NationStates Jolt Archive

I believe that this is a sensible move. With children now capable of surviving before the 24 week period, it is impossible to argue that they are not yet worthy of the same rights as any other person. When so much of the pro-abortion lobby insists that it is up to the woman as long as it depends on her, when the baby no longer does depend on her then she should not be allowed to terminate it, anymore than she can terminate you or I.

The head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales is set to reignite the abortion debate by urging the government to change the law.

Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor will call on ministers to lower the 24-week abortion limit at a private meeting at the Department of Health.

He is expected to tell the Health Secretary that technological advances mean the abortion laws are outdated.

The government said there were no plans to alter the regulations.

However, 31 MPs have signed a Commons motion calling for a review of the law.

The Catholic church is against abortion altogether, but realises it is unrealistic to try to ban the practice completely.

Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor sparked controversy last year when he backed the then Tory leader Michael Howard's suggestion just before the election that the limit be lowered.

Medical advances have meant foetuses can survive even if they are born before 24 weeks gestation.

Doctors debated the issue at their annual conference last year for the first time since 1989, but voted against calling for a reduction in the limit.

And Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt has already said this year she is not in favour of lowering the limit despite the likes of France, Germany and Italy setting the limit at between 12 and 13 weeks.

But the church leader believes recent opinion polls have shown public opinion is changing.

A survey by the Observer newspaper earlier this year showed that half of women wanted tougher laws.

Archbishop of Cardiff Peter Smith told the BBC: "There is growing concern about the way the Abortion Act actually has worked.

"It was originally intended to be very, very restricted, but it has now become, in effect, abortion on demand."

The cardinal will also press the health secretary to set up a national bioethics committee to robustly discuss issues surrounding end of life and embryo science.

He is said to be concerned about the creeping moves towards genetic screening and so-called designer babies.
Rest of article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5099362.stm

Could it be?

Religion having more influence than it really should in today's world?

Could it be?

Religion having more influence than it really should in today's world?
There's no 'influence' here. He is allowed to lobby his position in the same way anyone is. It doesn't mean it will actually change anything.

Being able to survive (with a lot of medical support) =/= being human.

Being able to survive (with a lot of medical support) =/= being human.
We shall place all disabled people into the sub-human catagory at once then.

We shall place all disabled people into the sub-human catagory at once then.

I didn't say that they were mutually exclusive, just that simply because something can survive does not automatically make it a proper human being.

I didn't say that they were mutually exclusive, just that simply because something can survive does not automatically make it a proper human being.
I see. So you a are a spiritual person then, and believe that we have a little something in addition to the physical that makes us human?

Tell me then, when is the soul implanted? Are the babies that have surivived before 24 weeks now growing up soulless?

I see. So you a are a spiritual person then, and believe that we have a little something in addition to the physical that makes us human?

Tell me then, when is the soul implanted? Are the babies that have surivived before 24 weeks now growing up soulless?

I'm not a spiritual person. We have that thing called the brain which is capable of complex thought, it being not fully developed in a foetus.

I'm not a spiritual person. We have that thing called the brain which is capable of complex thought, it being not fully developed in a foetus.
So again, we move back to the idea that anyone who doesn't have these things fully developed are somehow sub-human.

You either take the position that something that can surivive is human, or you take the view that only fully developed 'normal' people are human, thus relegating the disabled to 'sub-human'.

Take your pick.

From the article:
"It was originally intended to be very, very restricted, but it has now become, in effect, abortion on demand."
He says that like it's a bad thing.

He says that like it's a bad thing.
You think terminating a pregnancy for no reason is a good thing?

Even the strongest pro-abortion supporters don't tend to say that. A necessary thing, perhaps; a right of the woman, certainly; but a 'good' thing? Not really. It always has consequences.

You think terminating a pregnancy for no reason is a good thing?

Even the strongest pro-abortion supporters don't tend to say that. A necessary thing, perhaps; a right of the woman, certainly; but a 'good' thing? Not really. It always has consequences.
For no reason?

It's not exactly an easy choice.

"Hmm my pregnancy hormones are going mental, I'm going to have to live with the fact that I killed my own child and also be aware that by doing this my fertility is reduced quite considerably. But you know what, I clearly don't care, because I'm a 21st century single-mother-to-be! I'll just go and do it, and then live the rest of my life cheerfully and ignore what I've done forever, because that's clearly what happens after an abortion (which I think is the most easy and fun thing in the world!)."

No?

For no reason?

It's not exactly an easy choice.
I believe that's what I just said. :)

You think terminating a pregnancy for no reason is a good thing?

Even the strongest pro-abortion supporters don't tend to say that. A necessary thing, perhaps; a right of the woman, certainly; but a 'good' thing? Not really. It always has consequences.
It's not for no reason; it's because they want one. They presumably have their reasons for doing so. Possibly they simply don't wish to have a child at the moment.

An abortion offers no more risk than continuing the pregnancy, the human race is under no threat of extinction, and imposing children on people who don't wish to look after them is going to be bad for everyone involved.

There are only two ways you can justify denying women the right to refuse to participate in a pregnancy.

1) State that pregnant women do not have the same human rights as all other human beings.
2) Grant rights to a fetus that no born human being possesses.

Those are your options. Either fetuses are superhuman, or women are subhuman.

It's not for no reason; it's because they want one. They presumably have their reasons for doing so. Possibly they simply don't wish to have a child at the moment.

An abortion offers no more risk than continuing the pregnancy, the human race is under no threat of extinction, and imposing children on people who don't wish to look after them is going to be bad for everyone involved.
Well, of course, allowing something to have life is such an inconvenience. How dare you suggest I might have to make sacrifices to deal with the consequences of my own actions? :rolleyes:

However, this is not about an outright ban on abortion. It is about lowering the time in which one is legal. Whatever our respective positions on the rights and wrongs of abortion on demand, I believe that once a child is capable of surviving without the mother all 'it's my right to abort it' bets are off. When it can survive then it is alive.

Possibly they simply don't wish to have a child at the moment.Yes, and some of us don't want children at all. I would be a terrible mother; being a parent would be horrific for me, my partner and for the offspring in question. Nonetheless, I see no good reason to deny myself an entirely normal part of adult life just because there is a small risk that my contraception won't do its job.

I would like to think if I were unlucky enough to get pregnant, that I would be able to end the pregnancy before 20 weeks. However, backward Northern Ireland is the only part of the UK where abortion is a prohibited procedure, so having one would involve going to the mainland. That is not always easy to organise. As well as that, not everyone knows they're pregnant; some women have really weird menstrual cycles, others may miss periods because of illness etc. It is therefore best that the limit remains as it is, or is increased.

There are only two ways you can justify denying women the right to refuse to participate in a pregnancy.

1) State that pregnant women do not have the same human rights as all other human beings.
The woman is affected, no matter what. Have it aborted, she is affected. Let the baby be born, she is affected. It is impossible to reduce it to a matter of 'human rights' - it is a physical condition, not a legal one.

2) Grant rights to a fetus that no born human being possesses.
When the child can survive and is capable of independent life, then it should be counted as equal to a born human being.

Well, of course, allowing something to have life is such an inconvenience. How dare you suggest I might have to make sacrifices to deal with the consequences of my own actions? :rolleyes:

However, this is not about an outright ban on abortion. It is about lowering the time in which one is legal. Whatever our respective positions on the rights and wrongs of abortion on demand, I believe that once a child is capable of surviving without the mother all 'it's my right to abort it' bets are off. When it can survive then it is alive.

But even when it is born it obviously needs technological help.

Medical advances have meant foetuses can survive even if they are born before 24 weeks gestation.

So it needs something to survive, after all. You go from it having one vehicle for survival to another, ends up being not much different.

But even when it is born it obviously needs technological help.

Medical advances have meant foetuses can survive even if they are born before 24 weeks gestation.

So it needs something to survive, after all. You go from it having one vehicle for survival to another, ends up being not much different.
I asked you repeatedly how this is any different to a disabled person dependent on medical help, and you have repeatedly failed to provide a satisfactory answer. Many people rely on medical intervention to survive; are they not human?

Well, of course, allowing something to have life is such an inconvenience. How dare you suggest I might have to make sacrifices to deal with the consequences of my own actions? :rolleyes:
It could be a terrible burden.
And shit happens. Best to limit the amount of shit happening when you can.

However, this is not about an outright ban on abortion. It is about lowering the time in which one is legal. Whatever our respective positions on the rights and wrongs of abortion on demand, I believe that once a child is capable of surviving without the mother all 'it's my right to abort it' bets are off. When it can survive then it is alive.
There will become a point - probably around the current limit, but you'd have to ask doctors, biologists, people knowledgeable of such things - when it'll be easier to just induce the pregnancy rather than abort it.
After that, if somebody wishes to look after the baby it will survive. If they don't it will die.

I asked you repeatedly how this is any different to a disabled person dependent on medical help, and you have repeatedly failed to provide a satisfactory answer. Many people rely on medical intervention to survive; are they not human?

I never said they weren't. I'm simply pointing out that you say the foetus is capable of "independent life" when it obviously isn't. Most disabled people have a developed brain and are thus capable of making some human decisions. The ones which aren't are vegetables and, in my opinion, for all intents and purposes, not human. If they have no prospect of future recovery they should be euthanised.

There will become a point - probably around the current limit, but you'd have to ask doctors, biologists, people knowledgeable of such things - when it'll be easier to just induce the pregnancy rather than abort it.
After that, if somebody wishes to look after the baby it will survive. If they don't it will die.
I do find it an interesting ethical question; should we induce rather than terminate? The consequences of such a decision would be significant.

