NationStates Jolt Archive

First - let me say I am Pro-Choice. By a long way.

There have been a few threads about abortion lately - mainly centering on the say of men vs the say of women in the descision to carry/terminate a pregnancy and tied in with that a discussion on the inequity in who has the say due to nature leading onto discussions on child support.

The arguement for abortion used by many is along the lines that a woman gets to decide what happens to her body, that she gets to decide wether another human can live in her innards and sponge off her nutrients before ripping it's way out her birth canal. That as the foetus is in her body and as it is using her body that she has the right to remove it from her body. Obviously men do not have the foetus inside them, and obviously they do not have the right to intefere with the womans body without her consent and hence ultimately although they can give the woman their opinion and try to persuade her, ultimately the descision is all hers.

Now - while I am pro-choice, and welcome any allies I am somewhat concerned about the reasoning behind the arguement that a woman has a right to end the pregnancy as it is inside her body and she has the right to decide what goes on in her innards. (There is also the health of the mother issue where her life or health would be in serious danger if she carried the baby to term - this is a very different issue to abortion where there is a free choice regards your health)

The reason for my concern is that the arguement seems more that a woman has the right not to be pregnant rather than than that she has the right to kill the foetus and that the death of the foetus is a side effect of removing it from her - a point raised sometimes with comments like 'put it on the hospital bench and if it lives without her body then let it live'. This sentiment seems also to be carried in the child support arguement where two points are often raised - that if the man could carry the kid he should be free to and that she is not choosing to absolve responsibility to a child in the same way that a man is, she is choosing to end a pregnancy, that the pregnancy does not equal a child.

So why the concern? We're all on the same side on this issue yes? Well - I have two concerns, well - two sides of one concern.

1. The arguement lends itself towards a woman being able to choose to be pregnant rather than to choose not to have a child - that she has the right to decide as she might not want a child/foetus growing inside her - that she does not want to be pregnant. However I seriously doubt that the pregnancy is the driving force behind many women having abortions. I suspect that the majority of abortions are carried out because the woman does not want/cannot support/would prefer not to support the product of the pregnancy rather than a wish not to be pregnant. I feel the reasoning behind abortion, and the law supporting it should reflect the actual motivation for abortion rather than a justification for it that applies to very few cases.

2. Given the advancement of medical technology I do not think it impossible that one day artificial wombs could be developed that could be used to bring a foetus to term from any stage of development. I also do not think it is impossible that a foetal extraction method could be developed that would allow for the foetus to be removed from the woman intact. Hell - lets look at this hypothetically to avoid debate on the possibility of such technology as it is the issue behind it that I am interested in. Hypothetically - if technology existed that would allow the foetus to be removed alive, that was no more invasive or dangerous to the woman than abortion - possibly using very similar methods, and if the technology existed to grow that foetus from any stage of development, and lets say this is all provided courtsey of the government or some charity, there is no financial expense to the woman for the medical treatment - should a woman be allowed to have an abortion? They can easily make her not pregnant through similar (or even refined) procedures to those currently used for abortion, grow the baby and then give it back to her at the 9th month of development. Is there a difference between kill/extract and extract/kill where the extraction procedure is the same as far as the womans body (not the foetus) is concerned?

So - to clarify the actual question - If technology existed to extract and grow a foetus in an artificial womb, and the extraction procedure was no more invasive than the abortion - that the effect on the womans actual body is the same - should women be allowed to have abortions? Or should the women who currently have abortions because they cannot support a child be dumped with a baby they can't support a few months after they were made 'not pregnant'? Or should the law and reasoning supporting it reflect why the majority of women actually get abortions?

(note - either way I do not feel anyone other than the woman has the right to decide on wether to ahve the extraction - this question is in no way supporting the right of a a man to forceably abort against the womans will - just in case that was the impression people got)

Since when is not wanting to be pregnant the reason given by women who want an abortion? They want abortions because they don't want the kids. And I really don't know why that would be anybody's business but theirs. Even if there was a way to "extract" the baby.

Since when is not wanting to be pregnant the reason given by women who want an abortion? They want abortions because they don't want the kids. And I really don't know why that would be anybody's business but theirs. Even if there was a way to "extract" the baby.

This is exactly what I said - the reason most women get abortions is that they do not want to have the kid. But the justification often used for allowing them to have abortions is based on them choosing not to be pregnant - that they have the right not to support another life/foetus/thing with their body.

The disparity between the reason and the justification is where my concern is. That and the possible rammifications of using the current common justification should technology develop to a stage where the foetus can be easily removed alive and grown without the womans body.

This is surprisingly unpopular for an abortion thread. Maybe the Americans haven't jumpstarted their brains with coffee yet. I know I haven't ><

Anyway, I see your point. But they're not my justifications for abortion, which I generally keep to myself for fear of embarassing other pro-life people, but here goes:

1) The death of the embryo/foetus is utterly inconsequential.
2) The embryo/foetus isn't even cabable of noticing if it's destroyed. How can that be wrong? It's like washing your hands with anti-bacterial soap. Or if you're caught up on them being human cells that're destroyed, it's like blowing your nose, taking a dump, scratching an itch, or any one of the countless activities that people do every day that kill hordes of human cells.
3) The outcome of an abortion is ultimately the same as if the couple used birth control without failure, and the same as if the couple hadn't had sex.
4) There are 6.6 billion humans cluttering up the planet and making a mess already, do we really want any more? Especially when they're unwanted anyway.

And "Don't I think the unborn baby* deserves a chance?!" - No. No more than any of the countless egg/sperm combinations that will never occur "deserve" a chance.

And with those justifications, robotic wombs pose no moral dilemmas ;)

*Heh.

There are many reasons why a woman might want or need an abortion, some of which you've mentioned.

1. Medically - obviously, if carrying the pregnancy to full term would endanger the health or even the life of the mother, abortion is the only option.

2. Rape - there is no good reason to deny abortion to a woman who has been made pregnant as a result of being raped.

3. Incest - since incest is illegal (not to mention sick, twisted and genetically irresponsible), it would be both immoral and illegal to allow a pregnancy caused by incest to continue.

4. The most common reason used - that the woman or couple don't have the emotional, physical or financial resources to bring up a child. I'm not going to pervert this discussion into an argument about childcare policy. But it does seem obvious that if a couple are incapable of being responsible parents, then they should have the option of terminating an unwanted pregnancy before it is too late. The often used argument that "They should have thought about that before they shagged around" is really getting a bit tired. It also denies human nature; we are not perfect, everyone makes mistakes. Making people pay for their mistakes is revenge, not justice - and the loser in the scenario is the resulting child, who will grow up unwanted and unloved.

5. If the foetus has a genetic disorder. Now before anybody shrieks at me about "eugenics wars", please bear in mind that this does happen already. The two most notable examples are: 1. Babies born to women over the age of 35 have a higher likelihood of downs syndrome - so women over 35 who become pregnant are offered an amniocentesis test (extraction of some amniotic fluid and analysis of the foetus genome) to detect downs syndrome. 2. Part of the reason why pregnancies as a result of incest shouldn't be allowed to continue is that mixing of nearly identical genomes (like brother and sister) often causes severe genetic abnormalities / malformations in the foetus.

It's quite within the realms of possibility (and has been for a long time) to test for many other genetic disorders (cystic fibrosis is another example). If we can spare society the cost of supporting people with such disorders, why not do so?

But doesn't everybody, no matter what their genome, deserve to live? - Is the reply I expect to get from that.

Yes, of course they do. In a socialist society, anyway. In a socialist / communist society, the welfare state takes care of everyone and anyone who can't take care of themselves, so the human costs of disease or disability become irrelevant.

But socialism / communism has become very unfashionable these days, hasn't it? The Historical Debate is over; the answer is Free Market Capitalism - that's the mantra spouted these days, right?

Well, I don't like it either. But you can't have it both ways. If you are free market capitalist, you must recognise the financial costs of letting people with disabilities be born and raised by society - and hence your ideology should support "eugenics".

However, if you dislike the idea of "eugenics", and believe that everybody has a right to life no matter how diseased or deformed they are (this is my viewpoint, btw), then you must embrace at least some aspects of communism - particularly the welfare state / nationalised healthcare parts.

As regards "extraction" of a pregnancy and "growing" babies in an artificial womb, please lets get real. Even if that technology were to become available within the next decade (and I seriously doubt it), it raises much more of an ethical dilemma than it's ever going to solve.

But three cheers for raising the issue - it's no joke just how much a woman's right to choose is under threat in the USA. The pro-life movement (who should really be regarded as terrorists, given that they firebomb clinics and kill doctors) have effectively prevented abortion in about 80% of counties in the USA. Plus, the USA foreign aid policy explicitly bars distribution of any aid, financial or otherwise, to nations where abortion is legal.

This is surprisingly unpopular for an abortion thread. Maybe the Americans haven't jumpstarted their brains with coffee yet. I know I haven't ><

Anyway, I see your point. But they're not my justifications for abortion, which I generally keep to myself for fear of embarassing other pro-life people, but here goes:

1) The death of the embryo/foetus is utterly inconsequential.
2) The embryo/foetus isn't even cabable of noticing if it's destroyed. How can that be wrong? It's like washing your hands with anti-bacterial soap. Or if you're caught up on them being human cells that're destroyed, it's like blowing your nose, taking a dump, scratching an itch, or any one of the countless activities that people do every day that kill hordes of human cells.
3) The outcome of an abortion is ultimately the same as if the couple used birth control without failure, and the same as if the couple hadn't had sex.
4) There are 6.6 billion humans cluttering up the planet and making a mess already, do we really want any more? Especially when they're unwanted anyway.

And "Don't I think the unborn baby* deserves a chance?!" - No. No more than any of the countless egg/sperm combinations that will never occur "deserve" a chance.

And with those justifications, robotic wombs pose no moral dilemmas ;)

*Heh.
I was surprised too.

Generally good reasons.

Mine are:

1. It's better than girls suffering horrific coathanger injuries/deaths.
2. It's better than dumpsters.
3. If a woman really does not think she can support a child and make them into a productive member of society she is probably right and it is in everyones interests to let her make that judgement.

1 and 2 are realy why abortion was legalised, but in the UK the the Law explictiely allows for an abortion if a woman wants reason 3.

snip
Yeah, this is the argument I use. I dislike the "right to control over body" argument, personally. I don't necessarily disagree with it, but it doesn't address the possibility that they're killing a human being. Even if they have the right to, it's still rather unpleasant. If the fetus is inconsequential, no problems. :)

I was surprised too.

Generally good reasons.

Mine are:

1. It's better than girls suffering horrific coathanger injuries/deaths.
2. It's better than dumpsters.
3. If a woman really does not think she can support a child and make them into a productive member of society she is probably right and it is in everyones interests to let her make that judgement.

1 and 2 are realy why abortion was legalised, but in the UK the the Law explictiely allows for an abortion if a woman wants reason 3.

Yeah, they're good reasons too. And 1 and 2 are probably more in line with others' morals than mine are ;)
I thought abortion wasn't explicitly legalised in the UK, but that doctors had been given a legal defence if they carried one out? Not that I claim expertise, I just read it on news.bbc a while ago.

My mother, many moons ago, was told by a doctor that if she were ever in trouble and a doctor was trying to prevent her having an abortion she just had to say "Let me have a termination or I'll top myself", and they have to stop pissing around just in case she's not bluffing. I think it's far less hassle nowadays, though.

I'm not going to presume to speak for other women, but I personally would have an abortion because I do not want to be pregnant OR have a baby. Indeed, I am more strongly opposed to the idea of being pregnant than I am to the idea of having children (which is why I am more willing to consider adoption than having biological kids).

(...)
First of all, thank you for a very thorough approach on the topic, well argued, and discussing an angle that (to my knowledge) hasn't been talked about (here) before.

I do see where your concern lies, and it raises another, follow-up question.

First of all to your concern. I agree with the reasons Compulsive Depression gave here (...) to discart them.

Now to the follow-up question that comes to my mind.

Right now, the woman has the final say in all matters concerning her body, and rightly so.
The only time your idea with artificial wombs would prove really interesting is the following scenario (given that artificial wombs are available, work perfectly, and the extraction process is no different to an abortion when it comes to the risks of a medical procedure):

What if the woman does not want a child, but the man would like to have it?

Would it be acceptable to have the child extracted, "born", and raised by the father? The woman, of course, would have to pay child support, although she didn't want to have the kid.

I would say "Yes!" - because it would only be the other way around as it is now when the woman wants the child but the father doesn't, it gets born, and he has to pay child support.

After all, they both consented to intercourse and therefore both accepted the possibility of pregnancy.

(I know it's very theoretical, but hey, that's what thought-experiments are for, right?)

2. Rape - there is no good reason to deny abortion to a woman who has been made pregnant as a result of being raped.

While I agree that it would be a horrific situation, and can see it as a very good reason to have an abortion there are however very good reasons why it should not be a legal reason, or exception to a ban on abortions:

1. Allowing an exception in the instance of rape shows the utter hypocracy in that it shows pro-lifers who allow this exception are motivated about punishing the woman (the ones who get pregnant through consensual sex).

2. If abortions are banned except for rape and where the mothers life is in danger you can bet a lot of desperate women will start reporting 'rapes' to secure an abortion. This leads to a HEAP of problems no matter how you want to work around it.

As regards "extraction" of a pregnancy and "growing" babies in an artificial womb, please lets get real. Even if that technology were to become available within the next decade (and I seriously doubt it), it raises much more of an ethical dilemma than it's ever going to solve.
Is it really that outlandish to think we might be able to do this one day - there's currently a thread up about a GM sheep they have made which has human tissue organs, stem cell research and growing body parts is getting a lot of attention as well as other areas of medical research relevent to this area. Maybe not 10 years, but I don't think it will be tooooo far away.

I thought abortion wasn't explicitly legalised in the UK, but that doctors had been given a legal defence if they carried one out? Not that I claim expertise, I just read it on news.bbc a while ago.

I'm pretty sure it is legal - it gets state funding - or it is if the woman can get two doctors to agree that she is not emotionally or psychologicall ready to raise a child - which is a rubber stamp procedure.

I'm not going to presume to speak for other women, but I personally would have an abortion because I do not want to be pregnant OR have a baby. Indeed, I am more strongly opposed to the idea of being pregnant than I am to the idea of having children (which is why I am more willing to consider adoption than having biological kids).
Fear not - I remember you mentioning your aversion to pregnancy, which is why I tried to avoid saying all women who have abortions for non medical reasons do so to be 'not pregnant'. But I do think it is safe to say the majority are due to avoiding parenthood (or additional parenthood) rather than not being pregnant.

Yeah, this is the argument I use. I dislike the "right to control over body" argument, personally. I don't necessarily disagree with it, but it doesn't address the possibility that they're killing a human being. Even if they have the right to, it's still rather unpleasant. If the fetus is inconsequential, no problems. :)
Abortion doesn't kill a human being. That would be killing a (born) baby.

Abortion only ends what could develop into another human. That's a huge difference, for an embryo doesn't have any rights, and I still don't believe that an early foetus should be granted rights, either.

(The line should be drawn where the foetus develops into a sentient being, where it can feel pain.)

I'm not going to presume to speak for other women, but I personally would have an abortion because I do not want to be pregnant OR have a baby. Indeed, I am more strongly opposed to the idea of being pregnant than I am to the idea of having children (which is why I am more willing to consider adoption than having biological kids).

You either lurk here ALL THE TIME, or you have some kind of neato keyword detector lurking here. Hmm?

You're quick off the blocks, all I'm saying.

You either lurk here ALL THE TIME, or you have some kind of neato keyword detector lurking here. Hmm?

You're quick off the blocks, all I'm saying.
Nah, I just read NS while having my morning coffee before I start work. :D

Nah, I just read NS while having my morning coffee before I start work. :D

You read it all, don't you?
*slinks away*

You read it all, don't you?
*slinks away*
BOTTLE SEES ALL. BOTTLE KNOWS ALL. ALL UR THREDD R BELONG 2 BOTTLE.

But back to the thread in question...

I don't know if it IS fair to say that most women have abortions to avoid having a baby but not specifically to stop being pregnant. I mean, if it were possible to have a procedure that would simply stop the baby from ever being born, but the woman would remain pregnant for the rest of her life, do you really think women would pick that over aborting the pregnancy?

You can't just separate pregnancy and childbirth the way you are trying to do. Women have abortions because, for whatever reason, they do not want their body to participate in the making of a child. Making a child is a long process. It's not like you magically go from no-child to child over night. Women who have abortions are saying that they are not willing to participate in the long, physically demanding, emotionally-trying, and medically serious process of having a child. This includes both the process of physically making the child, and also the process of delivering said child, and also the process of caring for and rearing said child.

I'm pretty sure it is legal - it gets state funding - or it is if the woman can get two doctors to agree that she is not emotionally or psychologicall ready to raise a child - which is a rubber stamp procedure.

I just did a bit more looking-up (linky (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6235557.stm#uk)) and it seems I was misinformed (likely the story I read was about old laws). I'd be perfectly happy for it to be changed to abortion-on-demand, with the NHS still paying for it (it seems a reasonable use of my tax quids), but there doesn't seem to be much obstruction in the current system, so it might just promote controversy and actually be harmful to do so. If it ain't broke, etc.

And German Nightmare, your follow-up question tickled my sick sense of humour :D

I don't know if it IS fair to say that most women have abortions to avoid having a baby but not specifically to stop being pregnant. I mean, if it were possible to have a procedure that would simply stop the baby from ever being born, but the woman would remain pregnant for the rest of her life, do you really think women would pick that over aborting the pregnancy?
No - however that is not the nature of pregnancy at the moment so I doubt that is the motivation for them to have abortions. I have no doubt that there are women out there who would have abortions based on not wanting to be pregnant, but I suspect the majority do so out of not wanting to be parents.


You can't just separate pregnancy and childbirth the way you are trying to do. Women have abortions because, for whatever reason, they do not want their body to participate in the making of a child. Making a child is a long process. It's not like you magically go from no-child to child over night. Women who have abortions are saying that they are not willing to participate in the long, physically demanding, emotionally-trying, and medically serious process of having a child. This includes both the process of physically making the child, and also the process of delivering said child, and also the process of caring for and rearing said child.
Hewever the scenario I mentioned totally removes the process of physically making a child while leaving the process of rearing the child. The 'her body her choice' does not cover abortion based on not wanting to rear a child - it just covers it based on not wanting her body to take part in pregnancy. It allows them to remove their body from the process of having someone inside them living off them - the entire justification is based on the foetus being reliant on the womans body and feeding off it. It covers the pregnancy itself, not the possible consequences of it.

The situation mentioned makes the womans participation in the repoductive process equal (after extraction) to the mans participation.

I would be happy in such a scenario to allow abortion based on "I can't in my current situation support financially/emotionally a child and raise them in the way I believe a child deserves"

I just did a bit more looking-up (linky (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6235557.stm#uk)) and it seems I was misinformed (likely the story I read was about old laws). I'd be perfectly happy for it to be changed to abortion-on-demand, with the NHS still paying for it (it seems a reasonable use of my tax quids), but there doesn't seem to be much obstruction in the current system, so it might just promote controversy and actually be harmful to do so. If it ain't broke, etc.


The current system is really more to make sure the woman is prepared for what she is actually going to do - to make sure she has thought it through. I think they don't want women having an abortion then changing their mind when they find about about another option they had not been informed of or considered beforehand.

I don't think anyone has ever been denied an abortion because a doctor judged them to be emotionally/psychologically able to have a child. Particulary since the two doctors can (I think) be doctors who work at the abortion clinic.

that she gets to decide whether another human can live in her innards and sponge off her nutrients before ripping it's way out her birth canal.

My vision of the miracle of birth has been shattered.

i think not wanting to be pregnant might be a more important factor than you might think for having abortions. most of the girls i know see pregnancy as a particularly unpleasant experience and some are completely disgusted and freaked out by the idea of a parasite living inside them and growing for nine months before being painfully expelled through a process that can last more than a day. these girls and women are not necessarily against the idea of eventually raising children they just really hate the idea of pregnancy. two of them have had abortions which were traumatic for them but they both say they wouldn't have had it any other way.

i can honestly say that, eventually, some time in my life i will want children. but certainly not if that meant i would have to get pregnant first. i can quite understand any woman's aversion to pregnancy. perhaps pregnancy does get less scary eventually, or at least the desire for children outweighs the fear factor, but i am definitely glad that i am male and will never be obliged to endure pregnancy.

that is a legal justification doesnt mean that it has to be any particular woman's reason.

Hewever the scenario I mentioned totally removes the process of physically making a child while leaving the process of rearing the child. The 'her body her choice' does not cover abortion based on not wanting to rear a child - it just covers it based on not wanting her body to take part in pregnancy. It allows them to remove their body from the process of having someone inside them living off them - the entire justification is based on the foetus being reliant on the womans body and feeding off it. It covers the pregnancy itself, not the possible consequences of it.

The situation mentioned makes the womans participation in the repoductive process equal (after extraction) to the mans participation.

I would be happy in such a scenario to allow abortion based on "I can't in my current situation support financially/emotionally a child and raise them in the way I believe a child deserves"


its an interesting thought experiment to have, in essense, MEN put in the same position as women. MEN would suddenly have to get off their "only nasty sluts get abortions" highhorse and be faced with their OWN unwanted pregnancy. only this time its growing in a jar until the time HE can be forced to raise it. certain MEN would be revealed as "dirty sluts" as the number of their children growning in a jar is made public.

(not that i would ever put all men onto that particular highhorse. most men are more than reasonably pro-choice)

im thinking that if your scenario came true and somehow every freaking fertilized egg was saved and put into an artificial womb to be brought to term, suddenly they wouldnt seem quite as valuable as they do now. that the reality of how many of society's resources would have to be dedicated to incubating these unwanted children--even if it amounted to the same amount of time and energy used by a human mother--would be such a burden that it would soon come to a screeching halt and the business would be cut back to include only those that the biological parents want to save or for whom adoptive parents can be found to foot the bill.

Abortion doesn't kill a human being. That would be killing a (born) baby.

Abortion only ends what could develop into another human. That's a huge difference, for an embryo doesn't have any rights, and I still don't believe that an early foetus should be granted rights, either.

(The line should be drawn where the foetus develops into a sentient being, where it can feel pain.)
Sorry, unclear post. I agree that abortion doesn't kill a human being, which is why I'm pro-choice. However, if you just say that a woman has a right to manage her own body without also stating that the fetus is not a human being, then you leave that possibility open. That would imply that most women who have abortions are rather morally reprehensible (albeit within their legal rights), if it was true. Which it isn't.

...

i can honestly say that, eventually, some time in my life i will want children.

...

Here is wisdom. The rest of your post was OK.

Mortality hits you some day, and you get this ruthless bullying compulsion to leave something of what you've got. You love it, you can see that it ends, you want someone or something to embody the joy of your life.
That's kids, or an enduring contribution to human culture. Kids is easier, even if they don't have everything you have ... and having kids, giving them more than you had, teaching them everything you care about and then tolerating that they get a whole lot more that you'll never have ... is a lot easier than putting all your own qualities out there in a book or a painting or a trust or a company. It's hugely easier, and it's got your genome on it's side, while you've got your ego, cowering before history. A life's work can outweigh a life, but usually it doesn't.

No, I'm not saying parenthood owns all. Fuck it up, and you're fucking up in spades. Just ... it's the direct and optimal response to mortality. Do it right, and all your life's work stands on its own. Give back what you recieved, the rest is bonus.

...

im thinking that if your scenario came true and somehow every freaking fertilized egg was saved and put into an artificial womb to be brought to term, suddenly they wouldnt seem quite as valuable as they do now. that the reality of how many of society's resources would have to be dedicated to incubating these unwanted children--even if it amounted to the same amount of time and energy used by a human mother--would be such a burden that it would soon come to a screeching halt and the business would be cut back to include only those that the biological parents want to save or for whom adoptive parents can be found to foot the bill.

It's just after this that Men invented the Matrix.

It's just after this that Men invented the Matrix.

does that make shx agent smith?

does that make shx agent smith?

Shx is doing good work here. Excellent thread, largely due to the thoughtful OP.

Whereas I am essentially a wanker. I haven't in fact watched any of the Matrix movies right through, and only really used the name because of it's excellent etymology. I love the word 'etymology' because it is one character away from 'entymology,' the study of insects.

Let me just say that if I were a pregnant woman and I wanted to mount a resistance against the "we'll grow your baby" program, I'd start smoking dope and boozing the moment I found out I was pregnant.

THEN I'd go to the clinic.

Shx is doing good work here. Excellent thread, largely due to the thoughtful OP.

Whereas I am essentially a wanker. I haven't in fact watched any of the Matrix movies right through, and only really used the name because of it's excellent etymology. I love the word 'etymology' because it is one character away from 'entymology,' the study of insects.

id just say QFT

but

well

it would just be wrong.


oddly enough, thats why *I* like the word etymology

I love the word 'etymology' because it is one character away from 'entymology,' the study of insects.You mean entomology?

That's two letters.

Women have abortions because, for whatever reason, they do not want their body to participate in the making of a child. Making a child is a long process. It's not like you magically go from no-child to child over night. Women who have abortions are saying that they are not willing to participate in the long, physically demanding, emotionally-trying, and medically serious process of having a child. This includes both the process of physically making the child, and also the process of delivering said child, and also the process of caring for and rearing said child.

So what's wrong with telling the woman, "Ok, we'll have that baby right out, and into an artificial womb in a jiffy, and you can be on your way?"

Said baby then to be raised by the state in an orphanage.

1. The arguement lends itself towards a woman being able to choose to be pregnant rather than to choose not to have a child - that she has the right to decide as she might not want a child/foetus growing inside her - that she does not want to be pregnant. However I seriously doubt that the pregnancy is the driving force behind many women having abortions. I suspect that the majority of abortions are carried out because the woman does not want/cannot support/would prefer not to support the product of the pregnancy rather than a wish not to be pregnant. I feel the reasoning behind abortion, and the law supporting it should reflect the actual motivation for abortion rather than a justification for it that applies to very few cases.

Her justification is irrelevant. Why she wants it is irrelevant. Whether she doesn't want the kid or doesn't want to be pregnant is irrelevant.

She has the power to exercise control over her body, that is her right. WHY she chooses to exercise that control is a personal choice, and entirely irrelevant. She HAS it, once she has that right we have no businesses questioning the motivation for exercising it. She may do so, that's all that is necessary.

2. Given the advancement of medical technology I do not think it impossible that one day artificial wombs could be developed that could be used to bring a foetus to term from any stage of development. I also do not think it is impossible that a foetal extraction method could be developed that would allow for the foetus to be removed from the woman intact. Hell - lets look at this hypothetically to avoid debate on the possibility of such technology as it is the issue behind it that I am interested in. Hypothetically - if technology existed that would allow the foetus to be removed alive, that was no more invasive or dangerous to the woman than abortion - possibly using very similar methods, and if the technology existed to grow that foetus from any stage of development, and lets say this is all provided courtsey of the government or some charity, there is no financial expense to the woman for the medical treatment - should a woman be allowed to have an abortion? They can easily make her not pregnant through similar (or even refined) procedures to those currently used for abortion, grow the baby and then give it back to her at the 9th month of development. Is there a difference between kill/extract and extract/kill where the extraction procedure is the same as far as the womans body (not the foetus) is concerned?

So - to clarify the actual question - If technology existed to extract and grow a foetus in an artificial womb, and the extraction procedure was no more invasive than the abortion - that the effect on the womans actual body is the same - should women be allowed to have abortions? Or should the women who currently have abortions because they cannot support a child be dumped with a baby they can't support a few months after they were made 'not pregnant'? Or should the law and reasoning supporting it reflect why the majority of women actually get abortions?

