NationStates Jolt Archive

If people truly owned their own bodies, then Jehovah's Witnesses would not be forced to take blood,

They aren't. In fact, a doctor can be sued for assault if he gives blood to a J-W who has signed a form requesting otherwise.

people would be allowed to smoke crack,

And they should be.

and Samaritans would be castigated for cajoling people away from suicide.

Huh? Ownership of your own body does not mean that other cannot attempt to convince you to take a given course of action. I would never force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, as she would be the one who was pregnant and thus the decision would be up to her. However, I might try and convince her to carry to term - and that would not infringe upon her rights at all. She could either listen to what I have to say, or tell me to shove off.

If the embryo/foetus is a separate person, then the question of woman's rights versus unborn's rights comes into play. The logical conclusion from this premise is that the right to survive trumps the right not to be inconvenienced.

I always have to wonder why people have to label pregnancy as a "mere inconvenience" to try and make this argument. If your argument doesn't work with the realities of the situation, it's a shitty argument. If it does, you don't need to try and misrepresent things. Pregnancy is much more than an "inconvenience." We aren't talking about someone getting to work late one day or having to change a tire here. We're talking about a potentially deadly 9-month process that, even if things go perfectly, makes irreversible changes to a woman's body that put her at greater risk for later health problems.

This explains why almost all people who believe a foetus is not a person are pro-choice, and almost all people who believe it is a person are pro-life.

No one I have yet talked to truly believes an embryo/early fetus to be a full person. They say they do, but when faced with the logical conclusions of such a belief, they all balk and try to make excuses they would never make if the situation involved a living human being.

One does not have to believe that an embryo/fetus is a person at all stages of pregnancy to be pro-lief and one does not have to believe that it is not to be pro-choice. And, in fact, one can be both pro-life and pro-choice simultaneously.

Why, the "document" is that she spread her legs, the filthy harlot!!!

See, sex has a chance of leading to fertilization of an egg, which has a chance of leading to implantation and pregnancy, which has a chance of leading to child birth. So if somebody consents to have sex, they are legally consenting to carry a pregnancy to term and have a baby!

It's just like how driving has a chance of leading to one's car going into a skid, and going into a skid has a chance of leading to hitting a tree, and hitting a tree has a chance of leading to one suffering serious organ failure, and serious organ failure has a chance of leading to death. Thus, a person who consents to drive a car is consenting to die of organ failure, which is why we legally forbid people to get medical attention if they are in car accidents.

Bottle, you are awesome. These days, I only go into the abortion threads to watch you kick some virtual ass.

And, in fact, one can be both pro-life and pro-choice simultaneously.

Head asplodey time already? *ducks*

Firstly, donating an organ may result in death if the other organ fails, while a pregnancy won't unless there are complications. Which is a whole new can of worms.

They are the same in this respect. Organ donation will only lead to death if there are complications during the surgery or you have organ failure later in life. Pregnancy will only lead to death if there are complications or you have other related medical problems later in life.

In truth, pregnancy can be harder on the body than organ donation (depending on the organ).

Suppose we have an artificial womb, to which we can instantly, costlessly and harmlessly transfer a zygote/embryo/fetus/baby from the pregnant woman, and from which the zygote/embryo/fetus/baby will develop normally.

Assume the zygote/embryo/fetus/baby no longer places any burden on the woman because we can just instantly, costlessly and harmlessly transfer him or her to the artificial womb. Should abortion be allowed in this scenario? Why or why not?

Greetings

I recently read a story about a teenager, in Portugal, that were pregnant(her boyfriend left her) and had 2 choices

1) Drop out of school, live in the suburb, and have the baby growing up there - almost shure of as a live as poor (and most likely criminal - just to survive).

2) Have an abortion, finish her education and have a fair chance of a good life.

No choice, really!!

3) Give birth to the child, finish her education and have a fair chance of a good life.

In our society, what's necessary for Option 3 to be put on the table?

Suppose we have an artificial womb, to which we can instantly, costlessly and harmlessly transfer a zygote/embryo/fetus/baby from the pregnant woman, and from which the zygote/embryo/fetus/baby will develop normally.

Assume the zygote/embryo/fetus/baby no longer places any burden on the woman because we can just instantly, costlessly and harmlessly transfer him or her to the artificial womb. Should abortion be allowed in this scenario? Why or why not?

Interesting "what if", I must say.

Though I still favor the choice, I think. If the woman has to endure even one day of being pregnant (with all the bad side effects that come with it) then I think it's her choice to decide. Of course, this new choice you've offered would be presented as well along with the ones currently given (adoption, usually), but the decision would ultimately be hers by right.

Actually, it works in my favour. If banning abortion (or mitigating it) causes upsets, those are still acceptable.

I suppose you can also argue it that way. Of course, that would mean that you are arguing in favor of enslaving one group of people for the benefit of another. Are you really wanting to take that position?


If it enslaves women, then women must somehow be natural slaves or something.

Yes, forced pregnancies is an example of a way in which women are enslaved. It is an example of how women's bodies are considered the property of other people, and how women are not permitted to exercise their fundamental human rights.

However, this has nothing to do with "nature." Human laws are created by human beings. If one set of human beings passes a law saying that another set of human beings are slaves, that's not "nature." That's human law.


In America at least, more women are opposed to abortion than men.

Wrong. Age, education, and religion all appear to play a significant part in an individual's stance on abortion, but men and women support legal abortion in roughly equal numbers. Women tend to be slightly more likely to support legal abortion, but the margin is very small.

Suppose we have an artificial womb, to which we can instantly, costlessly and harmlessly transfer a zygote/embryo/fetus/baby from the pregnant woman, and from which the zygote/embryo/fetus/baby will develop normally.

Assume the zygote/embryo/fetus/baby no longer places any burden on the woman because we can just instantly, costlessly and harmlessly transfer him or her to the artificial womb. Should abortion be allowed in this scenario? Why or why not?

absolutly.

I suggest you look up what the word "abortion" means. it means to terminate a pregnancy, not to kill a fetus.

Abortion (the termination of the pregnancy) should be allowed, for removing the fetus would do exactly that, end the pregnancy.

You are, I imagine, asking whether the fetus should be KILLED in the process of the abortion, or placed in thisartificial womb.

I always have to wonder why people have to label pregnancy as a "mere inconvenience" to try and make this argument. If your argument doesn't work with the realities of the situation, it's a shitty argument. If it does, you don't need to try and misrepresent things. Pregnancy is much more than an "inconvenience." We aren't talking about someone getting to work late one day or having to change a tire here. We're talking about a potentially deadly 9-month process that, even if things go perfectly, makes irreversible changes to a woman's body that put her at greater risk for later health problems.

As far as I am concerned, any person who refers to pregnancy as "an inconvenience" has just demonstrated that either a) they know precisely zero about pregnancy or b) they're prepared to lie whenever it suits them.

In either case, they have just clearly announced that their opinion is pretty much worthless on the subject of abortion. If you either don't understand human reproductive biology, or are willing to completely misrepresent it whenever it suits you, then really...why should anybody care what you have to say? (Other than in terms of your entertainment value, of course! :))


No one I have yet talked to truly believes an embryo/early fetus to be a full person. They say they do, but when faced with the logical conclusions of such a belief, they all balk and try to make excuses they would never make if the situation involved a living human being.

One does not have to believe that an embryo/fetus is a person at all stages of pregnancy to be pro-lief and one does not have to believe that it is not to be pro-choice. And, in fact, one can be both pro-life and pro-choice simultaneously.
Bingo.

absolutly.

I suggest you look up what the word "abortion" means. it means to terminate a pregnancy, not to kill a fetus.

Abortion (the termination of the pregnancy) should be allowed, for removing the fetus would do exactly that, end the pregnancy.

You are, I imagine, asking whether the fetus should be KILLED in the process of the abortion, or placed in thisartificial womb.
Yeah, this is something a lot of people don't grasp.

I support a woman's right to end her body's participation in pregnancy at any time and for any reason. Whether or not a fetus will die as a result of this will not change my stance on the subject.

If it is possible to abort a pregnancy and then transfer the embryo/fetus to an artificial apparatus of some kind, where it can be provided with what it needs to survive, then I don't have any innate objection to that. It's really an entirely different topic at that point; issues of custody, etc, could become very interesting! But it's not really relevant to the subject of abortion (in my opinion).

by abortion, which trimester do "pro-choicers" think it should be allowed up to?

I suppose you can also argue it that way. Of course, that would mean that you are arguing in favor of enslaving one group of people for the benefit of another. Are you really wanting to take that position? "Enslavement" is better than death. Which is why I would be willing to lock up a schizophrenic who has committed no crimes, because he is a danger to the public.

That's not supposed to be an exact analogy, so don't run away with it.

Yes, forced pregnancies is an example of a way in which women are enslaved. It is an example of how women's bodies are considered the property of other people, and how women are not permitted to exercise their fundamental human rights. I think you're missing the point here. It is not about oppressing women for pro-lifers, it is about the rights of the unborn. Hell, even the occasional terrorism carried out generally involved shooting the male doctors!

Wrong. Age, education, and religion all appear to play a significant part in an individual's stance on abortion, but men and women support legal abortion in roughly equal numbers. Women tend to be slightly more likely to support legal abortion, but the margin is very small. I can't provide a source for the figures right now because they were given to me by someone else; I'll ask them in a couple of days when I get an opportunity. But here are the figures without a source:
_____
Abortion should be:

Women:
"Generally available" - 37%
"Available but more strictly limited" - 37%
"Not permitted" - 24%

Men:
"Generally available" - 40%
"Available but more strictly limited" - 40%
"Not permitted" - 20%

Wait a minute, I have found a source. It's Wikipedia, but it does in turn cite its sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#By_gender.2C_party.2C_and_region

Privileged...well, that's certainly something I've never been called before. Wait till the folks at the country club (read: library) hear about my new status! If I deign to speak to them, that is.

I don't believe I called you privileged... I just said that this was convenient logic for the privileged.

It amounts to making moral decisions on arbitrary bases of circumstance (i.e. I happen to own x) rather than actual moral desert.

You've shirked no moral duty (finally, a word not "obligation!), nor harmed anyone. You've simply denied them something of yours they had no right to in the first place.

Answer the question, please:

But, go on. Tell me what the basis for ANY right is, if we are to ignore the desires of the subject as irrelevant.

Are we similarly to say that we can kill the person, because the mere fact that she desires not to die need not be a limitation upon our behavior?

Now, how about this. I desire a second computer. In fact, mine's kind of shabby, and I need it for my work. If I don't get a new one, I won't be able to feed myself. I desire your computer. Yours is the only one that will do.

Now, since by your reasoning you seem to have an obligation to fulfill my needs and desires...I'll email you my address, and you just ship me that dandy typing machine you're on right now. That'll fulfull your moral obligations, and my need. Score!

That would be the correct action to take, if you actually needed a new computer to feed yourself and had no available alternative but mine.

Indeed, you would be within your rights to steal mine, were that the case.

Legally - well, that's a different question.

Why is it?

Now yeah, it's a ludicrus argument, but so is your fingernail for a billion lives.

