Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Abortion

Rate this topic


semm

Recommended Posts

Why don't you acknowledge the Rand quote that says: "No one’s rights can be secured by the violation of the rights of others", and "only an individual man can possess rights", when you go ahead and declare it illegal for a woman to abort something that is occupying her body?

I don't deny them. My position is that the fetus is for all intents and purposes a separate organism and at that point it is only the whim of the woman that is keeping it inside of her. Birth is not the rational place to make the dividing line for "independent living thing", because it can happen at any time, can be induced for any reason, etc. The point at which the fetus can survive outside the womb without specialized medical care and has recognizable human brain activity patterns is the proper demarcation point. At that point, the woman is the only one keeping the fetus "dependent" on her. It isn't a requirement of the fetus's continued survival, it is not demanded by nature, it is simply her own decision, made for any number of either rational or irrational reasons. If she whims that it be removed alive, then she has no right to kill it. But if she whims that it remain inside her, then why does she then have the right to kill it? The nature of reality determines morality and rights, not whim. I do not recognize how any coherent moral/socio-political system could declare that someone can make a decision that ensures that they can kill something when they could not otherwise. There is no other thing I can think of which is analagous to that idea where it would be considered moral or allowable by rights.

That is why I believe that at about the start of the third trimester the woman no longer has the right to terminate the existence of the fetus (she can terminate the pregnancy, by giving birth in some way).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My position is that the fetus is for all intents and purposes a separate organism and at that point it is only the whim of the woman that is keeping it inside of her.
How exactly does a woman whimsically keep a fetus inside of her? What if she falls asleep -- what keeps the fetus from escaping? Are you saying that the mother is guilty of wrongful imprisonment? What are you really saying?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point at which the fetus can survive outside the womb without specialized medical care and has recognizable human brain activity patterns is the proper demarcation point.
What is "specialized medical care"... does anything beyond what a primitive tribal woman might provide count? What is "brain activity", and why should we use that as a criteria to define rights? ("Human" seems redundant here in a biological sense.) Why should we propose a political system under which brain waves gives an entity rights?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How exactly does a woman whimsically keep a fetus inside of her? What if she falls asleep -- what keeps the fetus from escaping? Are you saying that the mother is guilty of wrongful imprisonment? What are you really saying?

The fetus (as well as all infants) are incapable of rational thought, to say that the woman is guilty of wrongful imprisonment would indict every parent on Earth who uses a play-pen or a stroller.

I am saying the woman is choosing to not have the fetus removed through an early birth (or c-section, etc.). The woman is choosing to keep the fetus inside of her rather than "giving birth" (in some manner) at that point. To say that a woman, who could have the fetus removed and it survive on its own, can decide that she wants it to remain inside her so that she can retain the ability to kill it is ridiculous. That is what I am really saying.

What is "specialized medical care"... does anything beyond what a primitive tribal woman might provide count? What is "brain activity", and why should we use that as a criteria to define rights? ("Human" seems redundant here in a biological sense.) Why should we propose a political system under which brain waves gives an entity rights?

I mean a period in the intensive care unit. When I say "specialized medical care" I mean something that is outside what any regular baby has (given the context of the civilization). Brain activity is just that, the electrical activity in the brain as commonly measured by an EEG. Brain waves are a concrete measurement of the activity of the brain, which is the activity of consciousness. When the brain activity is characteristically human (which has been determined to be somewhere in the 5th month of pregnancy), then the fetus can be said to be human, because our distinctively human consciousness is our distinguishing feature above and beyond all else.

Brain waves are a measurement of brain activity, certain types of brain activity are uniquely human and are largely absent in the animal world. The nature of humans, which is the types of activity our brains can do that animals to a very large extent cannot, gives us our rights. "Brain waves" don't give you rights, your human consciousness does and brain waves are how we can measure it when it is impossible to interact with the person directly (as in the case of fetus in the womb, or a stroke victim, etc.).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am saying the woman is choosing to not have the fetus removed through an early birth (or c-section, etc.).

The fetus does not have the right to be extracted from the woman's body in any specific way. To say otherwise is to say that the fetus has a right to the woman's body, which is to say that the woman does not have a right to her own body, since rights cannot contradict each other.