You're using the term abortion wrong here. Abortion does not mean "to kill a fetus" an abortion means "to end a pregnancy".

What you are talking about here IS an abortion. An act that terminated a pregnancy. Technically a C-section is a form of abortion, it results in a termination of pregnancy. So it is improper to say "can she still get an abortion" when what you are describing IS an abortion.

The distinction you're trying to draw here is between an abortion that kills the fetus and an abortion that does not.

Now, if someone designs a procedure that is just as safe, just as invasive, just as costly and has no other side effects other than keeping the fetus alive...fine, I have no problems with that. But the mother would still not be obligated to care for it once it's "grown". But once again it's improper to refer to what we have now as an "abortion" and this as not. What you are describing is an abortion, as it ends a pregnancy.

it's just not a method of abortion we have available currently.

I love the word 'etymology' because it is one character away from 'entymology,' the study of insects.

Actually, the study of insects is more commonly referred to as "entomology" ;p

So what's wrong with telling the woman, "Ok, we'll have that baby right out, and into an artificial womb in a jiffy, and you can be on your way?"

Said baby then to be raised by the state in an orphanage.

provided that the process of getting the baby out and into a womb is no more harmful or costly for the woman...frankly I have no problem with it. As bottle said an abortion is a woman's choice not to have her body involved in a pregnancy.

If we have the means to end her involvement in the pregnancy without kiling the fetus I really have no problems with it. I also don't REALLY have a problem with it being compelled by law to have this form of abortion rather than the one we currently have, provided it is no more harmful or costly to her.

So what's wrong with telling the woman, "Ok, we'll have that baby right out, and into an artificial womb in a jiffy, and you can be on your way?"

Provided that the means of removal is no more difficult than the appropriate abortion procedure for that stage of pregnancy, I would have no problem with that.

Hell, I'd have that procedure done if I wanted to keep the kid! If it were possible to not have to be pregnant in order to have a biological kid, that would be AWESOME for women.


Said baby then to be raised by the state in an orphanage.
Well, see, I view that as one tiny little problem. Considering that we can't deal with the kids who are already orphans, the idea of increasing their numbers is a bit iffy to me. And considering the number of abortions each year, we're talking about one huge goddam increase in the number of kids in orphanages.

Personally, I think it is far, far, far, far, FAR more responsible to simply never make a child in the first place than it is to make one and then stick it in an orphanage. (And since I'm not a stone-age cretin, I know that a baby is not made at conception, and "making a baby" does not refer to the act of sex, which has never made a baby in the history of the human world.) I believe it is far more responsible to stop the process of making a baby before the baby is made, as opposed to intentionally and artificially continuing the process when you know full well that there is nobody ready to take on the responsibility of actually caring for the child once you've made it.

So what's wrong with telling the woman, "Ok, we'll have that baby right out, and into an artificial womb in a jiffy, and you can be on your way?"

Said baby then to be raised by the state in an orphanage.

seems to me that it could be pushed through in the right legal environment

but can you imagine? there are somewhere around 1million abortions in the united states alone. thats alot of resources to put to the saving of unwanted embryos/fetuses.

hmmm and then i wonder if the unused products of fertility clinics would have to be saved too, instead of wasted as they are today?

i just dont think it would last long. the sins of many prominent men are sucked down the sinks of abortion clinics every year. no one knows how many aides, mistresses, prostitutes, or whoever, get impregnated every year by men who dont want that fact known. combine this with a dna database (so that you know who to dun for the money to do this) and it wouldnt take long for men ...and we can all think of prominent men who would be caught in this...to decide that unwanted embryos arent all that special after all.

not that all those men would be pro-life to begin with, just that it would become startlingly real to those who oppose choice now and would give those who are currently prochoice a more personal reason to push the issue.

Hell, I'd have that procedure done if I wanted to keep the kid! If it were possible to not have to be pregnant in order to have a biological kid, that would be AWESOME for women.
Yeah, that would be great! It would be like being a guy in terms of the childbirth process!

Yeah, that would be great! It would be like being a guy in terms of the childbirth process!

That's why I believe the tech will be invented.

They've already done the artificial womb with sheep. No reason not to market it to women who want a baby, without getting the inconvenience of carrying one.

You're using the term abortion wrong here. Abortion does not mean "to kill a fetus" an abortion means "to end a pregnancy".

What you are talking about here IS an abortion. An act that terminated a pregnancy. Technically a C-section is a form of abortion, it results in a termination of pregnancy. So it is improper to say "can she still get an abortion" when what you are describing IS an abortion.

The distinction you're trying to draw here is between an abortion that kills the fetus and an abortion that does not.

Now, if someone designs a procedure that is just as safe, just as invasive, just as costly and has no other side effects other than keeping the fetus alive...fine, I have no problems with that. But the mother would still not be obligated to care for it once it's "grown". But once again it's improper to refer to what we have now as an "abortion" and this as not. What you are describing is an abortion, as it ends a pregnancy.

it's just not a method of abortion we have available currently.

Why would she not be obliged to care for it? It's there, it needs someone to care for it, the biological parents are the logical choice.

Note - I support her right to abort it. I am not saying she should not have the right not to abort it - meaning terminate the foetus.

However the justification I am concerned about is purely about becombing 'not pregnant' not about avoiding parenthood. If it were possible as I suggested - should she have the right to still kill the foetus or once it is outside her body does she lose that right?

Provided that the means of removal is no more difficult than the appropriate abortion procedure for that stage of pregnancy, I would have no problem with that.

Hell, I'd have that procedure done if I wanted to keep the kid! If it were possible to not have to be pregnant in order to have a biological kid, that would be AWESOME for women.


Well, see, I view that as one tiny little problem. Considering that we can't deal with the kids who are already orphans, the idea of increasing their numbers is a bit iffy to me. And considering the number of abortions each year, we're talking about one huge goddam increase in the number of kids in orphanages.


Yeah, but it's a sticky problem. Most pro choice people, including myself, will concede that the fetus has some rights. Some degree of a right to life. It is future personhood, and that has some merit. It's just that its limited rights do not supercede the rights of the woman it's growing in.

Some will even say it has equivalent human rights, but those rights again, don't supercede the right to bodily autonomy.

If we consider the fetus has no rights, none what so ever, then it doesn't matter. Grow it, kill it, do whatever. But if we take the position that it has SOME rights, we run into a problem. In normal abortions...this again isn't a problem, mothers rights as a person take priority.

But if we have a method to keep it alive without disturbing the rights of the woman involved...here's where it gets tricky. It's a moralistic problem where do we consider killing it ANYWAY because orphanages are crowded.

It's a moral position i'm not sure i"m comfortable with. I don't object to abortions as they are because I believe the mother has that right to bodily autonomy, and the exercise of that right results in a dead fetus which has rights, to a degree, but junior to that of the mother.

But if those rights are not junior to anything, where the mother can step out of it, is "crowded orphanages" enough of a reason to violate them?

You're using the term abortion wrong here. Abortion does not mean "to kill a fetus" an abortion means "to end a pregnancy".

What you are talking about here IS an abortion. An act that terminated a pregnancy. Technically a C-section is a form of abortion, it results in a termination of pregnancy. So it is improper to say "can she still get an abortion" when what you are describing IS an abortion.

The distinction you're trying to draw here is between an abortion that kills the fetus and an abortion that does not.

Now, if someone designs a procedure that is just as safe, just as invasive, just as costly and has no other side effects other than keeping the fetus alive...fine, I have no problems with that. But the mother would still not be obligated to care for it once it's "grown". But once again it's improper to refer to what we have now as an "abortion" and this as not. What you are describing is an abortion, as it ends a pregnancy.

it's just not a method of abortion we have available currently.
If this theoretical method of abortion were made available, I would estimate that you would see abortion rates go up by like a factor of ten.

I've met some rare women who enjoy pregnancy so much that they like going through it multiple times. But most women I know would either love to be able to skip pregnancy entirely, or they would prefer to skip it after having gone through it the first time.

And especially with the career and economic issues today, a whole lot of women simply wouldn't be able to afford any other choice. The medical risks of a full pregnancy are not to be sneezed at either.

Frankly, I'd be most concerned that the availability of that kind of procedure would eventually make it impossible for any except the very rich to have a normal, full-term pregnancy. Employers would simply expect all their employees to have a "tube pregnancy," and wouldn't be very forgiving toward women who wanted to choose to have a full-term pregnancy when they could just as well choose not to.

Why would she not be obliged to care for it? It's there, it needs someone to care for it, the biological parents are the logical choice.

Because parents are never obliged to care for their children. They can give up parental obligations through adoption process. I see no reason why this would not be viable.


Note - I support her right to abort it. I am not saying she should not have the right not to abort it - meaning terminate the foetus.

That's not what abortion means. Abortion means terminate a pregnancy. If you mean terminate the fetus say so.

However the justification I am concerned about is purely about becombing 'not pregnant' not about avoiding parenthood. If it were possible as I suggested - should she have the right to still kill the foetus or once it is outside her body does she lose that right?

There are two things here. One the desire not to be pregnant. Two the desire not to be a parent.

Conventional abortion covers both issues at once. Your method of abortion would deal with the first, not the second. Adoption deals strictly with the second.

If you want to accomplish both goals, currently, you must have a conventional adoption. Under your system you would have to do both. But it still doesn't mean the parent is hoisted on a child she doesn't wish to raise.

That being said, stop saying "the right to kill the fetus" she doesn't have that right. She has a right to a procedure that will result in the death of a fetus. Not the same thing at all.

Now if the procedure was such that it does NOT result in the death of a fetus, and causes no more expense and no more harm, I don't have a problem.

If this theoretical method of abortion were made available, I would estimate that you would see abortion rates go up by like a factor of ten.

I've met some rare women who enjoy pregnancy so much that they like going through it multiple times. But most women I know would either love to be able to skip pregnancy entirely, or they would prefer to skip it after having gone through it the first time.

And especially with the career and economic issues today, a whole lot of women simply wouldn't be able to afford any other choice. The medical risks of a full pregnancy are not to be sneezed at either.

Frankly, I'd be most concerned that the availability of that kind of procedure would eventually make it impossible for any except the very rich to have a normal, full-term pregnancy. Employers would simply expect all their employees to have a "tube pregnancy," and wouldn't be very forgiving toward women who wanted to choose to have a full-term pregnancy when they could just as well choose not to.


The one way to solve this, perhaps, is a matter of expense. I imagine keeping a "tube pregnancy" to be rather expensive. So perhaps the following.

If you wish an abortion AND don't wish to be a parent (IE what conventional abortions accomplish right now), you sign a form "I wish to terminate my pregnancy and i ceceed all future rights to my child", it is removed, and wisked away. You pay what you'd pay for a normal abortion. State pays for the "tube" process.

Otherwise, if you simply wish not to be PREGNANT, but do not ceceed rights to the future child...you bare the full expense, just like any other elective medical procedure.

Likewise make it illegal to deny maternity leave.

A coat hanger is pretty cheap.

A coat hanger is pretty cheap.
So's a pocket knife, yet for some reason most people don't consider self-performed open-heart surgery to be a viable option for them.

Odd, that.

So's a pocket knife, yet for some reason most people don't consider self-performed open-heart surgery to be a viable option for them.

Odd, that.

Coat hangers have been more widely used for abortions than pocket knives have been used for open heart surgery.

Odd, that.

Coat hangers have been more widely used for abortions than pocket knives have been used for open heart surgery.

Odd, that.

Which is odd indeed as MANY places have made open heart surgery illegal, just like abortions, thus leaving them no other choice but to perform a risky procedure.

No....wait. That's not true at all.

Coat hangers have been more widely used for abortions than pocket knives have been used for open heart surgery.

Odd, that.
Not really, considering that the number of unwanted pregnancies is so much greater than the number of hearts that people know are in need of open-heart surgery.

I must be missing your point with this somehow.

Not really, considering that the number of unwanted pregnancies is so much greater than the number of hearts that people know are in need of open-heart surgery.

I must be missing your point with this somehow.

That's not even important. The question that needs to be asked is how many women still use that method in countries where abortion is legal?

Very few I'd guess. Most of those involving a fear of being "discovered" or the stigma and shame of being seen in a clinic. Very few open heart surgeries have this attached.

In other words, there are reasons why women would risk this method to have an abortion. Mostly that it can't be legally done anywhere else.

Heart surgery really doesn't bare that burden.

Because parents are never obliged to care for their children. They can give up parental obligations through adoption process. I see no reason why this would not be viable.

I think there are many men out there paying child support (or avoiding it) who have found that they have not been able to shrug their parental responsibility - why would this be different?

Further to this - the adoption arguement works only when there are enough adopters, which I suspect there are not.


That being said, stop saying "the right to kill the fetus" she doesn't have that right. She has a right to a procedure that will result in the death of a fetus. Not the same thing at all.
If the intent of the abortion (ending of the pregnancy) is to kill the foetus then is seems she does have that right.

I believe she should have that right in any case.


Now if the procedure was such that it does NOT result in the death of a fetus, and causes no more expense and no more harm, I don't have a problem.
No no more terminations of foetuses? foetui?

That's not even important. The question that needs to be asked is how many women still use that method in countries where abortion is legal?

Very few I'd guess. Most of those involving a fear of being "discovered" or the stigma and shame of being seen in a clinic. Very few open heart surgeries have this attached.

In other words, there are reasons why women would risk this method to have an abortion. Mostly that it can't be legally done anywhere else.

Heart surgery really doesn't bare that burden.
Yeah. That's why I'm confused about this whole "coathanger" thing.

I think there are many men out there paying child support (or avoiding it) who have found that they have not been able to shrug their parental responsibility - why would this be different?

Further to this - the adoption arguement works only when there are enough adopters, which I suspect there are not.

Look up the doctrines for legal abandonment. Parents may give up their newborn child to the state without penalty or punishment in numerous states. I see no difference here.


If the intent of the abortion (ending of the pregnancy) is to kill the foetus then is seems she does have that right.

I believe she should have that right in any case.

Once again, the INTENT does not matter, which is what you're not getting. SHe doesn't have the right to kill a fetus. She has a right to exercise bodily autonomy.

What she seeks to accomplish by exercising that right is irrelevant. She has the right to bodily autonomy she may exercise that right.


no more terminations of foetuses? foetui?

I would not be opposed to this no. I think the fetus has some degree of rights, but those rights are trumped by the rights of the mother. Therefore it dies, because the mother exercising her right to bodily autonomy results in its death.

However if the mother can exercise her right to bodily autonomy in a virtually identical mannor and this does not result in the death of the fetus, I see no reason why it should be killed.

Again, the mother does not have the right to KILL A FETUS. She has the right to have her body stop in the pregnancy process. That's it. That's her right. As of now, for her to exercise that right a fetus must die. That's alright because her right to exercise bodily autonomy supercedes any right to life the fetus might have. She doesn't have the right to kill a fetus. She has a right to commit an act that will have the result in a death of a fetus. Two very distinct legal ideas. Exercising her rights results in a dead fetus.

However, if she may freely exercise that right without the fetus dying, why should it die?

Look up the doctrines for legal abandonment. Parents may give up their newborn child to the state without penalty or punishment in numerous states. I see no difference here.
It is not quite as simple as that - particulary if one parent does not want to.

The reason for legal (or decriminalised) abandonment is a pragmatic one rather than a rights one - that they did not want babies dying in dumpsters not that they felt parents should be able to decide after birth wether to be a parent.

Another difference would be the numbers. If this method of abortion was used and the parents who would ahve had a termination to avoid parenthood abandoned their kid to the state you would soon have millions of children as wards of the state.

Provided that the means of removal is no more difficult than the appropriate abortion procedure for that stage of pregnancy, I would have no problem with that.

Hell, I'd have that procedure done if I wanted to keep the kid! If it were possible to not have to be pregnant in order to have a biological kid, that would be AWESOME for women.

This is why I do not think it is tooooo outlandish a situation to contemplate.

The demand for such technology would be pretty strong as there are innumerable benefits to women. If such technology existed (and was affordable) I suspect that childbirth would drop off massively with the only women choosing to have it doing so as they felt it was part of the experience of motherhood, similar to the reason why some women choose not to use painkillers during childbirth today.

While I fully admit the costs would initially be very very very high I suspect as technology improved and this moved away from being cutting edge to being more standard the cost of it would fall dramatically.

Yeah. That's why I'm confused about this whole "coathanger" thing.

If we're talking about reducing costs to the equivalent...

If we're talking about reducing costs to the equivalent...
In what context?

I think most of us are dicussing the comparative costs of MEDICALLY SOUND procedures. Which coathanger abortions are not.

In what context?

I think most of us are dicussing the comparative costs of MEDICALLY SOUND procedures. Which coathanger abortions are not.

Ok. How much does a does of RU-486 cost?

That's pretty cheap, too.

In what context?

I think most of us are dicussing the comparative costs of MEDICALLY SOUND procedures. Which coathanger abortions are not.

Typical. When arguing for legalised abortions, bust out the coathangers. :rolleyes:

Y'know, if for some reason, nose jobs were ever made illegal, I doubt we'd here sob stories about steak-knife rhinoplasty.

First - let me say I am Pro-Choice. By a long way.

There have been a few threads about abortion lately - mainly centering on the say of men vs the say of women in the descision to carry/terminate a pregnancy and tied in with that a discussion on the inequity in who has the say due to nature leading onto discussions on child support.

The arguement for abortion used by many is along the lines that a woman gets to decide what happens to her body, that she gets to decide wether another human can live in her innards and sponge off her nutrients before ripping it's way out her birth canal. That as the foetus is in her body and as it is using her body that she has the right to remove it from her body. Obviously men do not have the foetus inside them, and obviously they do not have the right to intefere with the womans body without her consent and hence ultimately although they can give the woman their opinion and try to persuade her, ultimately the descision is all hers.

Now - while I am pro-choice, and welcome any allies I am somewhat concerned about the reasoning behind the arguement that a woman has a right to end the pregnancy as it is inside her body and she has the right to decide what goes on in her innards. (There is also the health of the mother issue where her life or health would be in serious danger if she carried the baby to term - this is a very different issue to abortion where there is a free choice regards your health)

The reason for my concern is that the arguement seems more that a woman has the right not to be pregnant rather than than that she has the right to kill the foetus and that the death of the foetus is a side effect of removing it from her - a point raised sometimes with comments like 'put it on the hospital bench and if it lives without her body then let it live'. This sentiment seems also to be carried in the child support arguement where two points are often raised - that if the man could carry the kid he should be free to and that she is not choosing to absolve responsibility to a child in the same way that a man is, she is choosing to end a pregnancy, that the pregnancy does not equal a child.

So why the concern? We're all on the same side on this issue yes? Well - I have two concerns, well - two sides of one concern.

1. The arguement lends itself towards a woman being able to choose to be pregnant rather than to choose not to have a child - that she has the right to decide as she might not want a child/foetus growing inside her - that she does not want to be pregnant. However I seriously doubt that the pregnancy is the driving force behind many women having abortions. I suspect that the majority of abortions are carried out because the woman does not want/cannot support/would prefer not to support the product of the pregnancy rather than a wish not to be pregnant. I feel the reasoning behind abortion, and the law supporting it should reflect the actual motivation for abortion rather than a justification for it that applies to very few cases.

2. Given the advancement of medical technology I do not think it impossible that one day artificial wombs could be developed that could be used to bring a foetus to term from any stage of development. I also do not think it is impossible that a foetal extraction method could be developed that would allow for the foetus to be removed from the woman intact. Hell - lets look at this hypothetically to avoid debate on the possibility of such technology as it is the issue behind it that I am interested in. Hypothetically - if technology existed that would allow the foetus to be removed alive, that was no more invasive or dangerous to the woman than abortion - possibly using very similar methods, and if the technology existed to grow that foetus from any stage of development, and lets say this is all provided courtsey of the government or some charity, there is no financial expense to the woman for the medical treatment - should a woman be allowed to have an abortion? They can easily make her not pregnant through similar (or even refined) procedures to those currently used for abortion, grow the baby and then give it back to her at the 9th month of development. Is there a difference between kill/extract and extract/kill where the extraction procedure is the same as far as the womans body (not the foetus) is concerned?

So - to clarify the actual question - If technology existed to extract and grow a foetus in an artificial womb, and the extraction procedure was no more invasive than the abortion - that the effect on the womans actual body is the same - should women be allowed to have abortions? Or should the women who currently have abortions because they cannot support a child be dumped with a baby they can't support a few months after they were made 'not pregnant'? Or should the law and reasoning supporting it reflect why the majority of women actually get abortions?

(note - either way I do not feel anyone other than the woman has the right to decide on wether to ahve the extraction - this question is in no way supporting the right of a a man to forceably abort against the womans will - just in case that was the impression people got)

1. Doesn't matter. The reason they get to choose is because of how it affects their body. No more. No less. That it allows them an additional choice is inconsequential in my opinion and the opinion of most people who are pro-choice.

2. I've brought this up before. I believe that given the current state of things that one would have no reasonable support for a man saying he would like to continue the pregnancy and a woman opting out of child support. Child support is a right of the child if born. As such, either a man or a woman both have the option of ending a pregnancy with the same consequences or a man and a woman both have the option of continuing a pregnancy with the same consequences.

What your scenario doesn't address is the cost of an abortion to a woman v. a man and the cost of pregnancy for a woman v. a man. A man's life and health is not risked in any scenario. Until that changes I have no problem with a woman having more 'priveleges' to match their added responsibility in regards to a pregnancy.

Typical. When arguing for legalised abortions, bust out the coathangers. :rolleyes:

Y'know, if for some reason, nose jobs were ever made illegal, I doubt we'd here sob stories about steak-knife rhinoplasty.
Wait, what the hell are you yelling at me for? I wasn't the one who brought in this line of discussion. I'm actually in the process of arguing that coathanger abortions are largely beside the point in our current discussion.

Wait, what the hell are you yelling at me for? I wasn't the one who brought in this line of discussion.

Tone down the histrionics. I didn't yell at all.

1) The death of the embryo/foetus is utterly inconsequential.
That's a completely subjective opinion and yet you present it as a factual point in support of your position on abortion.

2) The embryo/foetus isn't even cabable of noticing if it's destroyed.
At the risk of sounding childish or flippant about this, YOU ARE WRONG. You'll forgive my lacking the time to consult my foetal development notes, however from what I remember some research has shown that foetuses are capable of feeling pain from approximately 12 weeks onwards. They also show evidence of neural activity from a relatively early stage of development.

4) There are 6.6 billion humans cluttering up the planet and making a mess already, do we really want any more? Especially when they're unwanted anyway.
:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Frankly, with all due respect to the poster, this point is utterly moronic. Since you indicated from your post that you are from the UK (or at least the cool side of the Atlantic :) ), you should be well aware that large tracts of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland (both North and South of the border) remain uninabited. As for the rest of the world the same applies only a thousand times over. In short, there is plenty of space for many more people.

Tone down the histrionics. I didn't yell at all.
Tone down the patronizing attempt at snark. Trying to shut people up by acting as if they are "over emotional" is a tired, pathetic tactic. I'm not freaking out on you, I just have no patience with your sloppy attempt to insert yourself into this discussion.

But you're right, you didn't yell...you just decided to act bratty and sarcastic at me without bothering to actually read the thread.

Feel free to apologize for your mistake whenever you are ready.

Typical. When arguing for legalised abortions, bust out the coathangers. :rolleyes:

Y'know, if for some reason, nose jobs were ever made illegal, I doubt we'd here sob stories about steak-knife rhinoplasty.

You'd hear it from me and anyone with even a modicum of respect for human rights. I would feel sorrow for anyone who became desperate enough for such measures because their rights were denied them. I'm funny that way.

At the risk of sounding childish or flippant about this, YOU ARE WRONG. You'll forgive my lacking the time to consult my foetal development notes, however from what I remember some research has shown that foetuses are capable of feeling pain from approximately 12 weeks onwards. They also show evidence of neural activity from a relatively early stage of development.


Actually, he's right. No brain activity occurs until the 20th week of pregnancy, and even then it only occurs in short bursts. The fetus cannot feel pain without a functioning brain.

That's a completely subjective opinion and yet you present it as a factual point in support of your position on abortion.


At the risk of sounding childish or flippant about this, YOU ARE WRONG. You'll forgive my lacking the time to consult my foetal development notes, however from what I remember some research has shown that foetuses are capable of feeling pain from approximately 12 weeks onwards. They also show evidence of neural activity from a relatively early stage of development.

You do realize that at 12 weeks almost all elective abortions have already been performed no? This makes you point have a value of 0. YOU ARE WRONG. See how easy that is.

Meanwhile, neural activity is not consciousness. It requires consciousness in order to have any desire or care for your survival. The fetus is not capable of consciousness until just about the third trimester when elective abortions are illegal and abortions in general are very traumatic to the woman.

The activity you are describing is from the brainstem and has little to do with consciousness. Pain has NOTHING to do with it.


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

Frankly, with all due respect to the poster, this point is utterly moronic. Since you indicated from your post that you are from the UK (or at least the cool side of the Atlantic :) ), you should be well aware that large tracts of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland (both North and South of the border) remain uninabited. As for the rest of the world the same applies only a thousand times over. In short, there is plenty of space for many more people.

So it's moronic to notice that we take more than our share of resources on the planet but it's not moronic to suggest that as long as there's space then it's okay to spread? Hmmmmm.... I think I'm going to have to disagree. There is space for over 100 people in my home, forgive me if I never try it.

Actually, he's right. No brain activity occurs until the 20th week of pregnancy, and even then it only occurs in short bursts. The fetus cannot feel pain without a functioning brain.

Brainstem. Pain can be a reflexive action and does occur in that form much earlier. However, there is no forebrain activity and thus no thought or consciousness (the measure we use for life at EVERY other stage).

Feel free to apologize for your mistake whenever you are ready.

You may not have been the first to bust out the coathanger, but you continued waving it around. I've got nothing for which I need to apologise.

You'd hear it from me and anyone with even a modicum of respect for human rights. I would feel sorrow for anyone who became desperate enough for such measures because their rights were denied them. I'm funny that way.

No, not funny, just overly emotional and unable to make rational judgments on issues. It's okay, though, Jocabia. I still like you. :)

Oh, btw, mate, I owe you an apology. See your TGs in a minute or so.

You may not have been the first to bust out the coathanger, but you continued waving it around. I've got nothing for which I need to apologise.



No, not funny, just overly emotional and unable to make rational judgments on issues. It's okay, though, Jocabia. I still like you. :)

Oh, btw, mate, I owe you an apology. See your TGs in a minute or so.

Soing having respect for human rights is irrational? Treating two medical procedures that should BOTH be the choice of the subject of those procedures equally is irrational?

I include emotion in my judgement of matters. I'm silly like that. It doesn't override reason, but it certainly is a factor in my rational reviews of situations. If not for emotion, why would I care if say a person raped an unconscious woman provided the woman never found out about it? Would you consider it irrational to care if someone molested a child when they were too young to be aware of it? I suspect you don't even agree with your use of the word irrational here.

EDIT: Thank you. You left me more than a little confused as I had no idea what you were talking about with that, at the time. I want to say it here, because I think it's good for people to see things like this (we air enough dirty laundry around here, how about some of the clean and fresh once in a while?). It takes a big man or woman to admit when they make a mistake, particularly one that has such potential for creating a feud of sorts, and I'm very impressed. It wasn't a big deal, but apologizes is. Thank you, again.

1. Doesn't matter. The reason they get to choose is because of how it affects their body. No more. No less. That it allows them an additional choice is inconsequential in my opinion and the opinion of most people who are pro-choice.
However if the justification is removed - by removing the foetal development from the woman then the choice vanishes. You would need a different justification to terminate the foetus.