No, not really - it's not a ludicrous argument, and the conclusion you derived from it with my premises is perfectly acceptable, though it may not seem so in that particular example.

Actually, we use this kind of logic all the time... if we did not, we would all be absolute pacifists. Organized violence always brings about innocent death; it follows, if we are to say that no one can be deprived of her life against her will for any end (and is not our claim to life even stronger than our claim to bodily autonomy?), that it is always wrong.

At some point you say "no, that's stupid". Then it's a matter of scaling back, but if we make miniscule changes it's really hard to find the line.

It may be difficult to find a precise, definite line, but if you can isolate the general, vague principle that leads you to distinguish the cases, you can at least get an idea of where it lies.

Bottle, you are awesome. These days, I only go into the abortion threads to watch you kick some virtual ass.
Thanks, but I can't really feel too proud of myself at this point. Anti-choicers have been spouting the same BS for so long that it doesn't take much effort to snark it. Their "arguments" are pathetic to begin with, and repeating them over and over just makes it easier for everybody to spot the bull.

It may be difficult to find a precise, definite line, but if you can isolate the general, vague principle that leads you to distinguish the cases, you can at least get an idea of where it lies.

Perhaps, such as "too far here, not too far there" you might get a feeling.

A fingernail to save a billion lives, MAYBE, maybe in that situation a violation of rights is merited. To deny abortion, no.

_____
Abortion should be:

Women:
"Generally available" - 37%
"Available but more strictly limited" - 37%
"Not permitted" - 24%

Men:
"Generally available" - 40%
"Available but more strictly limited" - 40%
"Not permitted" - 20%


All of which falls comfortably within the margin of error.

Oh, careful New Genoa..... your papal bull is showing...

They should go even further than modernity. They should go postmodern and start allowing post-birth abortions.

Any one up for a referendum?

"Enslavement" is better than death. Which is why I would be willing to lock up a schizophrenic who has committed no crimes, because he is a danger to the public.

That's not supposed to be an exact analogy, so don't run away with it.

I think you're missing the point here. It is not about oppressing women for pro-lifers, it is about the rights of the unborn. Hell, even the occasional terrorism carried out generally involved shooting the male doctors!


I consider women slightly more important than schizos, nor do I consider them a danger to the public (most of the time, lawl).

Seems like the analogy just doesn't work, in any aspect, in any respect.

I don't believe the unborn have any rights. Sorry.

Oh, careful New Genoa..... your papal bull is showing...

lol, you think I'm catholic.

"Enslavement" is better than death. Which is why I would be willing to lock up a schizophrenic who has committed no crimes, because he is a danger to the public.

That's not supposed to be an exact analogy, so don't run away with it.]

If you wish to make a respectable argument, use analogies that actually, you know...work.

Suppose we have an artificial womb, to which we can instantly, costlessly and harmlessly transfer a zygote/embryo/fetus/baby from the pregnant woman, and from which the zygote/embryo/fetus/baby will develop normally.

Assume the zygote/embryo/fetus/baby no longer places any burden on the woman because we can just instantly, costlessly and harmlessly transfer him or her to the artificial womb. Should abortion be allowed in this scenario? Why or why not?

It doesn't make sense to say, "What if we made it so that a zygote/embryo/fetus could be harmlessly removed from a woman and then placed in an incubator for the rest of its term? Would abortion then be allowed?" The process itself is an abortion - simply one which transfers the conceptus rather than destroying it.

A fingernail to save a billion lives, MAYBE, maybe in that situation a violation of rights is merited.

What about my other example, non-pacifism?

It is not so extreme, because we are dealing with much less benefit (and indeed, benefit that is quite uncertain) and much higher involuntary costs in the violation of rights... yet generally we are not pacifists anyway. We routinely morally justify wars.

To deny abortion, no.

Obviously not. The right to bodily autonomy is fundamental enough that a mere fetus's claim to life does not supercede it.

All of which falls comfortably within the margin of error. Let me get this straight; you're arguing that the finding that women are more against abortion than men somehow shows that they're likely to have the opposite views?

Let me get this straight; you're arguing that the finding that women are more against abortion than men somehow shows that they're likely to have the opposite views?

I suggest you look up terms you don't know before arguing about them.

Look up "margin of error". It means polls have a tendancy to not be EXACTLY correct, but merely "generally" correct. There is typically a gap. The gap between what a poll says and what is fact is generally called the "margin of error"

Let me get this straight; you're arguing that the finding that women are more against abortion than men somehow shows that they're likely to have the opposite views?

When the results are so close together, they're what's referred to as "within the lines of error". The last presidential election was such a result.

"Enslavement" is better than death. Which is why I would be willing to lock up a schizophrenic who has committed no crimes, because he is a danger to the public.

That's not supposed to be an exact analogy, so don't run away with it.

Um, it's not remotely accurate as an analogy. "Locking up" a mentally ill person to prevent them from harming others is not slavery at all.


I think you're missing the point here. It is not about oppressing women for pro-lifers, it is about the rights of the unborn.

Based on the positions advocated by every single main-stream anti-choice organization in my country, I am confident in saying that that is utter bullshit. The actions of the "pro-life" groups are not consistent with the belief that they are interested in safeguarding fetal life rather than oppressing women.


Hell, even the occasional terrorism carried out generally involved shooting the male doctors!

You really, really seem completely unable to remember that pregnancies occur INSIDE WOMEN'S BODIES.


I can't provide a source for the figures right now because they were given to me by someone else; I'll ask them in a couple of days when I get an opportunity. But here are the figures without a source:
_____
Abortion should be:

Women:
"Generally available" - 37%
"Available but more strictly limited" - 37%
"Not permitted" - 24%

Men:
"Generally available" - 40%
"Available but more strictly limited" - 40%
"Not permitted" - 20%

Wait a minute, I have found a source. It's Wikipedia, but it does in turn cite its sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#By_gender.2C_party.2C_and_region
Well, for one thing your own source doesn't show a statistically significant difference. For another thing, I'm talking about the aggregate of results from the piles and piles of polls that have been done on the subject. The gender disparity you are claiming is simply not supported by the data.

Thanks for correcting my misuse of the term abortion.

I meant to ask whether should the current form of abortion -- removing the fetus and killing it (or killing it in the process of removal) -- be allowed if there is a non-lethal fetus transference alternative?

In other words, if technology makes it possible for a fetus to be kept alive and removed from the woman, does that ability mean that those fetus-removals that kill the fetus should be made illegal, since there is a better way?

I suppose you could say that position is "I'm for abortion, but not when the fetus dies as a result."

The "margin of error" applied to all three categories and involved more than just a couple of percentage points - 4%, 3% and 3% are actually fairly major with a NYT poll.

by abortion, which trimester do "pro-choicers" think it should be allowed up to?
Personally, I believe a woman should be allowed to end her participation in a pregnancy at any time and for any reason.

DISCLAIMER: I do NOT speak for any other pro-choice individual, or for the pro-choice movement on the whole. I know it's dumb that I have to say this, but I promise you that somebody would make one or both of those assumptions if I didn't.

Personally, I believe a woman should be allowed to end her participation in a pregnancy at any time and for any reason.

DISCLAIMER: I do NOT speak for any other pro-choice individual, or for the pro-choice movement on the whole. I know it's dumb that I have to say this, but I promise you that somebody would make one or both of those assumptions if I didn't.

Right up to birth?

In that case you wouldn't have a problem with euthanasing premature babies either right? Becuase a foetus in the womb 3 weeks before birth is the same as a 3 week premature baby.

Thanks for correcting my misuse of the term abortion.

I meant to ask whether should the current form of abortion -- removing the fetus and killing it (or killing it in the process of removal) -- be allowed if there is a non-lethal fetus transference alternative?

In other words, if technology makes it possible for a fetus to be kept alive and removed from the woman, does that ability mean that those fetus-removals that kill the fetus should be made illegal, since there is a better way?

I suppose you could say that position is "I'm for abortion, but not when the fetus dies as a result."
There are currently ways to end a pregnancy while preserving the life of the fetus. Many of them would involve killing the mother or seriously harming her.

If there were a way to remove a fetus in such a way that it remains viable, without causing ANY additional risk or injury to the mother, then I would support that as an option. However, I believe that such medical decisions should be made by the patient and her doctor.

Right up to birth?

I support a woman's right to end her body's participation in a pregnancy at any time and for any reason.

What do you find unclear about that?


In that case you wouldn't have a problem with euthanasing premature babies either right? Becuase a foetus in the womb 3 weeks before birth is the same as a 3 week premature baby.
I'm sorry, but your logic is flawed. I support a woman's right to end her body's participation in a pregnancy at any time and for any reason. If you want to talk about born infants, premature or otherwise, then you are no longer talking about pregnancy. A woman's right to end her body's participation in pregnancy is not relevant to situations in which there is no pregnancy.

Thanks for correcting my misuse of the term abortion.

I meant to ask whether should the current form of abortion -- removing the fetus and killing it (or killing it in the process of removal) -- be allowed if there is a non-lethal fetus transference alternative?

In other words, if technology makes it possible for a fetus to be kept alive and removed from the woman, does that ability mean that those fetus-removals that kill the fetus should be made illegal, since there is a better way?

I suppose you could say that position is "I'm for abortion, but not when the fetus dies as a result."

It's hard to say. There are all sorts of legal issues that would have to be taken care of. Where would the children incubated in the artificial womb go? An orphanage? Foster care? Would the woman having the abortion and the man who fathered the child be legally responsible for them? While it is an interesting thought-experiment, I think we'd be better served by trying to cut back on unwanted pregnancies in general than by trying to come up with another way to carry them to term.

I'm leery of making any medical procedure absolutely illegal. Assuming that the process would be no more harmful than current abortion is to a woman, I could see the medical community pushing for such a procedure to be the standard in elective abortions. However, the medical considerations of the woman must always be taken into account. If she and her doctor determine that the best medical decision for her is a different procedure, said procedure should be allowed.


by abortion, which trimester do "pro-choicers" think it should be allowed up to?

Depends on the situation. Personally, I think the general outline of the law we have no works quite well - a scaling measure of restriction as the pregnancy progresses. While the time-points in Roe v. Wade could possibly be improved upon by more testing, they are in the right ballpark, I think.

I'm sorry, but your logic is flawed. I support a woman's right to end her body's participation in a pregnancy at any time and for any reason. If you want to talk about born infants, premature or otherwise, then you are no longer talking about pregnancy. A woman's right to end her body's participation in pregnancy is not relevant to situations in which there is no pregnancy. But the two situations would be morally equivalent in themselves since there is no objective difference between the premature baby and the unborn one?

But the two situations would be morally equivalent in themselves since there is no objective difference between the premature baby and the unborn one?
No objective difference...except, you know, the woman.

The two situations are only "morally equivalent" if you consider a human women to be equivalent to no human woman.

womens rights supersede all others

No objective difference...except, you know, the woman.