I do find it an interesting ethical question; should we induce rather than terminate? The consequences of such a decision would be significant.
Thinking about it, it would probably be better to leave that decision to the woman involved. It may well have an effect on her.

@Kazcaper: I'm another of those no-kids-ta people. If you ever needed somewhere to stay on the mainland I'd be willing to help.

Thinking about it, it would probably be better to leave that decision to the woman involved. It may well have an effect on her.
Well, abortion gets rid of the child. Induction makes her a mother, but leaves the child alive.

I think the second option is better; being a mother is not a terminal condition, and you can give the baby up for adoption if necessary.

@Kazcaper: I'm another of those no-kids-ta people. If you ever needed somewhere to stay on the mainland I'd be willing to help.
:p There's something quite amusing about making arrangements for the possibility of abortion in an anti-abortion thread.

@Kazcaper: I'm another of those no-kids-ta people. If you ever needed somewhere to stay on the mainland I'd be willing to help.Noted, thank you very much :fluffle:

:p There's something quite amusing about making arrangements for the possibility of abortion in an anti-abortion thread.:D

You either take the position that something that can surivive is human, or you take the view that only fully developed 'normal' people are human, thus relegating the disabled to 'sub-human'.

Or you take the position that only something that can experience things can be said to be human. After all, I can in theory keep a body alive with machines after severing the head from it. That does not mean the living thing on my slab is still human.

Or you take the position that only something that can experience things can be said to be human. After all, I can in theory keep a body alive with machines after severing the head from it. That does not mean the living thing on my slab is still human.
A blind person has different experiences to one who can see. Someone with only one arm has different experiences to someone with all their limbs. A man with no balls has very different experiences to men with balls.

We all think and feel differently, and see the world differently. When you can tell me what a 'normal human experience' is, then you may have a point.

A blind person has different experiences to one who can see. Someone with only one arm has different experiences to someone with all their limbs. A man with no balls has very different experiences to men with balls.

We all think and feel differently, and see the world differently. When you can tell me what a 'normal human experience' is, then you may have a point.

Reread my exxample. I was describing something which would feel nothing, would not see the world in any way and would not be able to experience anything. If I sever your arm from your body - would you consider it a seperate human being if I was able to keep it alive ? If not - why ? Does it have anything to do with the capacity to experience things ? With your arm not being a person ?

The nature of the experiences does not matter for this argument; though that is a nice followup question.

To now return to the question in the poll: abortion should be considered the killing of a human being the moment the fetus achieves the capacity to experience things or in other words: when it has developed a neural net. If that is the case at 20 weeks the priest is quite right.

I've always supported abortion until the third trimester, unless there is a medical reason. I couldn't phantom a reason for abortion after the third trimester, since the fetus is developed to the point of being able to survive. I don't find it unreasonable.

So what I can never figure out is: if you didn't want a kid, why didn't you use a condom? Which is why I'm semi-sympathetic to abortion in cases where a woman's been raped, abused, etc (even though I highly doubt that even there it's a moral thing to do, I understand it). But to terminate a life that either is or very soon will be completely human? It just seems wrong, even w/o dragging religious beliefs into it (although maybe valuing human life is a religious belief? Hmm).

I say increase the limit. The state has no more right to force women into keeping their babies than it does to force women into having an abortion.

let's think for a minute about the circumstances of abortions that are done between 20 and 24 weeks. (i assume that abortion is still available after 24 weeks now but it has to have a justification)

the large majority of abortions occur before 16 weeks. a woman finds she is pregnant, knows she doesnt want it, gets an abortion when its quick and easy (relatively speaking). waiting requires a more dangerous and involved procedure that anyone would want to avoid if possible

what abortions occur later?

1) those where the woman gets bad news about her health or the health of the fetus. as test results start coming in, a wanted pregnancy becomes a tragedy and the woman elects to have an abortion rather than bring that child into the world.

2) those where the woman is too drugged out or too mentally handicapped to know she was pregnant before someone else brings it to her attention.

3) those where the woman's circumstances change. she loses her job, she breaks up with her boyfriend, the parents of a teenager find out she is pregnant and pressure her to get a late abortion, she breaks away from her abusive family in order to get the abortion she wanted earlier, whatever

4) things i cant think of

the large majority of these abortions are the medical kind. the others are rare but they happen.

how many hoops, how much interrogation, how much time delay do you want ot put the woman who just found out she is carrying a fetus with down's syndrome through in order to weed out the very rare circumstance of a woman who is wanting to abort a healthy fetus to spite her now ex boyfriend?

since 99% or more of the 20-24 week abortions will be allowed anyway, i dont think that it should be made more difficult at such a terrible time.

4) things i cant think of
Actually... some women are just not observant. When my mother was pregant with me, it was damn obvious because she's a slender woman. At the same time, her sister, my aunt was pregnant with my counsin, but no one knew, nor did she until she got a test because of her... size.

the large majority of abortions occur before 16 weeks.
I think I heard on the radio news this morning that only 1% occur after 20 weeks. Not much to get worked up about...

@Koon Proxy: Who's claiming they didn't use a condom, or even a more reliable form of contraception? Not even vasectomies are 100% effective (about a one in 2000 chance of failing at some point, so's you know).

Actually... some women are just not observant. When my mother was pregant with me, it was damn obvious because she's a slender woman. At the same time, her sister, my aunt was pregnant with my counsin, but no one knew, nor did she until she got a test because of her... size.
ya ya i forgot those

it happens especially with women who are close to menopause or those who dont have regular periods anyway so when they dont show up for a while she thinks nothing of it.

then she ends up facing the decision at 20 weeks instead of 6 weeks.

I think I heard on the radio news this morning that only 1% occur after 20 weeks. Not much to get worked up about...

@Koon Proxy: Who's claiming they didn't use a condom, or even a more reliable form of contraception? Not even vasectomies are 100% effective (about a one in 2000 chance of failing at some point, so's you know).
i actually know a woman who got pregnant after having had a tubal ligation.

we all want to behave perfectly at all times but, as humans, we fail. everyone has unwise sex now and then. sex tends to lead to pregnancy. birth control limits the chances but it still happens.

Tell me then, when is the soul implanted?

On your 30th birthday.

Abortion should be a legal option until the child is 18. Possibly 21 ... haven't decided yet.

So again, we move back to the idea that anyone who doesn't have these things fully developed are somehow sub-human.

You either take the position that something that can surivive is human, or you take the view that only fully developed 'normal' people are human, thus relegating the disabled to 'sub-human'.

Take your pick.
I'll say it. Severely mentally disabled people are sub-human. Sorry, thinking, learning and emotions are so much a part of being human that if your ability in those areas is too deficient you're not equal in value to the average person.

In the United States you can abort up until the fetus is born, so 36 weeks. Anyone who opposes this is a fundy. Sex, being a human right, should not be messed with. It's our body our choice, keep your morality to yourself.

So what I can never figure out is: if you didn't want a kid, why didn't you use a condom?

It could be because condoms are 80% effective, at best. I know people who were conceived during condom usage. The only 100% method of preventing pregnancy is simple: don't have sex. I can't think of any women who have gotten pregnant, unbeknownst to them, without having sex.

It's our body our choice, keep your morality to yourself.

It's your body? Scientifically speaking, parts of your body are identified by DNA. Every single cell within your body possesses the exact same genetic code, which is why DNA sampling is so successful in forensic science.

That being the case, once there is conception, the cells possesses entirely different DNA than every other cell in the woman's body.

So, I guess my question is, strickly using science and nothing philosophical or religious, on what grounds can you say that a fetus is part of the woman's body?

It could be because condoms are 80% effective, at best. I know people who were conceived during condom usage. The only 100% method of preventing pregnancy is simple: don't have sex. I can't think of any women who have gotten pregnant, unbeknownst to them, without having sex.

If you are really the Pope, keep your religion off this Forum. There is a separation of Church and State, the internet was made to encourage freedom, not to be another area for your morality to constrain people.

One Forum poster said that Satan is only considered bad because he wants people to be free, now you are starting to make me think it's actually true.

It's your body? Scientifically speaking, parts of your body are identified by DNA. Every single cell within your body possesses the exact same genetic code, which is why DNA sampling is so successful in forensic science.

That being the case, once there is conception, the cells possesses entirely different DNA than every other cell in the woman's body.

So, I guess my question is, strickly using science and nothing philosophical or religious, on what grounds can you say that a fetus is part of the woman's body?

If women are forced to give birth, they won't be able to be equal to men in the workplace. This is the basic way it becomes a woman's choice.

If you are really the Pope, keep your religion off this Forum. There is a separation of Church and State, the internet was made to encourage freedom, not to be another area for your morality to constrain people.

One Forum poster said that Satan is only considered bad because he wants people to be free, now you are starting to make me think it's actually true.

Did I mention religion or anything religious once?

The problem with abortion debates is that no pro-abortion advocate really wants to debate the issue logically. I presented to you a purely materialistic, scientific definition of personhood - that of an organism possessing its own particular genetic makeup - and you refuse to acknowledge it because of my login nickname.

That does nothing to further intelligent discourse.

Did I mention religion or anything religious once?

The problem with abortion debates is that no pro-abortion advocate really wants to debate the issue logically. I presented to you a purely materialistic, scientific definition of personhood - that of an organism possessing its own particular genetic makeup - and you refuse to acknowledge it because of my login nickname.

That does nothing to further intelligent discourse.

Everyone knows that the Science shows you to be wrong. We are just animals, and there is no point to life, so why not have fun.