2. I've brought this up before. I believe that given the current state of things that one would have no reasonable support for a man saying he would like to continue the pregnancy and a woman opting out of child support. Child support is a right of the child if born. As such, either a man or a woman both have the option of ending a pregnancy with the same consequences or a man and a woman both have the option of continuing a pregnancy with the same consequences.
Can you clarify what you mean. I am not sure how this ties in or what you are trying to say.


What your scenario doesn't address is the cost of an abortion to a woman v. a man and the cost of pregnancy for a woman v. a man. A man's life and health is not risked in any scenario. Until that changes I have no problem with a woman having more 'priveleges' to match their added responsibility in regards to a pregnancy.
I would have thought it did.

I mentioned the effect on the womans body in the scenario would be the same as an abortion where the foetus is also terminated. After that point it has no effect on her body at all. Hence in the context of debate on this vs abortion to terminate a foetus the health cost is addressed.

Soing having respect for human rights is irrational? Treating two medical procedures that should BOTH be the choice of the subject of those procedures equally is irrational?

I include emotion in my judgement of matters. I'm silly like that. It doesn't override reason, but it certainly is a factor in my rational reviews of situations. If not for emotion, why would I care if say a person raped an unconscious woman provided the woman never found out about it? Would you consider it irrational to care if someone molested a child when they were too young to be aware of it? I suspect you don't even agree with your use of the word irrational here.

When discussing matters of law, no, emotion shouldn't enter into it. The law is supposed to be impassive, impartial, and unbiased. Emotion clouds all of those.

When discussing matters of law, no, emotion shouldn't enter into it. The law is supposed to be impassive, impartial, and unbiased. Emotion clouds all of those.

Matters of law? Pardon? It's absolutely possible to be impassive, impartial and unbiased as a matter of law while examining emotional reasons for creating the law in the first place. As long as the law is equitable in letter, and equitable in application, that the reasoning includes emotion is not necessarily a bad thing.

Again, why should the law car if a man sodomizes his infant son who won't be aware of it? Absent emotion, there really isn't a reason provided the child is uninjured. I don't think you really support removing all emotion from our reasoning for law.

Frankly, I'd be most concerned that the availability of that kind of procedure would eventually make it impossible for any except the very rich to have a normal, full-term pregnancy. Employers would simply expect all their employees to have a "tube pregnancy," and wouldn't be very forgiving toward women who wanted to choose to have a full-term pregnancy when they could just as well choose not to.Indeed.

And so postmodernism continues to grease the rails for the cyborg future...

:)

Frankly, with all due respect to the poster, this point is utterly moronic. Since you indicated from your post that you are from the UK (or at least the cool side of the Atlantic :) ), you should be well aware that large tracts of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland (both North and South of the border) remain uninabited. As for the rest of the world the same applies only a thousand times over. In short, there is plenty of space for many more people.
Now THAT is utterly moronic.

Do you honestly believe that the overpopulation problem has the first thing to do with space? Seriously?

Indeed.

And so postmodernism continues to grease the rails for the cyborg future...

:)

i, for one, welcome our robot overlords

i, for one, welcome our robot overlords

Then you should welcome me. After all, I pass the Turing test.

EDIT: Thank you. You left me more than a little confused as I had no idea what you were talking about with that, at the time. I want to say it here, because I think it's good for people to see things like this (we air enough dirty laundry around here, how about some of the clean and fresh once in a while?). It takes a big man or woman to admit when they make a mistake, particularly one that has such potential for creating a feud of sorts, and I'm very impressed. It wasn't a big deal, but apologizes is. Thank you, again.

You shouldn't be impressed really. I made a mistake and a realised it, so an apology was due. Doesn't take a "big man or woman" to admit it, just one with half a brain and some sense of proper social behaviour. ;)

Since when is not wanting to be pregnant the reason given by women who want an abortion?

Although at very late stages at pregnancy, that is sometimes the only justification they have.

However if the justification is removed - by removing the foetal development from the woman then the choice vanishes. You would need a different justification to terminate the foetus.

You don't need any justification. It's a part of her body. That's enough. You'll never be able to change that. Meanwhile, in cases like in vitro, I believe men and woman have equal opportunity to stop the process until it enters a woman's body.


Can you clarify what you mean. I am not sure how this ties in or what you are trying to say.

What this means is that in the current system if a woman decides to continue a pregnancy the man is obligated to the child, due to the child having rights.

If a man could continue a pregnancy without harm to the woman, then equality would suggest that a woman should be equally obligated to the child, due to the child having rights.

Currently the only way to end that obligation is for someone acting on behalf of the child to allow it. I would think it would still be that way, if all things were equal.




I would have thought it did.

I mentioned the effect on the womans body in the scenario would be the same as an abortion where the foetus is also terminated. After that point it has no effect on her body at all. Hence in the context of debate on this vs abortion to terminate a foetus the health cost is addressed.

No, it isn't. Because there is still a health cost to the woman and not to the man. As such there is ample reason for a woman to claim that she should permitted to decided the results of that risk. As it is now an abortion is less physically traumatic to a woman than a birth (if the abortion is during the elective time frame), if you are only talking about equal risk, then a man should be able to demand an abortion. The problem here is that as soon as their is a physical risk, or even a case where the woman is physically affected in any way, it becomes a matter of her concern and a matter for her to decide.

You shouldn't be impressed really. I made a mistake and a realised it, so an apology was due. Doesn't take a "big man or woman" to admit it, just one with half a brain and some sense of proper social behaviour. ;)

It would be nice, I suppose, if this were not impressive, but given the world as it is, I stand by my statement.

It would be nice, I suppose, if this were not impressive, but given the world as it is, I stand by my statement.

Well, your thanks, though unnecessary, are appreciated. :)

You don't need any justification. It's a part of her body. That's enough. You'll never be able to change that. Meanwhile, in cases like in vitro, I believe men and woman have equal opportunity to stop the process until it enters a woman's body.
The foetus is not actually a part of the womans body. It is inside the womans body and reliant on her to live but it is not a part of her body.


What this means is that in the current system if a woman decides to continue a pregnancy the man is obligated to the child, due to the child having rights.

If a man could continue a pregnancy without harm to the woman, then equality would suggest that a woman should be equally obligated to the child, due to the child having rights.

Currently the only way to end that obligation is for someone acting on behalf of the child to allow it. I would think it would still be that way, if all things were equal.

Oh right. Yep. I think we all have agreement on that. The only reason I raised child support in the OP was due to arguements surrounging it to point to abortion being used to end a pregnancy rather than to avoid parenthood.


No, it isn't. Because there is still a health cost to the woman and not to the man. As such there is ample reason for a woman to claim that she should permitted to decided the results of that risk. As it is now an abortion is less physically traumatic to a woman than a birth (if the abortion is during the elective time frame), if you are only talking about equal risk, then a man should be able to demand an abortion. The problem here is that as soon as their is a physical risk, or even a case where the woman is physically affected in any way, it becomes a matter of her concern and a matter for her to decide.
I am really not sure what you are getting at here. My OP was definately not suggesting this as a route for a man to demand an abortion if that is what you thought I was getting at. I was also not suggesting that she be forced to carry the baby to term.

The options are:
1. Carry the baby to term.
2. Abort the pregnancy and terminate the foetus with risk of X% and effect to her body of Y
3. Abort the pregnancy and grow the foetus in an artificial womb with a risk of X% and effect on her body of Y then give her back the baby at 9months development.

2 and 3 have the same effect on her body - hence the cost in terms of her health has been addressed in the context of abortion to terminate a foetus and the alternative proposed. Obviously you could not demand she undergo the procedure as it is her body so you cannot prevent her from carrying the baby to term if she wishes. The question is to examine wether she has the right to terminate the foetus if it can contnue to be grown outside of her and the removal procedure has no different effect on her body than one that would terminate the foetus. I do not see how the health cost to the man (or lack of) has any bearing on this at all, and the health cost of 2 and 3 are the same and so has no bearing, and the health cost of 1 is the womans choice.

Thanks to Jocabia and AnarchyeL for defending my post, probably more eloquently than I'm about to :)

That's a completely subjective opinion and yet you present it as a factual point in support of your position on abortion.
Well yes, pretty much everything is subjective. But do you have anything to say to support the death of the embryo/foetus being of consequence? A negative consequence would be most useful, because if you're going to list positive consequences (eg. the mother not having to undergo the remainder of pregnancy and childbirth, the parents not having to look after an unwanted child that they may not have the resources to care for) it's not going to make the abortion look bad. So perhaps you're right, and "inconsequential" wasn't the correct word; the death of the embryo/foetus merely has no negative consequences.

At the risk of sounding childish or flippant about this, YOU ARE WRONG. You'll forgive my lacking the time to consult my foetal development notes, however from what I remember some research has shown that foetuses are capable of feeling pain from approximately 12 weeks onwards. They also show evidence of neural activity from a relatively early stage of development.
Most creatures have a pain response. Some research has suggested this includes plants (amusing magazine opinion-piece that mentions it (http://www.newstatesman.com/200408020017)). That doesn't mean it cares if it's destroyed, because it doesn't have any form of consciousness to care with.
And if I don't feel guilty when eating a cow, that almost certainly suffered some pain when slaughtered, or whilst devouring the corpse of a cabbage that probably went through all sorts of unpleasant plant "pain" responses as it was cut from its roots and left to slowly die without any care or comfort, I'm unlikely to care or feel guilty if unwanted human embryos are disposed of.

Frankly, with all due respect to the poster, this point is utterly moronic. Since you indicated from your post that you are from the UK (or at least the cool side of the Atlantic :) ), you should be well aware that large tracts of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland (both North and South of the border) remain uninabited. As for the rest of the world the same applies only a thousand times over. In short, there is plenty of space for many more people.

So we should build highrise flats over the entirety of Britain, and dig burrows in the hills and mountains? That should give us room, in Britain alone, for several hundreds of millions of people.
A few things... What do they eat? Where does their waste go? Where does their water come from? It requires more - a lot more - space to keep a human alive than that human occupies.
Even if we have them packt like sardines in a crushd tin box, you have to keep them fed, clean and watered for them to live. And living in a world like that - not even living, existing; what would there be? People, in boxes, doing nothing - it would be hell... Would you really want to?

The foetus is not actually the womans body. It is inside the womans body and reliant on her to live but it is not a part of her body.

You'd have a hard time proving it. At the time of most abortions, it does not biologically qualify as a separate organism yet. It's qualifications are much more similar to an organ.


Oh right. Yep. I think we all have agreement on that. The only reason I raised child support in the OP was due to arguements surrounging it to point to abortion being used to end a pregnancy rather than to avoid parenthood.


I am really not sure what you are getting at here. My OP was definately not suggesting this as a route for a man to demand an abortion if that is what you thought I was getting at. I was also not suggesting that she be forced to carry the baby to term.

I recognize that you weren't saying that, but it is a logical extension of your argument. One must accept that as long as she is physically affected, she gets to determine the course of action for dealing with that effect.



The options are:
1. Carry the baby to term.
2. Abort the pregnancy and terminate the foetus with risk of X% and effect to her body of Y
3. Abort the pregnancy and grow the foetus in an artificial womb with a risk of X% and effect on her body of Y then give her back the baby at 9months development.

2 and 3 have the same effect on her body - hence the cost in terms of her health has been addressed in the context of abortion to terminate a foetus and the alternative proposed. Obviously you could not demand she undergo the procedure as it is her body so you cannot prevent her from carrying the baby to term if she wishes. The question is to examine wether she has the right to terminate the foetus if it can contnue to be grown outside of her and the removal procedure has no different effect on her body than one that would terminate the foetus. I do not see how the health cost to the man (or lack of) has any bearing on this at all, and the health cost of 2 and 3 are the same and so has no bearing, and the health cost of 1 is the womans choice.

Again, you're missing the point. I'll elaborate.

Let's use a different example.

A woman has X effect to her body if she gets an early term abortion
A woman has 3X if she carries to term.
A man does not want a child and as such demands she get an abortion.

Now absent any other consideration and assuming, as you have, that the only thing that matters is whether the effect physically is equal or lesser, then the man should be able to demand an abortion.

However, as a matter of law and of conscience, she is and should be permitted to make a decision that has ANY physical consequence to her. In other words, even if the risk is equal it is still her choice and should be as long as any risk at all exists.

While I would accept such technology for the use of women who would like to have their child but avoid the trials of pregnany, I cannot accept its use as a mandatory substitute for abortion.

I think what has been overlooked in this discussion is the real nature of obligation. We have tacitly assumed the usual, liberal, voluntarist approach to obligation, which holds that a person is obliged to some duty only if we can (in some way) trace that duty back to the individual's own consent.

Feminists have pointed out that this is a very gendered theory of obligation, at least within the context of sexist society, the gendered public/private split, and male dispossession. We have pointed out that men maintain patriarchy in large part through a refusal to care. The house gets dirty? A man will let it sit until his wife/mother/daughter/sister cleans it. Children need to be fed, dressed, entertained? Daddy manages to ignore them.

Women, historically, have been more accustomed to "given" forms of obligation. They feel obliged to help family members because of the attachments between them, not because they agreed to any "contract." They clean the house because someone needs to do it, and they take care of children for much the same reason.

Traditional divorce and child custody practices merely formalize this arrangment: mothers take the children, while fathers pay them a wage to do so. Indeed, fathers generally resist child-support, paying as little and as infrequently as possible. They don't feel obliged to provide for their children.

Yes, increasingly there are all kinds of exceptions, which means that society may actually be starting to work through its gender issues. Finally.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that many women feel obliged to care for a child in ways that men, generally speaking, do not. This may be the reason that men fail to understand a woman's decision to abort a pregnancy, even against such possibilities as its continued growth in an artificial womb.

As the OP correctly argues, many women opt for abortion because they do not want to have a child--for whatever reason. Historically, a popular response has been, "But why don't you bring it to term and then put it up for adoption? That way, the child gets to live, and you don't have to raise it."

The argument from obligation against this position has, to date, been largely obscured by the much easier argument that a woman has a right to terminate a contingent biological process in her own body--she doesn't "just" want to avoid raising a child, she also wants to avoid pregnancy.

An artificial womb would, indeed, obviate this argument. Women could end their pregnancy without preventing the birth of a child. The child could be given up for adoption--or so the argument goes.

The problem is that many women would feel an obligation toward a living child that they do not feel toward a fetus. That is, a woman can reasonably think to herself, "I have no obligation toward this fetus, because it is not a living, breathing, feeling child. But if I do bring a child into this world, I would feel obliged to raise it. Indeed, I would feel I have no other morally acceptable choice."

Thus, the option you are giving a woman is to either raise a child herself, or put it up for adoption--and she may have a reasonable moral objection to putting her own child up for adoption.

Many women would wind up raising children that they did not want, would not have chosen for themselves, out of a sense of obligation. And how is this any different than a world in which abortion is illegal or difficult to obtain?

Why is it, do you think, that women who cannot obtain abortions choose NOT to put their children up for adoption?

Compulsory artificial gestation would be no different.

You'd have a hard time proving it. At the time of most abortions, it does not biologically qualify as a separate organism yet. It's qualifications are much more similar to an organ.
I would be interested to see what someone with more medical knowlege thinks of this. I am pretty sure that it is never actually a part of the mothers/womans body - it is embedded in her but not a part of her.

Kinda like how tapeworm eggs are not a part of your body either.



Again, you're missing the point. I'll elaborate.

Let's use a different example.

A woman has X effect to her body if she gets an early term abortion
A woman has 3X if she carries to term.
A man does not want a child and as such demands she get an abortion.

Now absent any other consideration and assuming, as you have, that the only thing that matters is whether the effect physically is equal or lesser, then the man should be able to demand an abortion.

However, as a matter of law and of conscience, she is and should be permitted to make a decision that has ANY physical consequence to her. In other words, even if the risk is equal it is still her choice and should be as long as any risk at all exists.
Oh.

I still do not see how this ties in with the scenario which had nothing to do with men being able to demand abortions which seems to be what you are getting at. It is about the womans right to terminate a foetus rather than to terminate a pregnancy and how the justification often used for abortion focuses only on the pregnancy rather than the foetus.

Particulary since I mentioned the extraction procedure is assumed to have the same effect - it may even be the same method but refined so it affects the foetus differently without affecting the mother differently.

I would be interested to see what someone with more medical knowlege thinks of this. I am pretty sure that it is never actually a part of the mothers/womans body - it is embedded in her but not a part of her.

Kinda like how tapeworm eggs are not a part of your body either.Great.

So it's either a cancer... or, it's a parasite.

*snip*

In acceptance that this is ONLY generally true (and you admitted as much), I found this very interesting. I've never thought of it quite that way before and I have to say at first glance I find it very compelling. Thanks.

In acceptance that this is ONLY generally true (and you admitted as much), I found this very interesting. I've never thought of it quite that way before and I have to say at first glance I find it very compelling. Thanks.My pleasure.

If you're groping about for a source with a more extended discussion of the feminist critique of liberal voluntarism, a good place to start would be Nancy J. Hirschmann's essay "Rethinking Obligation for Feminism," found in an edited volume titled Revisioning the Political: Feminist Reconstructions of Traditional Concepts in Western Political Theory, eds. Nancy Hirschmann and Christine Di Stefano. Boulder, CO: Westview Press (1996).

Actually, most of the book is quite good. You can probably find it at a local library.

I would be interested to see what someone with more medical knowlege thinks of this. I am pretty sure that it is never actually a part of the mothers/womans body - it is embedded in her but not a part of her.

Kinda like how tapeworm eggs are not a part of your body either.

Actually, I'm completely certain. I've done extensive research. A requirement to be an organism is to react as an organism. To react as a whole. On this note, the early fetus fails. It does not have the required qualities of an organism.


Oh.

I still do not see how this ties in with the scenario which had nothing to do with men being able to demand abortions which seems to be what you are getting at. It is about the womans right to terminate a foetus rather than to terminate a pregnancy and how the justification often used for abortion focuses only on the pregnancy rather than the foetus.

Particulary since I mentioned the extraction procedure is assumed to have the same effect - it may even be the same method but refined so it affects the foetus differently without affecting the mother differently.

Still doesn't matter. You don't get it but as long as it affects the mother's body AT ALL, then it's her decision.

I don't you don't see how this ties in, but it's the clear and obvious flaw in your claims. I recognize what you're trying to say, but it rests on denying the logical extensions of your claim. Until you figure out a way to address them, your scenario will always be hopelessly flawed.

Still doesn't matter. You don't get it but as long as it affects the mother's body AT ALL, then it's her decision.

I don't you don't see how this ties in, but it's the clear and obvious flaw in your claims. I recognize what you're trying to say, but it rests on denying the logical extensions of your claim. Until you figure out a way to address them, your scenario will always be hopelessly flawed.

I still do not see what you are getting at.

The extraction procedure for the woman is exactly the same. It effects her in exactly the same way. There is no different effect whatsoever. As far as her body is concerned the procedures are identical, the only difference is how the procedure affects the foetus.

I do not see the logical extension that is being denied - the equivalency of the procedures was mainly to state that by asking the woman to keep the foetus alive it does not affect her body in any way - least of all adversely. In addition - my arguement is that she should still be able to decide to have the foetus terminated should she choose.

I really do not see how this is hopelessly flawed...

*note, I've really only read the OP and a few other posts*

I think the problem here is that the OP seems to presume that, if an argument is used for the legality of abortion, it must be the prime intent of someone seeking an abortion, and vice versa. This is not true. The reason that abortion is legal is the fact that a woman has the right to make her own medical decisions and determine whether or not she will remain pregnant. The reason that she wishes to end a pregnancy (or continue it) is irrelevant to the fact that she can make her own medical decisions and thus can decide to do either.

It is probably true that most abortions occur because the woman in question does not wish to become a parent at this time and, for that reason, she does not wish to be pregnant at this time. But the issue of why she has the right to an abortion has to do with personal autonomy, not with whether or not she wishes to be a parent. If the child were already born, whether or not she wanted to be a parent would be irrelevant. She would either have to take care of that child or see to it that someone else would take care of the child.

I still do not see what you are getting at.

The extraction procedure for the woman is exactly the same. It effects her in exactly the same way. There is no different effect whatsoever. As far as her body is concerned the procedures are identical, the only difference is how the procedure affects the foetus.

I do not see the logical extension that is being denied - the equivalency of the procedures was mainly to state that by asking the woman to keep the foetus alive it does not affect her body in any way - least of all adversely. In addition - my arguement is that she should still be able to decide to have the foetus terminated should she choose.

I really do not see how this is hopelessly flawed...

Again, I know you don't.

A. There is a procedure performed on a woman.
B. That procedure has physical effects on the women.

As long as A and B are true, the woman does and should have the right to decide whether that procedure is performed. Even if she would willing undergo a procedure with the exact same effects, she gets to decide.

You're saying -
A. There is a procedure performed.
B. That has physical effects on the woman.
C. If those physical effects are equal for two procedures, then and affect someone else then that person can choose the procedure for her.

If C is true, and you most certainly are claiming it is, then if abortion and pregnancy have the EXACT same effects then a man can force a woman to have an abortion. Also, it's true that the risk to the woman is much less for an early-term abortion than pregnancy, so if your claims were true, a man would already be allowed to do this.

C isn't true and you know it isn't true or you wouldn't be claiming that a man cannot demand she get an abortion.

What this means is that in the current system if a woman decides to continue a pregnancy the man is obligated to the child, due to the child having rights.
If a man could continue a pregnancy without harm to the woman, then equality would suggest that a woman should be equally obligated to the child, due to the child having rights.
Currently the only way to end that obligation is for someone acting on behalf of the child to allow it. I would think it would still be that way, if all things were equal.
Yay! Finally someone in agreement with what I posted in reply #10 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12472272&postcount=10). :D

Again, I know you don't.

A. There is a procedure performed on a woman.
B. That procedure has physical effects on the women.

As long as A and B are true, the woman does and should have the right to decide whether that procedure is performed. Even if she would willing undergo a procedure with the exact same effects, she gets to decide.

You're saying -
A. There is a procedure performed.
B. That has physical effects on the woman.
C. If those physical effects are equal for two procedures, then and affect someone else then that person can choose the procedure for her.

If C is true, and you most certainly are claiming it is, then if abortion and pregnancy have the EXACT same effects then a man can force a woman to have an abortion. Also, it's true that the risk to the woman is much less for an early-term abortion than pregnancy, so if your claims were true, a man would already be allowed to do this.

C isn't true and you know it isn't true or you wouldn't be claiming that a man cannot demand she get an abortion.
How does this lead to a man being able to force a woman to have an abortion?

I think what you are saying is that even though the procedures are the same then the woman should have the right to a termination regardless of whether it is more or less dangerous to her.

I agree.

I have no idea why you are bringing men into this. It seems quite bizarre. Particularly since his being is not being physically affected in any way, while the being of the fetus is.


I think the problem here is that the OP seems to presume that, if an argument is used for the legality of abortion, it must be the prime intent of someone seeking an abortion, and vice versa. This is not true. The reason that abortion is legal is the fact that a woman has the right to make her own medical decisions and determine whether or not she will remain pregnant. The reason that she wishes to end a pregnancy (or continue it) is irrelevant to the fact that she can make her own medical decisions and thus can decide to do either.
I was more trying to say that if the basis of the argument for abortion is removed then you have a problem if you want to keep abortion legal. If the basis of allowing abortion is that a woman can choose to be 'not pregnant' and that the death of the fetus is an unavoidable side effect of this - then if the death of the fetus is made avoidable then should a woman be able to terminate the fetus. If the answer is yes then the argument is that the woman can choose to not be a parent rather than not be pregnant.

Which I support.

Again, the mother does not have the right to KILL A FETUS.
I remembered something that directly relates to this and the topic in discussion.

In the UK (I think) you can if you are going for fertility treatment choose to terminate an embryo after it is created. So what? you're just preventing it from being implanted - the woman is still exercising her right to determine what goes in her body. Well - there was a case fairly recently that caused a big stir when such an embryo was destroyed. Why such a big stir? because the couple broke up and the man ordered the embryos to be destroyed (the woman had had her ovaries removed and could not have children of her own if the embryos were destroyed which is why it was a big issue). So a person who is not going to be physically affected by an embryo can order it to be destroyed if it does not affect another person - which (in the UK at least) would indicate the right is to kill an embryo (and presumeably a fetus) rather than to end the pregnancy.

I felt this related to the topic at hand due to the nature of the embryo/fetus being outside the body and due to a possible effect of still allowing terminations if such a procedure existed as mentioned in the scenario that would be an issue for couples choosing to have a baby with that method - that the man could choose to terminate - which would make putting the fetus into the artificial womb quite a trust exercise - or at east would initally be a big culture shock.

*snip*

I think the point was that - hypothetically - if the current abortion procedure, where the embryo dies, were replaced with one where the embryo were instead removed and placed into a magical robotic womb to be delivered when it was ready, healthy and alive, what then?
Would the parent(s) still have to look after the baby after its robotic birth? Would the justification of not having to remain pregnant; having control over your own body, etc.; mean that they were still obliged to look after it? Or are there other justifications saying that they don't, or that the embryo should just be killed?
Would it be a good thing?
Would it even be acceptable for the existing procedure to be replaced in this way?

And German Nightmare (I think) later asked: If this technology were available and the mother wanted an abortion, but the father wanted to keep the child, should he be allowed to say that the removed embryo should be brought to term in one of the robotic wombs? And would the mother have to pay child support? He has no control over the woman's body, of course, but he had as much a hand in creating the embryo as she did.

All this assumes that the remove-for-robotic-womb-insertion procedure is, at worst, no more harmful than the current, normal abortion procedure.

At least, that's what my caffeine-and-chocolate addled brain thinks it remembers the OP etc. being about. I've only skim-read the last few pages, so feel free to insult me if I've missed something blindingly obvious. Or am just being stupid.

How does this lead to a man being able to force a woman to have an abortion?

How does this lead to anyone being able to force the woman to allow the fetus to reach full-term?


I think what you are saying is that even though the procedures are the same then the woman should have the right to a termination regardless of whether it is more or less dangerous to her.

I agree.

I have no idea why you are bringing men into this. It seems quite bizarre. Particularly since his being is not being physically affected in any way, while the being of the fetus is.

The fetus has no rights. Now you could argue that someone could act on behalf of the fetus, but if that is so, then both the man and the woman would be that someone. So the man would have equal access to the decision by your argument. Anything the state can force, the parents have a right to force first.



I was more trying to say that if the basis of the argument for abortion is removed then you have a problem if you want to keep abortion legal. If the basis of allowing abortion is that a woman can choose to be 'not pregnant' and that the death of the fetus is an unavoidable side effect of this - then if the death of the fetus is made avoidable then should a woman be able to terminate the fetus. If the answer is yes then the argument is that the woman can choose to not be a parent rather than not be pregnant.

Which I support.

You cannot individually choose to not be a parent, because a child has rights. You can choose not to BECOME a parent through various means, but you cannot abdicate your responsibility to the child without some proxy agreeing to take it.

Meanwhile, the larger basis for the argument against removing the choice is that the embry and early-stage fetus are not persons and thus have no rights. No need to do anything affecting a woman to look out for non-existant rights of non-existant beings.

I still do not see how this ties in with the scenario which had nothing to do with men being able to demand abortions which seems to be what you are getting at. It is about the womans right to terminate a foetus rather than to terminate a pregnancy and how the justification often used for abortion focuses only on the pregnancy rather than the foetus.

Particulary since I mentioned the extraction procedure is assumed to have the same effect - it may even be the same method but refined so it affects the foetus differently without affecting the mother differently.