The two situations are only "morally equivalent" if you consider a human women to be equivalent to no human woman.

ooooo i c

if after 19 pages you still don't understand you might want to quit now
k thx 4 the headz up ur so helpful and insiteful

Bottle, I dont understand your argument. Terminating the pregnancy will ultimately end the fetus's life. Why is it ok for it to die before birth, when it would be wrong to kill it at the same time after birth?

if after 19 pages you still don't understand you might want to quit now

what moral transformation occurs once the fetus exits the womb? it's still dependent on the mother afterwards...unless you think a newborn child can survive on its own.

moral tranformations are irrelevant. Physical transformations are. It's out of the womb. Likewise even AFTER it is born, a mother does not HAVE to do a single thing to provide for it, unless you want to ignore adoption and legal abandonment.

moral tranformations are irrelevant. Physical transformations are. It's out of the womb. Likewise even AFTER it is born, a mother does not HAVE to do a single thing to provide for it, unless you want to ignore adoption and legal abandonment.

o ok

Assuming a foetus is a person, it is immoral to kill it. I will demonstrate why.

So far the objections have been from the mother's point of view. Why should the mother have to carry a pregnancy to term?

Look at it from the foetus' point of view. Why should existence be a crime? Why should you be forced to die because you came into existence in the wrong place? The foetus has the moral high ground because it did not do anything to lead to its present state - the mother did. An almost legitimate Godwin would be very easy to commit now.

Thus, all pro-choice arguments hinge on the non-personhood of the foetus, which is the area where basically all pro-choice organisations commit themselves to.

But why does the woman have moral precedence in the first case (before birth) but not afterwards? you're killing the same entity.

what moral transformation occurs once the fetus exits the womb? it's still dependent on the mother afterwards...unless you think a newborn child can survive on its own.

I don't think you're understanding Bottle's argument. She supports a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy at any time. The death of a fetus is generally the result of such a termination (although a C-section or induced birth would also terminate a pregnancy and might result in a living child), but the purpose is to terminate the pregnancy, not to kill the fetus.

This does not, in any way, translate to support for killing a born child. Killing a born child will not end a pregnancy - the pregnancy has already ended.

Meanwhile, a born child is not dependent upon its mother. It is dependent upon someone. If that someone actually had to be its mother, we wouldn't have people adopting infants, now would we?

But why does the woman have moral precedence in the first case (before birth) but not afterwards?

Because in the first case, preventing the termination of the pregnancy would violate her bodily autonomy; in the second case, it would not.

you're killing the same entity.

But in different circumstances.

what moral transformation occurs once the fetus exits the womb?

None at all. The only change is in what is necessary to preserve the entity.

it's still dependent on the mother afterwards...

Not exclusively. Its needs can be provided for by others. And the dependence is not of the same degree.

Assuming a foetus is a person, it is immoral to kill it. I will demonstrate why.

So far the objections have been from the mother's point of view. Why should the mother have to carry a pregnancy to term?

Look at it from the foetus' point of view. Why should existence be a crime? Why should you be forced to die because you came into existence in the wrong place? An almost legitimate Godwin would be very easy to commit now.

Thus, all pro-choice arguments hinge on the non-personhood of the foetus, which is the area where basically all pro-choice organisations commit themselves to.

Looking at it from the fetus' point of view, you don't have enough intelligence or motor skills to comprehend thought or life, therefore the point is moot.

Finally, Portugal. Finally... now Poland, Malta and Ireland. The anachronist backwardness must go.

So, sure, it's only until the 10th week - we have a much more acceptable 18 week limit for free abortions and 22 weeks after approval of the national board of health and welfare for special cases and there is no limit if the woman's life is in danger - but the foot is in the door and the abortifacients are down the hatch. :)

We already allowed abortion due to medical reasons and rape for longer periods.

We just liberalized until the 10th week because we were getting tired of having the spanish abortion clinics ripe all the profits of the business

edit: most catholics i know voted for the "yes". And CNN is wrong, it was a north-south divide, not an age divide: older people voted for yes as much as younger people

Looking at it from the fetus' point of view, you don't have enough intelligence or motor skills to comprehend thought or life, therefore the point is moot.

that makes sense

But in different circumstances.


oh ya i forgot bout dat

Why are physical transformations important? What gives the fetus/child essential right to life? How does that give it the right to life?

it gets the rights of personhood at such time it has developed to the point to be considered a person. If the physical transformation that makes it a person is unimportant, we might as well confer rights of personhood on cows, trees, bacteria and inert rocks.

Moreover, even at the time it HAS attained the status of personhood and thus gains rights of personhood it STILL doesn't get more rights than anyone else, and getting to live on someone's body without that person's consent is not a right of anyone.

Bottle, I dont understand your argument. Terminating the pregnancy will ultimately end the fetus's life. Why is it ok for it to die before birth, when it would be wrong to kill it at the same time after birth?
Okay, I'm really getting scared now.

Are people honestly unable to grasp the concept that pregnancy INVOLVES A WOMAN'S BODY?

In the case of a pregnancy, THERE IS A HUMAN WOMAN PHYSICALLY PRESENT IN THE SITUATION BY DEFINITION. The pregnancy is occurring inside her body. The fetus is living inside her body.

In the case of a born human infant, there is not a human woman physically present in the situation by definition. There may be no other person physically present at all. The born human infant is not living inside a woman's body.

Is it really this hard for people to remember that 'pregnancy' isn't some magical place that babies dwell all by themselves?

Look at it from the foetus' point of view. Why should existence be a crime? Why should you be forced to die because you came into existence in the wrong place? The foetus has the moral high ground because it did not do anything to lead to its present state - the mother did. An almost legitimate Godwin would be very easy to commit now.

One could take this same argument into organ transplantation. Suppose I was in an accident and hit someone with my car. Their injuries lead to organ failure, and I am a match.

Look at it from the patient's point of view. Why should being sick be a crime? Why should you be forced to die because you sustained an injury that led to organ failure. The patient has the moral high ground because it did not do anything to lead to its present state - the person driving the car did......

But, even if I hit someone with my car and they are now suffering from organ failure, I cannot be legally forced to donate my own organ(s) to help them. One can certainly argue that, from a moral point of view, I *should* do so, and I would agree. But from a legal point of view, I cannot be required to do so.

Thus, all pro-choice arguments hinge on the non-personhood of the foetus, which is the area where basically all pro-choice organisations commit themselves to.

Not at all. Some do, some don't. Some don't take it into account at all. In Bottle's argument, for instance, the personhood/non-personhood of the embryo/fetus is irrelevant.

What about a severely mentally retarded person? Should mothers be allowed to post birth abort them? What about someone who is physically incapacitated? They lack motor skills so I guess they lack personhood?

What about a newborn infant? 3 seconds before they were the fetus you described, now all of a sudden they're fully capable of person hood?

You tread very dangerous ground when you determine personhood on the premise of cognitive ability.

You fail at analogies entirely.

A newborn infant has capacities of personhood. Additionally since it is no longer attached to the mother, the idea of bodily autonomy are no longer relevant. It's only dangerus ground when you don't understand the argument.

do circumstances matter when murder occurs? ...

[example]

oh, I killed him...but you know...it was just orders! it's not morally reprehensible now!:rolleyes:

exactly what murder is being committed?

I suggest you don't use legal terms until you learn how to use them correctly.

I don't think you're understanding Bottle's argument. She supports a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy at any time. The death of a fetus is generally the result of such a termination (although a C-section or induced birth would also terminate a pregnancy and might result in a living child), but the purpose is to terminate the pregnancy, not to kill the fetus.

This does not, in any way, translate to support for killing a born child. Killing a born child will not end a pregnancy - the pregnancy has already ended.

Exactly.

It's really disturbing to see how human women are instantly written out of all these situations. "Pregnancy" appears to only involve a fetus, somehow, since the woman who is pregnant just vanishes into thin air.

it gets the rights of personhood at such time it has developed to the point to be considered a person. If the physical transformation that makes it a person is unimportant, we might as well confer rights of personhood on cows, trees, bacteria and inert rocks.


k ur so smart

exactly what murder is being committed?

I suggest you don't use legal terms until you learn how to use them correctly.

k

When do you consider it a person? How does the leaving of the womb make it a person?

I consider something to be a person when it has obtained qualities I proscribe to personhood. A neural network being the main one.

Leaving the womb does not make it a person. Leaving the womb however does get rid of the personal autonomy problem.

Really, there are TWO arguments here, despite your efforts to try to clump them together into one.

Not at all. Some do, some don't. Some don't take it into account at all. In Bottle's argument, for instance, the personhood/non-personhood of the embryo/fetus is irrelevant.
Precisely.

I used to worry a lot about the personhood/non-personhood side of the abortion debate, but then my Sainted Mother asked me, "Does being a person give somebody the right to take your body against your wishes?" And I realized that no, in fact, being a person doesn't entitle anybody to take my body against my wishes. Personhood doesn't come with any right to anybody else's body. So whether or not a fetus is a person really doesn't matter to me, in the context of this discussion.

I consider something to be a person when it has obtained qualities I describe to personhood. A neural network being the main one.

Leaving the womb does not make it a person. Leaving the womb however does get rid of the personal autonomy problem.

Really, there are TWO arguments here, despite your efforts to try to clump them together into one.

k

The pro-choice movement...obnoxious at every opportunity. What the hell do you think I was referring to?

Murder means the intentional, and illegal killing of a person. That is the definition of murder.

And since abortion is legal an abortion does not result in the illegal killing of a person (totally ignoring the question as to whether a fetus is a person or not). Therefore, I have no fucking clue who you are refering to. Please specify what person was illegally killed.

or you can, you know, use words correctly.

And of course it's stupid to suggest everyone who is pro choice is overtly obnoxious. I sure as hell am, but that neither has anything to do with my pro choice stance, nor indicative of everyone.

Murder means the intentional, and illegal killing of a person. So I'm asking, who was illegally killed in an abortion?

Or, maybe, you should stop using legal terms wrongly.
k

1) you haven't yet demonstrated how a fetus is a child
2) why does everything that is immoral need to be illegal?

Don't get ma at me because you don't know what the words you are using mean.

It has a neural network at a specific point. You yourself deemed a neural network as necessary to person hood.

Fine, it's the KILLING a child and the KILLING is immoral. Semantics for the fucking win.

1) you haven't yet demonstrated how a fetus is a child
2) why does everything that is immoral need to be illegal?

Don't get ma at me because you don't know what the words you are using mean.

And the question posed was when should abortion be allowed up to. Bottle replied at any point in time of the pregnancy. Now, consider a premature birth of let's say 3 weeks. The child at this point does have a neural network. Yet you seem to be supporting Bottle's argument that abortion should happen whenever.

Abortion refers to the termination of a pregnancy. Killing a born human infant is not an abortion. If there is no pregnancy, then it's not an abortion.

So, thus far, you have demonstrated that you don't know the meanings of the words "murder" and "abortion." Given the subject matter, you might want to skim through a dictionary or two before we continue.

so, do we have any petri dishers yet?

Abortion refers to the termination of a pregnancy. Killing a born human infant is not an abortion. If there is no pregnancy, then it's not an abortion.

So, thus far, you have demonstrated that you don't know the meanings of the words "murder" and "abortion." Given the subject matter, you might want to skim through a dictionary or two before we continue.