It could be because condoms are 80% effective, at best. I know people who were conceived during condom usage. The only 100% method of preventing pregnancy is simple: don't have sex. I can't think of any women who have gotten pregnant, unbeknownst to them, without having sex.
98% at best, actually. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/relationships/sex_and_sexual_health/contr_condoms.shtml) You can reduce that by misusing them, but "at best" is "at best".

It's actually possible to get pregnant without having sex. Careful where you're aiming, chaps...
Unless that was a thinly disguised "Don't have sex, you evil whores!" in which case you don't get nearly so polite and helpful a reply. But I'm sure it wasn't, and Bottle's hypersensitivity on the subject is just rubbing off on me.

If women are forced to give birth, they won't be able to be equal to men in the workplace. This is the basic way it becomes a woman's choice.

You're working with a very flawed definition of "equality." Equality is not the ability to do what everyone else does. If that is your definition, no one will ever be equal. As a man, I can never bear children - it is impossible. Therefore, if equality is defined by what we can and cannot do, men will always be unequal to women.

Utilitarian models of equality only lead to further segregation and social injustices.

It could be because condoms are 80% effective, at best. I know people who were conceived during condom usage. The only 100% method of preventing pregnancy is simple: don't have sex. I can't think of any women who have gotten pregnant, unbeknownst to them, without having sex.
Mary got pregnant and she didn't rock the casbah. Therefore there is no 100% protection.

I presented to you a purely materialistic, scientific definition of personhood - that of an organism possessing its own particular genetic makeup - and you refuse to acknowledge it because of my login nickname.
A carrot possesses its own particular genetic make-up. Carrots are people too?

The foetus is just a parasite living off the woman's body. The thought of parasites living on my body's quite icky, so I can't blame them for wanting to be rid of them. Nevermind all that hassle of having to look after the damn brat after it's born...

Everyone knows that the Science shows you to be wrong. We are just animals, and there is no point to life, so why not have fun.

Wow. I was not aware that biology had completely removed the classification system of animals, and moreso the classification of the species home sapiens. :rolleyes:

According to science, biologically speaking, the cells after conception possess the genetic makeup of a homo sapiens and its DNA is distinct from the mother.

What part of this are you disagree with? Show me some science that states otherwise.

Wow. I was not aware that biology had completely removed the classification system of animals, and moreso the classification of the species home sapiens. :rolleyes:

According to science, biologically speaking, the cells after conception possess the genetic makeup of a homo sapiens and its DNA is distinct from the mother.

What part of this are you disagree with? Show me some science that states otherwise.
Well then the DNA and get its own place. Get a job and start paying rent. That lazy bastard DNA is a welfare queen.

Mary got pregnant and she didn't rock the casbah. Therefore there is no 100% protection.

Reread my post. I qualified that statement with "unbeknownst to them" or in other words "without their knowing."

Yes, women can get pregnant without having sex, but not without their consent or knowledge of it. Scientifically and theologically speaking. ;)

Hmmm.

20 weeks is the measure eh?

Ok. Let's allow it but make the Church pay for the medical bills involved with keeping these children alive.

What? They won't do it???????

98% at best, actually. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/relationships/sex_and_sexual_health/contr_condoms.shtml) You can reduce that by misusing them, but "at best" is "at best".

Touche. I should have excluded the qualifier "at best." However, even proponents for contraception like Planned Parenthood admit that there is a 17% failure rate with common usage.

It's actually possible to get pregnant without having sex. Careful where you're aiming, chaps...

See my post to Neo.

Unless that was a thinly disguised "Don't have sex, you evil whores!" in which case you don't get nearly so polite and helpful a reply. But I'm sure it wasn't, and Bottle's hypersensitivity on the subject is just rubbing off on me.

It's not thinly disguised anything. Its common sense. If a woman doesn't want to conceive and doesn't have sex, she won't get pregnant. Or, at least, I am not aware of any women conceiving a child without their knowledge and without intercourse.

Hmmm.

20 weeks is the measure eh?

Ok. Let's allow it but make the Church pay for the medical bills involved with keeping these children alive.

What? They won't do it???????

Why should the Church pay for people's poor decision making?

Why should the Church pay for people's poor decision making?
Because they're the ones wishing to impose their morals on other people.

A carrot possesses its own particular genetic make-up. Carrots are people too?

The foetus is just a parasite living off the woman's body. The thought of parasites living on my body's quite icky, so I can't blame them for wanting to be rid of them. Nevermind all that hassle of having to look after the damn brat after it's born...

No no no. I think you misunderstand the whole of my argument. There are two parts to it and I'll go through them one by one.

My first point: human beings conceive human beings. Its not as if a woman can conceive a carrot or duck. There is something living inside the mother, I don't think anyone denies this. The problem is defining what exactly is living inside the mother. Let's say, hypothetically, that a biologist came across the remains of an aborted fetus, but he had no idea what it was. If he took the cells to the lab for analysis, the genetic makeup of the cells would reveal parts of a homo sapien. So, scientifically speaking, we know that something of the species homo sapiens is growing inside the mother's womb. The question then becomes, is this grouping of homo sapien cells part of the mother or are they independent and distinctly seperate from her?

Well, scientifically speaking, what seperates me from you, as two human beings, is my DNA. The genetic code that every single cell in my body possesses is different than the genetic code that every single cell in your body possesses. In a court of law, if someone wanted to identify a part of me as being authentically "mine", such as my blood, the DNA in the blood found would have to match my DNA. So, by definition, in order for the new cells growing within the mother to be defined as authentically "hers," scientists would have to match up the DNA of the mother with the DNA of the new cells growing within her. But, the DNA of the cells growing within the mother is not the same as the DNA of every other cell in the woman's body.

Thus, from these two seperate items we can deduce two conlusions:

1. The cells growing within the mother are that of the species homo sapiens and
2. This homo sapien is not the same as the mother - it is something else.

The term "person" is far more abstract and affirming or denying a fetus' personhood is not scientific and is purely philosophical and theological.

Because they're the ones wishing to impose their morals on other people.

The Church doesn't force anyone to do anything.

Why should the Church pay for people's poor decision making?

Premature birth is HARDLY poor planning.

They are overlooking the super human effort involved with keeping a 20 week old baby alive.

They want to declare it the standard of life then they should pay to keep them alive.

The Church doesn't force anyone to do anything.
They just really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really want you to and if you don't you'll go to hell.

Premature birth is HARDLY poor planning.


I think I lost you. We were talking about why the Church should have to pay people for conceiving children when they didn't want to conceive children.

The Church doesn't force anyone to do anything.

Sure they do. They have threatening ex-communication to women who worked at womens clinics.

In the area of subtle threats; they have even suggested that "good" catholics(speaking of them due to your id) shouldn't vote on issues.

They just really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really want you to and if you don't you'll go to hell.

The Church is founded on a belief system in which one belief is a natural consequence of the other.

If you don't believe in the authority of the Church, why would you believe in hell in the first place or any proclomation by it? Furthermore, why would it concern you?

If some weird and wacky cult believed that people will be abducted and be taken to planet Nebulon if they drink caffeine, I wouldn't care at all what they said. Nor would I be so passionately angry at them for telling me not to drink caffeine because I know they're idiots and have no idea what they're talking about.

Perhaps the difference is that no matter how much they want to disagree with the Church, a part of them can't let go......but that's not a discussion for this thread. ;)

Sure they do. They have threatening ex-communication to women who worked at womens clinics.

What is ex-communication? Telling some that they're not Catholic. If you don't believe something that the Church believes, why would it concern you if they say you're not a Catholic? I disagree with Mormons all the time and I have no problem with them "excommunicating" me because I know they're wrong.

In the area of subtle threats; they have even suggested that "good" catholics(speaking of them due to your id) shouldn't vote on issues.

If you disagree with the Catholic Church, why should that affect you?

If you are really the Pope, keep your religion off this Forum. There is a separation of Church and State, the internet was made to encourage freedom, not to be another area for your morality to constrain people.

This isn't "the state". There's a fairly large segment of humanity which views religion - either in general, or else some particular belief system - as liberating and comforting. And until the government takes over the internet, I can freely state my religious beliefs, and you can freely call me an idiot. If you don't like this state of affairs, the government can take over, and I can go to jail for attempting to bring religion into secular matters and you can go to jail for hate speech. Okay?

Perhaps the difference is that no matter how much they want to disagree with the Church, a part of them can't let go......but that's not a discussion for this thread. ;)I think it's more along the lines of that, in some countries, some Churches try to legislate what they believe is right, rather than people caring what they think and espouse per se.

What is ex-communication? Telling some that they're not Catholic. If you don't believe something that the Church believes, why would it concern you if they say you're not a Catholic? I disagree with Mormons all the time and I have no problem with them "excommunicating" me because I know they're wrong.


:rolleyes:

They made those threats to Catholics.

This isn't "the state". There's a fairly large segment of humanity which views religion - either in general, or else some particular belief system - as liberating and comforting. And until the government takes over the internet, I can freely state my religious beliefs, and you can freely call me an idiot. If you don't like this state of affairs, the government can take over, and I can go to jail for attempting to bring religion into secular matters and you can go to jail for hate speech. Okay?

Question:

What is the meaning behind your id?

:rolleyes:

They made those threats to Catholics.

Hmm. If I call myself a Catholic, and the Catholic Church excommunicates me because I neither believe or practice all the Catholic Church says I should believe or practice (which in fact it would, because I don't), by what stretch of the imagination can the Catholic Church have been thought to do something wrong? The Catholic Church is essentially a private institution, it makes the rules

:rolleyes:

They made those threats to Catholics.

I know. I was speaking about "Catholics" too.

