The self defense justification for abortion - does anyone subscribe?

blowfly

New Member
I recently heard for the first time this argument:

1. Assume for the sake of discussion that a fetus at some stage of development is granted personhood for moral purposes (not necesarily legal purposes).

2. Assume for the sake of discussion that it is a normal pregnancy without medical complications, and the life of the mother is not at risk.

3. The fetus is taking oxygen and nutrients from the woman's bloodstream, and injecting hormones and waste, which is a form of bodily violation.

4. Nothing has the moral right to perform this violation on a woman's body.

5. Therefore by the self defense principle, the woman has the moral right to use lethal force on the fetus, right up until this violation ends, at birth.

Does anyone here subscribe to this argument, and would you be prepared to have a calm and sensible debate about it?
 

BMS

Well-known member
I recently heard for the first time this argument:

1. Assume for the sake of discussion that a fetus at some stage of development is granted personhood for moral purposes (not necesarily legal purposes).

2. Assume for the sake of discussion that it is a normal pregnancy without medical complications, and the life of the mother is not at risk.

3. The fetus is taking oxygen and nutrients from the woman's bloodstream, and injecting hormones and waste, which is a form of bodily violation.

4. Nothing has the moral right to perform this violation on a woman's body.

5. Therefore by the self defense principle, the woman has the moral right to use lethal force on the fetus, right up until this violation ends, at birth.

Does anyone here subscribe to this argument, and would you be prepared to have a calm and sensible debate about it?
Whilst most people dont look at it this way, its how the human reproductive process works. Facts dont care about feelings.

Nb also applies to the human being at embryo stage.
 

blowfly

New Member
Whilst most people dont look at it this way, its how the human reproductive process works. Facts dont care about feelings.

Nb also applies to the human being at embryo stage.
So do you think the argument is sound hence accept the conclusion, or not?
 

blowfly

New Member
ok. I'm looking for someone to defend the argument as I think it is unsound. Last attempt to discuss it in another forum was not successful.
 

CrowCross

Super Member
3. The fetus is taking oxygen and nutrients from the woman's bloodstream, and injecting hormones and waste, which is a form of bodily violation.
The baby is being given oxygen and nutrients from the mothers bloodstream, and the mother is removing the babies hormones and waste...How is that a form of bodily violation?
 

blowfly

New Member
The baby is being given oxygen and nutrients from the mothers bloodstream, and the mother is removing the babies hormones and waste...How is that a form of bodily violation?
I accept this part of the argument - in purely biological terms, it is reasonable to say that the fetus is a form parasite.

At an emotional level, without any qualifications, this works in in favour of the pro-choicers.

Rationally speaking, it doesn't directly imply anything about personhood, and moral status, at least not without further supporting arguments.
 

BMS

Well-known member
I see. Good question, but I doubt if any posters who might have tried to support it are still on the forum, I think they have all left dissafected angry and offended
 

Beloved Daughter

Super Member
I recently heard for the first time this argument:

1. Assume for the sake of discussion that a fetus at some stage of development is granted personhood for moral purposes (not necesarily legal purposes).

2. Assume for the sake of discussion that it is a normal pregnancy without medical complications, and the life of the mother is not at risk.

3. The fetus is taking oxygen and nutrients from the woman's bloodstream, and injecting hormones and waste, which is a form of bodily violation.

4. Nothing has the moral right to perform this violation on a woman's body.

5. Therefore by the self defense principle, the woman has the moral right to use lethal force on the fetus, right up until this violation ends, at birth.

Does anyone here subscribe to this argument, and would you be prepared to have a calm and sensible debate about it?
Complete and total nonsense. There is no argument here.

We have rejected the parasite argument years ago.
 

blowfly

New Member
Complete and total nonsense. There is no argument here.

We have rejected the parasite argument years ago.

The "biologically parasite" observation of "fetuses are biologically equivalent to parasites in many biological ways" seems correct to me.