The termination of the pregnancy results in the death of a fetus. The argument concerning abortion is whether it's MORAL to kill (happy now?) the fetus in the process of abortion.

Although the ad hominem attacks do serve as perfect red herrings.

And the question posed was when should abortion be allowed up to

You do, I hope realize that technically BIRTH is an abortion, right?

Fine, it's the KILLING a child and the KILLING is immoral. Semantics for the fucking win.

AWWWW look at the pwetty fundie foaming!
How cute!

You do, I hope realize that technically BIRTH is an abortion, right?

rly?

It has a neural network at a specific point. You yourself deemed a neural network as necessary to person hood.

At which point are we talking, before that point or after?

if after, fine, there is some point I will ascribe qualities to an entity living in a woman's womb a person.

And as a person it gets all the rights that other people get. Unfortunatly, getting to live inside somebody without that person's consent is not one of them.

You lose on either count I fear.

And as a person it gets all the rights that other people get. Unfortunatly, getting to live inside somebody without that person's consent is not one of them.

And the fetus made the choice to live inside another person at which point? Or was it the two partners who engaged in sexual intercourse that put it in such a predicament?

AWWWW look at the pwetty fundie foaming!
How cute!

I'm an atheist. So don't throw your bullshit "fundie" labels around like nothing.

And the fetus made the choice to live inside another person at which point? Or was it the two partners who engaged in sexual intercourse that put it in such a predicament?
The choice on the part of the person in question does not change their rights.

It doesn't matter whether or not a fetus decided to be inside somebody, just like it doesn't matter if a kidney patient decided to go into renal failure. It doesn't matter if you chose to put yourself in a given situation or not; you still DO NOT have the right to use another person's body to prolong your own life against their wishes.

Damn, I sleep for a few measely hours, and the thread almost doubles in size. I'm not even going to try to comment on everything that's come up. Wow.

Teh s3x much?

So having sex is the same as consenting to carry a child to full-term? Interesting. I'm interested to know where you get from "She had sex" to "Therefore she has to carry the child." Not to go academic, but Hume's words are better than mine would be... Hume would say you're deriving an "ought" from an "is," meaning you're gleaning a moral judgment out of a simple statement of fact. Unfortunately, the moral judgment is nowhere implicit in the fact itself. Explain the leap in logic, and maybe I'll be on board.

At best, by having sex the woman consents to getting pregnant, therefore she has to deal with to consequences. That is just practical, not a moral judgment. She has no choice but to do something to deal with the consequences, either carry the baby, or terminate it, and so on. Nowhere in the simple fact that she had sex is it necessary for her dealing with the consequences to include carry the fetus. Abortion is simply another method for "dealing with the consequences of her actions." (I'm quoting your sentiment, if not exact words.)

And the question posed was when should abortion be allowed up to.

Birth, for pretty much the same reasons as the other pro-choicers: at birth, the child is an (relatively) autonomous person to be accorded rights. Up until then, the fetus is essentially a parasite inside the mother, and as such is subject to her wishes for her own body. As has been pointed out, no other person has the right to your body. It is possible, as some here have said, that you don't have absolute rights to your own body, but that does not mean that anyone else has any right to your body either. That includes a fetus.

And the fetus made the choice to live inside another person at which point?

Whether it chose to or not is irrelevant. It is.

Or was it the two partners who engaged in sexual intercourse that put it in such a predicament?

And this has to do with...what, exactly?

Regardless of whether the fetus CHOSE to tie its survival to a specific woman, the fact is, it IS, and if the woman does not consent to this, she has the right to remove that tie.

Who cares?
Easy: all the panty-sniffers who are desperately looking for a way to punish the filthy sluts who have the nerve to go around having consensual sex as if they had the right or something.

And the fetus made the choice to live inside another person at which point? Or was it the two partners who engaged in sexual intercourse that put it in such a predicament?

Who cares?

Looking at it from the fetus' point of view, you don't have enough intelligence or motor skills to comprehend thought or life, therefore the point is moot. A later-term foetus is identical to a newborn baby in almost all aspects - the chief differences are size and thermal insulation.

As for an earlier foetus/embryo - a person in a coma, or someone who is simply sleeping, cannot comprehend thought.

A later-term foetus is identical to a newborn baby in almost all aspects - the chief differences are size and thermal insulation.

"Thermal insulation."

I like that. Ladies, you're not women, you're "thermal insulators." :D


As for an earlier foetus/embryo - a person in a coma, or someone who is simply sleeping, cannot comprehend thought.
If you've got an example of a person who is in a coma inside the body of another human being, then I would really really like to read your case-study.

Regardless of whether the fetus CHOSE to tie its survival to a specific woman, the fact is, it IS, and if the woman does not consent to this, she has the right to remove that tie.

ur so rite

And the fetus made the choice to live inside another person at which point? Or was it the two partners who engaged in sexual intercourse that put it in such a predicament?

This isn't so different from what Soheran was saying earlier, that an urchin's want/need/lack of choice somehow confers in everyone else a moral obligation to care for her. Nope. The fact that the fetus did not choose to be inside a woman doesn't matter. If it could reason and desire, its wish to continue living off the mother is also immaterial. It takes more than desire and proximity to give others a moral obligation of any kind.

Then why should a person be punished for something they didn't choose to do? Would you allow that to occur in any other situation? Should the poor be punished for being poor? Etc.
It is not "punishment" to be denied the use of another person's body. Their body does not belong to you in the first place. You are not in any way entitled to it. If somebody else chooses to share their body with you, then you should appreciate the privilege they are extending to you. If somebody does not choose to share their body with you, then that's their absolute right and they are not "punishing" you in any way. Nothing whatsoever is being taken away from you, because their body IS NOT YOURS.

It is not "punishment" to be denied the use of another person's body.

ur so rite

"Thermal insulation."

I like that. Ladies, you're not women, you're "thermal insulators." :D I actually meant the layers of fat that babies have… but I've heard women can be useful as thermal insulators at times, if you know what I mean… ;)


If you've got an example of a person who is in a coma inside the body of another human being, then I would really really like to read your case-study. My point was that the argument from unconsciousness is untenable.

But I have an even better case study, in fact, thousands of them. Siamese twins. A conjoined twin affects the other permanently and in an even deeper way then pregnancy does a woman. According to your logic, the Siamese twin who is the worst affected should be able to cut off the other twin medically, even if it leads to the other one's death.

I support a woman's right to end her body's participation in a pregnancy at any time and for any reason.

What do you find unclear about that?


I'm sorry, but your logic is flawed. I support a woman's right to end her body's participation in a pregnancy at any time and for any reason. If you want to talk about born infants, premature or otherwise, then you are no longer talking about pregnancy. A woman's right to end her body's participation in pregnancy is not relevant to situations in which there is no pregnancy.

So we are not talking about abortion? Sorry I must have misunderstood, because you don't need an abortion to end a pregnancy that is near birth.

The termination of the pregnancy results in the death of a fetus. The argument concerning abortion is whether it's MORAL to kill (happy now?) the fetus in the process of abortion.

No, it isn't. The argument is whether or not the law should make it illegal. Morality and legality are not equivalent. There are all sorts of things that most of us would consider to be immoral that are still legal - and should remain so.

Except in an extreme situation, I think most people can agree that it would be immoral to have an abortion two days before natural birth can occur. There may be some who would say otherwise, but I think they would be hard to find. Most people would agree that it would be immoral for me to refuse to donate an organ to someone when I was the cause of their organ failure as well. But that doesn't mean that either action should be illegal.

So we are not talking about abortion? Sorry I must have misunderstood, because you don't need an abortion to end a pregnancy that is near birth.

an abortion means an end to a pregnancy.

What you just said is you don't need to end a pregnancy to end a pregnancy.

That's rather nonsensical.

I actually meant the layers of fat that babies have… but I've heard women can be useful as thermal insulators at times, if you know what I mean… ;)

Fat?? Now you're calling women fat! Damn neoconservative fundamentalist Christian sexist fascist. *shakes head vigorously*

an abortion means an end to a pregnancy.

What you just said is you don't need to end a pregnancy to end a pregnancy.

That's rather nonsensical.

Lets not dither into pointless semantics, obviously I meant abortion as in intent to end the foetus' life.

an abortion means an end to a pregnancy.

What you just said is you don't need to end a pregnancy to end a pregnancy.

That's rather nonsensical.

ya

So we are not talking about abortion? Sorry I must have misunderstood, because you don't need an abortion to end a pregnancy that is near birth.

And? This does not diminish bottle's argument in any way. The fact that there are other ways to end a pregnancy does not mean that the mother does not have the right to do as she wishes with her body. It'd sure be nice to let them give her a c-section, or whatever other method you had in mind, but no matter how close to birth you get, no matter how viable the fetus, she has no moral obligation to let it keep on leeching off of her, nor to jeopardize her body or health in any way for the fetus's safety. Chances are that even if 9th month abortions were legal, most women would not get one at that point, anyway, however morally clear they would be in doing so.

I actually meant the layers of fat that babies have… but women can be useful as thermal insulators at times… ;)

You know, I actually can't argue with that...*shock*

I know that I insulate the hell out of my boyfriend every night. Or is that TMI? ;)


My point was that the argument from unconsciousness is untenable.

Perhaps.

If one argues that a fetus is not a person because it is not conscious, that's kind of crappy reasoning because a person who has been knocked out is also not conscious. Are we really going to claim that somebody's "personhood" gets turned off if they get knocked out?

I think it would be better to at least specify that one is talking about the ability to generate consciousness, even if the individual is not conscious at that particular moment. A pre-viable fetus simply does not have the structures to produce consciousness; a person who has been knocked out DOES have those structures, they just are not operating at the moment.

By way of comparison, this is like looking at a normal born human person who is sitting down, compared to a zygote, and saying that the born human person is capable of walking while the zygote is not. Neither one is walking at the moment, but the born person has all the structures required for walking; the zygote doesn't even have limbs.

At any rate, I happen to agree that presence or absence of consciousness in the fetus should not have any bearing on a woman's right to choose.


But I have an even better case study, in fact, thousands of them. Siamese twins. A conjoined twin affects the other permanently and in an even deeper way then pregnancy does a woman. According to your logic, the Siamese twin who is the worst affected should be able to cut off the other twin medically, even if it leads to the other one's death.
According to my logic, either twin should have the legal right to separate their body from their twin if that is what they want.

However, this is going to present one huge problem for many conjoined twins: how are they going to establish whose body is whose? The entire point with conjoined twins is that there is a certain point at which they share one body. It may be a very small area, or it may be very large and include major organs, arteries, and even brain tissue. Both twins have equal claim to this area of their shared body, since there is (medically speaking) no way to define which twin "owns" the shared region of anatomy.

In my opinion, if one twin wanted to separate, and was prepared to cede to their twin the entire shared region of anatomy (being the territory of dispute, so to speak), then they should have the right to do so.