Question:

What is the meaning behind your id?

ID - What, "Koon Proxy"? Koon is the name of my dorm at school. NS told me there was already a nation called Koon. So I added "Proxy". And yes, I try to run my nation as though our head RA was in charge of it. It amuses me.

If you mean my idea, I thought it was fairly obvious.

The foetus is just a parasite living off the woman's body. The thought of parasites living on my body's quite icky, so I can't blame them for wanting to be rid of them. Nevermind all that hassle of having to look after the damn brat after it's born...

Apparently the woman's body doesn't think so. Typically, when something foreign enters into a person's body that is unwanted, the body does everything it can to expell or kill it. That's what an immune system is for. With conception, it's actually the exact opposite. When a child is conceived, the woman's body does everything it can to keep the child alive.

Having just witnessed the pregnancy and birth of my own child, I was blown away by how brilliantly designed the woman's body is and how much the woman's body will sacrifice to keep that baby alive at all costs.

You may think its a parasite, but the woman's body doesn't think so. Maybe we should "listen to our bodies" more. ;)

Apparently the woman's body doesn't think so. Typically, when something foreign enters into a person's body that is unwanted, the body does everything it can to expell or kill it.The definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/parasite) of a parasite is "An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host." Regardless of whether the female body tries to eject it or not, an embryo/foetus still clearly meets this description.

Of course, a large number of pregnancies end in miscarriage, oftentimes before the woman even knew she was pregnant.

I don't think we should listen to our bodies more...certainly not all of us. If my body compelled me to procreate, I know I'd end up throwing the resultant offspring at the wall or out of the window or something. Probably not the best thing for all concerned. (Yeah, I know everyone says it - "when you have your own you'll know! It's love like you can't describe!" etc. But I really don't think it's worth the risk, for me, my boyfriend or it). No, best to let rationality, not hormones, win out, methinks.

The definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/parasite) of a parasite is "An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host." Regardless of whether the female body tries to eject it or not, an embryo/foetus still clearly meets this description.

Ok, by definition, the word "parasite" also means "A professional dinner guest, especially in ancient Greece" and obviously an embryo doesn't meet that requirement. How biology understands parasites is very different than how the embryo inside the mother's womb acts. A parasite is an existing organism with the means of drawing life from the other. The embryo doesn't possess any means of drawing life from the mother but rather it is the mother's body - by way of creating the placenta - that creates the means of giving life to the embryo. Do you see the difference? Biology understands parasites as organisms that take life from another while the woman's body gives life to another.

For example, tapeworm is a parasite. However, let's say instead of the tapeworm entering into my system and living off me, I decide to keep it in a jar and feed it. It has then become a "pet."

No, best to let rationality, not hormones, win out, methinks.

Ironically, hormones beating out rationality is the very reason why there are unwanted pregnancies.

...The embryo doesn't possess any means of drawing life from the mother but rather it is the mother's body - by way of creating the placenta - that creates the means of giving life to the embryo. Do you see the difference? Biology understands parasites as organisms that take life from another while the woman's body gives life to another.Of course, but for many - probably most - women, pregnancy is both mentally and physically draining. The embryo/foetus is taking resources from the woman's body that she would otherwise be using herself. Certainly, it doesn't take life away entirely in most cases, but it does very often cause the aforementioned hassles.

For example, tapeworm is a parasite. However, let's say instead of the tapeworm entering into my system and living off me, I decide to keep it in a jar and feed it. It has then become a "pet."Through your own choice. You could just as easily have chosen otherwise.

At the end of the day, though, it really doesn't matter to me whether an embryo or a foetus is a live human being or not - biologically, emotionally, mentally, philosophically, theologically. It is something that a number of people do not want in their bodies, and as such they should be able to rid themselves of it.

Ironically, hormones beating out rationality is the very reason why there are unwanted pregnancies.Not in the cases where contraception has been used - the couple involved have already expressly shown that they do not wish a conception to take place.

Besides, sex - for me, at least - is very far from just a hormonal or biological reaction to a particular situation.

Of course, but for many - probably most - women, pregnancy is both mentally and physically draining. The embryo/foetus is taking resources from the woman's body that she would otherwise be using herself. Certainly, it doesn't take life away entirely in most cases, but it does very often cause the aforementioned hassles.

The embryo isn't taking anything. The woman's body is programmed to give it to the embryo. Furthermore, as a parent, I can tell you that this doesn't stop simply when the child is born. Children always will take resources from you - mentally and physically - that you would have otherwise. That's the nature of raising children. So, by your definition, even toddlers and adolescents are equally parasites. I have yet to see a newborn feed itself.

Through your own choice. You could just as easily have chosen otherwise.

Yes. That choice was made before I picked up the tapeworm.

At the end of the day, though, it really doesn't matter to me whether an embryo or a foetus is a live human being or not - biologically, emotionally, mentally, philosophically, theologically.

So, you're conceding that your opinion has no rational basis?

It is something that a number of people do not want in their bodies, and as such they should be able to rid themselves of it.

Like I said before, a number of people really don't want their 2 year old children. Should they be able to "rid" themselves of them?

It's amazing how the human race ever survived....

Not in the cases where contraception has been used - the couple involved have already expressly shown that they do not wish a conception to take place.

But they still had sex. As I've said before, no one has ever conceived a child when they didn't want to outside of the sexual act. No contraception is 100% effective and if you really don't want to have children, the rational thing would be to not have sex. Its still a matter of hormones trumping rationale.

Besides, sex - for me, at least - is very far from just a hormonal or biological reaction to a particular situation.

I never said sex was just a hormonal or biological reaction. But, then again, I was able to abstain until I was married. If you really think sex is more than just a hormonal response, try abstaining for a while. See how long you last. ;)

[Big snip]Thus, from these two seperate items we can deduce two conlusions:

1. The cells growing within the mother are that of the species homo sapiens and
2. This homo sapien is not the same as the mother - it is something else.
Yes, I know. I don't understand what you're getting at?

Like I said before, a number of people really don't want their 2 year old children. Should they be able to "rid" themselves of them?
They can. Adoption.
Although, personally, I don't care how they do so.

Why would you wish to force people to have, and look after, children they don't want? I really don't understand.

But they still had sex. As I've said before, no one has ever conceived a child when they didn't want to outside of the sexual act. No contraception is 100% effective and if you really don't want to have children, the rational thing would be to not have sex. Its still a matter of hormones trumping rationale.
It's about weighing up risks. You use contraception to drastically reduce the chance of pregnancy. If you use more than one independant form of contraception you can reduce the risks still further.

If shit/pregnancy still happens, you can have an abortion. Problem solved.

You can choose to abstain if you wish. We don't wish to, thanks. Why does that make you "better" or "right"?

Yes, I know. I don't understand what you're getting at?

Oh. So you agree that there is a human being inside the woman's womb and not just a "part of her body?"


They can. Adoption.
Although, personally, I don't care how they do so.

Why would you wish to force people to have, and look after, children they don't want? I really don't understand.

Why only adoption? Why can't parents terminate their two year old children if they don't want them?

It's about weighing up risks. You use contraception to drastically reduce the chance of pregnancy. If you use more than one independant form of contraception you can reduce the risks still further.

Yes, but you can still get pregnant and its quite ignorant to be surprised if it happens. You had sex. Sex is designed to produced children. What did you expect?

If shit/pregnancy still happens, you can have an abortion. Problem solved.

Why? What makes a child in the womb fundamentally so different than a child three seconds later after they're born? What makes them a "human being" all of a sudden?

You can choose to abstain if you wish. We don't wish to, thanks. Why does that make you "better" or "right"?

Did I say that in an earlier post or are you judging me?

Thus, from these two seperate items we can deduce two conlusions:

1. The cells growing within the mother are that of the species homo sapiens and
2. This homo sapien is not the same as the mother - it is something else.

The term "person" is far more abstract and affirming or denying a fetus' personhood is not scientific and is purely philosophical and theological.

So is the ascribing of rights to it. There are no "atoms of justice" or "molecules of righteousness". The whole "killing is bad" concept is philosophy and theology.

Now, in this issue one must follow the following steps:

1. When is the killing of organism X considered a bad thing ?
2. When does the foetus meet the requirements provided by 1 ?
3. When does the badness following from step 1 and 2 of killing the foetus become greater than the badness of infringing on the mothers rights ?

Some philosophers put the answer to 2 at the moment the organism/foetus is capable of having feelings; depending on who you ask that is said to be the moment the neural net is activated or the first brainwaves commence. Exactly how bad killing it is at that time is a matter of opinion.

Some religious people put the answer to 2 at the moment of fertilisation or conception - arguing that there is a soul present from that time on. There is no scientific backing for this, but it is their belief.

The Bible is confusing on this issue, since there is no consensus on how certain passages should be translated. One translation puts the answer to 2 at a point sometime after birth - not caring at all about the life of the foetus. The other translation considers the killing of the foetus to be murder, though it does not object to the killing of pregnant females if they had been sinful and does not ask people to wait 9 months before executing those sentences.

So is the ascribing of rights to it. There are no "atoms of justice" or "molecules of righteousness". The whole "killing is bad" concept is philosophy and theology.

Exactly. In fact, the ascribing of any individual rights is a philosophical and theological concept. There is nothing on a biological or molecular level that says killing anything is wrong. One cannot hold to a materialistic world-view while at the same time believe in "fundamental human rights."

Some philosophers put the answer to 2 at the moment the organism/foetus is capable of having feelings; depending on who you ask that is said to be the moment the neural net is activated or the first brainwaves commence. Exactly how bad killing it is at that time is a matter of opinion.