If the "parasite argument" is "the fetus is biologically a parasite therefore abortion is justified" then I agree this argument is unsound, or at least, needs some heavy support which I doubt withstands scrutiny.

In either case I am looking for someone who adheres to the argument in the OP. Maybe there are no such posters here in the forum.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
I recently heard for the first time this argument:

1. Assume for the sake of discussion that a fetus at some stage of development is granted personhood for moral purposes (not necesarily legal purposes).

2. Assume for the sake of discussion that it is a normal pregnancy without medical complications, and the life of the mother is not at risk.

3. The fetus is taking oxygen and nutrients from the woman's bloodstream, and injecting hormones and waste, which is a form of bodily violation.

4. Nothing has the moral right to perform this violation on a woman's body.

5. Therefore by the self defense principle, the woman has the moral right to use lethal force on the fetus, right up until this violation ends, at birth.

Does anyone here subscribe to this argument, and would you be prepared to have a calm and sensible debate about it?
I have already answered this absurd line of reasoning, but here it is again:

Pregnancy is a natural consequence of sexual relations. Pregnancy is supposed to happen through sexual relations. When a woman consents to sex, the woman by extension consents to pregnancy. If the woman did not want to get pregnant, why did she consent to sexual relations?

Abortion supporters, for some unknown reason, appear either unable or unwilling to make the connection between sexual relations and pregnancy. For reasons that mystify me, they think sex and pregnancy are two totally and completely unrelated events.

Abortion supporters want choice without consequence, freedom without responsibility. It doesn't work that way.

Another poster on this site used the analogy of Roulette: you can bet everything on black--and up to a point you can still change your mind. But there comes a point of no return in the game where you are all in whatever happens. You cannot rescind your choice becasue red came up and you lost. Same thing with pregnancy. There is a point of no return--once you pass that point--you are all in. You cannot rescind your choice because you got pregnant and didn't want to. Choice cannot come without responsibility.

And even IF you reject my above argument, consider:

With so many options available to women and men who want to have sex without consequence, it is difficult to understand why abortion is even necessary. Birth control is widely available and effective at prevention of pregnancy. If you want to argue that it is unaffordable, prophalics are widely available and cheap. Then there are surgical options. If a pregnancy somehow happens anyway--there is always the option for adoption if a woman feels she is unable to care for a child. If a woman wants to "terminate" her pregnancy, she can bear the child until the child is viable, then the doctor can remove the child from her womb give the child the necessary medical care until the child can leave the hospital and survive normally--and be placed up for adoption.

Why is abortion even necessary given modern medicine?
 
Last edited:

DaGeo

Active member
I recently heard for the first time this argument:

1. Assume for the sake of discussion that a fetus at some stage of development is granted personhood for moral purposes (not necesarily legal purposes).

2. Assume for the sake of discussion that it is a normal pregnancy without medical complications, and the life of the mother is not at risk.

3. The fetus is taking oxygen and nutrients from the woman's bloodstream, and injecting hormones and waste, which is a form of bodily violation.

4. Nothing has the moral right to perform this violation on a woman's body.

5. Therefore by the self defense principle, the woman has the moral right to use lethal force on the fetus, right up until this violation ends, at birth.

Does anyone here subscribe to this argument, and would you be prepared to have a calm and sensible debate about it?
Thanks for the thread. Thanks for exposing abortion arguments for what they are!!

But if you’re seeking to have a “sensible debate” with those who stubbornly cling to such nonsense, you’re asking a bit much! 😂🤣

Abortion advocates, who are profoundly engulfed by ethereal and alternate realities, often ignore modern medicine’s capabilities that can save both mother and child simultaneously in such a rare event if it should occur
 

blowfly

New Member
Actually I am broadly pro-choice, but this particular argument in the OP seems like a bad argument to me and I am fundamentally pro-sound-arguments.