However, all of this is pretty moot, since the majority of separations of conjoined twins current occur when the twins are very young. As legal minors, these medical decisions are made for them, usually by their parents. I am not aware of any case of adult conjoined twins in which one twin wished to separate against the wishes of the other. If you have an example, I would be VERY interested to read it!

Anyone care to take me up on my Siamese twin argument? :)

And? This does not diminish bottle's argument in any way. The fact that there are other ways to end a pregnancy does not mean that the mother does not have the right to do as she wishes with her body. It'd sure be nice to let them give her a c-section, or whatever other method you had in mind, but no matter how close to birth you get, no matter how viable the fetus, she has no moral obligation to let it keep on leeching off of her, nor to jeopardize her body or health in any way for the fetus's safety. Chances are that even if 9th month abortions were legal, most women would not get one at that point, anyway, however morally clear they would be in doing so.

Just to be clear, I am not talking about if the mothers life is in danger. But since you can have a c section, why would you instead opt to kill the foetus to end the pregnancy? Because that is still the same as killing a premature baby despite it not being nescecerry to do so.

It takes more than desire and proximity to give others a moral obligation of any kind.

So, go on, tell us - what does it take?

Anyone care to take me up on my Siamese twin argument? :)

So, are we assuming this joined body belongs to just one of the twins, or what?

Then why should a person be punished for something they didn't choose to do?

Who said anything about punishment?

Would you allow that to occur in any other situation? Should the poor be punished for being poor? Etc.

No, the poor should not be punished for being poor. They also, however, have no legal right to steal money from others to get out of their predicament. Another can choose to donate money to them, but they cannot take it against that person's will. Likewise, a woman can choose to use her body to carry a pregnancy to term - allowing the embryo/fetus to use her body until it can survive on its own, or she can choose not to. That was a wonderful analogy. Thank you.


My point was that the argument from unconsciousness is untenable.

There is a rather huge difference between unconsciousness and a total lack of the ability to be conscious. A person who is unconscious is an unconscious person. Brain activity is still present, although it is different from a person who is awake and aware. A born person with the same level of brain activity of an embryo/early fetus is dead.

But I have an even better case study, in fact, thousands of them. Siamese twins. A conjoined twin affects the other permanently and in an even deeper way then pregnancy does a woman. According to your logic, the Siamese twin who is the worst affected should be able to cut off the other twin medically, even if it leads to the other one's death.

(a) The decision to do just that is made quite frequently, although it is the parents who make said decision. If the parents, along with their doctors, determine that it would be best to separate the conjoined twins, even if that will result in the death of one of them, the surgery is carried out.

(b) If conjoined twins share an organ, it is not a matter of one person living off the organs of another. They share the organ. Thus, the analogy fails.


Lets not dither into pointless semantics, obviously I meant abortion as in intent to end the foetus' life.

The intent of any medical abortion is to end a pregnancy. The death of an embryo/fetus may be necessary in said procedure (and generally is), but is not the intent of the procedure.

So, are we assuming this joined body belongs to just one of the twins, or what? Generally it belongs to both and organs are shared. Often, however, one twin will be more "subsumed" than another.

This is the "chained violinist" logic, except that it applies permanently rather than for 9 months.

(a) The decision to do just that is made quite frequently, although it is the parents who make said decision. If the parents, along with their doctors, determine that it would be best to separate the conjoined twins, even if that will result in the death of one of them, the surgery is carried out. This only happens when both twins would otherwise die. You get the high-profile news cases every so often. It is not a case of "either we have two conjoined people or one normal person".

Just to be clear, I am not talking about if the mothers life is in danger. But since you can have a c section, why would you instead opt to kill the foetus to end the pregnancy? Because that is still the same as killing a premature baby despite it not being nescecerry to do so.

It could have something to do with the fact that late-term abortions simply don't occur for elective reasons. I've never even heard of an actual case in which a woman attempted to get an elective abortion when the fetus was viable, nor have I ever met a physician who would be willing to perform such a procedure.

When a woman and her doctor decide to perform a late-term abortion - whether it is for her own health or because of major defects in the fetus, it is because that is the option that is safest for the mother, with all of the factors taken into account.

Generally it belongs to both and organs are shared. Often, however, one twin will be more "subsumed" than another.

This is the "chained violinist" logic, except that it applies permanently rather than for 9 months.

It has nothing to do with the "chained violinist" logic. The idea behind that story is that the violinist has been hooked up to another independent person and is leeching off of them. In the case of conjoined twins, they have always shared the organs in question.

If the body belongs to both, as you have just said, than neither has more right to it than the other.

It could have something to do with the fact that late-term abortions simply don't occur for elective reasons. I've never even heard of an actual case in which a woman attempted to get an elective abortion when the fetus was viable, nor have I ever met a physician who would be willing to perform such a procedure.


But I was assuming Bottle would support such a procedure.

It has nothing to do with the "chained violinist" logic. The idea behind that story is that the violinist has been hooked up to another independent person and is leeching off of them. In the case of conjoined twins, they have always shared the organs in question.

If the body belongs to both, as you have just said, than neither has more right to it than the other.
I do find the ethical issues regarding conjoined twins to be very interesting, but I don't think they are applicable to this discussion, for exactly the reason you highlight: conjoined twins share regions of their anatomy, and you can't determine which twin "owns" those portions of their body.

But I was assuming Bottle would support such a procedure.

Supporting the legal right to such a procedure is not the same as actually supporting it. I can't actually speak for Bottle, but I don't think she's advocating a woman waiting until just before birth and then saying, "Actually, I'd like an abortion now..."

But I was assuming Bottle would support such a procedure.

I'll throw a bomb in here and say I support a woman's right to do that if she so chooses. I would also find it morally despicable and would hope that most, if not all, doctors would refuse to perform such a procedure, and were I doctor, would refuse to perform one myself. But she should have the right to try to get rid of it if that's what she chooses.

I also acknowledge that this is an extreme view well outside the mainstream.

But I was assuming Bottle would support such a procedure.
Yes, I would support the right to that procedure. I've said as much, several times, both here and on other threads.

AT ANY TIME AND FOR ANY REASON.

I do not believe there is some magical turning point in a pregnancy at which a woman suddenly loses her right to ownership of her own body, or at which a fetus magically gains the right to use somebody's body against their wishes. I do not believe there is any point in a pregnancy when the woman becomes sub-human, nor do I believe there is any point at which the fetus gains super-human rights.

At best, there may be a point late in the pregnancy when a fetus could be regarded as a human person, at which time it would hold rights equal to those of any born person. No born person has the right to use a non-consenting person's body to prolong their own life.

At best, there may be a point late in the pregnancy when a fetus could be regarded as a human person, at which time it would hold rights equal to those of any born person. No born person has the right to use a non-consenting person's body to prolong their own life.

but it didn't choose to be there. it was forcibly put into that situation with no alternative. you're treating it as if the fetus was like...hmm...I sure do feel like invading this woman's body and holding her hostage.

and even so...is the solution to KILL it moral?

Yes, I would support the right to that procedure. I've said as much, several times, both here and on other threads.

AT ANY TIME AND FOR ANY REASON.

I do not believe there is some magical turning point in a pregnancy at which a woman suddenly loses her right to ownership of her own body, or at which a fetus magically gains the right to use somebody's body against their wishes. I do not believe there is any point in a pregnancy when the woman becomes sub-human, nor do I believe there is any point at which the fetus gains super-human rights.

At best, there may be a point late in the pregnancy when a fetus could be regarded as a human person, at which time it would hold rights equal to those of any born person. No born person has the right to use a non-consenting person's body to prolong their own life.

But as I said before, you would not need to kill the baby to end the pregnancy at that stage. So having an abortion is unnesseccery (sp?) and would be the same as killing a premature baby when it is not needed.

I'll throw a bomb in here and say I support a woman's right to do that if she so chooses. I would also find it morally despicable and would hope that most, if not all, doctors would refuse to perform such a procedure, and were I doctor, would refuse to perform one myself. But she should have the right to try to get rid of it if that's what she chooses.

I also acknowledge that this is an extreme view well outside the mainstream.
Hmm, you remind me of an important addition I should make:

I don't "like" the idea of women having abortions at 8-months along.

In my ideal world, "late-term abortions" wouldn't happen. This would not be because they are illegal, but because nobody would want or need them (in my ideal world). All women who were 8-months pregnant would be so because they WANTED to be, and they all would have perfectly healthy pregnancies.

I would vastly prefer that we ensure no woman is ever 8-months pregnant when she doesn't want to be. I would vastly prefer that we create a world where no woman ever wants or needs ANY abortion! I wish every pregnancy could be wanted, healthy, and safe. I spend a shitload of my personal time, energy, and money trying to help move our world closer to that ideal.

I honestly believe that I have committed more time, energy, and money to "ending abortion" than any "pro-life" person I have ever met. It's just that I don't try to "end abortion" by criminalizing it (which doesn't work at all anyhow).

Anyone care to take me up on my Siamese twin argument? :)

It's a nice rhetorical trick, but they're not the same, and you know it. But sure, I'll bite.

While the fetus is a non-person, morally speaking, a fully formed conjoined twin is a separate person, morally speaking, if not physically. As has been pointed out, they share a body, not one leeching off the other. Different situation, though morally complicated nonetheless.

Besides, separations are performed regularly (as regular as something fairly rare can be, anyway), even with the full knowledge that only one--or neither--could survive. This false analogy of the two situations works neither morally nor legally.

So, go on, tell us - what does it take?

For starters, one must be a person, not just have human DNA. One must be an autonomous human being, with consciousness and sentience of pain (yep, severaly retarded have this, so no go there, fellas), reasoning, self-motivated activity, self-awareness, and capacity to communicate. If you have none of these, you're not a person. (Some of my stance on abortion comes from a philosopher/ethicist named Mary Anne Warren, so you can look her up if you're actually interested.)

But, most importantly, one must be a member of the moral community. Meaning you're a citizen, member of the community (not speaking merely legally here), can take part in agreements and rules of interaction, and so on. As a fetus, you can neither accord others rights nor be considered a part of said community. There is no social contract with a fetus, and cannot be, as it has neither the aspects of consciousness, autonomy, nor even spatial capability (because it's inside a woman).

Besides, even if I were to grant that a fetus is a person, its rights do not give it the right to live off of another. The personhood argument is certainly a part of my stance, but isn't necessary to it.

And in case you want to ask how I feel about infanticide, well, a baby is a member of the moral community, however undeveloped it is. At birth it becomes a member, and a participant in the social contract, and is protected by it, whereas it could not be as a mere fetus. It has relationships, is a citizen (at least in most countries) and as such is a part of that particular social contract. And you definitely can't kill another's baby, as they have the right not to have their children harmed by others.

There, I spelled it out pretty explicitly, and I'll answer other stuff if you like. Now, as I've asked a couple times, would you do the same? Explain exactly how one gets personhood, and rights, in your view. How does a fetus not only have rights, it has that extra special right that Arthais keeps asking about, the right to live off of another?

but it didn't choose to be there. it was forcibly put into that situation with no alternative.

Who cares?

and even so...is the solution to KILL it moral?

And, again, Who cares?

Who cares?