If I have the option of two (or even three or four) medical treatments that will all have the same effect and the same level of risk, I still get to choose between them - because it is my body which is involved. I'm pretty sure that is what Jocabia is getting at. It doesn't matter if the two procedures would have the exact same effect on the mother - she still gets to determine whether or not to end her pregnancy, and what method she will use to do so.

I was more trying to say that if the basis of the argument for abortion is removed then you have a problem if you want to keep abortion legal. If the basis of allowing abortion is that a woman can choose to be 'not pregnant' and that the death of the fetus is an unavoidable side effect of this - then if the death of the fetus is made avoidable then should a woman be able to terminate the fetus. If the answer is yes then the argument is that the woman can choose to not be a parent rather than not be pregnant.

Which I support.

You haven't removed the "basis of the argument for abortion." The basis is still just as much there. The only difference you are introducing is a possible medical option that is currently unavailable. The woman still gets to determine what medical procedures she will and will not undergo. If she wishes to undergo a standard abortion, that is her choice. If she wishes to have the embryo/fetus extracted intact, that is her choice. If she wishes to carry to term, that is her choice.

Now, the issue of child custody would be an interesting one, and it would depend on the exact legalities put in place with the use of the artificial womb. I'm quite certain that there would be options in place for the parents to use the artificial womb instead of the woman undergoing pregnancy, and still be the parents once it was "born." But what would happen if they did not want the child is a bit less clear. It could be that the some of the companies running such facilities would also be adoption facilities, so that the child would be brought to term and then given up for adoption. It could be that, if run by the government, these children would be considered wards of the state. Or it could be that these children would be considered legal wards of their parents, until such a time as the parents gave the children up for adoption.

Look, if something happens to my living child and she is on life support, as her parent I may opt to pull the plug, or refuse heroic measures, and so on.

So if someone removes my fetus and puts it on life support, shouldn't the same logic hold?

Duh?

Look, if something happens to my living child and she is on life support, as her parent I may opt to pull the plug, or refuse heroic measures, and so on.

So if someone removes my fetus and puts it on life support, shouldn't the same logic hold?

Duh?
That argument is going down a dangerously unwinnable road.

It gives creedence to the pro-life argument "if I leave a baby in a forest and it dies, isn't it murder?"

Their retort will be the fetus is happy and healthy inside the mom.

That argument is going down a dangerously unwinnable road.

It gives creedence to the pro-life argument "if I leave a baby in a forest and it dies, isn't it murder?"

Their retort will be the fetus is happy and healthy inside the mom.

The fetus is incapable of happiness.

The fetus is incapable of happiness.

I don't agree with the argument at all. That's just the path that particular argument will go down.

How does this lead to anyone being able to force the woman to allow the fetus to reach full-term?
You mean once it is outside her?


The fetus has no rights. Now you could argue that someone could act on behalf of the fetus, but if that is so, then both the man and the woman would be that someone. So the man would have equal access to the decision by your argument. Anything the state can force, the parents have a right to force first.

You cannot individually choose to not be a parent, because a child has rights. You can choose not to BECOME a parent through various means, but you cannot abdicate your responsibility to the child without some proxy agreeing to take it.

Meanwhile, the larger basis for the argument against removing the choice is that the embry and early-stage fetus are not persons and thus have no rights. No need to do anything affecting a woman to look out for non-existant rights of non-existant beings.
I am still not seeing why you are bringing men into this. It sounds like you think i'm trying to sneek in an abortion choice for men. I am not.

I agree that an early stage fetus has few if any rights - which is why I would still support the right to an abortion even if such technology comes to exist.

However - the arguement that a woman has the right to be 'not pregnant' does not address the total lack of rights of the fetus - it merely states that the rights of the fetus are inferior to the womans right to decide to carry on the pregnancy. Stating that the fetus has few/no rights is a seperate and IMO more sensible arguement for allowing abortion - I place the rights of a fetus at that stage below the right of the mother to decide if she is prepared to raise a child.

The right to be 'not pregnant' does not imply the right to terminate the fetus, it merely implies the right to choose to not be pregnant and that unfortunately that choice results in the death of a fetus. I believe Arthais101 who knows a lot more about US law than me said that this is actually the legal case behind abortion - that the women does not explicitly have the legal right to kill the fetus, but that the law recognises her right to not be pregnant takes precedence over the right of the fetus to be in the womb and unfortunately for the fetus this means it dies/loses potential to live.

If such technology came about the right to be 'not pregnant' would still override the right of the fetus to be in the womb, but you would not have the issue of this resulting in certain death of it as it could still be brought to term.

Now - if you argue that a woman should be able to have an abortion based on her judgement of wethe she is able to be a parent then this issue vanishes. She can explicitly get an abortion on demand which is intended to kill the fetus.

It also removes the issue of the 'her body her right not to be pregnant' which logically leads to a woman being able to decide to have an abortion in month 8 as the fetus is still inside her and dependant on her - which although it has some supporters is generaly opposed even by many pro-lifers (I suspect a few on here do suport 8/9 month abortions.

(I suspect a few on here do suport 8/9 month abortions.As a mater of fact, under certain circumstances I happen to support 9/10/11 month "abortions."

If an infant is born with terrible, costly birth defects, I think the parents should have the option to humanely euthanize the child within several weeks after its birth.

As a mater of fact, under certain circumstances I happen to support 9/10/11 month "abortions."

If an infant is born with terrible, costly birth defects, I think the parents should have the option to humanely euthanize the child within several weeks after its birth.

I meant elective abortions of convienience.

If the child is:

1: Going to kill or seriously harm the mother if it is brought to term.
2: Going to be born with severe birth defects that will lead to it having only a short and painful life.

I support abortions whatever the month.

You mean once it is outside her?

Yes, of course. I'm not sure what's complicated about this. Even Dem (just kidding, Dem) caught what I was throwing.


I am still not seeing why you are bringing men into this. It sounds like you think i'm trying to sneek in an abortion choice for men. I am not.

No, I'm well aware that you're not. So much so that you don't recognize that your argument supports this. Because you don't intend for your argument to be used in this way, does not mean it won't. When you use an argument, you have to be sure that it's logical conclusion is the one you intend. Yours has a different logical conclusion that you haven't considered and don't support.


I agree that an early stage fetus has few if any rights - which is why I would still support the right to an abortion even if such technology comes to exist.

However - the arguement that a woman has the right to be 'not pregnant' does not address the total lack of rights of the fetus - it merely states that the rights of the fetus are inferior to the womans right to decide to carry on the pregnancy. Stating that the fetus has few/no rights is a seperate and IMO more sensible arguement for allowing abortion - I place the rights of a fetus at that stage below the right of the mother to decide if she is prepared to raise a child.

The woman has a right to decide what procedures she undergoes. Your claim does not change (or even recognize) that.


The right to be 'not pregnant' does not imply the right to terminate the fetus, it merely implies the right to choose to not be pregnant and that unfortunately that choice results in the death of a fetus. I believe Arthais101 who knows a lot more about US law than me said that this is actually the legal case behind abortion - that the women does not explicitly have the legal right to kill the fetus, but that the law recognises her right to not be pregnant takes precedence over the right of the fetus to be in the womb and unfortunately for the fetus this means it dies/loses potential to live.

If such technology came about the right to be 'not pregnant' would still override the right of the fetus to be in the womb, but you would not have the issue of this resulting in certain death of it as it could still be brought to term.

Again, you are claiming that a woman does not get to choose what procedures she undergoes and that it is only a matter of consequence, and you very simply have not considered the repercussions of that claim.


Now - if you argue that a woman should be able to have an abortion based on her judgement of wethe she is able to be a parent then this issue vanishes. She can explicitly get an abortion on demand which is intended to kill the fetus.

It also removes the issue of the 'her body her right not to be pregnant' which logically leads to a woman being able to decide to have an abortion in month 8 as the fetus is still inside her and dependant on her - which although it has some supporters is generaly opposed even by many pro-lifers (I suspect a few on here do suport 8/9 month abortions.

You are making an argument based on something you clearly haven't thought out. The argument is "her body, her right to decide what procedures are done to it". Pregnancy is simply a medical condition, one of any number she gets to make decisions about. You are substituting one medical condition for another and acting as, so long as the consequences are the same, it is not her decision. This is not supported by current law, current ethics, or any form of logic coming from your arguments.

Yes, of course. I'm not sure what's complicated about this. Even Dem (just kidding, Dem) caught what I was throwing.

Once the fetus is outside of her she no longer has any right to abort it under the basis that she has control over her body as it is not in her body. So if the justification for abortion is that she has autonomy over her body she would have no right to abort the fetus. If the justification is that she can determine whether to kill the fetus then she can of course abort it once it is outside her body.


No, I'm well aware that you're not. So much so that you don't recognize that your argument supports this. Because you don't intend for your argument to -be used in this way, does not mean it won't. When you use an argument, you have to be sure that it's logical conclusion is the one you intend. Yours has a different logical conclusion that you haven't considered and don't support.
On this point you are not taking a logical conclusion.

What you appear to be saying is:
-A woman wants to keep the baby.
-The man who got her pregnant does not.
-Abortions are less dangerous than childbirth.
-The man can therefore force her to undergo a surgery/medical procedure to extract from her the fetus and then terminate it once it is outside her body.

How the hell does the third part come about? Where in the logic would anything suggest the scenario allows a man to force a woman to have a medical procedure she would not have otherwise had against her will?

The only reason for the equal/less effect was that the scnario was to remove the possibility of "if it is a painful/dangerous/more invasive/etc procedure then she can choose to go with the one less hazardous to her health rather than being forced to further risk her health to protect the fetus"


The woman has a right to decide what procedures she undergoes. Your claim does not change (or even recognize) that.

my claim does recognise that - the arguement often used that i ave concerns about does not explicitly state the fetus has no rights, it relies on the fetus rights to be inferior to the womans right to choose not to be pregnant. If the woman can choose to be 'not pregnant' without infringing on the fetus right to life in a way that makes no difference to her body then logically the inferior rights of the fetus would come into play.

If however a woman can choose to completely override the rights of the fetus because she does not want to support it then she can terminate it regardless.


You are making an argument based on something you clearly haven't thought out. The argument is "her body, her right to decide what procedures are done to it". Pregnancy is simply a medical condition, one of any number she gets to make decisions about. You are substituting one medical condition for another and acting as, so long as the consequences are the same, it is not her decision. This is not supported by current law, current ethics, or any form of logic coming from your arguments.
Pray tell - why should she not be able to terminate the fetus in the 8th month on the basis that she has autonomy over her body and the right to choose to be not pregnant?

And which medical condition am I subistuting for another? Pregnancy with pregnancy?

Once the fetus is outside of her she no longer has any right to abort it under the basis that she has control over her body as it is not in her body. So if the justification for abortion is that she has autonomy over her body she would have no right to abort the fetus. If the justification is that she can determine whether to kill the fetus then she can of course abort it once it is outside her body.

I'm not sure how you're not following. You're advocating forcing her to undergo a specific procedure. It's that simple. The logical repercussion of saying you get to decide what procedures a woman undergoes is.... wait for it... wait for it... that she no longer has the right to decide for herself what procedures she undergoes. I know this isn't your intent, but come on, what could be a more basic conclusion.


On this point you are not taking a logical conclusion.

What you appear to be saying is:
-A woman wants to keep the baby.
-The man who got her pregnant does not.
-Abortions are less dangerous than childbirth.
-The man can therefore force her to undergo a surgery/medical procedure to extract from her the fetus and then terminate it once it is outside her body.

How the hell does the third part come about? Where in the logic would anything suggest the scenario allows a man to force a woman to have a medical procedure she would not have otherwise had against her will?

The procedure terminates the fetus. The man would simply be deciding procedures for her based on his decision-making rights on behalf of the fetus and the fact that, according to YOU, the woman does not have a right to decide that she prefers one procedure or another, so long as the procedure being chosen is not more dangerous to her. What you don't get is this says that she does not get to choose procedures done to her based on the FACT they are done to her.

The embryo does not die because she or anyone kills it. It dies as a result of the procedure. If you create a procedure where it doesn't die, it's a different procedure.


The only reason for the equal/less effect was that the scnario was to remove the possibility of "if it is a painful/dangerous/more invasive/etc procedure then she can choose to go with the one less hazardous to her health rather than being forced to further risk her health to protect the fetus"

Except it is not a factor in whether or not you are given bodily autonomy. That's where your claim is valueless.


my claim does recognise that - the arguement often used that i ave concerns about does not explicitly state the fetus has no rights, it relies on the fetus rights to be inferior to the womans right to choose not to be pregnant. If the woman can choose to be 'not pregnant' without infringing on the fetus right to life in a way that makes no difference to her body then logically the inferior rights of the fetus would come into play.

Almost all pro-choice people claim the fetus has no rights. Almost all pro-choice people claim the woman has a right to choose medical procedures, bodily autonomy. These are separate arguments, and you must address them both.

The fetus has no right to life. It is not a person and in most cases it's not even an organism. It makes a difference to her body because you're choosing the procedure for her. Why do you get to choose whether or not your heart is given to someone else after you die? You're still dead. The effect to you is the same.




If however a woman can choose to completely override the rights of the fetus because she does not want to support it then she can terminate it regardless.

There are not fetal rights. You're arguing a strawman. Do a poll as to how many people are pro-choice and believe a fetus has a right to life. You're arguing a position almost no one holds.


Pray tell - why should she not be able to terminate the fetus in the 8th month on the basis that she has autonomy over her body and the right to choose to be not pregnant?

And which medical condition am I subistuting for another? Pregnancy with pregnancy?

In the case of the eighth month, there is a human being with forebrain activity, something we use to measure life medically. At that point, the difference is that it is a medical life. In my opinion that qualifies it as a person. It's alive. It's not then given rights to a future person, but a current person. This is the reasoning behind late-term abortions being illegal.

It's also evidence of why you're argument is silly. So silly that you didn't even bother to actually analyze the argument you're trying to address before you started posting. Almost all people who are pro-choice do not believe the fetus is a person with rights. The current definition of life at all other stages is brain activity and this is the reasoning that we deny late-term elective abortions. You have to pretty much ignore everything we know about rights, personhood, and bodily autonomy in order to make your argument. Forgive me for failing to do so.

I'm not sure how you're not following. You're advocating forcing her to undergo a specific procedure. It's that simple. The logical repercussion of saying you get to decide what procedures a woman undergoes is.... wait for it... wait for it... that she no longer has the right to decide for herself what procedures she undergoes. I know this isn't your intent, but come on, what could be a more basic conclusion.
What procedure is she being forced to undergo? If the procedure is identical to her body then she is undergoing the same procedure - the fetus however is not.



The procedure terminates the fetus. The man would simply be deciding procedures for her based on his decision-making rights on behalf of the fetus and the fact that, according to YOU, the woman does not have a right to decide that she prefers one procedure or another, so long as the procedure being chosen is not more dangerous to her. What you don't get is this says that she does not get to choose procedures done to her based on the FACT they are done to her.

The embryo does not die because she or anyone kills it. It dies as a result of the procedure. If you create a procedure where it doesn't die, it's a different procedure.
The mans right to force the woman undergo a procedure when she wants to keep the fetus in the womb does not logically follow. It is a very not-logical step. She does not want anything done to her body, he does not have the right to do anything.

The only instance of a mans ability to terminate the fetus in such a scenario would be if a woman elected to have the fetus removed with the intent of bringing it to term in an artifical womb - in which case if she maintained the right to abort until a certain stage of development then logicaly the man would have the right to abort it too - once she had voluntarily removed it from her body. If the technology ever becomes available I suspect this would be the biggest discouragement for many women. However - this would require the woman to voluntarily remove the fetus from herself.


Except it is not a factor in whether or not you are given bodily autonomy. That's where your claim is valueless.

Given the procedure is identical to the woman but not to the fetus if you perform a procedure to kill the fetus you are dong so because the woman has the right to kill it. If the womans right is to decide to be 'not pregnant' and the removal procedure is identical to her then the right to terminate the fetus does not automatically follow.

The arguement i have concerns about for her right to have the abortive procedure to start with is that she has the right to choose to be not pregnant - to not support a fetus for 9 months and give birth at the end of it. The right to be 'not pregnant' arguement shows up in almost every discussion on repoduction between the genders - particulary in the child suport debate that crops up now and then. The sentiment behind the arguement is that she has the right to be 'not pregnant' not that she has the right to kill the fetus.

If you argue for her right to have the abortive procedure because she has the right to choose not to be pregnant then you run into problems if abortion does not have to mean termination.

If her right is to decide not to have the child - to kill the fetus, rather than to not be pregnant, then she would have the right to terminate it.

I have no problem with viewing the fetus as human but without the right to life until a certain stage of development - hence have no problem with a woman having the right to terminate a fetus regardless of wether it could be incubated from any stage.


In the case of the eighth month, there is a human being with forebrain activity, something we use to measure life medically. At that point, the difference is that it is a medical life. In my opinion that qualifies it as a person. It's alive. It's not then given rights to a future person, but a current person. This is the reasoning behind late-term abortions being illegal.


Why does she lose bodily autonomy when the fetuses neurons start fireing at a decent rate?

I take it in the analogy where you wake up to find youself sharing your organs with a coma victim (but with decent brain activity) who will wake up in 9 months but will die if you unplug yourself from them, you feel the person waking up does not have the right to unplug as the guy in a coma has a developed and working forebrain?

What procedure is she being forced to undergo? If the procedure is identical to her body then she is undergoing the same procedure - the fetus however is not.

It cannot be an identical procedure. You've established how it's different. It's not about outcome. It's about her right to choose what procedures she undergoes. Seriously, if you don't get it by now, what's the point of explaining it further. It's incredibly simple.


The mans right to force the woman undergo a procedure when she wants to keep the fetus in the womb does not logically follow. It is a very not-logical step. She does not want anything done to her body, he does not have the right to do anything.

You are saying that she does not get to decide what procedures she undergoes. According to you provided she as a person is not put in more danger, it's acceptable.

Tell you what. How about she goes through exactly the same thing We replace the fetus with a fake child that puts her through exactly the same trauma. How did you put it? "If the procedure is identical to her body then she is undergoing the same procedure - the fetus however is not." So when she's done there is not significant difference to her body. According to you it's the same. Admit it, you have to change the rules in order to make this argument.

You know, just like I know, that the effect on her body is not the only reason she gets the choice. It's also because SHE and SHE ALONE chooses what medical procedures she undergoes. Not you. Not the father. Not the fetus. HER. Keep trying to ignore that against all reason, but as long as you do, you are not addressing the argument made by those who are pro-choice.



The only instance of a mans ability to terminate the fetus in such a scenario would be if a woman elected to have the fetus removed with the intent of bringing it to term in an artifical womb - in which case if she maintained the right to abort until a certain stage of development then logicaly the man would have the right to abort it too - once she had voluntarily removed it from her body. If the technology ever becomes available I suspect this would be the biggest discouragement for many women. However - this would require the woman to voluntarily remove the fetus from herself.

Nope. According to you if it is the same to her body, then he can decide what procedures she undergoes. The only difference is to the fetus, right?



Given the procedure is identical to the woman but not to the fetus if you perform a procedure to kill the fetus you are dong so because the woman has the right to kill it. If the womans right is to decide to be 'not pregnant' and the removal procedure is identical to her then the right to terminate the fetus does not automatically follow.

Nope. You are doing so because she gets to choose what her body undergoes. That's a fact. You can try to change it if you like, but you've claimed repeatedly that it is not true when it's forcing an abortion when everything else is equal. You deny your own argument and then claim it as truth which defies the most basic of reason.



The arguement i have concerns about for her right to have the abortive procedure to start with is that she has the right to choose to be not pregnant - to not support a fetus for 9 months and give birth at the end of it. The right to be 'not pregnant' arguement shows up in almost every discussion on repoduction between the genders - particulary in the child suport debate that crops up now and then. The sentiment behind the arguement is that she has the right to be 'not pregnant' not that she has the right to kill the fetus.

The right to choose what medical procedures she undergoes and to decide what medical conditions she deals with medically or doesn't. Pregnancy happens to be the case here, but it is not the point. I know you don't follow this, but this is your flaw. People have repeatedly explained to you and you've continued to make the same flawed argument for an entire thread. Are you being intentionally obtuse, or do you really not see this basic flaw in your argument?


If you argue for her right to have the abortive procedure because she has the right to choose not to be pregnant then you run into problems if abortion does not have to mean termination.

She has a right to bodily autonomy. Your claim denies that. It has nothing to do with the fetus.

And you cannot kill the fetus. It does not qualify as a life.


If her right is to decide not to have the child - to kill the fetus, rather than to not be pregnant, then she would have the right to terminate it.

There is no child. You're thinly disguised pro-life argument just keep giving away where you're really coming from. Who do you think you're kidding? You've claimed the fetus is a life with rights. You've claimed these made-up reasons for being pro-choice. You've made up nearly the entire argument. Seriously, do you really think people on the pro-choice can't see through this? Are people who are pro-choice this oblivious where you come from?


I have no problem with viewing the fetus as human but without the right to life until a certain stage of development - hence have no problem with a woman having the right to terminate a fetus regardless of wether it could be incubated from any stage.

Your heart is human. The fetus is human. Both do not have a right to life. The late-term fetus has cognitive processes that would qualify you for personhood at every other stage of life. Until the late-term, when abortion are no longer elective, there is no right to life, which is why abortions are elective. This isn't magic. It's logic. Basic logic, no less.



Why does she lose bodily autonomy when the fetuses neurons start fireing at a decent rate?

There are competing rights. There are two lives. And she doesn't completely lose bodily autonomy. At that point there are two sets of rights and both medical procedures require a birth. When both have rights and one can be saved without traumatizing the other, we save the life. In the third trimester all these things are true. At any other time, there is no other set of rights. Nothing to consider.



I take it in the analogy where you wake up to find youself sharing your organs with a coma victim (but with decent brain activity) who will wake up in 9 months but will die if you unplug yourself from them, you feel the person waking up does not have the right to unplug as the guy in a coma has a developed and working forebrain?[/QUOTE]

Nope. Because there is trauma to me. The law does not actually require the woman remain pregnant, only that she does not terminate intentionally the person within her body. Your scenario is not an accurate comparison. If that person could live without her, then it would be protected. The fetus in the late-term can live without her body. It is cognizant and thus a person. She has to kill a person purposefully by choosing a procedure that causes it to die. The difference in your earlier scenario is you want to subject her to a similar forced choice, but with no other rights to consider. In doing so you defend forced abortions.

So far, we've seen a flawed assumption of rights for the non-organism, the assumption of no rights for the person, the assumption that women don't have bodily autonomy. Is there any argument you have that isn't based on a fantasy?

Here, let me know if I go too fast -

1. Early term abortion versus your made-up procedure
a. There are one person's rights. The woman.
b. She is choosing between two procedures. One that ends the potential life that has no rights, and one that does not.
c. The fetus is not a person and has no rights.
d. The woman has the right to bodily autonomy.
e. Let's pretend that effects to her body are equal.

My claim: The woman chooses what procedures she undergoes, as only her rights need be considered.
Your claim: She can be forced to undergo your made up procedure for the desired effect to the non-entity.

2. Early-term abortion versus pregnancy
a. There are one person's rights. The woman.
b. She is choosing between two procedures. One that ends the potential life that has no rights, and one that does not.
c. The fetus is not a person and has no rights.
d. The woman has the right to bodily autonomy.
e. Let's pretend that effects to her body are equal.

My claim: The woman chooses what procedures she undergoes, as only her rights need be considered.
Your claim if you were logically consistent: She can be forced to undergo your made up procedure for the desired effect to the non-entity.
Your claim since you're not: The woman chooses what procedures she undergoes, as only her rights need be considered.

3. Late-term abortion versus an early birth
a. There are two person's rights. The woman and the person inside her.
b. She is choosing between two procedures. One that ends the actual life that should have rights, and one that does not.
c. The fetus is now has the same qualifications that qualify you for personhood at every other stage of life. It is capable of autonomy and of thought. People have rights.
d. The woman has the right to bodily autonomy.
e. By fact, the procedures have the same effect to the woman.

My claim: Now that their are two sets of rights, there are two people to consider. The choice being made should be to protect both as much as possible. If one can be saved at no extra trauma to the other, it must.
Your claim: That there is no difference with the earlier claims. Thus, in the interest of consistency her needs needn't be considered.

5. Your scenario with two people.
a. There are two person's rights. The woman and the person inside her.
b. She is choosing between two procedures. One that ends the actual life that should have rights, and one that does not.
c. The fetus is now has the same qualifications that qualify you for personhood at every other stage of life. It is capable of autonomy and of thought. People have rights.
d. The woman has the right to bodily autonomy.
e. By fact, the procedure that protects the other life enslaves the woman.

2: Going to be born with severe birth defects that will lead to it having only a short and painful life.

I support abortions whatever the month.Yeah, but the problem is that there are still some birth defects we can't predict. There are some that occur during the final stages of pregnancy, or during birth--including some of the most debilitating.

Of course, there are also birth defects that we can predict, but Mommy may not realize just how bad they are, no matter how many pictures the doctor shows her and no matter how many doctors she talks to. Perhaps she hopes against hope that God is on her side, or some shit.

If that deformed little package of flesh, bones, and nerves comes out and she finally realizes what a horrible "life" it's going to have, I say we should still be able to give it a humane end.

Fuck, we're more humane to dogs and cats. But noooo... a human who will live with severe pain and only the most basic cognitive functions? Mommy is perfectly happy to keep that around like some sort of plant that moans and drools.

You are saying that she does not get to decide what procedures she undergoes. According to you provided she as a person is not put in more danger, it's acceptable.
To her it is the same procedure. To the fetus it is not.


Tell you what. How about she goes through exactly the same thing We replace the fetus with a fake child that puts her through exactly the same trauma. How did you put it? "If the procedure is identical to her body then she is undergoing the same procedure - the fetus however is not." So when she's done there is not significant difference to her body. According to you it's the same. Admit it, you have to change the rules in order to make this argument.
What the hell are you jabbering on now? Are you saying put a fake child inside her? Where does that come in?


You know, just like I know, that the effect on her body is not the only reason she gets the choice. It's also because SHE and SHE ALONE chooses what medical procedures she undergoes. Not you. Not the father. Not the fetus. HER. Keep trying to ignore that against all reason, but as long as you do, you are not addressing the argument made by those who are pro-choice.
Although I note that you believe her right to have the procedure evaporates the moment you judge the fetus to be sufficiently developed. Whereapon you apparently believe she should be forced to carry to term and have the fetus/baby removed from ber by birth rather than by other means


Nope. According to you if it is the same to her body, then he can decide what procedures she undergoes. The only difference is to the fetus, right?

Nope. You are doing so because she gets to choose what her body undergoes. That's a fact. You can try to change it if you like, but you've claimed repeatedly that it is not true when it's forcing an abortion when everything else is equal. You deny your own argument and then claim it as truth which defies the most basic of reason.
Ok. Lets looks at thw two situations you are proposing.

1: She wants an abortion
- she elects to undergo a procedure to have the fetus removed from her body
- The procedure to remove the fetus is identical to her and her body wether the fetus is removed alive or not.
- The fetus is then removed alive and her body ceases to take part in the repoductive process.

you are saying this logically leads onto:

2. She wants to keep it, the man wants it aborted.
- The man can hunt her down, capture her, tie her to an operating table and sedate her before performing a medical procedure on her against her will.

I see the flaw in my OP - I did not consider someone would actually think those two situations were comparable.