Some religious people put the answer to 2 at the moment of fertilisation or conception - arguing that there is a soul present from that time on. There is no scientific backing for this, but it is their belief.

Where is the scientific backing for believing that a human being possesses "personhood" the moment the neural net is activated or the first brainwaves commence? Neither are scientific. Let's not set a double standard here. "Personhood" is an abstract thing. No scientific evidence can establish this. This is not a problem exclusive to religion.

The Bible is confusing on this issue, since there is no consensus on how certain passages should be translated. One translation puts the answer to 2 at a point sometime after birth - not caring at all about the life of the foetus. The other translation considers the killing of the foetus to be murder, though it does not object to the killing of pregnant females if they had been sinful and does not ask people to wait 9 months before executing those sentences.

Government is equally confusing. If a man beats a pregnant woman in the stomach, killing a 12 week old fetus it is considered manslaughter but if the pregnant woman kills her 12 week old fetus, its a right.

I'm trying to keep religious perspectives out of this. I never mentioned the Bible.

Where is the scientific backing for believing that a human being possesses "personhood" the moment the neural net is activated or the first brainwaves commence?

There isn't any - though from then on it is certain that there is something that might notice the life to death transition. Without brain and neural net a foetus has just as much awareness as a rock, and as such one can argue it makes no difference for the foetus if it is allowed to live or not at that time.

Unless one believes in souls of course.

Oh. So you agree that there is a human being inside the woman's womb and not just a "part of her body?"

The embryo will (assuming all goes "well") grow into a human. It's a human embryo, that's what they do. It's still feeding off her, and causing all sorts of unpleasantness rivalled only by the unpleasantness of having to look after it for years, destroying probably two people's lives if you let it grow.

Why only adoption? Why can't parents terminate their two year old children if they don't want them?
Don't ask me, I don't make the rules. I did say I didn't care how they did it.

Yes, but you can still get pregnant and its quite ignorant to be surprised if it happens. You had sex. Sex is designed to produced children. What did you expect?
Actually, I get surprised when unlikely events happen. Picture a game; I give you a one-hundred sided dice. If you roll any number between two and 100, inclusive, I give you £5. If you roll a one you have to give me £5.
Would you take the bet?
Would you be surprised if you rolled a one?
Both the combined pill and the IUD are over 99% effective, so that's a fair comparison.

Why? What makes a child in the womb fundamentally so different than a child three seconds later after they're born? What makes them a "human being" all of a sudden?
The difference is that they're feeding off the mother before they're born. What difference does its species make?

Earlier in the thread I said that there will become a point where it's easier to induce the pregnancy than terminate it, and if someone wishes to look after the baby produced it will probably survive, if not it will die. A few posts later I decided that, actually, the choice of action should probably be left to the woman; it may have some bearing on her wellbeing.

Did I say that in an earlier post or are you judging me?
You said you'd abstained until marriage. Your tone made it sound very much like you expected everyone else to follow your example.

Actually, I get surprised when unlikely events happen. Picture a game; I give you a one-hundred sided dice. If you roll any number between two and 100, inclusive, I give you £5. If you roll a one you have to give me £5.
Would you take the bet?
Would you be surprised if you rolled a one?
Both the combined pill and the IUD are over 99% effective, so that's a fair comparison.

Actually it isn't - your die should be about 20 000 sided. The 99% effectiveness concerns a year of normal use, not a 1:100 chance every time you shag.

Ironically, hormones beating out rationality is the very reason why there are unwanted pregnancies.
That and religious opposition to informing teenagers they can do things to help them from becoming pregnant if they do have sex.

Crap, I read the poll wrong.

-1 from Yes, always
+1 for No, it's fine as it is

Actually it isn't - your die should be about 20 000 sided. The 99% effectiveness concerns a year of normal use, not a 1:100 chance every time you shag.
I know, yes. I considered qualifying that, actually.
It never specifies how many times you're expected to shag in a year, but I think it's about twice a week.

People who are pro life should focus their attention on those already out of the womb.

I believe that this is a sensible move. With children now capable of surviving before the 24 week period, it is impossible to argue that they are not yet worthy of the same rights as any other person. When so much of the pro-abortion lobby insists that it is up to the woman as long as it depends on her, when the baby no longer does depend on her then she should not be allowed to terminate it, anymore than she can terminate you or I.

So, just to be clear. Using science to prevent a pregnancy god intended: bad! Using science to prevent a death god intended: good!

I mean, really, what the world needs now is more children with profound developmental disabilities in order to properly pay homage to the glory of god and his laws(as interpreted by sexually repressed, socially marginalized beureaucrats). Oh, and all the rest of you heathens who feel otherwise should be expected to pay for it.

Tell ya what. Once the church is done paying out all the claims against it for child rape, then we can start figuring out a way to bill pro-life organizations for the cutting edge medical care, feeding, housing, and supervision of a couple or thirty thousand unwanted children with varrying degrees of physical and mental disability. Until then, sit down and try your best to keep your noses out of other genitals, 'kay? I know its hard, but maybe the bible might have some good suggestions on how to keep those animal impulses in line.

The Church doesn't force anyone to do anything.

Well, not since they lost the power, at least. You don't have to look very far back to see times when the church did force people to do things. Death or obediance is not a real choice.

If you disagree with the Catholic Church, why should that affect you?

It doesn't, up until the very instance that the church decides to erode my rights by legislating it's interpretation of a book written by dozens of painfully uneducated men over hundreds of years who lived in a society radically different from the one I live in.

Yes, but you can still get pregnant and its quite ignorant to be surprised if it happens. You had sex. Sex is designed to produced children. What did you expect?

I'll come right out and say it, we expected better. The entire arc of human civilization has been characterized by man's desire to bend or break nature in order to make his life more comfortable, pleasurable, or lengthy. We have reversed the flow of major rivers, damned waterways to create lakes, extended our average life-expectancy by scores of years, defeated tens of thousands of illnesses, mastered the animals, harnessed the atom, broke the shound barrier, travelled farther than the greatest of birds, and manged to pass on our collective knowledge through the generations so that it could aggregate into things greater than we could ever imagine. Is claiming sovereignty over our own bodies in the tiny arena of reproduction really that much? The only reason it has taken this long is because scared little men have fought against the betterment of mankind every step of the way in order to protect their opinions and the power they have amassed trough fear.

You had your chance, you lost, try declining with dignity like the amish.

So again, we move back to the idea that anyone who doesn't have these things fully developed are somehow sub-human.

You either take the position that something that can surivive is human, or you take the view that only fully developed 'normal' people are human, thus relegating the disabled to 'sub-human'.

Take your pick.


The difference between a 24 month fetus and a disable human is that the disabled human doesn't need to hijack my body in order to breathe, feed, and excrete. You need a wheelchair or dialysis, fine. You want me to be your wheelchair or you need to borrow my kidneys, tough luck. You force me to be your wheelchair, time to shuffle loose that mortal coil.


You think terminating a pregnancy for no reason is a good thing?

Even the strongest pro-abortion supporters don't tend to say that. A necessary thing, perhaps; a right of the woman, certainly; but a 'good' thing? Not really. It always has consequences.


You're still thinking about things from your perspective. I'm pretty sure that abortion can be considered a "good thing." The only time athat termination of pregnancy cannot be a good thing is when you look at the world as a place where the preservation of a potential life trumps any and all other consequences or concerns, including the right to not be a host organism.

No one gets an abortion for "no good reason" they just get them for reasons you disagree with, because of your faith. I don't think I need to point out where that aberrant strain of logic leads.

When the child can survive and is capable of independent life, then it should be counted as equal to a born human being.

Bad logic. When it can survive is only a issue if it is out of the womb. Until the moment of birth the child is, at best, a parasite. The humanity of the fetus is not an issue, only the continued existance of consent. An adult human being using your body in a way you do not want them to use it is a crime, and if that crime threatens your health you have the right to kill that person. Even if you began by giving consent, the moment you change your mind the situation changes. Look at the current way that rape is treated by our legal system: an can change their mind mid-coitus and as soon as they make this known the act becomes rape.

You want a fetus to be a full human being, fine, but you cannot make an argument of a right to use another's body. That line of thinking leads to all sorts of uncomfortable ends(forceable organ donation comes to mind).

I asked you repeatedly how this is any different to a disabled person dependent on medical help, and you have repeatedly failed to provide a satisfactory answer. Many people rely on medical intervention to survive; are they not human?

Because I do not have to carry the disabled person in my body, I do not have to undergo a potentially life-threatening and expensive procedure to rid myself of the disabled person so machines can make them alive. Even so, lets say the child is born and the parent wants to be rid of it, legal guardians are allowed to pull the plug all the time. Wait...let me guess, you're in favor of rolling that back, too.

Apparently the woman's body doesn't think so. Typically, when something foreign enters into a person's body that is unwanted, the body does everything it can to expell or kill it. That's what an immune system is for. With conception, it's actually the exact opposite. When a child is conceived, the woman's body does everything it can to keep the child alive.

Having just witnessed the pregnancy and birth of my own child, I was blown away by how brilliantly designed the woman's body is and how much the woman's body will sacrifice to keep that baby alive at all costs.

You may think its a parasite, but the woman's body doesn't think so. Maybe we should "listen to our bodies" more. ;)
You are wrong, actually. Throughout pregnancy, the woman's immune system tries to get rid of the fetus -- or rather, it tries to get rid of the placenta. The placenta defends itself by secreting chemicals which, among other things, suppress the woman's immune system. Otherwise, it would be killed and rejected by the woman's body. The placenta also attempts to hijack the functions of the woman's body so as to suck up more of her resources. This has a detrimental effect on the woman's body, such as dangerous spikes in blood pressure and other problems, and the woman's body reacts defensively by shutting off the function of some of her genes and some of the fetus's genes in an attempt to limit the invasion. It doesn't always work. Sometimes the pregnancy kills or nearly kills the woman. Sometimes it goes the other way, and the woman's body kills the fetus, resulting in miscarriage.