If a woman chooses to have the fetus removed in a fashion that is fatal to the fetus, the fetus is simply out of luck. Until birth, its survival is entirely dependent on the cooperation of the woman, which must not be forced - unless you want to argue that pregnant women don't have rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am saying the woman is choosing to not have the fetus removed through an early birth (or c-section, etc.).
Not necessarily: should could also decide to abort the fetus. So the woman has all three choices, and she doesn't automatically choose to undergo surgery to have the fetal tissue removed.
To say that a woman, who could have the fetus removed and it survive on its own, can decide that she wants it to remain inside her so that she can retain the ability to kill it is ridiculous.
And why is it ridiculous? To say that a woman must put her own life and health at risk in order to have a fetus removed is the plainly ridiculous position -- it puts the life of an actual person in a lower position, morally speaking, than something that isn't even a person.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a question.

If you believe a fetus only gains rights as a seperate entity from the mother, would you consider it wrong to kill a fetus that has been given birth to, but is still connected to the umbilical cord?

How late of an abortion can you condone?

Edited by Myself
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you believe a fetus only gains rights as a seperate entity from the mother, would you consider it wrong to kill a fetus that has been given birth to, but is still connected to the umbilical cord?

How late of an abortion can you condone?

Until the fetus does not need specifically the biological mother's cooperation to survive anymore. After birth, she has to disconnect the umbilical cord anyway - there is nothing for her to be gained by killing the fetus first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until the fetus does not need specifically the biological mother's cooperation to survive anymore. After birth, she has to disconnect the umbilical cord anyway - there is nothing for her to be gained by killing the fetus first.

I didn't ask what was to be gained by killing the fetus, I asked whether she had that right. The fetus is still connected to the mother and is not a seperate entity.

Also, if you're going by the ability to survive outside the womb, then that could apply to a fetus months before full term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, if you're going by the ability to survive outside the womb, then that could apply to a fetus months before full term.

I most certainly do not go by that criterion. I said that the fetus cannot have a right to life that would contradict the mother's right to her own body.

I do not see how a fetus' "proposed" (for lack of a better word) right to life would contradict the mother's rights after birth, while the umbilical cord is still attached. Therefore, it would be immoral to kill the fetus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not see how a fetus' "proposed" (for lack of a better word) right to life would contradict the mother's rights after birth, while the umbilical cord is still attached. Therefore, it would be immoral to kill the fetus.

The argument is that while the fetus is still connected to the umbilical cord it is a part of the mother's body and therefore granting rights to it would conflict with the woman's right to control her body.

You may not agree with that distinction, but there those here who do. It is to them that I addressed my question.

Edited by Myself
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How late of an abortion can you condone?
If the child is outside of the mother, then it is separate from the mother, and is a person. An umbilical cord (which is not a person) is not a child; we don't care how much of an umbilical cord happens to be inside the mother.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not necessarily: should could also decide to abort the fetus. So the woman has all three choices, and she doesn't automatically choose to undergo surgery to have the fetal tissue removed. And why is it ridiculous? To say that a woman must put her own life and health at risk in order to have a fetus removed is the plainly ridiculous position -- it puts the life of an actual person in a lower position, morally speaking, than something that isn't even a person.

I never said that she must put her life at risk in order to save a fetus. I have already said that the life of the mother must come first, just as it must after birth. If the fetus is going to kill the mother, or if anything other than an abortion would result in her death, than it has to be aborted, for the simple fact that the fetus is encroaching on the mother's right to life, and can be seen as a transgressor in that instance.

Every woman knows that she is pregnant and what that means. By choosing to remain pregnant for 6 months, she has, in my view, agreed to any restrictions placed on her in the last three months of pregnancy. During that time she has a fully realized human being (in that if she happened to give birth early, it would be capable of having rights) inside of her, which only has to be taken out and given standard medical care for infants in America in order to survive. The mother from that point on is choosing to continue supporting the fetus with her body rather than giving birth and feeding externally or giving it to someone else to handle. She has, at that point, the choice to continue normal pregnancy, to give birth (in some manner) early, and to commit murder. That is my definition of her three choices.