- As a side point the abortion that she does not want affects her very differently than the abortion she does want but the fetus is removed intact. In the one where she wants the abortion either version of the procedure will result in her not being pregnant. In the case where she does not want the abortion and wishes to remain pregnant having the procedure or not drasticaly changes that for her - hence the effect on her body is really not the same. It's kinda the opposite...



The right to choose what medical procedures she undergoes and to decide what medical conditions she deals with medically or doesn't. Pregnancy happens to be the case here, but it is not the point. I know you don't follow this, but this is your flaw.
Ok.

She has the right to have a procedure to terminate a pregnancy.

why does she have that right?

She has that right because either:

a. she has the right to not be pregnant.
b. she has the right to terminate the fetus.

If her right to terminate the pregnancy is the result of (a) then it does not follow that she has the right to kill terminate the fetus if such an event can be easily avoided.

If her right to terminate the pregnancy is the result of (b) then it does follow that she can terminate the fetus.

The justification I have a problem with is the one that relies on the womans right to have the prcedure to begin with because she has the right not to be pregnant - she would have the right to hae the procedure to remove the fetus but not to kill it. If you use the justification that she has the right to terminate the fetus, and she has the right to carry that out as the procedure involves her body (hence the man does not have that right) then she can intentionally kill it in the removal.


She has a right to bodily autonomy. Your claim denies that. It has nothing to do with the fetus.

And yet according to you her bodly autonomy in regards to having the procedure evaporates at a point you determine life begins - which would hint your determination of life beginning is more valid than hers - why is your opinion so valid?


You're thinly disguised pro-life argument just keep giving away where you're really coming from. Who do you think you're kidding? You've claimed the fetus is a life with rights. You've claimed these made-up reasons for being pro-choice. You've made up nearly the entire argument. Seriously, do you really think people on the pro-choice can't see through this? Are people who are pro-choice this oblivious where you come from?

HolySenatorMcCarthyOnACrackFueledWitchHunt :eek:

I see the issue now. You instantly assumed that anything questioning any justification for abortion HAS to be pro life. You either skimmed the OP and missed the point or you could not actualy find a decent point to address the actual arguement so instead you decided to do a total logical disconnect on a side issue in the debate while totally ignoring the actual point being made.

Seriously dude/dudette. The pro-Lifers aren't hiding under your bed waiting for you to let your guard down so they can shove a baby into your innards.

Look through my post history - I have been in a number of topics where I have made numerous pro-choice posts, and have carried the sentiment in other threads on surrounding issues - I have even griped about how unfortunately men can't actually choose to hae an abrtion - very pro-life...

Now - you could draw one of two conclusions:

1. You have missed the point of the OP and your posts are a bit of an ink-blot test of your preconceptions of debates on this issue and that it is actualy a Pro-Pro Choice thread seeking to question why stronger/better arguements for the right of the woman to have a termination are not used.

2. You could assume I am the most elabrate puppet who has been sitting on this for 2months steadily posting pro-choice posts in abortion and related topics while waiting for a time when sheep growing human organs make the front page og General while simltaneously there are a rush of abortion threads which have posts in them suggesting the womans right to have an abortion is more a right not to be pregnant than it is to terminate the fetus.


Now - saying you think something is a bad reason for doing something does not mean you are objecting to people doing it.

I am not a vegetarian but it really grinds my gears when people say they could never be a vegetarian because there is no variety in the diet - to an even halfway capeable cook there is a HEAP of variety. It is a bad reason to not be vegetarian. A good reason to not be vegetarian is "I like eating meat". You should use good and consistant reasons for doing things.

Likewise I have a RL reputation as a total slut (to a level which is bad even for a guy) but if someone wants to lose their virginity because everyone else says they are - bad reason. If they want to lose it because they think they will really enjoy sex and want to have sex - good reason (well - to me).

As regards Abortion Law in the US - the most common justification seems to be about to right to end a pregnancy rather than the right to terminate a fetus - which is contry to the reason why many/most abortions take place, the actual law that allows women to have abortions in the US is based on privacy rather than abortions - and has nothing to do witht he justification for abortion. And the application of allowing abortion - with limits on the development level at which you can have an abortion is contry to both the justification for abortion and the legal method through which it is allowed.

To me this seems a rubbish way to do it. Not a single part of the process ties up with another. And people wonder why there are so many challenges to Abortion in the US.


Your heart is human. The fetus is human. Both do not have a right to life. The late-term fetus has cognitive processes that would qualify you for personhood at every other stage of life. Until the late-term, when abortion are no longer elective, there is no right to life, which is why abortions are elective. This isn't magic. It's logic. Basic logic, no less.

There are competing rights. There are two lives. And she doesn't completely lose bodily autonomy. At that point there are two sets of rights and both medical procedures require a birth. When both have rights and one can be saved without traumatizing the other, we save the life. In the third trimester all these things are true. At any other time, there is no other set of rights. Nothing to consider.
So - because you believe the fetus has right becase it matches your criteria for life, you would deny a woman the right to have a medical procedure thus taking from her bodily autonomy even thogh she had a different opinion of it's right to life.

How is that any different to a pro lifer basing their criteria on their belief on when a life starts and when it gains rights?

You seem very keen to say when a fetus does not have rights, and very keen to say when it does. Who pray tell are you to make these judgements on rights and morality? Why is your judgement on the rights of the fetus at which stage more important than another person?

Now - there is also another problem - if the woman elects to have a late stage abortion she does not go through birth - the cut the fetus up and bring it out piecemeal. On the other hand she could give birth by forcing an object the size of a melon through a hole in her flesh that would normally be pressed to fit a lemon. How the hell is this not traumatising to the mother? You cannot save the life of the fetus without putting the mother through a very extreme, and very very painful procedure of either cutting her open or making her go through the extreme physical trauma of childbirth.



And as mentioned - there is not trauma with regards to childbirth?

As to the "The law does not actually require the woman remain pregnant, only that she does not terminate intentionally the person within her body." This would be the exact same arguement if you extent it back to conception if you ahve a different view on when life begins. Bringing a beginning of life into the reasoning of abortion then means you have different opinions on when life begins - whose opinion counts? Pro-Lifers believe it begins at conception or implantation - basically before the woman even knows she can get pregnant. Who ultimately decides on who is correct about when it begins?

Also - as I mentioned - you are not kept 'attached' to the body indefinately - you're just there while they grow a spare set of organs in one of those GM sheep (awesome critters) - lets say it guarenteed at three months - the time period you believe a woman can be fairly denied full automony of her body. Then at the end they detach the guy from you in an excruciating procedure that either rips portions of the flesh of your genitals or involves cutting you open - the procedures which you wish to force on a woman to extract the fetus from her rather than letting her decide how it is removed.


There was something I missed regarding late abortions too - you said:

[quote]You are making an argument based on something you clearly haven't thought out. The argument is "her body, her right to decide what procedures are done to it"... This is not supported by current law, current ethics, or any form of logic coming from your arguments.

Which current law and which current ethics are you talking about? i.e. Which nation do you live in? The law and ethics of your nation are definately not the only ones out there - I am sure there are people who would allow a n 8/9month abortion.

To her it is the same procedure.Early abortions can be done with a pill. Will early extractions also be done with a pill? If so, presumably it is a different drug that keeps the fetal tissue intact while, I suppose, waiting for it to drain into a tube.

In any case, a patient has the right to decide whether she wants Drug A or Drug B, even if her doctor tells her "they basically do the same thing."

Later on, an abortion procedure involves pushing an instrument into a woman's uterus, swishing it around, and draining the results.

A "live" extraction would, presumably, involve pushing an instrument into a woman's uterus and using it to gently remove a human fetus.

Different procedures. And even if a doctor says, "These procedures are basically the same, and you face the same risks either way," a patient has the right to decide which procedures she will undergo.

Hell, even if a doctor pushes one procedure as safer, a patient has the right to make up her own mind and take a more dangerous procedure. This fact of the law frustrates doctors all the time, but it's still the law. And it still makes sense.

To the fetus it is not.Yeah. And I don't care about the fetus, I care about the rights of a living, breathing, woman.

Although I note that you believe her right to have the procedure evaporates the moment you judge the fetus to be sufficiently developed. Whereapon you apparently believe she should be forced to carry to term and have the fetus/baby removed from ber by birth rather than by other means.That is apparently true of your other interlocutor. I will not make things so easy.

My view on abortion has absolutely nothing to do with the development of the fetus. So there.

Early abortions can be done with a pill. Will early extractions also be done with a pill? If so, presumably it is a different drug that keeps the fetal tissue intact while, I suppose, waiting for it to drain into a tube.
I was wondering if he was going to bring up Chemical Abortions - but decided not to make it easy on him.

I was also wondering if he was going to think "hey - what happens if the woman lets the fetus develop past the stage where it is really tiny and can actually be removed intact"

This scenario is not about denying abortions to women, it is about questioning wether a particular very common justification for abortion would allow a woman to kill a fetus should technology exist to allow it to survive outside the womb. I still am unconvinced it realy would - that a more direct "the woman has the right to terminate the fetus" would better serve abortion proponents in such a situation. From what I know there is evidence that generally women who get abortions know wether they are able to properley raise a child or not. I think it would be dumb to ignore their view.

In any case, a patient has the right to decide whether she wants Drug A or Drug B, even if her doctor tells her "they basically do the same thing."

Later on, an abortion procedure involves pushing an instrument into a woman's uterus, swishing it around, and draining the results.

A "live" extraction would, presumably, involve pushing an instrument into a woman's uterus and using it to gently remove a human fetus.

Different procedures. And even if a doctor says, "These procedures are basically the same, and you face the same risks either way," a patient has the right to decide which procedures she will undergo.

Hell, even if a doctor pushes one procedure as safer, a patient has the right to make up her own mind and take a more dangerous procedure. This fact of the law frustrates doctors all the time, but it's still the law. And it still makes sense.
I am not denying this, and am personally am in favor of a woman (or any person) being able to choose their procedure of choice.

However - the right to have the procedure to start with is based on the right by which the woman can remove the fetus from her body. And depending on the right by which she is allowed to have the removal the choices could be limited:

If the right by which a woman can have a procedure is based on her right to not be pregnant but not her right to terminate the fetus then she does not automatically have the right to terminate it - that any removal procedure she has a right to should preserve the fetus.

If the right by which a woman can have a procedure is based on a right to terminate the fetus then she does have the right to choose a procedure that will terminate it inside of her body - I would even say she has the right to have it removed shortly after conception, placed in an incubator and then change her mind a few weeks/months later and terminate it then - of course - after removal I would also support the mans right to terminate the fetus.


That is apparently true of your other interlocutor. I will not make things so easy.

My view on abortion has absolutely nothing to do with the development of the fetus. So there.
This does not really make it hard for me as I do not object to abortion. I just object to the inconsistacny in which the law can be applied, which reflects neither the reason for the law, the justification used to allow the law nor the limitations put on the law when viewed in context with the law allowing it and the justification. Regarding US abortion law that is - there are other systems I prefer or at least think are more sensibly applied and reasoned.

To me if you want to allow abortions based on the womans right to choose what lives/feeds/grows inside her body then it is only logical that you permit abortions at any time up until childbirth. Personaly I find this distasteful and would prefer not to allow it (for elective procedures) but if the justification used is the womans autonomy, then that would be the only reasonable result to aim for. Of course - I suspect you would be SOL in finding a doctor willing to actualy do the abortion, and also recognise that few - if any - abortions would ever be carried out in this way as the vast majority of elective abortions are in the First trimester.

To her it is the same procedure. To the fetus it is not.

Again, that's impossible. Perfectly and utterly impossible. The fetus has no rights. Only she does.

There is no "to the fetus" because the fetus is not capable of experiences.



What the hell are you jabbering on now? Are you saying put a fake child inside her? Where does that come in?

Amusing. I'm saying if all things were equal, one could not force a decision on her where the process would appear similar except for the outcome to the fetus. It can't happen. You're attempting any reasonable route to show that, by simply acting confused at every turn.

Ok take your time here since this is like the eighth it escaped you, like your claim, let's pretend the procedure is identical to the woman in EVERY way. Does this make it someone else's choice whether she gets an abortion or not? You've already said yes. It appears though that you're so inconsistent as to claim this can only be forced on her if you like the outcome.

Meanwhile, I noticed you dropped all of my explicit arguments to show the comparison. What's the matter? Can't win with logic, so just drop the text out and pretend like I said something else?



Although I note that you believe her right to have the procedure evaporates the moment you judge the fetus to be sufficiently developed. Whereapon you apparently believe she should be forced to carry to term and have the fetus/baby removed from ber by birth rather than by other means

I say that once the right to life exists it must be considered and not before. Yes, I know this is logical and thus you're struggling with it, but yes, it's not possible to consider a right to life before it exists. Medically we consider a person to have life when it has cognative function. I'm simply consistent with that claim. So are doctors which is when even where they can do the procedure they do everything they can to avoid a procedure that kills the now cognative and completely viable child.

I know this doesn't make sense to you, but once there is a person to kill, we actually need to consider that person. Unfortunately for you, your scenario wants to consider a non-person over a person and that act like it's inconsistent to treat a non-person as a non-person and a person as a person. It's really very basic. I'm sorry it's not within your grasp.




Ok. Lets looks at thw two situations you are proposing.

1: She wants an abortion
- she elects to undergo a procedure to have the fetus removed from her body
- The procedure to remove the fetus is identical to her and her body wether the fetus is removed alive or not.

Again, you think this matters. It doesn't. They are not the same procedure and not for you to choose. You've ignored even the most cautious and patient attempt to educate you on the difference. At this point, I fail to see the point of trying to explain to you blue and green are different colors even if they look the same to a colorblind person.


- The fetus is then removed alive and her body ceases to take part in the repoductive process.

you are saying this logically leads onto:

2. She wants to keep it, the man wants it aborted.
- The man can hunt her down, capture her, tie her to an operating table and sedate her before performing a medical procedure on her against her will.

I see the flaw in my OP - I did not consider someone would actually think those two situations were comparable.

Wow, wow, you're so close but still don't get it. Against her will. That's it. The medical procedure is against her will. It doesn't matter if you want it or if you consider there to be no difference. It's against her will. And her will is the only will that exists.

And inherent to my comparison is that there is no noticeable difference to her. So suggesting that we tie her down and sedate her simply avoids the point. Let's pretend it's a ray gun that just kills the fetus without her knowing and she goes through the rest of the progress of the pregnancy with no noticeable difference or it's a process that occurs without her knowledge during the doctor's pregnancy evaluation or any number of other things that are still against her will, but does not require we kidnap her. Still wrong, because it's not for us to decide what procedures she undergoes. It simply isn't. Now if their is a case where two people are involved then there are two sets of rights to consider. At this point there are not.




- As a side point the abortion that she does not want affects her very differently than the abortion she does want but the fetus is removed intact. In the one where she wants the abortion either version of the procedure will result in her not being pregnant. In the case where she does not want the abortion and wishes to remain pregnant having the procedure or not drasticaly changes that for her - hence the effect on her body is really not the same. It's kinda the opposite...
Again, you have to alter the scenario because the only other option is to admit how dumb your claim is. She'll still be pregnant, there just won't be a baby at the end of it, in my scenario. In your scenario, she still won't be pregnant but there will be a baby at the end of it. Both scenarios are patently absurd and place consideration of a mass of cells inside a woman over the woman. I know you need to pretend that's not true, but it debunks your claim completely and utterly.




Ok.

She has the right to have a procedure to terminate a pregnancy.

She has a right to decide what procedures she undergoes. Just like you do.


why does she have that right?

Why do you have the right to decide what procedures you undergo?


She has that right because either:

a. she has the right to not be pregnant.
b. she has the right to terminate the fetus.

Nope. She has a right to determine what procedures she undergoes. She has a right to make medical decisions. It's really that simple. Nothing more. Nothing less. From that right, she ends up able to decide not to be pregnant or terminate a fetus.


If her right to terminate the pregnancy is the result of (a) then it does not follow that she has the right to kill terminate the fetus if such an event can be easily avoided.

It doesn't. A and B come from the same right you have. To make your own medical decisions.



If her right to terminate the pregnancy is the result of (b) then it does follow that she can terminate the fetus.

It doesn't come from a or b so you've presented a false dichotomy. I've explained this to you. Other have explained this to you. You keep failing to recognize her rights are the same as yours. This isn't some special right that got made up just for women. It's just has different effects for women since they get pregnant.


The justification I have a problem with is the one that relies on the womans right to have the prcedure to begin with because she has the right not to be pregnant - she would have the right to hae the procedure to remove the fetus but not to kill it. If you use the justification that she has the right to terminate the fetus, and she has the right to carry that out as the procedure involves her body (hence the man does not have that right) then she can intentionally kill it in the removal.

Yes, yes, why should a woman be permitted to choose which medical procedures she undergoes? You have a problem because you don't understand the most basic part of the argument and then pretend you do. That's why your argument fails.



And yet according to you her bodly autonomy in regards to having the procedure evaporates at a point you determine life begins - which would hint your determination of life beginning is more valid than hers - why is your opinion so valid?

It's objective medical opinion. I'll tell you what, can you tell me what medical journal supports the idea of calling a person dead before braindeath occurs? I'll wait. Can you tell me what medical journal supports the idea of calling a person living after braindeath occurs? The answer is none. Braindeath is death. It's only consistent when brain activity determines whether one is living or dead at every other stage to consider it here. Doctors do, which is why we consider it unethical to perform late-term abortions unless the mother's health is in danger.



HolySenatorMcCarthyOnACrackFueledWitchHunt :eek:

Yes, it's a witch hunt to notice that you've repeatedly denied that women have a right to choose medical procedures performed on them, you've repeatedly claimed that an aborted fetus has rights and that you've repeatedly tried to go out of your way to claim that women are claiming a right to terminate a fetus. Yep, that doesn't sound like anti-choice hokum.


I see the issue now. You instantly assumed that anything questioning any justification for abortion HAS to be pro life. You either skimmed the OP and missed the point or you could not actualy find a decent point to address the actual arguement so instead you decided to do a total logical disconnect on a side issue in the debate while totally ignoring the actual point being made.

No, I assume that when one illogically claims that women are simply excercising their right to "kill" the fetus and to deny its "rights" that this person is not looking at the situation objectively, and is looking at in a way common to the anti-choice crowd.

I couldn't find a decent point to address? Are you kidding? I've pointed out the flaw in your argument. Other people have pointed out the same flaw. You claim rights for the embryo, you claim women have the right to "kill" the fetus at a time when it doesn't qualify for life, you claim that it's not her decision so long as you SAY she can't tell the difference. Your argument is full of holes. I pointed out that your argument is anti-choice IN ADDITION to all of the other flaws. And since you ARE for denying women a choice, it is in fact anti-choice.


Seriously dude/dudette. The pro-Lifers aren't hiding under your bed waiting for you to let your guard down so they can shove a baby into your innards.

Nope, they're tired of getting their asses handed to them so they try to pretend to be a more objective pro-choice person. Unfortunately, you've spent the entire thread claiming that women don't actually have a choice about medical procedures and it's only that they are permitted (thank goodness we're so nice as to permit them) to "kill" the fetus.



Look through my post history - I have been in a number of topics where I have made numerous pro-choice posts, and have carried the sentiment in other threads on surrounding issues - I have even griped about how unfortunately men can't actually choose to hae an abrtion - very pro-life...

Very anti-choice, actually. Yes, men can't choose to have an abortion, because it's not a medical procedure they undergo. Nothing to gripe about if your interest is protecting the rights of both men, women and, if a child exists, a child. Women don't get to deny the rights of a child any more than men. Women get to assert their own rights when no other rights exist to be asserted. Once a child exists, she is subject to even more compromise than a man is.



Now - you could draw one of two conclusions:

1. You have missed the point of the OP and your posts are a bit of an ink-blot test of your preconceptions of debates on this issue and that it is actualy a Pro-Pro Choice thread seeking to question why stronger/better arguements for the right of the woman to have a termination are not used.

You think? Hmmmm... how come others called you on the same things?

You claim that we should be able to choose medical procedures for women as long as you claim they appear the same. Anti-choice.

You claim that it's lamentable men can't also choose abortions. Anti-choice. Your description of your history is very consistent with anti-choice. You've only established further with this thread that you don't really believe women should have a choice if you can find a way to make it medically "seem the same".

2. You could assume I am the most elabrate puppet who has been sitting on this for 2months steadily posting pro-choice posts in abortion and related topics while waiting for a time when sheep growing human organs make the front page og General while simltaneously there are a rush of abortion threads which have posts in them suggesting the womans right to have an abortion is more a right not to be pregnant than it is to terminate the fetus.

Actually many of your arguments that you're citing are ALSO anti-choice. Unfortunately, you don't recognize what is anti-choice, stunningly after it's been explained to you how choice works for an entire thread.



Now - saying you think something is a bad reason for doing something does not mean you are objecting to people doing it.

What it demonstrates is that you don't actually agree that the reason a woman has the right to choose an abortion is because she has a right to choose what medical procedures she undergoes. It undermines her rights and unfortunately you're so obtuse, that you jaw-droppingly don't realize it.


I am not a vegetarian but it really grinds my gears when people say they could never be a vegetarian because there is no variety in the diet - to an even halfway capeable cook there is a HEAP of variety. It is a bad reason to not be vegetarian. A good reason to not be vegetarian is "I like eating meat". You should use good and consistant reasons for doing things.

Yes, comparable. That's comparable to repeatedly deny that a woman has a right to choose medical procedures. Almost exactly the same really. Okay, well no similarity, but hey, why start being logical this late in the game?


Likewise I have a RL reputation as a total slut (to a level which is bad even for a guy) but if someone wants to lose their virginity because everyone else says they are - bad reason. If they want to lose it because they think they will really enjoy sex and want to have sex - good reason (well - to me).

Ha. Much better. I was worried for a moment you were going to try out reasoned arguments. Phew. Thanks for allaying my fears. You're clearly pro-choice because you're a slut. Excellent explanation.

Again, this scenario is not comparable because we're not talking about denying rights in either scenario, but simply reasoning. Your claims about reasoning are a clear denial of the basic right a woman is excercising. Your scenario would not make sense to you if you understood this.



As regards Abortion Law in the US - the most common justification seems to be about to right to end a pregnancy rather than the right to terminate a fetus - which is contry to the reason why many/most abortions take place, the actual law that allows women to have abortions in the US is based on privacy rather than abortions - and has nothing to do witht he justification for abortion. And the application of allowing abortion - with limits on the development level at which you can have an abortion is contry to both the justification for abortion and the legal method through which it is allowed.

Amusing. It is actually isn't. Because the right to privacy ends when another individual is involved and has rights. Once another viable individual exists there is need to weigh one set of rights against the other and the right to privacy cannot trump the right to life. That's why the anti-choice crowd use arguments like yours to try and claim that an embryo has rights.



To me this seems a rubbish way to do it. Not a single part of the process ties up with another. And people wonder why there are so many challenges to Abortion in the US.

It would be better if you learned what you were talking about before typing. It would really help. I have a right to get a heart transplant, but I can't tear out your heart to get it. My rights end where yours begin.


So - because you believe the fetus has right becase it matches your criteria for life, you would deny a woman the right to have a medical procedure thus taking from her bodily autonomy even thogh she had a different opinion of it's right to life.

Not my criteria for life. Medical criteria. Brain activity measures life at EVERY other stage. Doctors will not perform elective abortions on late-term fetii for the same reason.



How is that any different to a pro lifer basing their criteria on their belief on when a life starts and when it gains rights?

Because their line is arbitrary and denies how we measure life at every other stage. My line is in line with objective medical knowledge and consistent with every other stage of life. Are you suggesting it would be more objective to give special consideration to the fetus and either claim it is alive before brain activity, while in the same state it would be considered deceased at any other stage, or deny it life, even though in the same stat it would considered living at any other stage? If so, I suspect you don't actually know what objective means.


You seem very keen to say when a fetus does not have rights, and very keen to say when it does. Who pray tell are you to make these judgements on rights and morality? Why is your judgement on the rights of the fetus at which stage more important than another person?

Based on whether you're alive. Are you willing to deny life to living people? Are you willing to redefine our criteria for life arbitrarily? I'm not.

And I don't say that the rights of the child is more important. I said that the child's rights can be respected without harm to the mother, then they must be. If her right to life is in conflict with the right to life of the child, then the woman makes the decision. That's consistent with current law.

You asked for an explanation of the law, I can tell even while they don't express it, it's precisely why doctors are unwilling to kill the child at that point. It's consistent with medical practice for the entire history of our country. We've pretty much always used brain activity as a measure for life. Otherwise, CPR would not be necessary since you'd stop existing when your heart stopped or you'd stop existing before your heart stopped because having a working brain wouldn't matter.


Now - there is also another problem - if the woman elects to have a late stage abortion she does not go through birth - the cut the fetus up and bring it out piecemeal. On the other hand she could give birth by forcing an object the size of a melon through a hole in her flesh that would normally be pressed to fit a lemon. How the hell is this not traumatising to the mother? You cannot save the life of the fetus without putting the mother through a very extreme, and very very painful procedure of either cutting her open or making her go through the extreme physical trauma of childbirth.

Actually, the process is equally traumatic. Do you actually know how the fetus is extracted and the size of the equipment? If you think that's not similar to birth, you don't actually understand the process. The birth of the fetus is less traumatic and dangerous than a late-term abortion. I know you can't be arsed to look them up, but why don't you examine the actual medical risks instead of just making things up.


And as mentioned - there is not trauma with regards to childbirth?
Childbirth is less dangerous than a late-term abortion. There is a point where an abortion becomes more dangerous than birth. Not coincidentally it almost exactly coincides with the time when a fetus becomes viable.


As to the "The law does not actually require the woman remain pregnant, only that she does not terminate intentionally the person within her body." This would be the exact same arguement if you extent it back to conception if you ahve a different view on when life begins. Bringing a beginning of life into the reasoning of abortion then means you have different opinions on when life begins - whose opinion counts? Pro-Lifers believe it begins at conception or implantation - basically before the woman even knows she can get pregnant. Who ultimately decides on who is correct about when it begins?

Yes, so your scenario works if the fetus has life at that point. You've not established that through any objective means nor even tried. Just claimed it randomly. The fetus does not qualify for life biologically at the point when most abortions are performed, and it does not qualify for life as a person (brain activity) until abortions are no longer elective. If you can find a way to change these two methods of evaluating life so that your claim becomes objective, I'd be interested to see it.

Also - as I mentioned - you are not kept 'attached' to the body indefinately - you're just there while they grow a spare set of organs in one of those GM sheep (awesome critters) - lets say it guarenteed at three months - the time period you believe a woman can be fairly denied full automony of her body. Then at the end they detach the guy from you in an excruciating procedure that either rips portions of the flesh of your genitals or involves cutting you open - the procedures which you wish to force on a woman to extract the fetus from her rather than letting her decide how it is removed.

Except, women aren't required to carry a child longer. They are allowed to give birth at any time. They aren't allowed to intentionally kill what now qualifies as life (fits the biological rules) and for a living person (fits the medical rules). She cannot perform a procedure that endangers her life just so she can kill what actually is a life.

Again, if you can objectively demonstrate life at an earlier stage, I'll concede the point. It's gonna take you a while. Lots of other anti-choicers have tried and failed.


There was something I missed regarding late abortions too - you said:

Which current law and which current ethics are you talking about? i.e. Which nation do you live in? The law and ethics of your nation are definately not the only ones out there - I am sure there are people who would allow a n 8/9month abortion.

US. However, since you cited abortion law from a western country, most likely the US, then you'll find that all the rest follows. Pretty much every major medical association in the world agrees that women have as much right as men to choose what medical procedures they undergo, medical ethic is what I was referring to. The law in nearly every western country recognizes that right as well, though they may disagree when life begins.