And, again, Who cares?

ur so rite

But as I said before, you would not need to kill the baby to end the pregnancy at that stage. So having an abortion is unnesseccery (sp?) and would be the same as killing a premature baby when it is not needed.
I'm not sure how much you know about the mechanics of getting a baby out of a woman's body, but in many cases the entire reason for a late-term abortion is because getting it out "the normal way" will kill her.

If you are talking about that pipe-dream example from earlier in the thread, where it is magically possible to remove a fetus, intact and viable, without in any way harming the mother, then I've already addressed that.

It's an abortion when the pregnancy is terminated. One aborts A PREGNANCY, remember, not a fetus. I support the woman's right to abort her pregnancy at any time and for any reason. Whether or not a fetus dies is irrelevant.

I'm not sure how much you know about the mechanics of getting a baby out of a woman's body, but in many cases the entire reason for a late-term abortion is because getting it out "the normal way" will kill her.

If you are talking about that pipe-dream example from earlier in the thread, where it is magically possible to remove a fetus, intact and viable, without in any way harming the mother, then I've already addressed that.

If you looked at a previous post of mine, I was not talking about when the mothers life is in danger etc...

but it didn't choose to be there. it was forcibly put into that situation with no alternative. you're treating it as if the fetus was like...hmm...I sure do feel like invading this woman's body and holding her hostage.

I have to join with Dinaverg here, and say...who cares?

We've already addressed this line of thinking from you. Whether or not the fetus chooses to be there is irrelevant.


and even so...is the solution to KILL it moral?
In my opinion, it is immoral to force any woman to physically participate in pregnancy for one instant longer than she consents to do so. Whether or not a fetus dies is irrelevant to this.

Obviously a fuckload of people since this thread expand rapidly to 20+ pages. Go spam elsewhere.

IT's not spam simply because you can't/won't answer it. How does the simple fact that the fetus did not choose to be there somehow give the mother a moral obligation to safeguard its life, allow it to use her body?

If, in the unlikely scenario that an alien shrunk me down and put me inside your body, though neither of us chose it, does that give me a right to use your body against your consent? Do you have a moral obligation to allow me use of your organs or what have you? After all, I didn't choose to be there...

But as I said before, you would not need to kill the baby to end the pregnancy at that stage. So having an abortion is unnesseccery (sp?) and would be the same as killing a premature baby when it is not needed.

But we're not talking about what is or isn't necessary at this point, or at least I'm not. I'm positing that a woman should be able--no matter how morally depraved I may personally feel the action is--to have a voluntary abortion up until the time she's in labor and the fetus is on its way out. Once labor has started, then you're at the point where the fetus is, for lack of a better term--determining its fate. It's not a conscious decision, mind you--it's a biological action--but at that point the relationship is transforming from a parasitic one to a relationship between separate individuals.

Hmm, you remind me of an important addition I should make:

I don't "like" the idea of women having abortions at 8-months along.

In my ideal world, "late-term abortions" wouldn't happen. This would not be because they are illegal, but because nobody would want or need them (in my ideal world). All women who were 8-months pregnant would be so because they WANTED to be, and they all would have perfectly healthy pregnancies.

I would vastly prefer that we ensure no woman is ever 8-months pregnant when she doesn't want to be. I would vastly prefer that we create a world where no woman ever wants or needs ANY abortion! I wish every pregnancy could be wanted, healthy, and safe. I spend a shitload of my personal time, energy, and money trying to help move our world closer to that ideal.

I honestly believe that I have committed more time, energy, and money to "ending abortion" than any "pro-life" person I have ever met. It's just that I don't try to "end abortion" by criminalizing it (which doesn't work at all anyhow).Abso-fucking-lutely.

If, in the unlikely scenario that an alien shrunk me down and put me inside your body, though neither of us chose it, does that give me a right to use your body against your consent? Do you have a moral obligation to allow me use of your organs or what have you? After all, I didn't choose to be there...

ur so rite

Obviously a fuckload of people since this thread expand rapidly to 20+ pages.

I believe the standard measurement is a 'metric fuckton'.

And, dude, have you seen the things that can reach 20 pages on NS?

It means I have no right to kill you.

Way to try and sidestep the question. I'll repeat: Do I have the right to use your body against your consent? I didn't mention anything about your right to kill me, or lack thereof.

If you looked at a previous post of mine, I was not talking about when the mothers life is in danger etc...
I don't know why I have to keep repeating this. It really seems like my stance is one of the simplest around.

I support a woman's right to abort her pregnancy at any time and for any reason.

If a fetus dies as a result, I still support the woman's right to abort her pregnancy at any time and for any reason.

If a fetus does not die as a result, I still support the woman's right to abort her pregnancy at any time and for any reason.

If the fetus is viable, I still support the woman's right to abort her pregnancy at any time and for any reason.

If the fetus is non-viable, I still support the woman's right to abort her pregnancy at any time and for any reason.

If the fetus has developed to the point where it could theoretically have consciousness, I still support the woman's right to abort her pregnancy at any time and for any reason.

If the fetus has not developed to the point where it could theoretically have consciousness, I still support the woman's right to abort her pregnancy at any time and for any reason.

If the woman consented to have sex, I still support her right to abort her pregnancy at any time and for any reason.

If the woman did not consent to have sex, I still support her right to abort her pregnancy at any time and for any reason.

but it didn't choose to be there. it was forcibly put into that situation with no alternative. you're treating it as if the fetus was like...hmm...I sure do feel like invading this woman's body and holding her hostage.

For the nth time, a patient in need of a kidney transplant did not choose to have his kidneys fail. He was put into that situation with no alternative. Nonetheless, he doesn't get to demand that I let him use one of my kidneys.

Way to try and sidestep the question. I'll repeat: Do I have the right to use your body against your consent? I didn't mention anything about your right to kill me, or lack thereof.

Yes.

Alllllrighty then, looks like everything is settled here. Let's move along, I think gun control is up in the rotation.

I agree. Personally, though, I think people should be allowed to rip fetuses out of preggies with meathooks. It's the only moral thing to do.

Nope.

Alllllrighty then, looks like everything is settled here. Let's move along, I think gun control is up in the rotation.

A woman having an abortion doesn't mean she wants the fetus to die, it just so happens that that's the only way it is possible to get the moocher out of her body. She has that right, and callous as it sounds, the death of the fetus is a side-effect in her maintaining her own autonomy. The death of the fetus is not itself the goal. It ain't pretty, but there it is.

All fetuses deserve death. I change my position.

I support mandatory abortion.

Nope. But still that doesn't mean I want you to die for it.

A woman having an abortion doesn't mean she wants the fetus to die, it just so happens that that's the only way it is possible to get the moocher out of her body. She has that right, and callous as it sounds, the death of the fetus is a side-effect in her maintaining her own autonomy. The death of the fetus is not itself the goal. It ain't pretty, but there it is.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6350651.stm


They had a referendum, and it looked like not enough people voted. But with probably around 60% in favour of legalised abortions, the government decided to make the move anyways.

So all I can say is "Yay!". The church has been pushed back once more.
Oh no.

Fundies lose again.
Very few pro-life people are actually fundamentalists.

Anti-abortion views are not inherently religious (although they are most prevalent among the religious.)

Democracy at its best. A quarter of the nation says yes, and hence it shall be done.
I don't believe that human rights should be up for popular vote.

Wow, I can't say I'm surprised at the anti-Catholic sentiment here.
Well, it is NS we're on!

Be fair--we jump the shit of all manner of fundamentalists who decide that their religious beliefs are more important than the individual freedoms of citizens in a modern society.
Opposition to abortion is not inherently religious.

Abortion is not universally viewed as a matter of freedom. I view it as most importantly a question of human rights. Calling for the "right to abortion" is about as credible in my mind as "the right to torture" or perhaps "the right to kill intruders" (which some also want).

Finally, Portugal. Finally... now Poland, Malta and Ireland. The anachronist backwardness must go.
Fortunately it will be difficult to force abortion on Ireland. Since 1983 the legal right to life of the unborn has been in the constitution.

Generally only religion can push the line of crap that a clump of cells with no neural network is more important than the fully grown woman that it is inside.
More important? I don't think anyone says that. Equal importance is usually as far as it goes.

Of course, you ignored the rest of the argument, but please go on. Your contributions to the thread have been so massive already.

You make it sound as though the rest was supposed to be relevant.

"Do I have the right to your body?"
"Nope."

That about sums it up. Done. End. Finish.

But why does the fetus have to die? Both people are being held against their consent; what puts the woman above the fetus?

The fact that it is her body that is being used against her consent; she is not using the fetus. Besides, the fetus is not there against its own consent, or against its wishes, as it would have neither; what's more, if it did have them, it would likely still leech off the mother, rather than self-terminate, so would not be there against its consent.

While she has the rights of personhood, it doesn't. And even if it did, its so-called right to live does not take precedent over her right to her own body. No person has the right to another's body, no matter how much it was out of that person's control.

Interesting, how every person who fights for "woman's right to choose" is someone who survived Roe v. Wade (or whatever it was in your country that legalized abortions) to begin with.

Isn't that like running a gauntlet, and then cheering on the guys shooting at you once you're done?

Interesting, how every person who fights for "woman's right to choose" is someone who survived Roe v. Wade (or whatever it was in your country that legalized abortions) to begin with.

Isn't that like running a gauntlet, and then cheering on the guys shooting at you once you're done?

...Wha? We...need to be aborted to have a say? I don't understand...

Interesting, how every person who fights for "woman's right to choose" is someone who survived Roe v. Wade (or whatever it was in your country that legalized abortions) to begin with.

Isn't that like running a gauntlet, and then cheering on the guys shooting at you once you're done?

No, not really. The fact that it is only non-aborted people that do it is due to the fact that the aborted cannot type.

I see no relevance in the fact that we were not aborted. What does this have to do with the moral issue, exactly?

...Wha? We...need to be aborted to have a say? I don't understand...

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

No, but you are certainly in no danger of being aborted yourself. Your chance already passed.

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

No, but you are certainly in no danger of being aborted yourself. Your chance already passed.

...And?

Interesting, how every person who fights for "woman's right to choose" is someone who survived Roe v. Wade (or whatever it was in your country that legalized abortions) to begin with.

Isn't that like running a gauntlet, and then cheering on the guys shooting at you once you're done?

Actually, I was born pre-Roe, so I don't fit your joke of a profile. Sorry if that disappoints you.

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

No, but you are certainly in no danger of being aborted yourself. Your chance already passed.

Yes. And? I still don't see how this has any bearing on the moral issue at hand. I survived being driven around when I was in the womb, too. I was in danger of being slammed against the steering wheel at any moment. I guess that means that driving is immoral, because...some people survive it?

This is gonna require some thinking. Or some actual point from you. One or the other. Maybe even both.

...And?

I'm just pointing out the irony in your advocating something that causes someone else's detriment (in this case, the unborn) yet you have nothing yourself to lose if you succeed in getting your way. Indeed, it makes the entire pro-abortion argument seem pretty poor. I can even sum it up for you.

"It's our bodies, we can do whatever, and the hell if it kills someone else, because I'll just not call it human"

Unfortunately, there's these other group of people who used the "They're not human" excuse to kill people. They were called Nazis.

