage where it could potentially be viable. At 20-24 weeks fetuses do have a chance of viability and many have survived with medical assistance. The limit should be, at the absolute most, 20 weeks, if not even a little earlier. Since the vast majority of abortions happen well before this stage anyway, it wouldn't have much of a significant social impact either.

    Feminists trying to frame this as a misogynist issue hurt their cause far more than anyone else.
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PAFCStan)

    Many of the arguments that people make sound like libertarian/right-wing points. "Abortion is a women's decision" - I disagree with this because I think that decisions should be collectively taken by society and the unborn child has no choice to be aborted. I find it morally unjustifiable for it to be acceptable to abort a 24 week old baby still in the womb, while if that same baby was out, killing them would be murder.

    Would like to get thoughts on this.
    This is the most famous defense of abortion in philosophy.

    Just glancing at what limited reasoning you've presented here, you've prima facie reject the right to bodily autonomy. Not only can a woman not exercise a right of bodily autonomy, but society gets to make such choices for her.

    Would you be okay if society got to decide questions of bodily autonomy for you? Can we [society] lop off your arm because we feel its in your best interest, even if you disagree? Why not? Because you have a belief in a right to bodily autonomy? If so, then your belief as presented here is incoherent or inconsistent.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Babies don't get aborted at 24 weeks because they are unwanted, but because they are found in scans to have severe disabilities or cause a deadly risk to the mother. It is 24 weeks because that is when those scans are carried out.

    There is no point carrying on with another 3 months of pregnancy to deliver a baby that won't survive on its own or with a quality of life so diminished it would be cruel to bring them into the world.

    It's definitely not to give a woman 6 months to decide if she wants to keep the baby or not, get real.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PAFCStan)
    I am quite firmly on the left politically, and I identify with many women's rights causes and would consider myself to be a feminist.

    However, I struggle to morally justify the 24 week term limit on abortion. Abortion is a cause celebre for many of my fellows on the left - that if you support a shorter term limit, you are right-wing and anti-women. However, I will always stand with the oppressed, and in this case I think the unborn child is oppressed.

    Many of the arguments that people make sound like libertarian/right-wing points. "Abortion is a women's decision" - I disagree with this because I think that decisions should be collectively taken by society and the unborn child has no choice to be aborted. I find it morally unjustifiable for it to be acceptable to abort a 24 week old baby still in the womb, while if that same baby was out, killing them would be murder.

    Would like to get thoughts on this.
    Opinions on abortion have absolutely nothing to do with any definition of leftism, so make sure to remind people of that.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    This is the most famous defense of abortion in philosophy.

    Just glancing at what limited reasoning you've presented here, you've prima facie reject the right to bodily autonomy. Not only can a woman not exercise a right of bodily autonomy, but society gets to make such choices for her.

    Would you be okay if society got to decide questions of bodily autonomy for you? Can we [society] lop off your arm because we feel its in your best interest, even if you disagree? Why not? Because you have a belief in a right to bodily autonomy? If so, then your belief as presented here is incoherent or inconsistent.
    If you note that a 24 week old foetus is a body in its own right, rather than another one of its mother's limbs or appendages (since it is viable that it could survive without the mother at that stage) I think your post ceases to make much sense.

    Of course society would prevent someone from killing a baby, because that baby can't protect itself. Of course that has nothing to do with the issue of bodily autonomy, as it's someone else's body the mother is destroying, not her own.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    While I am all for abortions, I do agree that the 24 weeks limit may be too much. It is reasonable in the case of sudden health decline in the mother etc. since those things can't be predicted, but those cases already taken as exceptions to the limit anyway. In all other cases where the woman just wants to abort the pregnancy, she shouldn't need 24 weeks to do it.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    Would you be okay if society got to decide questions of bodily autonomy for you? Can we [society] lop off your arm because we feel its in your best interest, even if you disagree? Why not? Because you have a belief in a right to bodily autonomy? If so, then your belief as presented here is incoherent or inconsistent.
    The question is not about body autonomy, but whether the baby is considered a separate entity, or part of the mothers body.

    (Original post by PAFCStan)
    I am quite firmly on the left politically, and I identify with many women's rights causes and would consider myself to be a feminist.However, I struggle to morally justify the 24 week term limit on abortion. Abortion is a cause celebre for many of my fellows on the left - that if you support a shorter term limit, you are right-wing and anti-women. However, I will always stand with the oppressed, and in this case I think the unborn child is oppressed.
    I am of a similar mind. For me, the unborn child has a right to life as soon as it develops it's own nervous system. While there are many justification to have an abortion, I do not believe "the mother doesnt want a baby" is one of them.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    This is the most famous defense of abortion in philosophy.

    Just glancing at what limited reasoning you've presented here, you've prima facie reject the right to bodily autonomy. Not only can a woman not exercise a right of bodily autonomy, but society gets to make such choices for her.

    Would you be okay if society got to decide questions of bodily autonomy for you? Can we [society] lop off your arm because we feel its in your best interest, even if you disagree? Why not? Because you have a belief in a right to bodily autonomy? If so, then your belief as presented here is incoherent or inconsistent.
    Except if the fetus is viable, it isn't the mother's body or her bodily autonomy any more, is it?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PAFCStan)
    However, I struggle to morally justify the 24 week term limit on abortion. Abortion is a cause celebre for many of my fellows on the left - that if you support a shorter term limit, you are right-wing and anti-women. However, I will always stand with the oppressed, and in this case I think the unborn child is oppressed.

    Many of the arguments that people make sound like libertarian/right-wing points. "Abortion is a women's decision" - I disagree with this because I think that decisions should be collectively taken by society and the unborn child has no choice to be aborted. I find it morally unjustifiable for it to be acceptable to abort a 24 week old baby still in the womb, while if that same baby was out, killing them would be murder.