Eutrusca once posted a long but fascinating artlcle about this. I wonder if he still has the link.

If you are going to argue "logic" and "science," you should try to learn some.

Ok, by definition, the word "parasite" also means "A professional dinner guest, especially in ancient Greece" and obviously an embryo doesn't meet that requirement. How biology understands parasites is very different than how the embryo inside the mother's womb acts. A parasite is an existing organism with the means of drawing life from the other. The embryo doesn't possess any means of drawing life from the mother but rather it is the mother's body - by way of creating the placenta - that creates the means of giving life to the embryo. Do you see the difference? Biology understands parasites as organisms that take life from another while the woman's body gives life to another.

For example, tapeworm is a parasite. However, let's say instead of the tapeworm entering into my system and living off me, I decide to keep it in a jar and feed it. It has then become a "pet."
You are welcome to keep my unwanted fetus in a jar as a pet, if you like. If I ever need an abortion, I'll have the doctor send it to you.

And excuse me, but didn't you earlier argue that the fetus is its own entity because it has its own DNA and IS NOT the woman's body? Let me check...

Yep, here it is, post 42:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11206324&postcount=42

Sorry, your holiness, but you can't have it both ways. Either the fetus is another person -- in which case, why should it have any right to use my body for its purposes against my will? -- or it is a part of my body -- in which case, I can do pretty much whatever I want with it. Pick, please.

There isn't any - though from then on it is certain that there is something that might notice the life to death transition. Without brain and neural net a foetus has just as much awareness as a rock, and as such one can argue it makes no difference for the foetus if it is allowed to live or not at that time.

Unless one believes in souls of course.

True. But awareness itself seems a bit arbitrary. There are plenty of animals that possess a greater awareness than even a fetus with an establish neural net and yet it is morally acceptable to kill them.

But then again, maybe not. That's for another discussion entirely. :p

The embryo will (assuming all goes "well") grow into a human. It's a human embryo, that's what they do. It's still feeding off her, and causing all sorts of unpleasantness rivalled only by the unpleasantness of having to look after it for years, destroying probably two people's lives if you let it grow.

Yes, it grows inside a human, but that's where the similarities between a baby and a parasite cease. A 'parasite' possess an existing mechanism for drawing life from its host. A baby does not possess these mechanism and, in fact, the mother's body creates it for them. The placenta, which is the source of all sustenance for the baby, is part of the mother. It is something the mother's body creates for the child.

Don't ask me, I don't make the rules. I did say I didn't care how they did it.

So, you think its perfectly acceptable for a parent to kill their 2 year old child if they don't want them anymore?

Actually, I get surprised when unlikely events happen. Picture a game; I give you a one-hundred sided dice. If you roll any number between two and 100, inclusive, I give you £5. If you roll a one you have to give me £5.
Would you take the bet?
Would you be surprised if you rolled a one?
Both the combined pill and the IUD are over 99% effective, so that's a fair comparison.

The fallacy of your argument is that the act of sex is specifically designed biologically to further the existence of the human race. Regardless of how many barriers you put up during the act itself, your are still participating in an act of procreation. It's like playing Russian roulet with only one bullet in a hundred round chamber, and then being "surprised" that you were shot. That's what guns do: shoot. If you didn't want to get shot in the first place, regardless of the odds, you shouldn't have put a gun to your head. Period.

The difference is that they're feeding off the mother before they're born. What difference does its species make?

How is this different than feeding of the mother after the child's born? After the baby is born, you can't just leave it on a bed and expect her to take care of herself. Babies feed of mother's, and parents for that matter, for years.

You said you'd abstained until marriage. Your tone made it sound very much like you expected everyone else to follow your example.

You're right, but that comment was in regards to a comparison of hormones versus rationale. I said I abstained until marriage. Not only was I able to avoid any unwanted pregnancies, but I am able to participate in one of the greatest joys of giving myself entirely to another person. Rationally, if unwanted pregnancies are as evil as the world thinks it is, the best solution, hands down, is abstinence. The problem is that our rationale doesn't always do the thinking and our hormones like to take over.

Simply put, there is no logical, rational explanation to prove that contraception is more effective than abstinence at preventing unwanted pregnancies, unwed mothers, AIDS, and the spread of STDs.

The problem isn't one of rationality, its a problem of the will. No one wants to abstain.

People who are pro life should focus their attention on those already out of the womb.

Why?

That and religious opposition to informing teenagers they can do things to help them from becoming pregnant if they do have sex.

Yes, because its not the teenagers fault for having sex when they weren't supposed to, its the Church's fault. :rolleyes:

Consider the following analogy. Teenagers are going to use heroin regardless of how many people tell them not to - the Church in particular. A lot of diseases, even AIDS, is spread through the use of dirty needles. Is it incumbent upon the Church, then, to advocate for the use of clean needles - since they're going to "do it anyway" - when they're against heroin use to begin with? Absolutely not.

The role of the Church isn't to find ways for people to act however they wish without consequence. The moment the Church starts doing that is the moment it ceases to be relevent as a moral institution.

So, just to be clear. Using science to prevent a pregnancy god intended: bad! Using science to prevent a death god intended: good!

I don't think the Church's position is that clear to you.

1. We are not God
2. We do not know when God "intends" someone to die.

The belief that human beings can determine when someone lives or dies is the foundation for some of the greatest evils the world has ever seen.

Can you identify a single evil caused by believing that every single human being on this planet is priceless and worth dying for?

I mean, really, what the world needs now is more children with profound developmental disabilities in order to properly pay homage to the glory of god and his laws(as interpreted by sexually repressed, socially marginalized beureaucrats). Oh, and all the rest of you heathens who feel otherwise should be expected to pay for it.

So, you don't believe that a person possesses human rights by the mere fact of being a human being? People have to earn their rights?

Tell ya what. Once the church is done paying out all the claims against it for child rape, then we can start figuring out a way to bill pro-life organizations for the cutting edge medical care, feeding, housing, and supervision of a couple or thirty thousand unwanted children with varrying degrees of physical and mental disability. Until then, sit down and try your best to keep your noses out of other genitals, 'kay? I know its hard, but maybe the bible might have some good suggestions on how to keep those animal impulses in line.

Better yet, why don't you go to a parent of one of these disabled children and tell them that their child doesn't deserve to live and that all their love, time, and money is a complete waste.

I'd be curious to see the reaction.

It doesn't, up until the very instance that the church decides to erode my rights by legislating it's interpretation of a book written by dozens of painfully uneducated men over hundreds of years who lived in a society radically different from the one I live in.

How does the Church "erode" your rights?

I'll come right out and say it, we expected better. The entire arc of human civilization has been characterized by man's desire to bend or break nature in order to make his life more comfortable, pleasurable, or lengthy. We have reversed the flow of major rivers, damned waterways to create lakes, extended our average life-expectancy by scores of years, defeated tens of thousands of illnesses, mastered the animals, harnessed the atom, broke the shound barrier, travelled farther than the greatest of birds, and manged to pass on our collective knowledge through the generations so that it could aggregate into things greater than we could ever imagine. Is claiming sovereignty over our own bodies in the tiny arena of reproduction really that much? The only reason it has taken this long is because scared little men have fought against the betterment of mankind every step of the way in order to protect their opinions and the power they have amassed trough fear.

You had your chance, you lost, try declining with dignity like the amish.

First of all, there's 1.2 billion Catholics in the world. We're not necessarily a minority here. But, since this isn't a thread about the Catholic Church, and I have not once mentioned church teaching as evidence for what I believe - but rather, other people have brought it up as a diversion - let's stay on topic.

"Personhood" is purely a philosophical concept and cannot be determined on a molecular or physical level. Furthermore, I find it bit ironic - and borderline selfish - that you should demand so much respect for your rights while you are so quick to deny the rights of others.

Underlying the greatest evils in the world has always been the belief that there is a distinction between being a human and being a person, or in other words that someone can be a human being without being a "person." It was this belief that justified slavery, it was this belief that justified the mass murdering of Jews during the holocaust, and it is the belief that perpetuates all forms of mass genocide in the world today. Believing that human beings can decide when someone has rights and when they do not is very dangerous thinking.

If one truly wishes to create a peaceful and harmonious society, the only logical alternative would be to remove any distinction between human being and human person or in other words believing that a human being is a person by the very fact that they are a human being and no one can take that away.

If you're going to deny the rights of some human beings because you don't think they're "persons," then you should have no problem with a social ethic following from this logic that could also deny you personhood and your right to live. You're not better than any other human being simply because your more intelligent or possess greater abilities. You had no choice whether or not you were to be born, you are not the cause of your own existence, and therefore, you can take no real credit for your existence today.

You exist today out of the mercy and sacrifice of others. It is hypocritical of you to deny this to others.

You are wrong, actually. Throughout pregnancy, the woman's immune system tries to get rid of the fetus -- or rather, it tries to get rid of the placenta. The placenta defends itself by secreting chemicals which, among other things, suppress the woman's immune system. Otherwise, it would be killed and rejected by the woman's body. The placenta also attempts to hijack the functions of the woman's body so as to suck up more of her resources. This has a detrimental effect on the woman's body, such as dangerous spikes in blood pressure and other problems, and the woman's body reacts defensively by shutting off the function of some of her genes and some of the fetus's genes in an attempt to limit the invasion. It doesn't always work. Sometimes the pregnancy kills or nearly kills the woman. Sometimes it goes the other way, and the woman's body kills the fetus, resulting in miscarriage.