I'm just pointing out the irony in your advocating something that causes someone else's detriment (in this case, the unborn) yet you have nothing yourself to lose if you succeed in getting your way. Indeed, it makes the entire pro-abortion argument seem pretty poor. I can even sum it up for you.

"It's our bodies, we can do whatever, and the hell if it kills someone else, because I'll just not call it human"

Unfortunately, there's these other group of people who used the "They're not human" excuse to kill people. They were called Nazis.

Oh go fuck yourself.

I'm just pointing out the irony in your advocating something that causes someone else's detriment (in this case, the unborn) yet you have nothing yourself to lose if you succeed in getting your way. Indeed, it makes the entire pro-abortion argument seem pretty poor. I can even sum it up for you.

"It's our bodies, we can do whatever, and the hell if it kills someone else, because I'll just not call it human"

Unfortunately, there's these other group of people who used the "They're not human" excuse to kill people. They were called Nazis.

Ooooh, I get it now.

You're a nooblet, and we have to start from the beginning with you.

Unfortunately, there's these other group of people who used the "They're not human" excuse to kill people. They were called Nazis.

Hey-oo! Nice! The inevitablel Nazi comparison! Pull back curtain number three and show him what he's won!

Come on. Let's try to keep a little credibility here, huh? Rather than useless, hyperbolic rhetoric that does nothing but make you look foolish, how about some real reasoning here?

Or else you can just compare me to Hitler and lose further credibility.

Ooooh, I get it now.

You're a nooblet, and we have to start from the beginning with you.

Don't bother; I've seen and heard it all. I've seen my salvation, and it's not with the anti-lifer's.

Don't bother; I've seen and heard it all. I've seen my salvation, and it's not with the anti-lifer's.

Well then, child, why don't you go over there in the corner and salvation yourself to your heart's content.

Hey-oo! Nice! The inevitablel Nazi comparison! Pull back curtain number three and show him what he's won!

Come on. Let's try to keep a little credibility here, huh? Rather than useless, hyperbolic rhetoric that does nothing but make you look foolish, how about some real reasoning here?

Or else you can just compare me to Hitler and lose further credibility.

Saying that a developing human being isn't human makes you lose just as much credibility, if not more.

Don't bother; I've seen and heard it all. I've seen my salvation, and it's not with the anti-lifer's.

Way, way, back at the beginning...

Don't bother; I've seen and heard it all. I've seen my salvation, and it's not with the anti-lifer's.

Man, you've got that transparent rhetoric thing down.

Seriously. I think we're here for actual, serious debate. Make some serious points rather than calling names, or let the serious debaters keep at it. Inflammatory rhetoric like that is getting us nowhere.

Saying that a developing human being isn't human makes you lose just as much credibility, if not more.

Maybe to those that choose not to think deeply about the issue, and would rather close their minds and spout rhetoric, sure. The better way to go would be to go deeply into the moral issue, and show me why you're right. If you give me good enough reasons, you'll win me over. That's how debate works, and what it's for. Try that, rather than trying to throw my own suggestions back at me like a child.

Saying that a developing human being isn't human makes you lose just as much credibility, if not more.

Credibility with whom, you?

Credibility with whom, you?

I can assure you, I am completely devastated at my loss of credibility in lame Bums' eyes. :D

Well then, child, why don't you go over there in the corner and salvation yourself to your heart's content.

I'll pass on the corner; we have this thing called the First Amendment, which I'm sure you know about, even if you don't believe in it for people with differing opinions. And I've certainly - and will continue to - exercised my rights, not just here, but in public, with like-minded individuals (to varying degrees).

Don't bother; I've seen and heard it all. I've seen my salvation, and it's not with the anti-lifer's.

So you've seen heaven?

Honestly, if you're going to participate in a discussion, do so without resorting to hyperbole and demonization. "Anti-Life" is about as fair a label to give to pro-choicers as "Anti-Freedom" is to you lot.

I'll pass on the corner; we have this thing called the First Amendment, which I'm sure you know about, even if you don't believe in it for people with differing opinions. And I've certainly - and will continue to - exercised my rights, not just here, but in public, with like-minded individuals (to varying degrees).

Well, for starters, you don't have any First Amendment rights here--this is a privately owned site, and so the owner and those people hired by the owner to keep the peace here can shut you up any time they wish. They can do the same to me and anyone else around here.

And you misunderstood me--I never asked you to shut up. Telling you to go to the corner was a metaphor for letting you know that as long as you continue to make childish arguments, you'll be treated as a child, which is to say you'll either be ignored or mocked mercilessly. Got it?

One more thing--if you're going to insist on salvationing yourself in public, you could at least be polite and do it in the corner where no one will watch you.

I'll pass on the corner; we have this thing called the First Amendment, which I'm sure you know about, even if you don't believe in it for people with differing opinions. And I've certainly - and will continue to - exercised my rights, not just here, but in public, with like-minded individuals (to varying degrees).

Hmm, actually, if Max so decided, I believe you could just be removed cuz he doesn't like you. Not to mention that, .co.uk considered, the first amendment probably wouldn't have jurisdiction here anyways...

I'll pass on the corner; we have this thing called the First Amendment, which I'm sure you know about, even if you don't believe in it for people with differing opinions. And I've certainly - and will continue to - exercised my rights, not just here, but in public, with like-minded individuals (to varying degrees).

Seriously. No one is questioning your First Amendment rights. However, we do ask that you try and make arguments, not just throw tantrum atop that soapbox. If you've got serious points to make, make them. As it is, you're professing your rights to debate, but not actually debating. Get with it, or move on. Please.

extremist anti-abortion people should be punished

my 11yo cousin (girl) said her moral teacher (catholic, wonder why...) told the class that doctors take off babies from mommies and then slice them off with a meat knife... this is highly traumatizing for kids younger than 12y who dont even know what abortion is

of course ILLEGAL abortions are often performed in a bad way, like hiting the fetus with an iron bar or such, but LEGAL abortions AREN'T VIOLENT, and doctors AREN'T evil. people who do such violent acts can't be called medics. to me they have no morals for that profession, no matter what people say

this lady teacher should be linched. it is yet not the first time she did something so *evil*:mad:

extremist anti-abortion people should be punished

my 11yo cousin (girl) said her moral teacher (catholic, wonder why...) told the class that doctors take off babies from mommies and then slice them off with a meat knife... this is highly traumatizing for kids younger than 12y who dont even know what abortion is

of course ILLEGAL abortions are often performed in a bad way, like hiting the fetus with an iron bar or such, but LEGAL abortions AREN'T VIOLENT, and doctors AREN'T evil. people who do such violent acts can't be called medics. to me they have no morals for that profession, no matter what people say

this lady teacher should be linched. it is yet not the first time she did something so *evil*:mad:

I'm always up for a good lynching. First degree murder is my fav.

extremist anti-abortion people should be punished

my 11yo cousin (girl) said her moral teacher (catholic, wonder why...) told the class that doctors take off babies from mommies and then slice them off with a meat knife... this is highly traumatizing for kids younger than 12y who dont even know what abortion is

of course ILLEGAL abortions are often performed in a bad way, like hiting the fetus with an iron bar or such, but LEGAL abortions AREN'T VIOLENT, and doctors AREN'T evil. people who do such violent acts can't be called medics. to me they have no morals for that profession, no matter what people say

this lady teacher should be linched. it is yet not the first time she did something so *evil*:mad:

That might be a...tad extreme. Is it a Catholic school, or just the teacher? Not that that matters, really. She should certainly be censured or dismissed, and forbidden to teach that, etc. I'm pretty sure abortion is illegal at her age...;)

catholic church... yet that is no excuse. much less for moral teaching

okay okay, linching is extreme. but the lady cant get away with this. she must be expeled or something... theres laws that should prevent this kind of teaching:rolleyes:

i mean, my cousin specificaly said "babies are chopped down to tiny bits with a knife". and when we talked with her about it, the kid was obviously insecure and traumatized. might be even worse when kids are starting puberty, like she is. it leaves marks in the mind

Very few pro-life people are actually fundamentalists.

O Rly?

Anti-abortion views are not inherently religious (although they are most prevalent among the religious.)

Anti-abortion views are not inherently religious, no. Of course, when you really get down to it, most people have anti-abortion views.

Those who actually wish to make abortion illegal, on the other hand, tend to overwhelmingly be religious.

The question of the personhood of the embryo/early fetus, however (the idea on which you seem to base your ideas) is overwhelmingly subjective - and almost always either religious (an argument based in ensoulment), illogical (an argument from potential), or useless ("it is because I say so!"). I have yet to see a single objective and workable definition of "human person" that would include a human being and wouldn't include a cancerous mass or organ.

I don't believe that human rights should be up for popular vote.

Nor do I. Hence the reason that I don't think a woman should lose the right to her own body.

Saying that a developing human being isn't human makes you lose just as much credibility, if not more.

Saying that a tumor isn't human (providing it is made up of human cells) would be inaccurate, but we don't base moral arguments around it, now do we?

No one is going to say that the developing embryo/fetus isn't human, but that isn't the question, now is it?

ur so rite

I like this version of Genoa.

O Rly?



Anti-abortion views are not inherently religious, no. Of course, when you really get down to it, most people have anti-abortion views.

Those who actually wish to make abortion illegal, on the other hand, tend to overwhelmingly be religious.
-Snip-


I'd say that largely has to do with the fact that a religious person is more likely to go along with an authoritarian-moralistic view of things than a liberal-rights view. And the act of destroying a fetus is something even many pro-choicers would believe is a "bad" thing, if not actually an "immoral" thing. It's just that pro-choicers are more likely to go for a liberal-rights view, where the rights of another individual are more important than personal morality.

Just my thoughts on the matter, though.

question for anti-abortionists:

A) fetus with a severe condition (like the buble-boy, who could not ever leave his sealed and lonely habitat)
B) birth-at-risk, with most probable death to both the child and the mom
C) unwanted child, in an unwanted environment, a poor one in third-world countries (or close to it), where children starve and die of it

that not enough to approve abortion a little, even if just for such extreme cases? no bubble-boy was ever happy.
the 2 boys that are well documented and reported at wikipedia were extremely unhappy. one died at 17y, another one died at almost 12y, suffering paranoia and "suicidal temptation". his previous sibling died at 6months, before he was born (both rated 50:50 chance to develop the same syndrome)

think about it folks... would you really like to live like those kids? its not about life anymore, its about decency and happyness. you shouldnt bring a child to the world if the child wont ever by happy, in the case of a serious desease without cure for example. mongolism isnt nearly as bad as the bubble boy, for granted. nor is a semi-paralized kid. think about it

not to mention the cases when if you dont abort, both the mom and the child could or would die even before getting close to the birth date. thats not "one kill" then. its two of them

OK, I won't debate that. But I'm awfully curious to know what it is that was in my mother's womb, since you seem to be of the opinion that it was not me somehow.

a non person entity that later became you.

however until it did so, it was not a person, and thus did not gain the rights of personhood.