Rights are contextual, and we do not have unlimited freedom of action. If I enter into a contract, I cannot break it without punishment. If I kill someone, I can no longer move about as I wish, because I have broken the social contract. I have the right to not give you any food whatsoever if you ask, because we have no relationship at all. I can do the same to friends, and family. But with children who are in my legal care, I must do whatever I can to give them semi-adequate food and shelter, etc. or else I will be charged with the unique crime of "neglect" and imprisoned or fined for it, or lose my rights to the children, or some combination of those. Similarly, I believe pregnant women that explicitly decide to continue a pregnancy to the point where the fetus is fully capable of being independent have made the decision to enter into a phase where they cannot kill the fetus unless there is a significant threat to their health. Its like a contract, you cannot break it without being punished. Your totally free to do anything that does not infringe on the rights of others, but if you enter into a contract your activities must abide by those terms or you will face punishment. Pregnancy is such a case, though the contract is in the form of a legal responsibility, along the lines of parenthood. I don't see the conflict there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every woman knows that she is pregnant and what that means. By choosing to remain pregnant for 6 months, she has, in my view, agreed to any restrictions placed on her in the last three months of pregnancy.

Are you aware there's an entire show devoted to people not knowing they were pregnant? Here's a page from the show's website about how people can often not know they were pregnant until pretty late in the game, even sometimes not until they are giving birth: "I Didn't Know I Was Pregnant"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you aware there's an entire show devoted to people not knowing they were pregnant? Here's a page from the show's website about how people can often not know they were pregnant until pretty late in the game, even sometimes not until they are giving birth: "I Didn't Know I Was Pregnant"

Oh, yes I do know about that. And if they don't know, then it is their own fault. If you have sex, you should be routinely taking pregnancy tests, except if you are using a fool-proof method like an IUD or implant. Even one a month will do, they only cost like five bucks and are available everywhere, you can stock up for a year, just in case. My point is this: you must live with the consequences of your actions, and your ineptitude, short-sightedness, or foolishness does not excuse you that responsibility. Just because I didn't think I was impaired from drinking doesn't mean I am still not responsible for driving drunk and killing a pedestrian. Just because I thought my acid was safe doesn't mean that I am not responsible for the brain damage I gave myself. Just because I didn't think to consider that the O-ring might get so small as to create a fuel leak at certain temperatures doesn't mean I am not responsible for the deaths of astronauts. "I didn't know my mortgage interest rate would increase after 3 years because I didn't bother reading the full contract" doesn't excuse you from paying it, and should not invoke a feeling of pity in anyone. The fact of the matter is you made a choice, and knew what might happen, then made further choices resulting in your present condition. You have to live up to the consequences of your choices, not simply shirk them off with an "I didn't know," or "Its so darned inconvenient."

*Note: While the above may sound like an argument for a strong pro-life stance, that is not what I advocate, I advocate total discretion of the mother up to 5-6 months, and after that allowable in cases of risk of the health of the mother, or perhaps massive defects (like it will die in 6 months, or will be severely retarded, brain dead, bound to a bed its entire life, etc.) though I haven't given much thought to those.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*Note: While the above may sound like an argument for a strong pro-life stance, that is not what I advocate, I advocate total discretion of the mother up to 5-6 months, and after that allowable in cases of risk of the health of the mother, or perhaps massive defects (like it will die in 6 months, or will be severely retarded, brain dead, bound to a bed its entire life, etc.) though I haven't given much thought to those.

Huh?

So, according to you, it's an actual individual with rights after 5-6 months, but we can still kill it if it's severely handicapped?

Does that give us moral justification for killing severely handicapped people that are actually out of the womb?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have already said that the life of the mother must come first
Good enough. That means the mother retains the moral right to an abortion up to birth.
just as it must after birth.
Oh, mercy. That means that the baby must sacrifice itself for its mother. I can't follow this moral theory of yours. Are you now arguing that mothers have the right to kill their offspring?
By choosing to remain pregnant for 6 months, she has, in my view, agreed to any restrictions placed on her in the last three months of pregnancy.
In my view, by setting forth this argument, you have abandoned all legal claims to your property. Fortunately, such matters are not typically adjudicated by reference to mere emotional reactions by some individual, they are resolved by appeal to a moral theory grounded in reality.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People don't seem to read entire posts, or respond to complete thoughts, instead just pick out small things which are generally unrelated and ignore everything else. There is a lot of context dropping going on. This goes for several of the people I've responded to, both on this thread and others.