You've established the argument is about when life begins not about the ridiculous claims you've made about women not getting to decide what procedures they undergo if the outcome is the same.

It's simple.

1. One person affected, only one set of rights to consider.
2. Two people affected, more than one set of rights to consider and thus it's not about denying rights, but weighing what set of rights against another.

No western country claims ethically or legally that women don't have a right to determine what medical procedures they undergo when no other person's rights are affected. None. So either make an argument for life beginning earlier or admit you tried to circumvent it and failed miserably.



Now let's summarize.

1. You claim that women have do not have a right to determine what medical procedures they undergo
I claim they do.

2. You claim that that she has a right to not be pregnant because - a. she has the right to not be pregnant.
b. she has the right to kill the fetus.
I claim that both abilities extend from the right to determine which medical procedures she undergoes.

3. You claim that because of this if we create a procedure where a woman is not physically affected differently and the fetus survives, that we can select that procedure for her because
A) she has not right to determine which procedures she undergoes
B) She does not have the right to kill the fetus because it has rights
C) she has a right to not be pregnany only.
I claim this is entirely bullocks and denies her choice (anti-choice).

4. You claim the proof that she doesn't have the right to determine what medical procedures she undergoes is that at the later stages of pregnancy she cannot kill the fetus.
I claim it's because at that time it can medically be determined to be alive and viable and because of this objective point, doctors are unwilling to violate its rights without it being a threat to the woman's right to life.

5. Because I explained why doctors and the law make such a demand on late-term abortions, that I am arbitrarily arguing for that line. (I happen to agree with that line, but I didn't make the law or medical ethics).
I claim you asked me to explain it so I did.

6. You claim that women don't have a right to choose medical procedures but instead to choose to between outcomes to their own body only.
I claim that if this were true then we could force abortions on them provided they weren't aware of it (slip a pill in there food), and the outcome to their body was the same (they would have to go through the rest of the pregnancy and the birth with no baby to show for it) because it would medically the same but the outcome would be different.

So now, that we have a simple summary of what you're saying it should be apparent why your argument is not holding up. However, if I've summarized incorrectly (your position, I summarized my position correctly) feel free to correct me. Then I'll just debunk your new position.

I was wondering if he was going to bring up Chemical Abortions - but decided not to make it easy on him.

I was also wondering if he was going to think "hey - what happens if the woman lets the fetus develop past the stage where it is really tiny and can actually be removed intact"

This scenario is not about denying abortions to women, it is about questioning wether a particular very common justification for abortion would allow a woman to kill a fetus should technology exist to allow it to survive outside the womb. I still am unconvinced it realy would - that a more direct "the woman has the right to terminate the fetus" would better serve abortion proponents in such a situation. From what I know there is evidence that generally women who get abortions know wether they are able to properley raise a child or not. I think it would be dumb to ignore their view.

And the problem with your claim is that women get to choose procedures, not only the effect to their body. Your claim is not the same procedure. It's a new procedure. Thus you are denying them their rights. Period.


And I didn't need chemical abortions, because in your fantasy world we can easily pretend that the outcome is identical. It doesn't address her right so she still gets to determine what procedure she undergoes. The existence of an abortion pill makes your claim no less logical, which is to say it remains completely devoid of it.


I am not denying this, and am personally am in favor of a woman (or any person) being able to choose their procedure of choice.

Yes, you are. You've repeatedly claimed that if the outcome is the same that the procedure can be chosen by someone other than her. She chooses the procedure. Any procedure. Unless there are competing rights, there is only her to decide. Your entire scenario is flawed because it ignores this.

However - the right to have the procedure to start with is based on the right by which the woman can remove the fetus from her body. And depending on the right by which she is allowed to have the removal the choices could be limited:

It is not. That's ludicrous. How you could even pretend to not understant this after all this time is just sad. The effect on pregnancy is an extension of your right to medical decisions, not the other way around. You've flipped things backward and then used that as justification for your dumb claims. I don't know why this is complicated for you.

How about this if women get their right to choose procedures from the right to remove the fetus, where do men get it from?



If the right by which a woman can have a procedure is based on her right to not be pregnant but not her right to terminate the fetus then she does not automatically have the right to terminate it - that any removal procedure she has a right to should preserve the fetus.

If the right by which a woman can have a procedure is based on a right to terminate the fetus then she does have the right to choose a procedure that will terminate it inside of her body - I would even say she has the right to have it removed shortly after conception, placed in an incubator and then change her mind a few weeks/months later and terminate it then - of course - after removal I would also support the mans right to terminate the fetus.

How about if it's based on *gasp* her right to make medical decisions for herself and has nothing to do with your claims?



This does not really make it hard for me as I do not object to abortion. I just object to the inconsistacny in which the law can be applied, which reflects neither the reason for the law, the justification used to allow the law nor the limitations put on the law when viewed in context with the law allowing it and the justification. Regarding US abortion law that is - there are other systems I prefer or at least think are more sensibly applied and reasoned.

Your claimed inconsistency is based on your own misunderstanding. You've got the reasoning backwards and it's confusing you.


To me if you want to allow abortions based on the womans right to choose what lives/feeds/grows inside her body then it is only logical that you permit abortions at any time up until childbirth. Personaly I find this distasteful and would prefer not to allow it (for elective procedures) but if the justification used is the womans autonomy, then that would be the only reasonable result to aim for. Of course - I suspect you would be SOL in finding a doctor willing to actualy do the abortion, and also recognise that few - if any - abortions would ever be carried out in this way as the vast majority of elective abortions are in the First trimester.

And why do you find it disgusting pray tell? Why are doctors unwilling to do it? Why is it against the law? Pssst... I'll give you a hint - look in earlier posts for the answer.

Again, that's impossible. Perfectly and utterly impossible. The fetus has no rights. Only she does.
I note that you have appointed yourself total moral guardian here and giver and taker of rights.


I say that once the right to life exists it must be considered and not before. Yes, I know this is logical and thus you're struggling with it, but yes, it's not possible to consider a right to life before it exists. Medically I consider a person to have life when it has cognative function. I'm simply consistent with my claim. So are some doctors which is when even where they can do the procedure they do everything they can to avoid a procedure that kills the now cognative and completely viable child.

I know this doesn't make sense to you, but once there is a person As defined by I, Jocabia, to kill, we actually need to consider that person.

Bolds are corrections.


She has a right to decide what procedures she undergoes. Just like you do.

However you seem to feel that that right totally evaporates at about week 24.


Nope. She has a right to determine what procedures she undergoes. She has a right to make medical decisions. It's really that simple. Nothing more. Nothing less. From that right, she ends up able to decide not to be pregnant or terminate a fetus.
And as such she would logically have the right to terminate at any time during the pregnancy.

I feel however that here we have been straying into a seperate arguement for abortion - I'm a bit peeved I missed it as I was too busy wondering where the hell you were going with half your stuff before I realised you thought I was anti-choice and as I was riled I was too keen to argue than realise you were talking about a different justification alltogether from the one I have issue with and was busy addressing them in the context of the question actually posed in the OP.

We now have three basic arguements for abortion:

1. she has the right to be not pregnant.
2. she has the right to terminate the fetus.
3. She has the right to do whatever the hell she wants to her body.

3. Would of course allow abortion in the event of being able to bring a fetus to term - it would also allow her to abort the fetus at any time during pregnancy.


It's my medical opinion... Doctors do, which is why we consider it unethical to perform late-term abortions unless the mother's health is in danger.
I note also some dctors also feel a fetus has rights from conception - is their opinion not valid?


Yes, it's a witch hunt to notice that you've repeatedly denied that women have a right to choose medical procedures performed on them, you've repeatedly claimed that an aborted fetus has rights and that you've repeatedly tried to go out of your way to claim that women are claiming a right to terminate a fetus. Yep, that doesn't sound like anti-choice hokum.

Ummm - I am saying the woman DOES have the right to terminate a fetus, not that they are claiming that right. Why are you so squeemish about applying the right in terms of terminating the fetus.

That's her right here in the UK - an elective abortion is explititly about terminating the fetus.

Now - You are partially correct - as I mentioned I assumed you were addressing the question posed in the OP. Sorry it took a while but I realise you are not addressing the issue I was questioning - I realise now that you are saying I am wrong as I am denying a woman the right to an abortion based on restricting treatment. Now - you are correct to say she has the right to an abortion based on her right to do whatever the hell to her body, hwever you were incorrect to apply that point in saying I was wrong - rather it would have been more accurate to say that the scenario does not deny her the right to an abortion as she can do what she wants to her body, not that the scenario was wrong. I realise looking back in hindsight, while filtering out your needless personal insults, that this was what you were trying to say, however you confused the issue by tying up the justification within the scenario rather than outside it.


No, I assume that when one illogically claims that women are simply excercising their right to "kill" the fetus and to deny its "rights" that this person is not looking at the situation objectively, and is looking at in a way common to the anti-choice crowd.
kill/terminate - whatever. Your intepretation of my post is an ink-blot test of your prejudiced view when looking at this issue. As I have said to you and others throughout this thread - I believe the woman does have the right to terminate the fetus - this is as I just mentioned an explicit right here in the UK where an elective pregnancy is explicity about not having a child. Which I feel is much more consistant as the reason behind the abortion is tied in with the justification for it and the law relates directly to both the reason and the justification and the application of the law (state funded, time limit of 24 weeks) is consistant with the reason behind the abortion, the justification for allowing it and the law that enables it. Strangely there is almost no pro life movement in the UK.


And since you ARE for denying women a choice, it is in fact anti-choice.
Wrong - I have not said she should not have the choice - I have only asked wether she should be allowed to terminate based on the justification posed in the OP - you have said yes, but you have been arguing based on a seperate justification.

Unfortunately, you've spent the entire thread claiming that women don't actually have a choice about medical procedures and it's only that they are permitted (thank goodness we're so nice as to permit them) to "kill" the fetus.
Wrong again. I have not claimed she should not have a choice. I have said the justification I had concerns about in the OP does not lend itself to er having a choice.


Very anti-choice, actually. Yes, men can't choose to have an abortion, because it's not a medical procedure they undergo. Nothing to gripe about if your interest is protecting the rights of both men, women and, if a child exists, a child. Women don't get to deny the rights of a child any more than men. Women get to assert their own rights when no other rights exist to be asserted. Once a child exists, she is subject to even more compromise than a man is.

Women do get to deny the right of a child/fetus...

And how is saying that it would be nice if men could have the extra 6-9months to think about being a parent once you find out contraception failed an anti-choice statement? Your reading and intepretation is again an ink blot of how cluded your view on this is.


You claim that we should be able to choose medical procedures for women as long as you claim they appear the same. Anti-choice.
The restricted choice would appear to exist in the justification I mentioned in the OP - which again I now realise is not the justification you are addressing.


You claim that it's lamentable men can't also choose abortions. Anti-choice.

WTF? You're off meds now...

Your description of your history is very consistent with anti-choice.
A posting history stating that a woman is the only person who should be able to decide to have an abortion and that women have the right to an abortion is anti-choice? Pass what you're smoking.

You've only established further with this thread that you don't really believe women should have a choice if you can find a way to make it medically "seem the same".
Again - the 'same' was to remove the arguement of additional harm from the scenario to make it as balanced as possible when considering a womans right to abortion based on her right to be not pregnant - which is not the justification you are addressing.


Actually many of your arguments that you're citing are ALSO anti-choice. Unfortunately, you don't recognize what is anti-choice, stunningly after it's been explained to you how choice works for an entire thread.
Ink-Blot test on your prejudice you have caused yourself in your assumption from the offset I am anti-choice.


What it demonstrates is that you don't actually agree that the reason a woman has the right to choose an abortion is because she has a right to choose what medical procedures she undergoes. It undermines her rights and unfortunately you're so obtuse, that you jaw-droppingly don't realize it.

This really would have been much simpler if your first post had read something like:

"While the right to be not pregant does not lend itself to the right to terminate the fetus she also has the additional right to do whatever she wants to her body - I realise however that this is in no way relevent to the justification you have in the OP and am just pointing out an additional justification"



Yes, comparable. That's comparable to repeatedly deny that a woman has a right to choose medical procedures. Almost exactly the same really. Okay, well no similarity, but hey, why start being logical this late in the game?

Ha. Much better. I was worried for a moment you were going to try out reasoned arguments. Phew. Thanks for allaying my fears. You're clearly pro-choice because you're a slut. Excellent explanation.

Again, this scenario is not comparable because we're not talking about denying rights in either scenario, but simply reasoning. Your claims about reasoning are a clear denial of the basic right a woman is excercising. Your scenario would not make sense to you if you understood this.
These are not scenarios ment to be analogies - they were just to demonstrate there are good reasons for doing things/allowing things and bad reasons. You should make judgements based on good reasons - I still do not feel the arguement I addressed in the OP is a good reason for terminating the fetus if technology came up to allow the fetus to survive outside the womb - the right to do what you want to your body and the right to terminate based on extended contraception do lend themselves to the right to terminate.


Amusing. It is actually isn't. Because the right to privacy ends when another individual is involved and has rights. Once another viable individual exists I think is need to weigh one set of rights against the other and the right to privacy cannot trump the right to what I define as life. That's why the anti-choice crowd use arguments like yours to try and claim that an embryo has rights.
Exactly how viable is a 24 week fetus? Without severe medical care it's viability is pretty much nil -bolded for correction.


It would be better if you learned what you were talking about before typing. It would really help. I have a right to get a heart transplant, but I can't tear out your heart to get it. My rights end where yours begin.
And you are claiming the right to assign rights to a fetus inside of a woman who does not agree with you.


Because their line is arbitrary and denies how we measure life at every other stage. My line is in line with objective medical knowledge and consistent with every other stage of life. Are you suggesting it would be more objective to give special consideration to the fetus and either claim it is alive before brain activity, while in the same state it would be considered deceased at any other stage, or deny it life, even though in the same stat it would considered living at any other stage? If so, I suspect you don't actually know what objective means.
Conception, implantation, 'quickening', initial nerve/brain activity, pain response, more advanced brain activity - all ways to claim 'life' based on peoples views.


Based on whether you're alive. Are you willing to deny life to living people? Are you willing to redefine our criteria for life arbitrarily? I'm not.

You're also I note willing to deny the right to life of the person you are attached to should that old scenario ever happen to you.


Actually, the process is equally traumatic. Do you actually know how the fetus is extracted and the size of the equipment? If you think that's not similar to birth, you don't actually understand the process. The birth of the fetus is less traumatic and dangerous than a late-term abortion. I know you can't be arsed to look them up, but why don't you examine the actual medical risks instead of just making things up.

Childbirth is less dangerous than a late-term abortion. There is a point where an abortion becomes more dangerous than birth. Not coincidentally it almost exactly coincides with the time when a fetus becomes viable.

Given that they perform the procedure only when the mothers life is in danger from giving birth it would seem that if birth presents severe threat to the woman and a late abortion does not the perhas it is not quite as traumatic as a birth - just a higher risk of complications than a regular birth.

Are you also now using the possible risk of procedures to the mother to deny her the right to have one?


Except, women aren't required to carry a child longer. They are allowed to give birth at any time. They aren't allowed to intentionally kill what now qualifies as life (fits the biological rules) and for a living person (fits the medical rules). She cannot perform a procedure that endangers her life just so she can kill what actually is a life.
In your moral view.


US. However, since you cited abortion law from a western country, most likely the US, then you'll find that all the rest follows. Pretty much every major medical association in the world agrees that women have as much right as men to choose what medical procedures they undergo, medical ethic is what I was referring to. The law in nearly every western country recognizes that right as well, though they may disagree when life begins.

You do know that there is a country just to the North of you where it is 100% legal to have an elective abortion for any reason whatsoever at any time until the child is born don't you?

Incidently that country bases it's right, or rather lack of prohibition, on the right of the mother to do whatever the hell she likes to her body.


1. You claim that women have do not have a right to determine what medical procedures they undergo
I claim they do.

Nope - I do not claim this - I have pointed out that that right does not necessarilyhold under the justification I posed and that you have not been argueing about


2. You claim that that she has a right to not be pregnant because - a. she has the right to not be pregnant.
b. she has the right to kill the fetus.
I claim that both abilities extend from the right to determine which medical procedures she undergoes.
The right to determine the medical procedure is a third option (c). b leads onto c, and c leads onto b. a does not lead onto either a or b - it is a that this thread was about.


3. You claim that because of this if we create a procedure where a woman is not physically affected differently and the fetus survives, that we can select that procedure for her because
A) she has not right to determine which procedures she undergoes
B) She does not have the right to kill the fetus because it has rights
C) she has a right to not be pregnany only.
I claim this is entirely bullocks and denies her choice (anti-choice).

You are claiming it is bolloks based on a different justification. I am claiming it is bolloks based on the fact she has the right to terminate.


4. You claim the proof that she doesn't have the right to determine what medical procedures she undergoes is that at the later stages of pregnancy she cannot kill the fetus.
I claim it's because at that time it can medically be determined to be alive and viable and because of this objective point, doctors are unwilling to violate its rights without it being a threat to the woman's right to life.

When have I said that? I have said if the law is based on the right to determin what goes on in your body then logically you ahve the right to terminate up til childbirth - which is reflected in a country not far from yours where the right to abortion, or lack of prohibition, is based on exactly that principle.


5. Because I explained why doctors and the law make such a demand on late-term abortions, that I am arbitrarily arguing for that line. (I happen to agree with that line, but I didn't make the law or medical ethics).
I claim you asked me to explain it so I did.
And I have poined that that is inconsistant with the right based on bodily autonomy.


6. You claim that women don't have a right to choose medical procedures but instead to choose to between outcomes to their own body only.
I claim that if this were true then we could force abortions on them provided they weren't aware of it (slip a pill in there food), and the outcome to their body was the same (they would have to go through the rest of the pregnancy and the birth with no baby to show for it) because it would medically the same but the outcome would be different.
I have not made that claim - I have said that in the justification in the OP that I have concerns with the right to choose a procedure that will kill a foetus over a procedure that does not does not follow. You have been basing your opinion for her right to have the termination of the fetus on her right to bodily autonomy (which you want to strip from her at a later date) - I have been basing my opinion of her right to terminate the fetus based on an explicit right to termination. I have not been saying that in my opinion she does not have the right.

How about this if women get their right to choose procedures from the right to remove the fetus, where do men get it from?
Um ... they don't.


And why do you find it disgusting pray tell? Why are doctors unwilling to do it? Why is it against the law? Pssst... I'll give you a hint - look in earlier posts for the answer.

distasteful =/= disgusting.

But at any rate - I find many things that people do distasteful - but I recognise their right to do them.

And again - it is not against the law everywhere.

Um ... they don't.

Men don't have a right to choose medical procedures? Really? News to me. I'll let my doctor know.


distasteful =/= disgusting.

Sorry, they're only synonyms. I can see how two words in synomous meanings was worth mentioning as not being equal. Because, being synonyms using one instead of the other completely changed the meaning. Um, or not.


But at any rate - I find many things that people do distasteful - but I recognise their right to do them.

And again - it is not against the law everywhere.

You ignored the question. Why do you find it distasteful? Why are doctors unwilling to do it? Why is it against the law in so many places?


I'll tell you what before I post the rest of my response, I'll ask you a question which if you answer it honestly will settle this.

Do you support a right to terminate an embryo that is not inside a woman's body? (current law in most nationstates consider this property)

Do you support a right to terminate a fetus (under your scenario where it is outside the woman's body)?

EDIT: And I'll accept that I could have and should have gone easier on you. I thought you were being intentionally obtuse and I don't think that's true anymore. So I apologize. Here that, NS gods, Jocabia apologizes.

You ignored the question. Why do you find it distasteful? Why are doctors unwilling to do it? Why is it against the law in so many places?
I can'tsay exactly why - to me at that stage it is too human. But - should my aversion to it make it illegal? If you answer is yes then logically a pro lifers distaste at terminating a 8 week old embryo/fetus is also grounds for banning it.


I'll tell you what before I post the rest of my response, I'll ask you a question which if you answer it honestly will settle this.

Do you support a right to terminate an embryo that is not inside a woman's body? (current law in most nationstates consider this property)

Do you support a right to terminate a fetus (under your scenario where it is outside the woman's body)?

I thought my numerous responses on this would have made it very clear. I believe the right the woman has is to explicitly to terminate the embryo - something I have stated a number of times. I have also stated that under that right she would have the right to terminate it once outside her body - and likewise one it is outside her body the man would also have that right - what he does not have is the right to take it from her body to start with.

Now - to say with total clatity:

I support the womans right to terminate the fetus wether it is inside or outside her body.

If she has it removed and changes her mind at a later time I suport her right to terminate it.

If she has it removed (voluntarily of course) and the guy changes his mind at a later timeI suport his right to terminate it.

I also mentioned a case where a man has been able to abort an embryo against the mothers wishes in the UK - I don't know if I explicitly supported it when I mentioned it but in the case concerned I do. (The embryo was from IVF and under UK law both parties have to consent at every stage - and he refused consent to implant the embryo in his (by then) ex-wife, leading to it's destruction. He made this choice based on his right to choose not to be a parent - which is the same right by which women explicitly access elective abortions in the UK - and was able to make it as it terminated the embryo without violating the womans right to bodily autonomy.)

Hell - If people laid freakin' eggs I would support a either the mans right or the womans right to wack one in a microwave if they decided after laying not to have the kid.

EDIT: And I'll accept that I could have and should have gone easier on you. I thought you were being intentionally obtuse and I don't think that's true anymore. So I apologize. Here that, NS gods, Jocabia apologizes.
EDIT:

Accepted.

If either party is paying full attention there should be no accident hence I also apologise for my part - I should have twigged much earlier we were talking at cross purposes and attacking each other over both misunderstandig what the other was talking about - looking back it is pretty obvious.

It's amazing how much conflict is based on misintepretation :(

I have also stated that under that right she would have the right to terminate it once outside her body - and likewise one it is outside her body the man would also have that right...Well, actually what you could have is a legal battle on your hands. If one legally recognized parent wants to terminate and the other does not, it would go to the courts... and judging from within the context of American law, at least, I'm guessing that in most cases the "let it live" side would win.

So sad for those like me who want to kill kids for a couple weeks after they're born, too. Ahh, what a world... :(

Well, actually what you could have is a legal battle on your hands. If one legally recognized parent wants to terminate and the other does not, it would go to the courts... and judging from within the context of American law, at least, I'm guessing that in most cases the "let it live" side would win.

So sad for those like me who want to kill kids for a couple weeks after they're born, too. Ahh, what a world... :(

In the UK the situation (or a very very similar one) came up and it did go to the courts - at every stage of appeal the man who wanted to terminate it won. I am not 100% sure how it ended but am 99% sure the embryo was toast - the last appeal I saw the man won, I did not hear of any other apeal or the papers reporting he changed his mind and let her have it.

This was for an IVF embryo - but I can't see how it would not translate to one from this proposed artifical womb. (Remember folks - if these things ever get invented (GM Sheep?) you saw it here first! :) )

Of course the legal situation and justification for abortion in the US is very different.

I can'tsay exactly why - to me at that stage it is too human. But - should my aversion to it make it illegal? If you answer is yes then logically a pro lifers distaste at terminating a 8 week old embryo/fetus is also grounds for banning it.



I thought my numerous responses on this would have made it very clear. I believe the right the woman has is to explicitly to terminate the embryo - something I have stated a number of times. I have also stated that under that right she would have the right to terminate it once outside her body - and likewise one it is outside her body the man would also have that right - what he does not have is the right to take it from her body to start with.

Now - to say with total clatity:

I support the womans right to terminate the fetus wether it is inside or outside her body.

If she has it removed and changes her mind at a later time I suport her right to terminate it.

If she has it removed (voluntarily of course) and the guy changes his mind at a later timeI suport his right to terminate it.

I also mentioned a case where a man has been able to abort an embryo against the mothers wishes in the UK - I don't know if I explicitly supported it when I mentioned it but in the case concerned I do. (The embryo was from IVF and under UK law both parties have to consent at every stage - and he refused consent to implant the embryo in his (by then) ex-wife, leading to it's destruction. He made this choice based on his right to choose not to be a parent - which is the same right by which women explicitly access elective abortions in the UK - and was able to make it as it terminated the embryo without violating the womans right to bodily autonomy.)

Hell - If people laid freakin' eggs I would support a either the mans right or the womans right to wack one in a microwave if they decided after laying not to have the kid.


EDIT:

Accepted.

If either parties is paying full attention there should be no accident hence I also apologise for my part - I should have twigged much earlier we were talking at cross purposes and attacking each other over both misunderstandig what the other was talking about - looking back it is pretty obvious.

It's amazing how much conflict is based on misintepretation :(

Yes, it's obvious. I just wanted to be clear to prevent more of the same.

Okay, now, I remove the fetus and it can be terminated.

If she removes a premie, a viable independent cognizant child, can she terminate it a week later? Let's say 28 weeks. Seven months is well within the time it would be inside her body. If not, why not?

In the UK the situation (or a very very similar one) came up and it did go to the courts - at every stage of appeal the man who wanted to terminate it won. I am not 100% sure how it ended but am 99% sure the embryo was toast - the last appeal I saw the man won, I did not hear of any other apeal or the papers reporting he changed his mind and let her have it.

This was for an IVF embryo - but I can't see how it would not translate to one from this proposed artifical womb. (Remember folks - if these things ever get invented (GM Sheep?) you saw it here first! :) )

Of course the legal situation and justification for abortion in the US is very different.

This is a case of property law not about bodily integrity per se. Parts of your body are considered your property. However, if they were consistent you'd be able to terminate if either wanted to as there are really no competing rights and no way to seperate her property from his. It's becoming a larger and larger issue because of DNA.

Yes, it's obvious. I just wanted to be clear to prevent more of the same.

Okay, now, I remove the fetus and it can be terminated.

If she removes a premie, a viable independent cognizant child, can she terminate it a week later? Let's say 28 weeks. Seven months is well within the time it would be inside her body. If not, why not?

I would say no if terminations are allowed on the basis of explicitly aborting to prevent parenthood - the right to terminate based on not wanting to be a parent can be reasonably and consistantly balanced with the right of the fetus/baby to life as you give them 6months to make their choice after which time the fetus has sufficient awareness that it's death causes suffering. They have a very fair and reasonable chance to exercise their right to choose after which they have to grin and bear it - it is assumed that if you are still carrying it after 6 months you have agreed to be a parent - the 'cooling off' period is over. The same logic would apply equally to a fetus inside or outside a womb as the right is based explicitly on the right to terminate, balanced with the fetuses developing right to life and capacity for suffering.

On the other hand - if abortions are legally justified based on bodily autonomy, as they are in Canada then I would say she would have the right to have a procedure performed that would terminate the fetus as it falls under her bodily autonomy, however if she choose to have it removed alive she would lose that right. As the legal situation in Canada reflects - with no controls on abortion in any way, shape or form whatsoever. The right to terminate based on bodily autonomy gives a right to terminate that extends well past the development stage that the right to terminate based on the right to not be a parent. Hence - she would have the right to terminate it inside her body (as distasteful as it is to me, but my distaste is not grounds for making something illegal) at any time past 28 weeks (to use your number) until birth, but if it is born prem, or she chooses to extract it alive then she would not have the right to terminate it as it no longer falls under her bodily autonomy.

This is a case of property law not about bodily integrity per se. Parts of your body are considered your property. However, if they were consistent you'd be able to terminate if either wanted to as there are really no competing rights and no way to seperate her property from his. It's becoming a larger and larger issue because of DNA.

Exactly - her body did not come into it, or at least her body was not involved at that stage, and so he was able to terminate.