The placenta is part of the mother. In other words, all you've said is that the mother's body has to rewire or circumvent pre-programmed instructions in order to do what it wants to do. The baby isn't doing any of this.

If you are going to argue "logic" and "science," you should try to learn some.

I have, thank you. I also have yet to see you provide me with some logic contrary to my position.

And excuse me, but didn't you earlier argue that the fetus is its own entity because it has its own DNA and IS NOT the woman's body? Let me check...

Yep, here it is, post 42:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11206324&postcount=42

Sorry, your holiness, but you can't have it both ways. Either the fetus is another person -- in which case, why should it have any right to use my body for its purposes against my will? -- or it is a part of my body -- in which case, I can do pretty much whatever I want with it. Pick, please.

Yes, the fetus is another person and you cannot demonstrate that its survival is contrary to the will of the mother's body. It may be contrary to your mental state, but the woman's body is designed brilliantly to protect and defend at all costs the life of the baby. As I said before, the baby cannot live without the placenta - that is its source of life and yet the placenta is part of the mother, created by the mother.

Furthermore, the child currently has the right to use your body even if it is against your will, even years after she's been born. A child is entirely incapable of feeding herself on her own. As long as the child is in your care, you have to feed her, whether you like it or not. That's law.

Unless of course you would like to extend the same logic to 5 month old infants and demand the right to deny food to your own child from the government because its not "your will."

As I said to JesusChristLookLikeMe, you are not the cause of your own existence. You did nothing to bring yourself into being and had no choice over whether or not you wanted to be born. Your owe your existence entirely to the mercy and sacrifice of others and it is a bit hypocritical of you, having already been born, to want to deny this same courtesy to others.

Lower it, it a baby/fetus can survive being born before 24 weeks, then it is human life. It should be 20 weeks or less, IMO.

Even if it would need a lot of medical help, it is still human. The disablled are human, aren't they? Wasn't Terri Schaivo human, though she had heaps of medical help and was braindead? (Though I have to say this, I would prefer death than a vegetative state.)

So, it should be lowered.

Being unable to survive on ones own justifies murder. Seems sensible to me... :headbang:

Being unable to survive on ones own justifies murder. Seems sensible to me... :headbang:

Unless of course someone walked by with a baseball bat, smacked a pregnant woman in the stomach, and killed the baby. That is manslaughter. But if the mother chooses to do it, well that's ok.

It would seem that the personhood and worth of a child is defined by a mother's want of them. That's frightening logic.

The placenta is part of the mother. In other words, all you've said is that the mother's body has to rewire or circumvent pre-programmed instructions in order to do what it wants to do. The baby isn't doing any of this.
(A) Are you under the impression that the placenta is some kind of second brain? It does not tell a woman's body what to do. It hijacks the woman's body and will hijack as much of it as it can. The woman's body reacts defensively to limit its invasion. All you are doing here is blindly gainsaying my statements by, essentially, repeating your original one. "'Tis not neither" is not disproof.

(B) Before birth, there is no baby. Before birth, it's called a fetus. This is a matter of descriptive terminology attached to different stages of development. Conceptus before embryo. Embryo before fetus. Fetus before baby. Baby before child. Child before adult. You don't even know this much, yet you claim to have read science? Perhaps you only read as much as you needed to be able to effectively ignore it.

I have, thank you. I also have yet to see you provide me with some logic contrary to my position.
There was nothing illogical in my response to you. You stated something as fact, and I stated something as a counter fact. What's not logical about that? I am trying to remember the source for the article I mentioned so I can link to it. If I can find it, I will post it, and then you can have fun arguing with a whole big pile of facts by authorities much more qualified than me. But in the meantime, my post was not illogical. If you know that I am wrong, prove it.

Why can't parents terminate their two year old children if they don't want them?

I've been asking that myself all day.

God I hate summer vacation ...

Yes, the fetus is another person and you cannot demonstrate that its survival is contrary to the will of the mother's body. It may be contrary to your mental state, but the woman's body is designed brilliantly to protect and defend at all costs the life of the baby. As I said before, the baby cannot live without the placenta - that is its source of life and yet the placenta is part of the mother, created by the mother.
(A) Bodies do not have wills.

(B) I already have demonstrated that the woman's body reacts against the invasionary and parasitic function of the placenta. I am looking for the article that carries the proof, and will post it when I find it. In the meantime, you are just refusing to address my statements of fact and claiming that I did not present an argument that I in fact, and very clearly, did.

Furthermore, the child currently has the right to use your body even if it is against your will, even years after she's been born. A child is entirely incapable of feeding herself on her own. As long as the child is in your care, you have to feed her, whether you like it or not. That's law.

Unless of course you would like to extend the same logic to 5 month old infants and demand the right to deny food to your own child from the government because its not "your will."
This is such utter nonsense. How can you possibly equate the responsibility to provide food for another, separate, born person with allowing "another person" (in quotes because it has not been established that the fetus is a person) to take control of my actual body?

You know what the big hairy difference is? I don't actually have to feed the baby. All that is required is that someone feed the baby. I can easily hand it off to anyone else in the world, and it becomes their responsibility, not mine.

That cannot be done with a fetus and placenta. Believe me, if it were possible to transfer a fetus from my body to another woman's and have it complete its gestation, I would be happy to do so rather than simply abort. But it can't be done. Therefore, gestating a fetus and caring for a born baby are NOT comparable.

In other words:

Anybody can feed the baby, so if I don't want to do it, no problem for the baby.

Nobody else can gestate the fetus, so if I don't want to do it, tough crap for the fetus.

As I said to JesusChristLookLikeMe, you are not the cause of your own existence. You did nothing to bring yourself into being and had no choice over whether or not you wanted to be born. Your owe your existence entirely to the mercy and sacrifice of others and it is a bit hypocritical of you, having already been born, to want to deny this same courtesy to others.
What are you talking about? When are these "others" asking me to birth them? Do they place classified ads in major newspapers: "Seeking: Time Share in Uterus, ASAP. Will express gratitude"?

This is even more nonsensical than your remarks about who gets to use my body and why.

I don't think the Church's position is that clear to you.

1. We are not God
2. We do not know when God "intends" someone to die.

The belief that human beings can determine when someone lives or dies is the foundation for some of the greatest evils the world has ever seen.

Can you identify a single evil caused by believing that every single human being on this planet is priceless and worth dying for?

Stop splitting hairs. Organized religion is in the buisness of explaining holy texts to supersititious, illiterate peasants. In America, it is also in the buisness of using legistlatures to enforce it's interpretation of those texts. You can sit back and say that the Chruch is not God, yet the Pope(and the clergy) is seen as a direct line to the divine. Hell, he even gets to be infallible if hes in the right chair and talking about the right subject.

As for that single evil, yes, I can point one out. Its pretty clear that the message of Jesus was that life is sacred and precious. That belief, filtered through cynical politics and willful ignorance, lead to the stagnation of western civilization from the fall of Rome till the moment the middle class wrested enough power from the church to live the lives they chose.

All life is not precious, all life is not equal. This isn't some socialist utopia, this is the real world. More importantly, this is a society which is based around the individual rather than the group. That means that when the rights of a potential being conflict with the rights of a real person, the potential being loses. If you don't like that, there are pleanty of places in the world where religion is allowed to reign supreme, where the collective is of utmost import.


So, you don't believe that a person possesses human rights by the mere fact of being a human being? People have to earn their rights?

No, I believe that when the rights of two individuals come into conflict one of them, by definition, has to lose. In our society, we choose the individual who has more of a claim. Unless you are prepared to say that survival is such a basic human right that all members of society are expected to give of their bodies(regardles of the cost or danger) in order to ensure the lives of their bretheren, then you can't really maintain your position. I'm not willing to live in a society where I am required to be altruistic even to the point of my own death or injury. Sure, if faced with a situation I might choose to lay down my life, but it is the existance of a choice that is important.

Thats one of the drawback of freedom and free will, sometimes individuals will make choices you disagree with. Either you can accept that such things are the cost of a free society, or you can give up on the idea and submit every facet of your existance to the authority of your "betters" for good or for ill. I look at the concept of banning abortion as every bit as morally repugnant as China's policy of forcing abortions, it removes the element of choice, it takes away that thing which separates man from the animals.

Better yet, why don't you go to a parent of one of these disabled children and tell them that their child doesn't deserve to live and that all their love, time, and money is a complete waste.

I'd be curious to see the reaction.

That isn't going to work so well on me. See, I know for a fact that disabled children are treated as subhuman. I was considered a lost cause. I had the will to fight, and I dragged myself out of warehousing schools, then to college, and now to a graduate program. My parents were told that their time and love was a waste. I was told that I was a waste. My parents chose not to believe. They made a choice. At various points in my life I had to make choices as well. If my future was left in the hands of those in positions of authority, I'd be just another over-medicated illiterate bagging groceries.

Its all about choice, my friend.


How does the Church "erode" your rights?

By lobbying for restrictions upon my liberty. By using it's influence to try to enforce morality upon me and my society when it cannot even keep it's own grunts in line. Every single time a priest comes out in opposition to abortion, every single time the church pressures a politician to oppose laws that would allow an individual to die with dignity, every single time the church advocates the supression of first ammendment rights because someone might depict something "sinful" or "offensive" is a direct attack upon my rights.

