2am + frustrated ≠ good decisions
I initially posted this way to late (early), and made some mistakes that Tumblr mobile wouldn’t let me properly correct. So I’m copy and pasting the entire thing into Word before re-posting it. Now I just have to remember what I wrote. *sigh*
@invincibletony I’ll admit that I was very confused when I first read your reply before realizing I didn’t place my full position above as I have in other posts.@ragingcommonsense ’s argument that aborting only in the case that the mother’s life is in danger has swayed my position in the past months I have followed her. I now consider in such a case that killing the child, regardless of innocence, can be considered self-defense. Though I’d add “critical danger that could only be helped by killing the child.” I’ll also add that I think in such a case, I think it should be up to the mother whether or not to abort - even if it means giving up her own life.
I….well, I’m uneasy about my position. I won’t hide that. Objectively, I know that in such a case it is life vs life, rather than life vs property, as in any other situation regarding abortion. (Property in the Lockean sense that includes an individual’s body). I also won’t hide the fact that it is easier to except in light of the knowledge that, in most cases, the baby has a chance to be born prematurely and still live by the time that child’s presence puts his or her mother at risk. Also in light of the knowledge that, in most other cases, if the mother dies, the baby dies as well. Perhaps you find that callus towards the mother….but to me, it’s about protecting life - mother and child.
I have no doubt that ragingcommonsense will go over this, but I thought I’d give my two cents in regards to the first portion of your last reply.
You summarized ragingcommonsense’s argument as being:
“You’re logical argument is structured as:
1. People consent to have sex;
2. There’s a risk of becoming pregnant after sex;
3.People who consent to risks consent to the consequences;
4.People who take risks should suffer with the consequences;
5.. Therefore, people who consent to have sex, also consent to the risk of becoming pregnant, and if they do become pregnant should suffer the consequences.
Consent to Sex = consent to risk of pregnancy
Consent to risk of pregnancy = consent to child birth (carry to term)
Therefore, consent to sex = consent to child birth”
I don’t know if she meant for the “OR” statement to be true, but I don’t think it matches with the statement above. The former statement is about consent to the initial act and consent to living with the consequence. The latter seems to imply it’s about consent with the initial act and consent to being perfectly content with the consequence.
My know someone who is pregnant right now. She was on birth control, but it obviously failed. She was devastated when she learned she is pregnant, and her boyfriend was not at all happy. But they both understood that they had consensual sex and are both aware enough to know that birth control can fail. They aren’t happy about the consequence of their actions, but are both willing to face it and realize that their baby holds no blame in the situation they are now find themselves.
You also stated that “I would like to say that this whole conversation revolves around consent as a factor in abortions – not human life, not when life begins, not personhood – only the nature of consent.”
My friend is consenting to live with the consequence of her action, despite an “easy” way out, because she recognizes her baby as a living human-being and her child.
As much as people would like to say that the whole abortion conversation revolves around consent, it doesn’t. There is a whole lot more to it, and it’s all interconnected.
According to the logic of your argument, a person’s control over their property is more important than a person’s right to life, despite the fact that the latter has no control over their situation. So the former has the power of life or death over the latter because have the power to consent to what is done with their property, while the powerless has no consent over their lives.
When property of the powerful is placed over the lives of the powerless, horrendous things are done. Just think about the African slaves or the Native Americans.
(This next portion was originally a separate post)
@invincibletony
I just realized that you meant “this whole conversation” as being the current conversation of this individual thread. Sorry, I should have read more carefully.
In that case, I will point out that there are, at a minimum, two people being spoken of in any abortion discussion: the mother and the child. When a mother consents to an abortion she is overriding another human-being’s consent. Consent is an explicit statement of “yes.” If someone is unable to give an explicit statement of “yes,” there is no consent.