    Would like to get thoughts on this.
    The decision of the mother takes precedence in this case because the foetus is not self-aware, and cannot reason, and therefore has no interest in continuing to live.

    Oppression is generally defined as prolonged cruel or unjust treatment. It's not, however, possible to inflict cruelty on a foetus by aborting it, because it is not sentient: it simply cannot object to being aborted. You say it doesn't have a choice in the matter, but that's not because it's being denied a choice: it's because it cannot choose.

    In my view, 24 weeks is too early a limit: people should be able to have abortions at any stage of pregnancy.
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    If you note that a 24 week old foetus is a body in its own right, rather than another one of its mother's limbs or appendages (since it is viable that it could survive without the mother at that stage) I think your post ceases to make much sense.
    If you actually bothered to the read the paper linked to, the idea of the fetus having a right to bodily autonomy is assumed; yet abortion is still permissible as the fetus's right to bodily autonomy does not override the mother's right to bodily autonomy.

    Of course society would prevent someone from killing a baby, because that baby can't protect itself. Of course that has nothing to do with the issue of bodily autonomy, as it's someone else's body the mother is destroying, not her own.
    Before posting, you should probably actually read the paper.
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    The question is not about body autonomy, but whether the baby is considered a separate entity, or part of the mothers body.
    If you had bothered to read the paper provided, you would know why it is a question of bodily autonomy.
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by VV Cephei A)
    Except if the fetus is viable, it isn't the mother's body or her bodily autonomy any more, is it?
    If you had bothered to read the paper provided, you would already know what the answer to this is.

    Mother's right to bodily autonomy provides her with the right to have the fetus removed from her body. The fetus cannot claim a right to use her body, as there is no such thing as a right to [use] someone else's body. I cannot mandate that you donate blood, or an organ, or anything which requires you to use your body as a provision for others.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    If you had bothered to read the paper provided, you would already know what the answer to this is.

    Mother's right to bodily autonomy provides her with the right to have the fetus removed from her body. The fetus cannot claim a right to use her body, as there is no such thing as a right to [use] someone else's body. I cannot mandate that you donate blood, or an organ, or anything which requires you to use your body as a provision for others.
    It's a terrible argument which uses kidnapping and forced organ donation as an analogy for pregnancy, ignoring that women willingly choose to have sex with full knowledge of the potential consequences. It could logically be used as a defense of abortion in cases of rape, but otherwise it fails at the first hurdle.

    There are better arguments for permitting abortion (up to a point). OP's issue is with the term limit, which is based around viability and yet extends abortion to a point where fetuses have a chance of survival outside of the womb, which is inconsistent.
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by VV Cephei A)
    It's a terrible argument which uses kidnapping and forced organ donation as an analogy for pregnancy, ignoring that women willingly choose to have sex with full knowledge of the potential consequences. It could logically be used as a defense of abortion in cases of rape, but otherwise it fails at the first hurdle.
    Again, before trying to rebut the argument, you need to first read the paper. Your objection is dealt with by JJT in the paper.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    Again, before trying to rebut the argument, you need to first read the paper. Your objection is dealt with by JJT in the paper.
    She gives no sound justification for it anywhere, I know it, you know it, it's an insultingly stupid analogy that has been repeatedly torn apart by scholars on both sides of the abortion debate. Forced organ donation is not analogous to voluntary intercourse and pregnancy, a random stranger is not analogous to one's own child, the withholding of support is not analogous to the direct act of killing, so on and so forth.

    Feminists attempting to frame this whole debate as an issue of womens' rights, when it is rather an issue of the fetus and it's claim to personhood, is probably the most laughable and regrettable aspect of the pro-choice movement. This coming from someone who is by most definitions, pro-choice.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PAFCStan)
    I am quite firmly on the left politically, and I identify with many women's rights causes and would consider myself to be a feminist.

    However, I struggle to morally justify the 24 week term limit on abortion. Abortion is a cause celebre for many of my fellows on the left - that if you support a shorter term limit, you are right-wing and anti-women. However, I will always stand with the oppressed, and in this case I think the unborn child is oppressed.

    Many of the arguments that people make sound like libertarian/right-wing points. "Abortion is a women's decision" - I disagree with this because I think that decisions should be collectively taken by society and the unborn child has no choice to be aborted. I find it morally unjustifiable for it to be acceptable to abort a 24 week old baby still in the womb, while if that same baby was out, killing them would be murder.

    Would like to get thoughts on this.
    Women have no right to decide wether they should have an abortion, they should leave it to the men. How selfish to think that women actually have opinion.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I could never have an abortion. The thought of killing my own child is repellent to me, and I could not do it.

    At 24 weeks, that baby could be born and survive. I cannot see the justification of killing a human life. At any stage of pregnancy, that is a potential human life. That could be a baby, and more likely would be if the woman continued with the pregnancy.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by VV Cephei A)
    She gives no sound justification for it anywhere, I know it, you know it, it's an insultingly stupid analogy that has been repeatedly torn apart by scholars on both sides of the abortion debate. Forced organ donation is not analogous to voluntary intercourse and pregnancy, a random stranger is not analogous to one's own child, the withholding of support is not analogous to the direct act of killing, so on and so forth.

    Feminists attempting to frame this whole debate as an issue of womens' rights, when it is rather an issue of the fetus and it's claim to personhood, is probably the most laughable and regrettable aspect of the pro-choice movement. This coming from someone who is by most definitions, pro-choice.
    No. Forced organ donation is analogous to forced pregnancy.

    The fact that one chooses to have sex is irrelevant to the concept that both require the loss of bodily autonomy.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.