Ever wonder why there are so few Stave churches left in Norway...


"Personhood" is purely a philosophical concept and cannot be determined on a molecular or physical level. Furthermore, I find it bit ironic - and borderline selfish - that you should demand so much respect for your rights while you are so quick to deny the rights of others.

Such is the nature of an individualistic society. If you have a problem with that, I'm sure you'll find some support in the liberation theology of South and Central America. Me, I didn't like Marx before he met Jesus, not so sure I'd be much of a fan after.

Underlying the greatest evils in the world has always been the belief that there is a distinction between being a human and being a person, or in other words that someone can be a human being without being a "person." It was this belief that justified slavery, it was this belief that justified the mass murdering of Jews during the holocaust, and it is the belief that perpetuates all forms of mass genocide in the world today. Believing that human beings can decide when someone has rights and when they do not is very dangerous thinking.

And what would you propose as an alternative? Somewhere along the line someone always decides, I'd rather have a guiding document based on the concpet of individual freedom than some group of functionaries.

If you're going to deny the rights of some human beings because you don't think they're "persons," then you should have no problem with a social ethic following from this logic that could also deny you personhood and your right to live. You're not better than any other human being simply because your more intelligent or possess greater abilities. You had no choice whether or not you were to be born, you are not the cause of your own existence, and therefore, you can take no real credit for your existence today.

Well, I both disagree and take offense to that point of view. I accept that the world is a chaotic place, but my existance has very much been a matter of my own determination. I have had to fight to get where I am and I believe that I am a stronger person for it.

Still, you seem to be misunderstanding my stance, and I believe that it is because of your point of view. You might wish to remove religion from this discussion, but you cannot, it is the core of your entire worldview. I do not believe that I am "better" than a 24 week old fetus. I do, however, believe that my right to be secure in my own body trumps the right of a 24 month old fetus to live. If you needed a kidney transplant, you would have no more right to claim one of mine than a fetus would to claim the use of my organs or nourishment from my blood. Were you to try to take this by force, I believe that I would be justified in ending your life. This isn't Sunday school, I am not required to suffer for the sake of altruism.

You exist today out of the mercy and sacrifice of others. It is hypocritical of you to deny this to others.

I exist today partially due to the mercy of others, and partially in spite of others. I exist today because of my own choices and the choices of those who have helped me. A combination of luck and will allowed me to overcome the choices of those who sought to do me harm and those who sought to remove choices from me and my parents. At no point did I impose upon any being that did not consent. That is the difference.

Yes, the fetus is another person and you cannot demonstrate that its survival is contrary to the will of the mother's body.

A body has no "will". Meanwhile, the mother's body can and will attack the foreign tissue in her body. It is the embryonic and fetal tissue that sends out signals to keep her from doing so. Interestingly enough, many parasitic organisms do this.

As I said before, the baby cannot live without the placenta - that is its source of life and yet the placenta is part of the mother, created by the mother.

I can't believe no one has yet corrected your blatant error here. The placenta is not created by the mother, nor is it part of her. The placenta is derived from embryonic tissue, not maternal tissue. The placenta attaches the mother to the developing embryo/fetus, but if it is a part of either, it is a part of the embryo/fetus.

Quick correction: Part of what we refer to as the placenta is derived from maternal tissue, but the development of that tissue is directed by the embryonic tissue as it implants into the uternine wall. Thus, the placenta is really neither a part of the mother nor of the embryo/fetus. It is the interface between them, and its creation is begun and directed by the embryonic tissue.

Furthermore, the child currently has the right to use your body even if it is against your will, even years after she's been born. A child is entirely incapable of feeding herself on her own. As long as the child is in your care, you have to feed her, whether you like it or not. That's law.

I don't have to feed a child parts of my body, do I? If the answer is no, then I don't have to give anyone the right to use my body against my will.

Yes, it grows inside a human, but that's where the similarities between a baby and a parasite cease. A 'parasite' possess an existing mechanism for drawing life from its host.

And an fetus does so. It draws all of its nourshment from the mother's bloodstream. It excretes all of its wastes into the mother's bloodstream or into the amniotic sack, which is found within the mother's womb.

A baby does not possess these mechanism and, in fact, the mother's body creates it for them. The placenta, which is the source of all sustenance for the baby, is part of the mother. It is something the mother's body creates for the child.

Your entire argument seems to be based upon this misconception. The placenta is not created by the mother's body, nor is it part of the mother. The creation of the placenta is begun and directed by embryonic tissue, not by the maternal tissue. It is the embryo which initiates implantation into the uterine wall, not the other way around.

The fallacy of your argument is that the act of sex is specifically designed biologically to further the existence of the human race.

Really? Is that why most sex doesn't result in pregnancy?

That and religious opposition to informing teenagers they can do things to help them from becoming pregnant if they do have sex.

Since sex is a right, condoms and birth control should be free for all.

The embryo isn't taking anything. The woman's body is programmed to give it to the embryo.

Yes, your argument really does seem to be completely based in this fallacy. The embryo sends signals which alter the mother's bodily functions, allowing it to implant and keeping her immune system from destroying it. Without those signals, the conceptus would never even implant. Thus, the embryo quite clearly does "take something". The question is whether or not the woman is willing to give it.

Like I said before, a number of people really don't want their 2 year old children. Should they be able to "rid" themselves of them?

Yes, actually. It is called adoption. A person who cannot or will not take care of their 2 year old child can put that child in the custody of another.

Why? What makes a child in the womb fundamentally so different than a child three seconds later after they're born? What makes them a "human being" all of a sudden?

Ah, the classic strawman argument of the anti-choice. How many people have you run into who support a woman being able to abort just before birth?


Where is the scientific backing for believing that a human being possesses "personhood" the moment the neural net is activated or the first brainwaves commence? Neither are scientific. Let's not set a double standard here. "Personhood" is an abstract thing. No scientific evidence can establish this. This is not a problem exclusive to religion.

There may not be specific scientific backing, but there certainly is medical backing. When brain function ceases, a person is declared medically dead. Their organs can be harvested and any life support can be immediately removed. Thus, it makes logical sense to say that brain function is the marker of a living human being. Without brain function, a human body is not medically alive.

Ah, the classic strawman argument of the anti-choice. How many people have you run into who support a woman being able to abort just before birth?
A lot, actually. It is a logical extension of the argument 'it's mine while it's in my body' that the woman can abort at any time before birth.

I would prefer to define humanity by social relationships. As there isn't really a social relationship between the baby until after it has been born then I do not see it as being human until after it is born.

24 weeks is fine.

edit: biology is the minor part of what is the be human, not the major part.

A lot, actually. It is a logical extension of the argument 'it's mine while it's in my body' that the woman can abort at any time before birth.

You're reading the argument wrong. It isn't that the fetus is the woman's body, it is that the woman owns her own body and the fetus is taking from it without her consent. You can abort any time up until birth because at any time up until birth the child poses a real and significant threat to the health and welfare of the mother. Giving birth isn't some trivial event, it is painful, unplesant, scarring, and even under the best of circumstances women still die in childbirth on a regular basis. Pregnancy is also nontrivial, and carries it's own risks. Demanding that in individual put themselves through these experiances against their consent is offensive to the very concept of freedom.

Still, lets peel away the layers of complex philosophy and cut to the core of the issue. All of the risks are irrelevant to the pro-life crowd because, in the end, those dirty sluts should have thought about that before they went and got themselves knocked up. Anything they get they deserve because...they refused to obey the social and sexual norms that have been forced upon them by Western Monotheistic thought. Now, in seeking to abort, they again disobey, and even flaunt their sins by refusing to accept the responsibility for their actions. The center of your argument is a simple cost/benefit statement "the potential existance of another human being is more valuable than the liberty of an existing one." Sorry, I'm not any more interested in blind obediance to the words of potentially mythical men 2000 years dead than I am in being a slave to biology. My forefathers have fought too many wars for the sake of liberty to throw it all away.

Better yet, why don't you go to a parent of one of these disabled children and tell them that their child doesn't deserve to live and that all their love, time, and money is a complete waste.

I'd be curious to see the reaction.

Perhaps you should step back for a second and think about this logically. Let us look at three scenarios:

1. Person A decides to remove person Bs legs with a chainsaw
Question: can person B claim person A did him harm ? If so - why ? Are you saying that persons without legs are worth less than persons with them ?
If not, person B has no right to complain - except on the grounds that something was done to him that he did not want.

2. Person C manages to prevent the removal of Bs legs.
Question: can person B claim person C did him good ? If so - why ? Are you saying that persons without legs are worth less than persons with them ?
If not, person B has no reason to thank C - except on the grounds that something was prevented that he did not want.

3. Person D decides to kill fetus E before E has grown advanced enough to possess conciousness, desires and awareness, knowing that E will be a cripple from birth.
Question: who exactly can complain here, on what grounds and what exactly was the harm done ?

A lot, actually. It is a logical extension of the argument 'it's mine while it's in my body' that the woman can abort at any time before birth.
Hence the strawman. Only anti-choicers think this is the logical extension of the "it's my body" argument. And anti-choicers then make the completely unfounded claim that this conclusion they invented leads to actions which must be stopped by banning abortion. Because there is no such thing in reality as elective late term abortion, and because the "it's my body" argument does not lead to a demand for elective late term abortion, and because even non-elective late term abortion has nothing whatsoever to do with early term abortion, the "late term abortions" argument is a strawman.

Found the article (pdf warning):

http://www.colorado.edu/MCDB/MCDB1111/PDF%20Readings/Pregnancy_NYT.pdf

And thanks to Eutrusca for having originally posted it long ago.