Good enough. That means the mother retains the moral right to an abortion up to birth.

No, for reasons I discuss.

Oh, mercy. That means that the baby must sacrifice itself for its mother. I can't follow this moral theory of yours. Are you now arguing that mothers have the right to kill their offspring?

Not at all, I am talking from the mother's perspective, she must come first, if she has to choose between surviving and feeding her child, then she should feed herself. We are talking about abortion, not infanticide, and given my position in the debate it is obvious I would say infanticide is wrong.

In my view, by setting forth this argument, you have abandoned all legal claims to your property. Fortunately, such matters are not typically adjudicated by reference to mere emotional reactions by some individual, they are resolved by appeal to a moral theory grounded in reality.

"In my view" means that it is my conclusion, not that it is some random whim. While it may not be good debating form to say anything which implies that what you are saying is at all related to the conclusions of your own mind (otherwise called opinions, views, beliefs, thoughts, etc.) it doesn't seem something you should build an entire argument around. What rational relation is there between saying that I give all legal claim to my property when I agree to certain restrictions? My house is my own, no one can claim to own it but me, but if I live in certain neighborhoods I am contractually required to meet their homeowner's association guidelines. That is a proper analogy for the limitation I am discussing on abortion.

So, according to you, it's an actual individual with rights after 5-6 months, but we can still kill it if it's severely handicapped?

Does that give us moral justification for killing severely handicapped people that are actually out of the womb?

I did say that I had not given a whole lot of thought to the matter, something which you clearly ignored. If they are severely retarded to the point where they are literally incapable of conceptual or rational thought on any level higher than an animal can attain, then they can hardly be said to be human. Now that pretty much only applies to brain-dead people, and yeah you have the right to kill a brain-dead person so long as they are not legally in the care of anyone. For all intents and purposes they are dead anyway. Similarly, if the baby will necessarily die in a year, and will in the mean time simply have to endure pain, then I see no reason why not to end its life (you are its legal guardian and make medical decisions after all, and I think euthanasia should be legal).

No one has addressed my argument that pregnancy (in the third trimester, when the fetus can survive outside the womb with standard, for America, medical care and has fully recognizable human brain activity) is the same as parenthood. You don't have unlimited control over yourself in parenthood, you have a legal obligation to your child, unless you get rid of that obligation by putting them up for adoption. Why is it illogical to extend that to pregnancy? You have decided to bring a new human being into the world, that decision can be changed up to a certain point and then no longer exists after. For you it is apparently birth, which means that a premie baby that is 4.5 months old and isn't at all fully formed somehow has more rights than a late baby at 9.5 months that hasn't been born yet. That doesn't make sense. What if a woman is actually in the process of giving birth and all the doctors say that it isn't a problem, but then all of a sudden she panics, decides she doesn't want to be a mother, and insists on having it killing in-utero? That doesn't make any sense, and it is infanticide. But apparently that's fine and dandy because technically the baby is still getting sustenance through the umbilical cord and hasn't breathed air yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People don't seem to read entire posts, or respond to complete thoughts, instead just pick out small things which are generally unrelated and ignore everything else. There is a lot of context dropping going on.
The problem is that you are setting forth contradictory claims. Since there's no logical coherence to your argument, it's impossible to treat your argument as though it were logically coherent. Frankly, you're saying things that make no sense. So I am simply attempting to discern what the argument really is: to see which is your most fundamental mistake. You're not helping, when I point out a logical consequence of your position and then you just say "No it's not".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one has addressed my argument that pregnancy (in the third trimester, when the fetus can survive outside the womb with standard, for America, medical care and has fully recognizable human brain activity) is the same as parenthood.

That would mean that human rights are dependent on the level of medical care you can afford. First, this is not the source of the right to life, according to Objectivism. Second, let's say that an American hospital can keep a fetus at 5 months alive, a Cuban hospital at 7 months. It would then be moral for a Cuban woman to abort at 6 months, but not for an American woman. It would (presumably) be immoral for the American woman to travel to Cuba to get an abortion at six months there. An afflluent Cuban woman would have the duty to travel to America to give an early birth at six months if she changes her mind, but a poor Cuban woman would have no such duty. Not only is this completely inconsistent, it is also based on a presumption of duty.