I suppose standard abortions are like this in a way - the woman and the man have equal right to terminate the fetus as it is equally their property, but the man does not have the right to violate the bodily autonomy of the woman to achieve this and so cannot exercise his right, while the woman can exercise her right.

I would say no if terminations are allowed on the basis of explicitly aborting to prevent parenthood - the right to terminate based on not wanting to be a parent can be reasonably and consistantly balanced with the right of the fetus/baby to life as you give them 6months to make their choice after which time the fetus has sufficient awareness that it's death causes suffering. They have a very fair and reasonable chance to exercise their right to choose after which they have to grin and bear it - it is assumed that if you are still carrying it after 6 months you have agreed to be a parent - the 'cooling off' period is over. The same logic would apply equally to a fetus inside or outside a womb as the right is based explicitly on the right to terminate, balanced with the fetuses developing right to life and capacity for suffering.

On the other hand - if abortions are legally justified based on bodily autonomy, as they are in Canada then I would say she would have the right to have a procedure performed that would terminate the fetus as it falls under her bodily autonomy, however if she choose to have it removed alive she would lose that right. As the legal situation in Canada reflects - with no controls on abortion in any way, shape or form whatsoever. The right to terminate based on bodily autonomy gives a right to terminate that extends well past the development stage that the right to terminate based on the right to not be a parent. Hence - she would have the right to terminate it inside her body (as distasteful as it is to me, but my distaste is not grounds for making something illegal) at any time past 28 weeks (to use your number) until birth, but if it is born prem, or she chooses to extract it alive then she would not have the right to terminate it as it no longer falls under her bodily autonomy.

First, you try pretty hard there to avoid the point. The right under which you can terminate an embryo is a right to property. It doesn't have any competing rights. Rights don't work so they have "enough time" to exercise them. They are either rights or they aren't. What limits them is the rights of others. So either the premie has rights because it's a person or it doesn't.

So let's see what consistency looks like.

You claim that she has a right to terminate the fetus or embyro.

You claim that no competing rights are created by removing it from her body since she can terminate afterwards.

You claim that 28 weeks is not enough development to be a person.

So what exactly is your objective line for when personhood, and thus rights, begins? So far, you've completely avoiding the question.

Exactly - her body did not come into it, or at least her body was not involved at that stage, and so he was able to terminate.

I suppose standard abortions are like this in a way - the woman and the man have equal right to terminate the fetus as it is equally their property, but the man does not have the right to violate the bodily autonomy of the woman to achieve this and so cannot exercise his right, while the woman can exercise her right.

I can agree with this. It's a matter of property when it is outside of her body. Until it becomes a person, it is still property that belongs to both.

First, you try pretty hard there to avoid the point. The right under which you can terminate an embryo is a right to property. It doesn't have any competing rights. Rights don't work so they have "enough time" to exercise them. They are either rights or they aren't. What limits them is the rights of others. So either the premie has rights because it's a person or it doesn't.

So let's see what consistency looks like.

You claim that she has a right to terminate the fetus or embyro.

You claim that no competing rights are created by removing it from her body since she can terminate afterwards.

You claim that 28 weeks is not enough development to be a person.

So what exactly is your objective line for when personhood, and thus rights, begins? So far, you've completely avoiding the question.

Ah, so I'll take this as an admission that you don't have answer that could be considered objective.

The fetus actually develops faster in the womb so if it is a question of development, then fetus in the late stages is more developed than the premie. It's clearly not a matter of whether it's inside her or not since it belongs to her even outside of her. So it's pretty clear that the question is when is the fetus developed enough to be considered a person (now that wouldn't guarantee that its rights would trump the rights of woman, but it's the time when there would actually be another set of rights to consider). That is the focus of the argument. Because unless there are some other set of rights to consider, then there are only the woman's and she is the only one who gets to excercise them

First, you try pretty hard there to avoid the point. The right under which you can terminate an embryo is a right to property. It doesn't have any competing rights. Rights don't work so they have "enough time" to exercise them. They are either rights or they aren't. What limits them is the rights of others. So either the premie has rights because it's a person or it doesn't.

So let's see what consistency looks like.

You claim that she has a right to terminate the fetus or embyro.

You claim that no competing rights are created by removing it from her body since she can terminate afterwards.

You claim that 28 weeks is not enough development to be a person.

So what exactly is your objective line for when personhood, and thus rights, begins? So far, you've completely avoiding the question.
Sorry - I did not not respond because I did not have an arguement, more because the topic has moved away from the area I wished to examine - and this is now a dialogue between just you and I.

Now - As to your question, and your statements:

When a person has the right, or of more practical importance the legal right, to terminate depends on the basis upon which she has that right.

If the law is based on the right to not bring a person into the world vs the fetuses right to life then you can place a point where the fetuses rights override the mothers while still giving her a fair window to exercise her rights. You give her ample opportunity to exercise the right to terminate the fetus, to not bring a life into the world - there is no reason she cannot exercise that right. You can balance such a situation by making a cut off point where the fetuses growing rights take precedence over her right to not be a parent - when afetus can be conscious of it's surroundings if it was outside the womb seems reasonable - this is also the point when the termination wil cause suffering to the fetus, for however short a time - so is a reasonable cut-off from that perspective too. The law fashioned in this way is aimed at pragmatism - it is based on preventing babies ending up in dumpsters and girls killing themselves with coathangers - as such all it needs to do is provide the woman with reasonable chance to exercise her right. This is similar to 'Safe Haven' Laws - the Child does have a right to be cared for by it's parents, however the law is a pragmatic one - and hence the mother can deny the child this right as long as she ensures the child will be found safely - likewise there is also a window on this, a woman cannot take her 4 year old and dump them at a fire station and expect to be allowed to simply walk away - when laws are based on pragmatism you can balance rights in such a way.

Now - if the legal right is based on ones right to autonomy over their body then you have a different situation - even in the final stages of pregnancy the *most* you can say is that the rights of the fetus are equal to the womans right to automony of her body, and as the woman is the only one capeable of making the descision this means ultimately her choice outweighs the choice of the fetus. As I mentioned - in Canada it is perfectly legal to have an abortion in the 9th month. It might be callous, and stupid due to the risks, but it is still legal. Is there any coincidence that a country that has based it's abortion policy on the womans right to bodily autonomy has for almost 20 years also concluded that any law against abortion violates that autonomy?

Sorry - I did not not respond because I did not have an arguement, more because the topic has moved away from the area I wished to examine - and this is now a dialogue between just you and I.

Now - As to your question, and your statements:

When a person has the right, or of more practical importance the legal right, to terminate depends on the basis upon which she has that right.

If the law is based on the right to not bring a person into the world vs the fetuses right to life then you can place a point where the fetuses rights override the mothers while still giving her a fair window to exercise her rights.

Nonsense. There is no right there. She has a window that lasts right up until there are other rights to consider and the fetus becomes a person and ceases to be property. It has nothing to do with "fair" and that's why men don't have a similar window. The man doesn't get to enforce his property rights because they violate her bodily autonomy rights, just like she doesn't get to enforce hers once they infringe on the rights of the fetus/person. If there are no rights, there is no problem. Once the fetus is considered a person (where you place that line is debatable) it has rights and thus she can't excercise her rights and trump the rights of the fetus to meet some sense of "well, otherwise it wouldn't be fair".



You give her ample opportunity to exercise the right to terminate the fetus, to not bring a life into the world - there is no reason she cannot exercise that right. You can balance such a situation by making a cut off point where the fetuses growing rights take precedence over her right to not be a parent

It doesn't have growing rights. You get rights because you're a person. There is a time when you are not considered qualified to excercise those rights so you have a proxy, but your rights exist from the moment you become a person.


- when afetus can be conscious of it's surroundings if it was outside the womb seems reasonable

Based on what? It's somehow more developed outside the womb than inside the womb when it develops faster?


- this is also the point when the termination wil cause suffering to the fetus, for however short a time - so is a reasonable cut-off from that perspective too.

Which only matters if it has rights. And suffering can certainly be utterly avoided. We have these things called painkillers.


The law fashioned in this way is aimed at pragmatism - it is based on preventing babies ending up in dumpsters and girls killing themselves with coathangers - as such all it needs to do is provide the woman with reasonable chance to exercise her right.

What right? You don't have a right to terminate a pregnancy. You have a right to make medical decisions. You have property rights. You don't have rights to terminate a pregnancy anymore than you have rights to get a heart transplant.

Meanwhile, it's not pragmatism. It's respect for the individual. I own my DNA. I have property rights. A women has rights to her body. Generally we consider her rights to bodily autonomy to trump my property rights. We consider right to life to trump both. Need proof. Conjoined twins. Look at any medical case where something occurred where two people are in a situation where the medical decisions of one affects the other. If you're attached to me by metal from a car accident I can't stand up and walk home unless I want to be charged with manslaughter.

We have to have a hierarchy of rights when they conflict. There is simply no way to not do so. You have free speech but can't tell someone to murder someone else or yell fire in a theater. You're completely ignoring this.

This is similar to 'Safe Haven' Laws - the Child does have a right to be cared for by it's parents, however the law is a pragmatic one - and hence the mother can deny the child this right as long as she ensures the child will be found safely

She is not denying the child that right. She is choosing a proxy. That's what adoption is. A proxy accepts the responsibility for the child and it's a decision made on behalf of the child, because the child cannot make that decision him/herself. The child's rights ARE being protected. The safe haven laws were made by entities choosing to take the responsibility and to act on behalf of the child's right to care.

- likewise there is also a window on this, a woman cannot take her 4 year old and dump them at a fire station and expect to be allowed to simply walk away - when laws are based on pragmatism you can balance rights in such a way.

Again, your understanding of rights is woefully lacking. It's not about a fair window. It's about the best interests of the child. When rights conflict we bend to the more innocent and the most greivously affected. It's a complicated process you're oversimplifying and in a quite ignorant fashion.

Now - if the legal right is based on ones right to autonomy over their body then you have a different situation - even in the final stages of pregnancy the *most* you can say is that the rights of the fetus are equal to the womans right to automony of her body, and as the woman is the only one capeable of making the descision this means ultimately her choice outweighs the choice of the fetus.

False. If that were true, an infant can't make a decision either so a woman would be allowed to kill that two. Being unable to exert your rights does not deny them to you. The responsibility falls to a proxy. However, in the situation of an infant you can't simply claim I choose for them to die. It's not a decision we allow proxies to make.

If the right is based on bodily autonomy or property rights, either way, once the fetus has rights, the right to life trumps both.


As I mentioned - in Canada it is perfectly legal to have an abortion in the 9th month. It might be callous, and stupid due to the risks, but it is still legal. Is there any coincidence that a country that has based it's abortion policy on the womans right to bodily autonomy has for almost 20 years also concluded that any law against abortion violates that autonomy?

You've still not addressed the question.

Here, I'll try again. According to you a 28 week fetus is not a person. If this is true then why can a woman not strangle a premie after it's born?

When does an embryo or fetus become a person?

A. If it's exiting the body that gives you personhood then the embryo outside the body would be a person.

B. If it's that you reach a certain stage in development then one would expect that abortions would become illegal about the same time that a woman could not terminate the embryo/fetus if it were outside her body.

And which of these is true? Well, B, of course. It's a stage in development when the requirements for life are met. We require brain function for personhood. It's really that simple.

Your confusion as to the enforcement of rights is due to your lack of understanding of the very nature of what you're trying to speak about. Really, this is where you stop talking and pick up something that will help you understand rights, what they are and how they are enforced.

You've been talking about where a particularly right comes from entirely backwards for 8 pages and you've been claiming rights that don't exist and rambling about them nonsensically for 8 pages.

What right? You don't have a right to terminate a pregnancy.
You may not, women in the UK however do.

The legal right is explicitly about terminating the fetus.


Meanwhile, it's not pragmatism.
A law based on preventing parenthood is based on pragmatism - it is to prevent the issues that result from forcing parenthood on someone and what they do to avoid it. You are talking about the right to abortion based on a different right.


Again, your understanding of rights is woefully lacking. It's not about a fair window. It's about the best interests of the child.
The best interest of the child would be the parent take care of it - the stae orphanage system is almost certain to be worse than the life the mother could have offered even if she was on min wage. The law is based on stopping babies ending up in dumpsters - it recognises that without the aw this is what happens and it takes a pragmatic approach.


If the right is based on bodily autonomy or property rights, either way, once the fetus has rights, the right to life trumps both.
Someones right to a kidney/blood transfusion trunps your right not to donate?



Here, I'll try again. According to you a 28 week fetus is not a person. If this is true then why can a woman not strangle a premie after it's born?
I think it is a person. However if it is inside the woman her rights, if you argue based on bodily autonomy trump it's rights. You cannot strangle it once it is out of her body as there are no rights of yours you are exercising.


When does an embryo or fetus become a person?

A. If it's exiting the body that gives you personhood then the embryo outside the body would be a person.

B. If it's that you reach a certain stage in development then one would expect that abortions would become illegal about the same time that a woman could not terminate the embryo/fetus if it were outside her body.

Again - see Canada for an example how it most definately does not have to be illegal to ave an abortion for any stage of development when the law is based on the right to bodily autonomy.

You may not, women in the UK however do.

The legal right is explicitly about terminating the fetus.

It does not. It's property. The law says that she may do as she likes with her property. It explicitly details a type of property, but it DOES NOT give her the right to terminate a fetus.

We're not talking about legal rights. We're talking about civil rights. Otherwise we could use the fact that a man can murder his wife in some countries as evidence that women don't have any rights.

Now, I'll ask again. Source? Link? Proof? Where is this law you keep citing wrongly.


A law based on preventing parenthood is based on pragmatism - it is to prevent the issues that result from forcing parenthood on someone and what they do to avoid it. You are talking about the right to abortion based on a different right.

It is not. You're wrong. It's based on rights. It may be pragmatic, but the law was created not in violation of rights, but with the inclusion of them. You claim that it was pragmatism trumping rights, and that's ludicrous and clearly wrong.



The best interest of the child would be the parent take care of it - the stae orphanage system is almost certain to be worse than the life the mother could have offered even if she was on min wage. The law is based on stopping babies ending up in dumpsters - it recognises that without the aw this is what happens and it takes a pragmatic approach.

No. It wouldn't be the best interest of the child. Educated people recognize that children are not necessarily best off with their biological parents. The law respects the rights of a child, by only allowing a change to parenthood to occur with the consent of a proxy to the child, and with the understanind that the move is in the best interest of the child. Your ignorance here is plainly astounding.


Someones right to a kidney/blood transfusion trunps your right not to donate?

No. Those aren't competing rights. There is not a right to force someone to donate. You're mixing things up. However, if they are somehow already involved in your life and it's preservation than they can be forced to not stop whatever support they are already giving. You are aware of how the law deals with things when dependencies are already created, no? No, I'm sure you're not, or you wouldn't be making these arguments.



I think it is a person. However if it is inside the woman her rights, if you argue based on bodily autonomy trump it's rights. You cannot strangle it once it is out of her body as there are no rights of yours you are exercising.

So the right to bodily autonomy trumps the right to life? Hmmmm... evidence please?

Meanwhile, you claimed you have a right to not be a parent. What happened to that right? It suddenly disappears? Rights expire? Methinks you haven't thought this through.

AND you claimed earlier I was making up that it's a person. Now it's a person according to you as well. So you weren't just being obtuse but deliberately obtuse. Sad, that is.



Again - see Canada for an example how it most definately does not have to be illegal to ave an abortion for any stage of development when the law is based on the right to bodily autonomy.

Yes, in Canada they don't believe it's a person yet. That's where the debate lies, and I keep telling you this. Once it's a person, it's murder. They don't allow murder despite your ignorant claims.

The arguement for abortion used by many is along the lines that a woman gets to decide what happens to her body, that she gets to decide wether another human can live in her innards and sponge off her nutrients before ripping it's way out her birth canal.

As far as disgusting imagery goes, you would make an excellent pro-lifer.

As far as disgusting imagery goes, you would make an excellent pro-lifer.

I guess I'm not the only one to notice. She also believes that men are being treated unfairly because women get to terminate the responsibility later than men and that it's "killing" the fetus. It may not be a duck, but it sure quacks like one.

When charged with killing a pregnent woman, you are also charged with the murder of the unborn baby. Abortion is wrong. Yes there are technical issues people will bring up, but i believe it is just the easy way out. If the woman will die because of it, and the baby will not survive, then by all means do what is needed to save lives, but other than that, it is 100% wrong. There are some people who honestly can say that they believe that partial birth abortions are wrong. This is what i say, u have an abortion, you are a murder. Pro-Choice vs Pro-Life. I see it more as Pro Life vs. Pro-Death. Abortion was illegal for a long time in America before the Roe vs. Wade case, where everything changed, and the woman who brought that case to court now regrets her decision. Dont have the money? There are thousands of people out there who would love nothing more than to have that new born child that u are brutally murdering, becasue they cant have kids. When u have sex with another person, you become one flesh, and your body is as much yours as your husbands. This is where my christian standpoint (ignore the flag, it is a complete mockery of satanism and what not) "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; " 1 cor. 6:19. As a christian, you have no right to a choice over something that isnt yours. That is one of many christian defenses against Abortion, but not everyone believes in christianity and the true and only faith. Regardless, it is wrong. You are killing a human being, and shame on you for believing that u ever should be allowed the right to take another innocent human's life.

It does not. It's property. The law says that she may do as she likes with her property. It explicitly details a type of property, but it DOES NOT give her the right to terminate a fetus.

Now, I'll ask again. Source? Link? Proof? Where is this law you keep citing wrongly.

You could have just googled "UK Abortion Law" and clicked any link on the first page if you were actually that interested, but anyway...

In the UK a woman has the right to an abortion on the following grounds:

(Please explain how they are explicitly about property - seeing as you are being so adamant about the law being about property)


A the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman greater than if the pregnancy were terminated;

B the termination is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman;

C the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman;

D the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of any existing child(ren) of the family of the pregnant woman;

E there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped;


or in emergency, certified by the operating practitioner as immediately necessary:

F to save the life of the pregnant woman; or

G to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman.
A, B, E, F and G are all about weighing up the health of the mother during pregnancy and due to the physical effects of pregnancy and the rights of the fetus. None are about the fetus having no rights.

C, D and E are all or in part about the result of the pregnancy - the child that will be born. C and D are the most common reasons used - almost all abortions carried out fall under C or D. See that the fetus can be aborted if the woman feels that bringing it to term will damage the mental health of her existing children for the most clear cut example - it has excluded ALL harm to the mother - Under D the mother apparently has no grounds based on damage to herself whatsoever, and as bringing the pregnancy to term does not under D harm her mental or physical ability to care for her children it is very clear that a mother can have a fetus aborted if she feels that an additional child will upset her existing children or may harm a future sibling in some way - in case you care to explain another way continuing a pregnancy will cause physical harm to existing children.

When C is read in the context of D it is also clear that C is also largely about the mothers reaction to Post-Pregnancy if she continues with the pregnancy - particulary the mental health side.

E gives the mother the right to terminate a fetus on the grounds it will be born with a severe mental handicap - this is not about any harm to the mother at all. It is not about her rights to her body in any way - is is also explicitly about terminating a fetus to prevent a future child.

You will note that NONE are about property, and only E could possibly be read to suggest that the fetus has 'no' rights - the rest are a balance of the rights of the mother, any pre-existing children she might have and the fetus.

If the legal basis was about choosing a medical procedure it would say something like "A woman wants to have the medical procedure" And two doctors would not need to approve it. If it was about te fetus not having rights then half the points would not even be there as half the points are about balancig rights. If it was about the fetus having 'no' rights there would be no reason for any justification at all until the stage where the fetus did get rights.


It is not. You're wrong. It's based on rights. It may be pragmatic, but the law was created not in violation of rights, but with the inclusion of them. You claim that it was pragmatism trumping rights, and that's ludicrous and clearly wrong.

As you can see - all the legal reasons are for practical reasons, none are about getting to choose what procedures you go through, and none that apply to abortions without medical proof of severe damage to the fetus are about the fetus not having any rights - They are about addressing the effects of the pregnancy and it's result - a child - on the mother.


No. It wouldn't be the best interest of the child. Educated people recognize that children are not necessarily best off with their biological parents. The law respects the rights of a child, by only allowing a change to parenthood to occur with the consent of a proxy to the child, and with the understanind that the move is in the best interest of the child. Your ignorance here is plainly astounding.
I think it is very obvious that it is probably not in the best interest of the child to grow up in a state orphanage. However - your point about it not being true that they are best off with their biological parents, combined with your earlier point that 'Safe Haven' laws not applying to women who ditch toddlers because it is not in the best interests of the child. How on earth is it in the best interests of the child to be kept with a mother who would ditch them at a fire station?



So the right to bodily autonomy trumps the right to life? Hmmmm... evidence please?
Visit Canada.


AND you claimed earlier I was making up that it's a person. Now it's a person according to you as well. So you weren't just being obtuse but deliberately obtuse.
If I claimed it was not a person can you please show me where - if I did then that was unintentional.


Yes, in Canada they don't believe it's a person yet. That's where the debate lies, and I keep telling you this. Once it's a person, it's murder. They don't allow murder despite your ignorant claims.
So you believe the policy in Canada is murder?

I am pretty sure they do believe it is a person at that stage when born prem, so I see no reason not to think so at the same stage before it is born - just that it does not have rights that trump the mothers.

Hell - the Spartans did not realy believe you were a person until you were examined after birth and deemed worthy (I have not seen 300) - does that mean it was not murder to put the babies on the hil to die?

As far as disgusting imagery goes, you would make an excellent pro-lifer.
Describing how disgusting and horrible childbirth is?

"Now Girls, you absolutely must not have an abortion because then you won't get to have something feeding off you for nine months before it literally rips it's way out your birth canal often requireing the doctor to actually cut your virginia to open it more, while the force of the muscles involved in giving birth will quite likely make you shit yourself while your legs are up in stirrips resulting in your lying in your own shit while in total agony until the birth is complete"

Yeah - I'm sure that'll discourage girls from having a chemical abortion...

People have an overly sanitised view of childbirth - I suspect this is due to how much much of western society seperates itself from 'ickey' things. This sanitization where you pretend it is all nice and clean and pleasant. This realy only serves to make things easier for the pro life lot (and anti-meat eating and anti-vivisection groups) as it makes their 'shock' tatics actualy shocking, rather than 'well yeah - I knew that'.

I guess I'm not the only one to notice. She also believes that men are being treated unfairly because women get to terminate the responsibility later than men and that it's "killing" the fetus. It may not be a duck, but it sure quacks like one.
Hey - you're the one who is all squeemish about actualy termininating the fetus and are much more prepared to argue for the rights of the unborn trumping the womans than I am.

And - you still have not explained how 'well - it would be nice if men were also able to make a choice on parenthood several months after they know contraception failed, but nature doesn't work that way' is an Anti-Choice statement.


It's amazing how your belief that I am Pro-Life/Anti-Choice (dispite a history of pro-choice posts and that I am arguing for Pro-Choice) colours your perceptions of what I am saying so much. It is clear that you still believe I am Pro-Life dispite the fact I am having a pro-choice arguement with you and have your guard up so much that you intepret everything - even Pro-choice statements - to somehow be indicitive of being Pro-Life.

You could have just googled "UK Abortion Law" and clicked any link on the first page if you were actually that interested, but anyway...

In the UK a woman has the right to an abortion on the following grounds:

(Please explain how they are explicitly about property - seeing as you are being so adamant about the law being about property)

Amusing. you mean I've never heard of the law I cited by the year it was written and the year it was amended? I've mentioned that law several times, except in addition to reading it, I also read the decision that have followed and the explanation and interpretation of that law.

It says nothing about women specifically having the right to terminate the fetus which is what you said it gives. It says she is permitted to end the pregnancy. The part you cited doesn't say that you have a right to terminate the fetus. It says she has a right to end the pregnancy.

Meanwhile, laws usually don't cite the right on which they are based. Usually they are simply argued that way and applied that way. They are two rights both of which you appear to have no understanding of.

1. The right to bodily autonomy/the right to make medical decisions. Both men and women have this right. Because of this a woman can end a pregnancy. THe right to bodily autonomy does not come from the right to end a pregnancy as you've repeatedly said. Quite frankly, the premise is just stupid. If that were so then men and women would have different rights. They don't.

2. The right to property. THe right property applies to our eggs/sperm/DNA/etc. Obviously when she has an embryo at the local fertility clinic the first right does not apply. The embryo belongs to her as long as it's a thing and not a person (well, her and the male). She has a right to do with it as she pleases.






A, B, E, F and G are all about weighing up the health of the mother during pregnancy and due to the physical effects of pregnancy and the rights of the fetus. None are about the fetus having no rights.

The rights of the fetus? I hope that's an error so I'll ignore it.

The law is entirely about the woman because she is the only person present. That's the point. However, the amendment to that law was created based on viability, the moment when the fetus gains rights. Because of this they lowered the law from 28 to 24 weeks. But you knew that, right? You wouldn't be arguing about something you're clueless about, now, would you?


C, D and E are all or in part about the result of the pregnancy - the child that will be born. C and D are the most common reasons used - almost all abortions carried out fall under C or D. See that the fetus can be aborted if the woman feels that bringing it to term will damage the mental health of her existing children for the most clear cut example - it has excluded ALL harm to the mother - Under D the mother apparently has no grounds based on damage to herself whatsoever, and as bringing the pregnancy to term does not under D harm her mental or physical ability to care for her children it is very clear that a mother can have a fetus aborted if she feels that an additional child will upset her existing children or may harm a future sibling in some way - in case you care to explain another way continuing a pregnancy will cause physical harm to existing children.

You're failing here. You see every example you cite is about rights of existing people. You're confusing legal rights with civil rights again, but we'll ignore that even though doing so that people are endowed rights by governments and they change depending on where you are.

The point is that they consider the rights of everyone involved. People. They weigh the rights of people. Now, do you know why this all no longer applies when the fetus reaches 24 weeks? I bet you don't.

It doesn't mention a future sibling, so you made that up. A future sibling is not EXISTING. The crazy part is you JUST read this and then immediately after talk about it in a way that's provably false. Again, it makes me feel like I'm wasting my time



When C is read in the context of D it is also clear that C is also largely about the mothers reaction to Post-Pregnancy if she continues with the pregnancy - particulary the mental health side.

Yes, it accepts and protects her right to make medical decisions. This is a list of things that enter into a medical decision. But, again, you knew that, because besides just citing the law, you went and saw when it was written and how they argued for it, right? Nope. Because that would keep you from saying silly things about its purpose or how its applied.




E gives the mother the right to terminate a fetus on the grounds it will be born with a severe mental handicap - this is not about any harm to the mother at all. It is not about her rights to her body in any way - is is also explicitly about terminating a fetus to prevent a future child.

It certainly is. You don't think that a mother is affected by the sickly child? Birthing a sickly child is most certainly a medical decision for the mother to make. It is a medical decision. Let me ask you, do you think people don't consider the cost of maintenance when they get braces? Medical decisions weigh the cost to your financial state, to your family, to your mental state, to you physical state, etc. This just outlines what those costs are.


You will note that NONE are about property, and only E could possibly be read to suggest that the fetus has 'no' rights - the rest are a balance of the rights of the mother, any pre-existing children she might have and the fetus.

Hmmm... it mentions the rights of the fetus NEVER. Every single one of those are factors in her medical decision. The same factors someone would weigh if they were choosing to become pregnant in the first place. If you were considering having a child, your concerns would be the exact list found here. To pretend otherwise is to be intentionally obtuse. None of these mention rights of a fetus or a fetus at all. They mention a future child, but a future child does not have rights or she wouldn't be permitted to murder it.

And again, then explain why they lowered the fetal age from 28 to 24 for the application of this law?