But wouldn't it be me, just like I was me at birth, at seven, at fifteen, and whenever? Why is it separate from my existence? After all, if said entity were killed, I, in turn, would be dead.

What do you consider yourself to be now?

Are you your hand? Would you still be your hand if it was severed from your body? Would you not be you anymore but someone else?

If you had gotten extreeme burns and had to get someone elses skin grafted to your body would you then be two persons?

Your line of reasoning here seems quite silly to suggest that you were a person when you were a fetus. Were you also a person when you were a sperm and an egg? What about when you were the proteins and such that made you a sperm or egg?

since humans are ultimately made of nonliving material, molecules and compounds, I think the concept of "killing" should be forgotten. you can't "kill" nonliving material.

O Rly?
Yes, in my experience. I live in a different country to you, and perhaps you don't know what a fundamentalist is.

Those who actually wish to make abortion illegal, on the other hand, tend to overwhelmingly be religious.
Probably true.

The question of the personhood of the embryo/early fetus, however (the idea on which you seem to base your ideas)
No, I talk about the personhood of a child, unborn or not.

illogical (an argument from potential)
How is it illogical to take account of time? It's only the fourth dimension.

I have yet to see a single objective and workable definition of "human person" that would include a human being and wouldn't include a cancerous mass or organ.
How is this relevant? Could this be used as a justification to kill people? I don't think so.

Nor do I. Hence the reason that I don't think a woman should lose the right to her own body.
It doesn't make sense that you think a woman shouldn't have to accomodate (how can you [rationally] say that pregnancy takes away someone's right to their body?) a child for nine months, but that the child should not have the right to live. At least one is temporary.

Yes, in my experience. I live in a different country to you, and perhaps you don't know what a fundamentalist is.


Probably true.


No, I talk about the personhood of a child, unborn or not.


How is it illogical to take account of time? It's only the fourth dimension.


How is this relevant? Could this be used as a justification to kill people? I don't think so.


It doesn't make sense that you think a woman shouldn't have to accomodate (how can you [rationally] say that pregnancy takes away someone's right to their body?) a child for nine months, but that the child should not have the right to live. At least one is temporary.

So is the other one, unless the child is somehow immortal. Which I highly doubt.

Yes, in my experience. I live in a different country to you, and perhaps you don't know what a fundamentalist is.

No, I know what a fundamentalist is. And I've met precious few who are anti-choice on the abortion issue and are not fundamentalists.

Probably true.

Indeed.

No, I talk about the personhood of a child, unborn or not.

And to do so, you must define personhood. You must do so in such a way that it can be logically applied in determining what does and does not qualify for personhood.

How is it illogical to take account of time? It's only the fourth dimension.

It isn't illogical to take account of time. It is illogical to argue that object A is object B because object A is becoming object B. The argument from potential states that, because an embryo/fetus is becoming a human person, it should be treated as a human person. This is completely illogical. It would be like arguing that we cannot deny a four-year old the right to vote, since he is aging and becoming an adult. It would be like arguing that I can receive retirement benefits right now because I am becoming older and may eventually be elderly.

How is this relevant? Could this be used as a justification to kill people? I don't think so.

How is it relevant? If you can't objectively define "human person" in such a way that embryos are included, then you cannot logically argue that early term abortion kills a "human person." Your entire argument relies upon that distinction. If you cannot make that distinction, you have no argument.

It doesn't make sense that you think a woman shouldn't have to accomodate (how can you [rationally] say that pregnancy takes away someone's right to their body?) a child for nine months, but that the child should not have the right to live. At least one is temporary.

Pregnancy does not take away someone's right to her body. Forced pregnancy does. Just as working out in the cotton fields does not take away someone's right to their body, but being enslaved and forced to do such work does.

No human being can be forced to give up the rights to their own body, no matter how temporary. Some may think that, from a moral standpoint, they should do so, but they cannot be forced. For instance, I do so because I feel a moral imperative to do so. I am also an organ donor and will soon be a registered bone marrow donor. However, I do not feel that I have the right to force anyone else to give blood, donate their organs, or donate their bone marrow. Others may die as a result of their unwillingness to do so, but they have a right to refuse.

Meanwhile, I am not saying that any child does not have the right to live, so you can wipe that right out what passes for your argument.

And countries I would call liberal did legalise prostitution and treat it as recognised profession these days (Germany, The Netherlands, etc.)
Funny bit of trivia:

A while ago a woman in Germany was on unemployment benefits and because of the new laws, they were trying to make her take a job.

Guess where a position was open? :D

So because prostitution is recognised as a legal profession like any other, and because if there's an open job to take, people aren't meant to stay on benefits...the government tried to make that woman become a prostitute.

For starters, one must be a person, not just have human DNA. One must be an autonomous human being, with consciousness and sentience of pain (yep, severaly retarded have this, so no go there, fellas), reasoning, self-motivated activity, self-awareness, and capacity to communicate. If you have none of these, you're not a person.

Agreed more or less on this (though I might question capacity to communicate) - though I don't limit the groups of entities worthy of moral consideration to persons. I think sentient non-persons deserve consideration, though not equivalent consideration. (Thus, I do not necessarily argue that fetuses lack rights... I tend to think that they possess them. I simply think that a woman's right to sovereignty over her body supercedes that right, as it wouldn't were the fetus an actual person.)

But, most importantly, one must be a member of the moral community. Meaning you're a citizen, member of the community (not speaking merely legally here), can take part in agreements and rules of interaction, and so on.

What does that have to do with anything? You're not providing a basis for obligation. You're just explaining why you don't think the fetus qualifies.

What is it about being part of this "moral community" that entitles me to certain obligations from others ("do not murder", etc.)? And why do these obligations suddenly stop at the end of negative rights?

As a fetus, you can neither accord others rights nor be considered a part of said community. There is no social contract with a fetus, and cannot be, as it has neither the aspects of consciousness, autonomy, nor even spatial capability (because it's inside a woman).

We're not debating the personhood of the fetus. We agree on the personhood of the fetus.

Besides, even if I were to grant that a fetus is a person, its rights do not give it the right to live off of another.

This is precisely what I have been arguing about - not so much with this specific example (because I accept the conclusion of the pro-choicers) but more generally with the notion that no person has the right to "live off" another.

There, I spelled it out pretty explicitly

No, you really haven't.

Now, as I've asked a couple times, would you do the same? Explain exactly how one gets personhood, and rights, in your view.

I already told you... it is founded in our recognition of others as equal to us, as worthy of the same decent treatment we are.

Is the person on the street worth less than I am? No, I can come up with no good reason to say that. The basic characteristics of personhood that I possess are shared by her. So what reason do I have to say that my claim to my house and its goods supercedes hers? The mere fact that it is my property and not hers is purely arbitrary (since I have already stated that there are no alternatives for this person; it is not as if she has willingly rejected the possibly of attaining a house of her own.) It is simply luck and circumstance, not any relevant difference, that puts me in the house and her on the street - and since mere luck and circumstance does not justify the subordination of one person's needs to the whim of the other (what would be my reaction if it were me on the street?), it is morally unjustified for me to refuse to let her in.

How does a fetus not only have rights,

It doesn't have the rights of personhood. Forget the fetus.

it has that extra special right that Arthais keeps asking about, the right to live off of another?

I don't particularly think that this is an "extra special right" (or at least if it is, it is so because it fits into a much narrower category than "all positive obligations.")

Thus, I do not necessarily argue that fetuses lack rights... I tend to think that they possess them. I simply think that a woman's right to sovereignty over her body supercedes that right, as it wouldn't were the fetus an actual person.

Then I suppose we agree and disagree. I don't think fetuses have rights, but I certainly think a woman's right to her own body supercedes the fetus, even if it did have rights.



What does that have to do with anything? You're not providing a basis for obligation. You're just explaining why you don't think the fetus qualifies.

What is it about being part of this "moral community" that entitles me to certain obligations from others ("do not murder", etc.)? And why do these obligations suddenly stop at the end of negative rights?

It's called a social contract, ie contractarianism, basically. I'm not even gonna try to explain an entire ethical theory here. Regardless of what moral community you consider yourself a part of, fetuses are not part of it.



This is precisely what I have been arguing about - not so much with this specific example (because I accept the conclusion of the pro-choicers) but more generally with the notion that no person has the right to "live off" another.


I already told you... it is founded in our recognition of others as equal to us, as worthy of the same decent treatment we are.

Is the person on the street worth less than I am? No, I can come up with no good reason to say that. The basic characteristics of personhood that I possess are shared by her. So what reason do I have to say that my claim to my house and its goods supercedes hers? The mere fact that it is my property and not hers is purely arbitrary (since I have already stated that there are no alternatives for this person; it is not as if she has willingly rejected the possibly of attaining a house of her own.) It is simply luck and circumstance, not any relevant difference, that puts me in the house and her on the street - and since mere luck and circumstance does not justify the subordination of one person's needs to the whim of the other (what would be my reaction if it were me on the street?), it is morally unjustified for me to refuse to let her in.

I think you're conflating morally equal with moral obligation. Morally speaking, we are equal; we're both human agents, etc. But nowhere in that fact does it say that you are entitled to anything from me. You could be the poorest person in the world, and I could be the richest, and I wouldn't owe you anything, just because you're in need. Sure, it'd be awful nice of me to help you out, but I have no obligation to you. At all. Where, in your view, does this obligation to equalize our positions come from? Simply because we're morally equivalent agents does not mean that either of us has a moral obligation to help the other out. It has nothing to do with our worth as people, and everything to do with moral obligation--or in this case the lack of it.

As for your ownership of your house or anything else, it isn't purely arbitrary. It would be arbitrary if there were some force (not necessarily god) throwing out possessions willy-nilly. One hopes you worked for and earned what you have. Even if you didn't, your right to what is yours is certainly part of human society (morally, not to mention legally).

But, even if it were purely arbitrary, I still fail to see how that creates an obligation in you to someone else. It sounds to me like you're an extreme utilitarian (or maybe just a damn, pinko communist ;) ), and maximizing utility/happiness is an obligation to you. Well, I don't buy that. Give everything you own to the poor if you wish; you have no obligation to do so, however morally equal you and everyone else are, because, as I've said, need and desire do not magically create obligation in others.

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride, and all that.

I don't particularly think that this is an "extra special right" (or at least if it is, it is so because it fits into a much narrower category than "all positive obligations.")

It's an extra special right in that it is a right no one else would seem to have, namely the right to another's body without their consent. I don't have the right to your body, though you're free to give of yourself if you wish. The same goes for a fetus. It has no right to a woman's body, though it's nice of her to let it room there for a while.

Funny bit of trivia:

A while ago a woman in Germany was on unemployment benefits and because of the new laws, they were trying to make her take a job.

Guess where a position was open? :D

So because prostitution is recognised as a legal profession like any other, and because if there's an open job to take, people aren't meant to stay on benefits...the government tried to make that woman become a prostitute.

Actually, I remember reading about this. The woman was not forced to become a prostitute, nor did the government push it. However, the case brought up the fact that it could happen and IIRC, policy was put into place such that a person could refuse certain jobs - such as prostitution.