You don't have unlimited control over yourself in parenthood, you have a legal obligation to your child

This has already been addressed earlier in this thread. There is no such thing as a "contract" or "unspoken agreement" or "clandestine covenant" between the woman and the fetus, and certainly not just because you arbitrarily say so.

For you it is apparently birth, which means that a premie baby that is 4.5 months old and isn't at all fully formed somehow has more rights than a late baby at 9.5 months that hasn't been born yet. That doesn't make sense.

Actually, it does, if and when you stop thinking of pregnant ladies as walking incubation chambers (which is exactly what you do when you argue that a pregnant woman has no rights to her body and that her womb is the property of the fetus after an arbitrary amount of time has passed). A premturely born child can be cared for by any number of volunteers (paid professionals included). If any of these want to quit, there is no need to force them to continue; someone else can take their place. That is not the case with the biological mother during pregnancy. If she wants to quit, you'd have to force her to continue the pregnancy or undergo a surgical procedure that she doesn't want, thereby violating her rights. That is the difference. Force.

What if a woman is actually in the process of giving birth and all the doctors say that it isn't a problem, but then all of a sudden she panics, decides she doesn't want to be a mother, and insists on having it killing in-utero? That doesn't make any sense, and it is infanticide. But apparently that's fine and dandy because technically the baby is still getting sustenance through the umbilical cord and hasn't breathed air yet.

Do you know of a single doctor who would be willing to perform an abortion at a moment's notice and on a whim right in the middle of childbirth? This is a non-issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, it does, if and when you stop thinking of pregnant ladies as walking incubation chambers (which is exactly what you do when you argue that a pregnant woman has no rights to her body and that her womb is the property of the fetus after an arbitrary amount of time has passed). A premturely born child can be cared for by any number of volunteers (paid professionals included). If any of these want to quit, there is no need to force them to continue; someone else can take their place. That is not the case with the biological mother during pregnancy. If she wants to quit, you'd have to force her to continue the pregnancy or undergo a surgical procedure that she doesn't want, thereby violating her rights. That is the difference. Force.

Hm, that actually is a good argument, which I haven't encountered before; that is, the fact that while the fetus is in the womb only the mother can care for it. And I'm not certain why there isn't a sort of contractual relationship between the pregnant woman, why is it illogical to say that she has a responsibility to the living thing she has inside her (once it can live on its own), or even to a potentiality (alcohol consumption in the first 6 months for instance can cause a whole host of problems, espcially mental retardation)?

Do you know of a single doctor who would be willing to perform an abortion at a moment's notice and on a whim right in the middle of childbirth? This is a non-issue.

That is not a response, because if your position is fully correct, than no fully rational doctor would have any reason not to perform the abortion. He gets paid, and it is no different than if it was at 3 months, 6 months, or 8 months. There is no reason for him to care if the woman will regret it later. And so, a rational doctor would still be perfectly willing to do it. So, my question stands: is your position that that is fully within the rights of the woman and a fully moral action?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It might be helpful to define "rights." Much of this discussion has been confined to arguing over when rights apply or to whom without addressing what they are. No where in my reading of objectivism have I seen it argued that any human being has the "right" to exist at the expense of another. If a fetus is a human being and as such has the right to live at its mother's expense, then does that mean a starving man has the right to live at my expense or yours? If you object on the grounds that a fetus or infant cannot survive on its own, then do disabled adults have the right to exist at the expense of others?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Randroid has convinced me that "ability to survive outside the womb given 'standard' care" is not a rational criterion. I don't know why I placed so much emphasis on it, I regret doing so, as it isn't really what I center my ideas on the subject of abortion around. I agree with Carl Sagan's argument from his book Billions and Billions, wherein he states that the fetus gains human rights when it becomes human, namely when its brain has characteristically human brain wave patterns which show that it is now at least possibly capable of human thought, and this has been shown to be toward the end of the second trimester (about 29-30 weeks).