I was hoping someone here would be prepared to defend the argument so I could have a proper debate but..... I guess not many pro-choicers lurk in these forums.
 

DaGeo

Active member
Actually I am broadly pro-choice, but this particular argument in the OP seems like a bad argument to me and I am fundamentally pro-sound-arguments.

I was hoping someone here would be prepared to defend the argument so I could have a proper debate but..... I guess not many pro-choicers lurk in these forums.
If you’re saying that you are “...broadly pro-choice...”, (a euphemism for—l believe in free choice killing of certain people), how can you then claim to be for “fundamentally pro-sound-arguements”.

Initially I found your pro-choice anomaly a bit incongruous but even more so ghoulish.

Do you have in mind a pro-choice argument that is a “fundamentally pro-sound argument”. I know it’s not in the thread title, as you’ve indicated. But. Just curious—what is a “sound” broadly pro-choice argument⁉️
 

DaGeo

Active member
The "biologically parasite" observation of "fetuses are biologically equivalent to parasites in many biological ways" seems correct to me.

If the "parasite argument" is "the fetus is biologically a parasite therefore abortion is justified" then I agree this argument is unsound, or at least, needs some heavy support which I doubt withstands scrutiny.

In either case I am looking for someone who adheres to the argument in the OP. Maybe there are no such posters here in the forum.
So is there a self-defense law that can be applied by prosecutors in a court of law against a fetus for attacking an innocent woman?

I thought you said you were in favor of “pro-sound arguments”⁉️

WHHAAAAT IS THIS⁉️⁉️⁉️⁉️
 

Yakuda

Well-known member
I recently heard for the first time this argument:

1. Assume for the sake of discussion that a fetus at some stage of development is granted personhood for moral purposes (not necesarily legal purposes).

2. Assume for the sake of discussion that it is a normal pregnancy without medical complications, and the life of the mother is not at risk.

3. The fetus is taking oxygen and nutrients from the woman's bloodstream, and injecting hormones and waste, which is a form of bodily violation.

4. Nothing has the moral right to perform this violation on a woman's body.

5. Therefore by the self defense principle, the woman has the moral right to use lethal force on the fetus, right up until this violation ends, at birth.

Does anyone here subscribe to this argument, and would you be prepared to have a calm and sensible debate about it?
It's an unconvincing argument but people are free to make such arguments and do so all the time.

The baby has no culpability as the baby does not appear of its own free will seeking to take any of those things from the woman. The woman's actions could potentially create pregnancy. It is incumbent on her to avoid pregnancy if she is not prepared to deal with the consequences. Killing a baby is never a convincing argument. It should be on your why but cleay not everyone is rational.
 

Yakuda

Well-known member
Actually I am broadly pro-choice, but this particular argument in the OP seems like a bad argument to me and I am fundamentally pro-sound-arguments.

I was hoping someone here would be prepared to defend the argument so I could have a proper debate but..... I guess not many pro-choicers lurk in these forums.
Anyone with a functioning brain knows that's an asinine argument. There is nothing to debate.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
So is there a self-defense law that can be applied by prosecutors in a court of law against a fetus for attacking an innocent woman?

I thought you said you were in favor of “pro-sound arguments”⁉️

WHHAAAAT IS THIS⁉️⁉️⁉️⁉️
"Pro-reason" and "pro-sound arguments" are defined by abortion supporters as anything anyone says in support of abortion--no matter how absurd or ridiculous.
 

BMS

Well-known member
Actually I am broadly pro-choice, but this particular argument in the OP seems like a bad argument to me and I am fundamentally pro-sound-arguments.

I was hoping someone here would be prepared to defend the argument so I could have a proper debate but..... I guess not many pro-choicers lurk in these forums.
I am totally pro-choice when it comes to the sexual intercourse that may lead to conception, but there is no choice about the consequences.
Pro-choice abortion supporters bring up all sorts of reasons to try and abdicate responsibility.
 
Top