Debate:Should abortion be considered immoral in most cases due to adoption?

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Debate.png This is a Debate page.
Feel free to add your own spin on the story. Please keep it civil!
Information icon.svg This debate was created by ZeroIsLogic (talk) 09:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC).


Proposition[edit]

Should abortion be considered immoral in most cases due to adoption?

Yes[edit]

I believe so, with the exception the the birth or pregnancy puts the mother or child in danger. I'm open to any arguments you may have. And I hope I made this page correctly.ZeroIsLogic (talk) 09:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

No[edit]

Pretty sure this is an argument made a thousand times already, but I don't see anything immoral about terminating a three-week-old (or whatever age) zygote. If it has no brain activity it can't be immoral to terminate IMO. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 09:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The arguments in favour of the free availability of abortion are not changed one whit by the fact that children can be adopted. To switch the argument around - would anybody who is presently vehemently opposed to abortion change their position if adoption (for whatever bizarre reason) were not permitted?--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 10:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Depends on which arguments, Bob. Because, personally, I was anti-abortion for a long time due to that argument. After all, hey, the mother can simply give birth to the child and give it up to adoption, right? And even if a foetus is not a full person, it's a potential person, so should at least be given some protection. But over time, I realized that this way of thinking was a little bit androcentric. After all, pregnancies are not exactly easy events. They can even damage the body. And to tell women "No, you have to have the nine months of pregnancy, you have to give birth", that means putting "cause" over an actual human being. The purpose becomes more important than the human - and that is dehumanizing. One could say, such thinking sees women as little more than birth machines. So, IMO, that is what's wrong with the adoption argument: You cannot force women to give birth, because that's just dehumanizing! Octo8 (talk) 10:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
This is a good argument I had not considered. I think you may have just moved me back to "On the fence."74.83.124.115 (talk) 11:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
That was me. I got signed out.ZeroIsLogic (talk) 11:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

How about this: Should birth control also be considered immoral due to adoption? WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 11:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

One, pregnancy is dangerous. Two the UN has declared it to amount to [torture]. Three, I do not want to spend up to 36 hours in pain because some dude declared it "immoral".— Unsigned, by: Bazer63 / talk / contribs

Not allowing a woman to have control over her body is immoral (and btw, I consider the criminalization of any victimless activity such as gambling, prostitution or drugs immoral, as well).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 09:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Technically it's not completely victimless, though. *points to the fetus* Technically gambling and drugs aren't victimless either; they often entail financial and bodily harm respectively to the participating party. But unlike, say, a liver that might be damaged through alcohol use, a fetus isn't an organ that's inherently part of the woman's body, so it doesn't count as voluntary self-harm. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 10:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Self-harm doesn't count and until birth, a fetus is an organ of the woman's body.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 10:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Sort of. But are you proposing the woman should have the right to kill the prenate as long as it's connected to her through an umbilical cord? Even when it's already a fully developed baby? Either way, "the fetus is part of the woman's body" isn't typically used to justify killing it. The narrative is usually that it's an alien organism violating the woman's bodily integrity. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 10:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
But where do we draw the distinction with the progress of medicine (e.g. today preemies can survive just fine that would be as good as dead only a few decades ago)?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 11:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, once medicine has progressed sufficiently, we'll be able to terminate pregnancies without killing the fetus. So: abortions for all without any guilt over killed fetuses. The practice of letting babies grow inside people might even die out, eventually. Well, not accounting for women who find being pregnant oddly arousing or enticing.Wikipedia's W.svg But maybe it'll even be outlawed, because forcing a natural pregnancy on a baby will be seen as abusive. Heh, wouldn't that be odd? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 11:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
That might happen one day, although I'd expect staunch opposition from the Greens or wingnuts, cause they'd think of ectogenesis being "unnatural" or some similar horseshit.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 11:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, no doubt there. :/ 141.134.75.236 (talk) 11:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like some kinda brave new world you're describing there. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Damn, ectogenesis doesn't cause totalitarianism! That's almost like Christian Fundamentalists getting their panties in a bunch about Credit Cards and other forms of cashless payment, cause in their twisted mind, it has something to do with the Revelation (not being able to buy or sell without the mark and such shit). Luddism is for fools (besides that, I don't think, that natural birth's gonna be banned, that sounds too much like some half-assed dystopia)!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 05:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
To be honest, the world desribed in Brave New World doesn't sound all that horrible. The castes seem kinda unnecessary, but at least (almost) everyone's content, right? And it's not like ectogenesis will inevitably lead to a society like that. Maybe a ban on natural pregnancies is a bit much, but I don't think a negative stance of society towards natural pregnancy is particularly "out there". Just think of childbirth in Western society, where it's become almost impossible to think of it in terms outside of a medical setting where a woman is stretched out on a bed with her legs up and a doctor constantly looking at her vagina. If you saw, say, an African woman giving birth unsupervised in a squatting position, wouldn't you find that odd and question whether that's safe? And yet giving birth laying down on your backWikipedia's W.svg is an objectively stupid position to give birth in. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
It's more comfortable for the medical personnel to handle, I guess (and more comfortable for the woman giving birth, so she doesn't have to be careful not to fall over during giving birth).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 21:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm rather sure it's not particularly helpful to the woman when the lithotomy position narrows the birth canal by up to a third. It also draws out and strains the procedure by the labor process needing to work against gravity. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
That's right and it's not the only one, just the one most convenient for the medical personnel.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 21:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I dunno, if she were squatting, the main difference for the doctor would be that they'd be the one laying down. And since they don't need to give birth, I doubt it'd cause them much inconvenience. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Adoption isn't until the end of a long and dangerous process[edit]

To demand that someone go through that because of arbitrary value placed on DNA combinations is unreasonable. If human life has value, it's from the human part, not the life part. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

It also demeans the life of the mother as it basically shows she is not allowed to make medical decisions about her own body. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 13:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Adoption has nothing to do with abortion. There's a sort of implication of "why are we killing babies when they are wanted" but the wanted bit is immaterial. Abortion is all about where personhood begins, where the zygote/fetus/baby starts to have rights and how they impinge on the rights of the mother, not whether the baby is wanted or not. Otherwise you might as well ask whether birth control should be immoral in most cases due to adoption. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 14:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Is where we define personhood as beginning/when we decide to start calling something a person really that important to the issue, though? Should only, say, animals and demention patients that fit our definition of personhood be allowed to have rights? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

A better objection[edit]

Arguably if it could be ensured that the pregnancy came full circle without any notable inconvenience to the woman, then adoption could be presented as an alternative to abortion. But since pregnancies generally do entail various inconveniences, both minor and major, adoption makes for a rather weak anti-abortion argument. Likely a better objection is to argue that given the ready availability of contraceptives (assuming that they are readily available), an unwanted pregnancy implies negligence (possibly willful, possibly unwillful) on the part of the couple that partook in unsafe sex. In addition, if either of them were ignorant of the means to have safe sex or were taught to be wary of the use of contraceptives, then their parents/(former) legal guardians and/or educators are possibly guilty of willful negligence. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)