It might be helpful to define "rights." Much of this discussion has been confined to arguing over when rights apply or to whom without addressing what they are. No where in my reading of objectivism have I seen it argued that any human being has the "right" to exist at the expense of another. If a fetus is a human being and as such has the right to live at its mother's expense, then does that mean a starving man has the right to live at my expense or yours? If you object on the grounds that a fetus or infant cannot survive on its own, then do disabled adults have the right to exist at the expense of others?

No one has the right to exist at the expense of another. But they do have the right to insist on what is contractually obligated, to insist that someone follow through and take responsibility for their decisions. The woman has chosen to become and remain pregnant all the way until the end of her second trimester. At that point the fetus has acquired the thing which makes humans human, our brain. And so the woman has chosen to create a new human consciousness, and by the nature of things to be the only possible caregiver until it is given birth (defined as removed from the mother's body in a way which keeps it alive). She isn't forced to be the only caregiver, she chose to be. She isn't forced to keep it inside her, she chose to take on that responsibility when she created the new life in the first place. If you choose to take on a responsibility, you cannot shirk that responsibility without being punished.

This does not mean that the woman's life is forfeit. If the woman will die unless the baby is aborted, then the baby must be killed (its actions, even if involuntary, are killing the mother and her life must be protected).

The basis for human rights isn't the "animal" definition of human, or any of his secondary characteristics, but his nature has a being of volitional, rational consciousness. An alien who is rational deserves "human" rights it is a being of volitional, rational consciousness. It doesn't matter where the being is located, or what other characteristics it has, it has rights if it has the human capacity for thought, which is exactly what fetuses acquire at 30 weeks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one has the right to exist at the expense of another. But they do have the right to insist on what is contractually obligated, to insist that someone follow through and take responsibility for their decisions.

From English common law tradition, all contracts must have at least these characteristics to be held valid.

1) Offer & Acceptance

2) Consideration (exchange of value)

3) Legality

4) Capacity (age of majority)

All contracts implicitly involve at least two parties. Both must be of the age of majority for the contract to be held valid. In the US the age of majority is reached on an individual is 18 years of age. Therefore no contract exists between a mother and her children, born or otherwise. You claim that such a contract does exist. I must ask when you would hold the mother's end of the bargain to be fulfilled? Does having a child obligate the parents to care for it their entire lives?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From English common law tradition, all contracts must have at least these characteristics to be held valid.

1) Offer & Acceptance

2) Consideration (exchange of value)

3) Legality

4) Capacity (age of majority)

All contracts implicitly involve at least two parties. Both must be of the age of majority for the contract to be held valid. In the US the age of majority is reached on an individual is 18 years of age. Therefore no contract exists between a mother and her children, born or otherwise. You claim that such a contract does exist. I must ask when you would hold the mother's end of the bargain to be fulfilled? Does having a child obligate the parents to care for it their entire lives?

Parents are the legal gaurdians for children until they reach the age of majority. They agree, by becoming parents, to that responsibility. That is the nature of parenthood. They must provide their children with a basic education (doesn't matter in what manner, but it has to have reading, writing, and basic math skills, enough to survive on its own in society), food, shelter, clothing, etc. They have to do this because they must naturally take over for the child his responsibilities for self-care and provision until the end of that necessity, which is the age of majority. Parenthood has legal requirements, because it is an implicit contract defined by the nature of human beings and in particular young ones. Someone must care for the children because they, by their abstract nature, cannot possibly do so themselves, but will be able to at a definitely definable point in the future. The logical person to do so is the person who chose to create them, the parents.

I am saying that the fetus is human, to be a volitional rational consciousness, at the time it has fully recognizable human brain activity which is at 30 weeks into the pregnancy, and thus the beginning of that legal responsibility of the parent begins at that time. Before that it is simply a potentiality, without any rights and no contractual obligations, it can be killed without a moral issue at all. But when it "wakes up" so to speak, when its brain becomes distinctly human, and thus has the structure upon which a human's mind is built, it is a human child. The pregnant woman has chosen to create this human consciousness, and as a result they have chosen to be the only caregiver for a select length of time, and must also take on the responsibility of caring for it outside the womb unless she gets rid of her legal responsibility by putting it up for adoption. She can even, in most cases in developed countries, immediately end her responsibility for the child by having it removed via early induced birth or c-section. No one forced her to enter into the obligation she has as a parent, she chose to, and so no coercion can be said to occur.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...