If the legal basis was about choosing a medical procedure it would say something like "A woman wants to have the medical procedure" And two doctors would not need to approve it. If it was about te fetus not having rights then half the points would not even be there as half the points are about balancig rights. If it was about the fetus having 'no' rights there would be no reason for any justification at all until the stage where the fetus did get rights.

Two doctors need to approve it because *gasp* it's a medical procedure. Half the points would not even be there? WHAT? Not a single one of those considers the rights of the non-existant for a moment. ONE of them suggests that the problems a child would have if it were born is a reason to TERMINATE it. Which prevents it from existing and obtaining rights.

Not true. This law was created to prevent people from denying abortions. That's why all of the factors of a medical decision are outlined. This a law LEGALIZING abortion. That's the point of it. Those aren't restrictions, they are expansions. And they made it two doctors to further protect the woman from coersion. But again, you knew all this, right? You knew this was a law designed based on women's rights and their rights to make medical decisions. You're not just making stuff up. Tell me you're not.


As you can see - all the legal reasons are for practical reasons, none are about getting to choose what procedures you go through, and none that apply to abortions without medical proof of severe damage to the fetus are about the fetus not having any rights - They are about addressing the effects of the pregnancy and it's result - a child - on the mother.

Ha. Hilarious. Practical reasons are how we make medical decisions. This law recognizes that and outlines rational medical decisions that were illegal until this law was created. Again, you really don't understand if you think this is about practicality.

Again, find me one, one part of this law or any law that says that an 8-week fetus has rights in the UK. I'll wait.


I think it is very obvious that it is probably not in the best interest of the child to grow up in a state orphanage. However - your point about it not being true that they are best off with their biological parents, combined with your earlier point that 'Safe Haven' laws not applying to women who ditch toddlers because it is not in the best interests of the child. How on earth is it in the best interests of the child to be kept with a mother who would ditch them at a fire station?

You have a reading problem. My point was the law is not designed to protect these women, but the children. To respect their rights. Your difficulty in understanding that explicit point is exactly that.


Visit Canada.

Again, Canada does not recognize a fetus has rights until it is born. Again, your arguing from a position that demonstrates your ignorance of the law, rights and the topic in general.


If I claimed it was not a person can you please show me where - if I did then that was unintentional.

Huh? Are you kidding? You didn't spend a good portion of this topic arguing that my expression of the fetus becoming a person is arbitrary and that it not being a person is demonstrated by CANADA LAW. You keep changing your arguments to fit whatever nonsensical point you're trying to make. Give me a minute and I'll quote the many contradictions you've said in this topic alone. You're really not paying attention at all, and you'd do well to read about this a LOT more.


So you believe the policy in Canada is murder?

Yes. Yes, I do. However, canadian law does not, because they believe that the fetus doesn't have rights until birth.


[QUOTE=Shx;12487479]I am pretty sure they do believe it is a person at that stage when born prem, so I see no reason not to think so at the same stage before it is born - just that it does not have rights that trump the mothers.

Um, again, reading before you speak would do wonders for your argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tremblay_v._Daigle

Tremblay v. Daigle [1989] 2 S.C.R. 530, was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in which it was found that a fetus has no legal status in Canada as a person, either in Canadian common law or in Quebec civil law. This, in turn, meant that men, while claiming to be protecting fetal rights, cannot acquire injunctions to stop their partners from obtaining abortions in Canada.

Another decision R v Sullivan actually questioned whether a fetus that is partially born is a person or not. Thus, it's pretty clear that they are looking at birth at the line. But, again, it's not like you're making up your arguments as you go along. You researched this before you started embarrassing yourself, no?


Hell - the Spartans did not realy believe you were a person until you were examined after birth and deemed worthy (I have not seen 300) - does that mean it was not murder to put the babies on the hil to die?

No it was. The law does not decide who has rights and who doesn't. That's been the flaw in your argument since you started speaking. If that were true then women don't have rights because the law in certain countries says so. It's still murder if you murder a person. The law decides when to apply personhood and what human rights to recognize, but human rights are endowed by your existence.


Hey - you're the one who is all squeemish about actualy termininating the fetus and are much more prepared to argue for the rights of the unborn trumping the womans than I am.

Um, no. I'm simply aware of the application of rights. I don't make up arguments to support my position like you do. They don't give a right to terminate a fetus. You are allowed to terminate a fetus because of the rights that you already have.


And - you still have not explained how 'well - it would be nice if men were also able to make a choice on parenthood several months after they know contraception failed, but nature doesn't work that way' is an Anti-Choice statement.

Uh-huh. Because that's what you said. You argued for men to have the same rights as women in regards to terminating their responsibility to the child. Are you denying that?


It's amazing how your belief that I am Pro-Life/Anti-Choice (dispite a history of pro-choice posts and that I am arguing for Pro-Choice) colours your perceptions of what I am saying so much. It is clear that you still believe I am Pro-Life dispite the fact I am having a pro-choice arguement with you and have your guard up so much that you intepret everything - even Pro-choice statements - to somehow be indicitive of being Pro-Life.

I think you don't know what it means to be pro-choice. You don't even understand what rights women have. Which being one, is pretty sad.

Seriously, I've been patient, but this is pointless.

You read a law that with only the slightest effort would expose that it's designed to protect the rights of the woman and legalize abortion. You read it like it limits abortion.

You claim that Canada considers a fetus a person, even though Canadian law explicitly says the opposite and cites that as the reason for the current status of abortion law.

You claim that UK law recognizes fetal rights as existing throughout the pregnancy but the law you cited was amended in 1990 to adjust for the moment when the law recognizes the rights of the fetus - 24 weeks.

You claim that women got the right to make medical decisions from the right to terminate a pregnancy which would mean men don't have that right.

All fo this statements are things you could understand better with a little work. So do it. Becuase arguing with someone who refuses to read about what they're arguing is just frustrating.

It says nothing about women specifically having the right to terminate the fetus which is what you said it gives. It says she is permitted to end the pregnancy. The part you cited doesn't say that you have a right to terminate the fetus. It says she has a right to end the pregnancy.
Under most uses of reason C and pretty much any use Reason D she has the right to end the pregnancy explititly with the aim of not having a child. It is not about her not being pregnant - it is about not having a child - a distinct difference. As she can have an abortion to prevent having a child it is about terminating the fetus.


Meanwhile, laws usually don't cite the right on which they are based. Usually they are simply argued that way and applied that way. They are two rights both of which you appear to have no understanding of.

1. The right to bodily autonomy/the right to make medical decisions. Both men and women have this right. Because of this a woman can end a pregnancy. THe right to bodily autonomy does not come from the right to end a pregnancy as you've repeatedly said. Quite frankly, the premise is just stupid. If that were so then men and women would have different rights. They don't.

2. The right to property. THe right property applies to our eggs/sperm/DNA/etc. Obviously when she has an embryo at the local fertility clinic the first right does not apply. The embryo belongs to her as long as it's a thing and not a person (well, her and the male). She has a right to do with it as she pleases.
These are however in

The rights of the fetus? I hope that's an error so I'll ignore it.

Can she go into a doctors surgery and say "There are no physical or mental health risks to myself or my existing children, I just want to have this abortion to exercise my bodily autonomy and as the fetus has no rights there is no reason I cannot do this"? From the law it is pretty clear she can't.

She has to justify why she should be able to have one. If the fetus had no rights at all and it was purely about bodily autonomy then there would be no legal requirement for her to justify the abortion on the basis it is preventing some kind of harm.

Do other medical procedures have this legal requirement? Do you legally have to justify why you want a boob-job? no. Why? because you are not weighing your rights against anything else.


The law is entirely about the woman because she is the only person present. That's the point. However, the amendment to that law was created based on viability, the moment when the fetus gains rights. Because of this they lowered the law from 28 to 24 weeks. But you knew that, right? You wouldn't be arguing about something you're clueless about, now, would you?

I do know that, and it is also why they briefly looked at lowering it to 22 weeks following proof a fetus is viable at the 22 week mark. Are abortions between 22 and 24 weeks now murder?

Incidently - as you mention - the lowering is because improved technology means a fetus is now considered viable at 24 weeks - what would happen if technology improved so a fetus was viable outside the womb from 8 weeks?

The viability thing strikes me as squeemishness rather than a practical reason - which is why they are keeping it at 24 weeks even though it is proven a fetus can be viable at 22 weeks.


You're failing here. You see every example you cite is about rights of existing people. You're confusing legal rights with civil rights again, but we'll ignore that even though doing so that people are endowed rights by governments and they change depending on where you are.

The point is that they consider the rights of everyone involved. People. They weigh the rights of people.
And what do they weigh the rights of people against?
It doesn't mention a future sibling, so you made that up. A future sibling is not EXISTING. The crazy part is you JUST read this and then immediately after talk about it in a way that's provably false. Again, it makes me feel like I'm wasting my time
Again - Reason D is about the rights of third parties, who are in no way at all affected by the pregnancy itself - just it's product. Preventing the product is explicitly about terminatng the fetus. Reason C read in the context of reason D is also obviously about the result of the pregnancy rather than the pregnancy itself.

Unles you care to explain how a pregnancy can cause physical and mental harm to a mothers existing children when it is not causing harm to the mother (otherwise it would come under reason C).


It certainly is. You don't think that a mother is affected by the sickly child? Birthing a sickly child is most certainly a medical decision for the mother to make. It is a medical decision. Let me ask you, do you think people don't consider the cost of maintenance when they get braces? Medical decisions weigh the cost to your financial state, to your family, to your mental state, to you physical state, etc. This just outlines what those costs are.
If the fetus has 'no' rights why does there have to be a justification to terminate it? You have said it is about weighing the rights of people already alive, but not what they are being weighed against. If the weight of the fetus rights is zero then it would not need any justification.

Also - Option E is also explicitly about preventing the end result of the pregnancy - a child, and hence it is explicitly about terminating the fetus.


Two doctors need to approve it because *gasp* it's a medical procedure.
What other elective procedure has a legal requirement for two doctors to approve my right to have it? A Boob-job is a medical procedure - there is no legal requirement for two doctors to approve that or for me to justify it in any way. A responsible doctor would want me to make sure I knew why I was getting it done, but there is no legal requirement for it. If Abortion was about a medical procedure then the same would apply - instead you legally need to justify it, as you yourself mention - weiging up your rights against something...


Half the points would not even be there? WHAT? Not a single one of those considers the rights of the non-existant for a moment. ONE of them suggests that the problems a child would have if it were born is a reason to TERMINATE it. Which prevents it from existing and obtaining rights.
If the law was that the mother had bodily autonomy and that the fetus had no rights then there would be no need for any justifications. You would not need to justify it based on health risks or the fact you can't cope with having a child/more children - you could just say "I want an abortion" - hence most of the points would not be there as they would all be completely covered by:

A: The woman wants an abortion.

The only other ones would be if you awarded the fetus full rights at some point during pregnancy where you can put in:

B: The pregnancy presents an imminent risk of serious permanent damage to the womans health
C: The pregnancy presents an imminent risk to the womans life.


Again, find me one, one part of this law or any law that says that an 8-week fetus has rights in the UK. I'll wait.
You cannot abort it on a whim. You cannot abort it because you feel like it. Clearly am 8 week fetus has the legal right not to be aborted without a medical reason why the woman can't carry it or a situational reason why she cannot give birth.


Huh? Are you kidding? You didn't spend a good portion of this topic arguing that my expression of the fetus becoming a person is arbitrary and that it not being a person is demonstrated by CANADA LAW.
It is arbitary - as is mine - I would consider a fetus at 28 weeks as a person, however in Canada they do not - proof that when I consider a fetus a person, and when you consider a fetus a person might not be the be-all and end-all of when it obtains personhood.


No it was. The law does not decide who has rights and who doesn't. That's been the flaw in your argument since you started speaking. If that were true then women don't have rights because the law in certain countries says so. It's still murder if you murder a person. The law decides when to apply personhood and what human rights to recognize, but human rights are endowed by your existence.
And yet they are given by law...


Uh-huh. Because that's what you said. You argued for men to have the same rights as women in regards to terminating their responsibility to the child. Are you denying that?
Paper Abortions?

A few posts ago you were saying I was promoting men to have the right to actual abortions, now it's paper abortions...


I think you don't know what it means to be pro-choice. You don't even understand what rights women have. Which being one, is pretty sad.
Um - the right to choose to have an abortion.

I'm a bloke by the way - I do believe I mentioned this to you earlier...


Seriously, I've been patient, but this is pointless.

No - you have been rude, abusive and so blinded by your assumptions in your reading that you cannot even see what is being said, instead you prefer to search for hidden meanings and intepretations to satisify your fantasies.

Now - I have had quite enough of someone being needlessly abusive - particulary since I have been relatively courteous to you dispite your unprovoked language, additude, insults and accusations. You can reply if you wish - but expect it to be ignored as I no longer believe you are capeable of rationally continuing this discussion - which is not the topic I set out to discuss - due to your inability to accept that I am pro-choice and that your misconception drives you to draw irrational meanings and connections with what is being said.

There are some people who honestly can say that they believe that partial birth abortions are wrong. This is what i say, u have an abortion, you are a murder. Pro-Choice vs Pro-Life. I see it more as Pro Life vs. Pro-Death.

I know you're a troll/puppet but at any rate there is no way a person can accurately say the pro-choice group is Pro-Death as few if any pro-choicers actualyl want to see or mandate terminations - the want to allow the right to choose to ahve a termination.

Pro-Life on the other hand can reasonably be called Anti-Choice as it is about preventing the right to choose, however I prefer not to do this as it is a poor arguement and when you start hurling names you may as well turn it into a "Yo mamma so fat" competition.

Okay, let's recap.

You said that Canada considers a fetus a person before it was born. You were proven wrong.

You said that the UK balances the rights of the fetuses in the 1967 Abortion Act. You were proven wrong. The UK legally addresses the rights of the fetus at 24 weeks which was lowered from 28 weeks in the amendment of 1990. Like I said, proven wrong.

You said that act explicitly addresses the right to terminate the fetus. It doesn't. It never even mentions the fetus. At all. Again, proven wrong.

You claim that the rights being used are the right to terminate a pregnancy which grants the rights to medical decisions. Again, proven wrong.

You claim property rights are not a factor in the law. Look up inhereted property and fetus. What you'll find is case law in the US, UK and Canada about events that occurred while a fetus was still a fetus but affected when it had rights. Because it inhereted property from the mother (its body) it has rights to go after the wrongs perpetrated on that body, provided it wasn't the person it was inhereted from. Again, this proves you wrong.

You don't know what you're talking about. At all. You've made provably false claims.

The abortion debate HAS TO center around when rights are granted because we don't allow murder to protect property rights, which is why I can't put traps on my home. I can kill someone if I'm there to protect my life, but not to protect my property. We don't allow murder to support medical decisions unless it's a balancing of rights. We simply don't. So it comes down to, in ever legal debate, in every country, when rights are addressed to the fetus. When we recognize them. If you don't know this, and don't care to know this, then you're over your head.

I've been following this while trying to make my ability to post work and Jocabia, you're driving me nuts.

Shx arranges his posts by taking a set of assumptions or principles which he may or may not agree with and following them to what he sees as their logical conclusion. Then taking another set of assumptions and doing the same. After several repeats he compares conclusions.

It serves two possible purposes:

1) Comparing conclusions to one another and how favorable they seem, we get an idea where the assumptions lead and whether we really want to make them

2)Comparing conclusions to current behaviour/moral climate or whatever, we get an idea what assumptions are underlying current policies and beliefs.

Assuming we all agree with his logic.

Anyway, You've been quoting him out of context. Taking sets of assumptions he doesn't agree with, sticking them out there all on their own, and then saying why you think they're stupid. It doesn't make any sense, it's like...

Shx: You may think cannibalism is a good idea, but it's not.

Jocabia: Shx's said, "...cannibalism is a good idea..." what a moron!

I'd accuse you of knocking down straw men, but I think the straw man thing is reserved for people who know they're doing it on some level.

Reread his posts and your sig a couple times.

I've been following this while trying to make my ability to post work and Jocabia, you're driving me nuts.

Shx arranges his posts by taking a set of assumptions or principles which he may or may not agree with and following them to what he sees as their logical conclusion. Then taking another set of assumptions and doing the same. After several repeats he compares conclusions.

It serves two possible purposes:

1) Comparing conclusions to one another and how favorable they seem, we get an idea where the assumptions lead and whether we really want to make them

2)Comparing conclusions to current behaviour/moral climate or whatever, we get an idea what assumptions are underlying current policies and beliefs.

Assuming we all agree with his logic.

Anyway, You've been quoting him out of context. Taking sets of assumptions he doesn't agree with, sticking them out there all on their own, and then saying why you think they're stupid. It doesn't make any sense, it's like...

Shx: You may think cannibalism is a good idea, but it's not.

Jocabia: Shx's said, "...cannibalism is a good idea..." what a moron!

I'd accuse you of knocking down straw men, but I think the straw man thing is reserved for people who know they're doing it on some level.

Reread his posts and your sig a couple times.

Amusing. I love puppets.

Let's pick some and see if they're strawmen.

Did Shx say that Canada believes that life begins prior to birth? I can quote the entire post. He certainly did. In fact, ask him if he said that.

Did Shx say that English law is explicit (that would me it says it in so many words) that there is right to terminate the fetus? Yes, he did. I can quote the entire post if you like. In fact, ask him if he said that.

Did Shx say that English law recognizes the rights of the fetus basically as early as the embryoic stage, and balances them with the rights of the female? Yes. and he said it can be found explicitly in the text of the law and then quoted a law that NEVER mentions the fetus.

The only place you could make that argument is about the paper abortions, where IN THIS THREAD he denies arguing for it, but you'd have to look at other threads for that one. If you examine that one point in this thread alone it would appear to be a strawman. However, he brought his post history into it, so I did the research.

I can pepper the thread with quotes if you like.

EDIT: Out of morbid curiosity, what are some of these strawmen or do you only have vague references to cannibalism to suggest something you've not actually demonstrated?

Amusing. I love puppets.


Funny, I`d imagined you as the sort who could become quite cross with an unoffending puppet.


Let's pick some and see if they're strawmen.


Well, I didn`t *actually* accuse you of using a strawmen. But I suppose it would be unreasonable at this point to expect that to stop you from reacting to the charge of strawmen...


I can pepper the thread with quotes if you like.

HAH! I accuse you of arguing against an argument you`ve constructed yourself from out of context quotes and you offer to refute me be using a lot of quotes.

Seriously though. The person you think you`re arguing with is a figment of your imagination.

Funny, I`d imagined you as the sort who could become quite cross with an unoffending puppet.



Well, I didn`t *actually* accuse you of using a strawmen. But I suppose it would be unreasonable at this point to expect that to stop you from reacting to the charge of strawmen...

Yes, yes, you didn't charge me with strawman. You charged with what would be a strawman if I was intelligent enough to notice. Much better. Is this how you avoid supporting your claims? Pretend you didn't make them. Hmmmm... who do I know like that?

Well, actually that doesn't narrow it down. That's pretty much every bad debater on NS. How about a little evidence for your claim that I argued these strawmen I didn't realize were strawmen from the woman/man hiding their identity?


HAH! I accuse you of arguing against an argument you`ve constructed yourself from out of context quotes and you offer to refute me be using a lot of quotes.

Seriously though. The person you think you`re arguing with is a figment of your imagination.

Again, your making claims. Support it. What did I take out of context and create a false argument out of? Stop making general claims and actually present some evidence of your claims.

What he claims to believe and what he's argued in other threads is not germaine to what he said in this thread.

The quotes are links, they can't be out of context unless, you know, you don't know how to click on an arrow.

Seriously though. The person you think you`re arguing with is a figment of your imagination.


Cheers - I'm glad someone else noticed :)

I was begining to wonder if I was going insane - I was being accused of being Pro-Life by somebody who was passionately arguing FOR the rights of the fetus (albeit after a certain date in the pregnancy - which is ironically decided upon by when the fetus can survive outside the womb - the very question I raised in the OP, in fact was the core of the OP. the whole point of the OP was that if improved technology pushes back when a fetus can survive outside the womb what happens?) when every point I have ever made was Pro-Choice - I re-read over the beginning of the thread and was quite heartened to see that quite a few people commented that it was a well thought out, intelligent and thoughtful post. Even some people who I thought would have SEVERE objections to the point (Bottle for one - I was surprised by a couple of her posts) seemed to agree in part with the arguement - though I was surprised at how many would abort to be 'not pregnant'. In fact I think everybody who posted at all apart from Jocabia seemed to grasp what the actual question was about - but he was too blinded by prejudice to read much in context.

Anyway - thanks for the comment :)

Time to leave this thread again - no wish to argue with a guy having halucinations again.

I took a bit of a break after this 'debate' and now have a shiny new post name :)

Can the puppet TG me btw - I'm curious to know who is was.

Heh - no last word in an arguement with jocabia :)

Cheers - I'm glad someone else noticed :)

I was begining to wonder if I was going insane - I was being accused of being Pro-Life by somebody who was passionately arguing FOR the rights of the fetus (albeit after a certain date in the pregnancy - which is ironically decided upon by when the fetus can survive outside the womb - the very question I raised in the OP, in fact was the core of the OP. the whole point of the OP was that if improved technology pushes back when a fetus can survive outside the womb what happens?) when every point I have ever made was Pro-Choice - I re-read over the beginning of the thread and was quite heartened to see that quite a few people commented that it was a well thought out, intelligent and thoughtful post. Even some people who I thought would have SEVERE objections to the point (Bottle for one - I was surprised by a couple of her posts) seemed to agree in part with the arguement - though I was surprised at how many would abort to be 'not pregnant'. In fact I think everybody who posted at all apart from Jocabia seemed to grasp what the actual question was about - but he was too blinded by prejudice to read much in context.

Anyway - thanks for the comment :)

Time to leave this thread again - no wish to argue with a guy having halucinations again.

I took a bit of a break after this 'debate' and now have a shiny new post name :)

Seriously, a guy creates a puppet for the sole purpose of attacking me and you gravedig to cheer him on and flame me. Honestly, that's just pitiful. You're welcome to make an argument, but instead chose to rest on flames. Hmmm...

Even some people who I thought would have SEVERE objections to the point (Bottle for one - I was surprised by a couple of her posts) seemed to agree in part with the arguement - though I was surprised at how many would abort to be 'not pregnant'.
*Ears perk up at sound of own name*

Was it good-surprise, or bad-surprise?

I can't say I'm surprised by the number of people who would abort to be not-pregnant, because pregnancy is a royal pain. Most pregnant women don't have the luxury of taking plenty of time off and focusing on experiencing the positive sides of their pregnancies. Most pregnant women, these days, have to worry about bills and the economy, their existing family, their work responsibilities, and a lot of other concerns that don't just get out of the way when you get preggers. Since nobody is offering up a medical procedure to remove "asshole boss" from that equation, a medical procedure that removes the hastle aspects of pregnancy is attractive. Something's gotta give, right?

Great.

So it's either a cancer... or, it's a parasite.
In the context of this discussion, it is appropriate to use the tapeworm comparison when talking about the status of the fetus at certain developmental stages. This does not EQUATE a fetus with a tapeworm, it simply is an accurate reflection of the fact that a fetus IS a parasite during gestation.

"Parasite" is not an insult, in medical or scientific terminology (which is what we are using here). It does not raise or lower the value of an organism. It is simply a statement about the organism's requirements for survival.

Now, based on the scientific criteria for defining an organism, a zygote does not meet the standards. In biology, an organism is a living complex adaptive system of organs that influence each other in such a way that they function in some way as a stable whole. So before a certain developmental point, a human embryo does not meet the definition of an organism, and therefore also cannot be considered a parasite (since a parasite is an organism).

First - let me say I am Pro-Choice. By a long way.

There have been a few threads about abortion lately - mainly centering on the say of men vs the say of women in the descision to carry/terminate a pregnancy and tied in with that a discussion on the inequity in who has the say due to nature leading onto discussions on child support.

The arguement for abortion used by many is along the lines that a woman gets to decide what happens to her body, that she gets to decide wether another human can live in her innards and sponge off her nutrients before ripping it's way out her birth canal. That as the foetus is in her body and as it is using her body that she has the right to remove it from her body. Obviously men do not have the foetus inside them, and obviously they do not have the right to intefere with the womans body without her consent and hence ultimately although they can give the woman their opinion and try to persuade her, ultimately the descision is all hers.

Now - while I am pro-choice, and welcome any allies I am somewhat concerned about the reasoning behind the arguement that a woman has a right to end the pregnancy as it is inside her body and she has the right to decide what goes on in her innards. (There is also the health of the mother issue where her life or health would be in serious danger if she carried the baby to term - this is a very different issue to abortion where there is a free choice regards your health)

The reason for my concern is that the arguement seems more that a woman has the right not to be pregnant rather than than that she has the right to kill the foetus and that the death of the foetus is a side effect of removing it from her - a point raised sometimes with comments like 'put it on the hospital bench and if it lives without her body then let it live'. This sentiment seems also to be carried in the child support arguement where two points are often raised - that if the man could carry the kid he should be free to and that she is not choosing to absolve responsibility to a child in the same way that a man is, she is choosing to end a pregnancy, that the pregnancy does not equal a child.

So why the concern? We're all on the same side on this issue yes? Well - I have two concerns, well - two sides of one concern.

1. The arguement lends itself towards a woman being able to choose to be pregnant rather than to choose not to have a child - that she has the right to decide as she might not want a child/foetus growing inside her - that she does not want to be pregnant. However I seriously doubt that the pregnancy is the driving force behind many women having abortions. I suspect that the majority of abortions are carried out because the woman does not want/cannot support/would prefer not to support the product of the pregnancy rather than a wish not to be pregnant. I feel the reasoning behind abortion, and the law supporting it should reflect the actual motivation for abortion rather than a justification for it that applies to very few cases.

2. Given the advancement of medical technology I do not think it impossible that one day artificial wombs could be developed that could be used to bring a foetus to term from any stage of development. I also do not think it is impossible that a foetal extraction method could be developed that would allow for the foetus to be removed from the woman intact. Hell - lets look at this hypothetically to avoid debate on the possibility of such technology as it is the issue behind it that I am interested in. Hypothetically - if technology existed that would allow the foetus to be removed alive, that was no more invasive or dangerous to the woman than abortion - possibly using very similar methods, and if the technology existed to grow that foetus from any stage of development, and lets say this is all provided courtsey of the government or some charity, there is no financial expense to the woman for the medical treatment - should a woman be allowed to have an abortion? They can easily make her not pregnant through similar (or even refined) procedures to those currently used for abortion, grow the baby and then give it back to her at the 9th month of development. Is there a difference between kill/extract and extract/kill where the extraction procedure is the same as far as the womans body (not the foetus) is concerned?

So - to clarify the actual question - If technology existed to extract and grow a foetus in an artificial womb, and the extraction procedure was no more invasive than the abortion - that the effect on the womans actual body is the same - should women be allowed to have abortions? Or should the women who currently have abortions because they cannot support a child be dumped with a baby they can't support a few months after they were made 'not pregnant'? Or should the law and reasoning supporting it reflect why the majority of women actually get abortions?

(note - either way I do not feel anyone other than the woman has the right to decide on wether to ahve the extraction - this question is in no way supporting the right of a a man to forceably abort against the womans will - just in case that was the impression people got)

It's quite simple -- "the right to end a pregnancy" is a much nicer, more palatable term for the pro-choice movement to sell to the public than, say, "a woman's right to have her fetus removed and killed." Of course, they both imply the same thing, but it's all about the verbage -- you'll never hear a member of NARAL or Planned Parenthood talk about killing a fetus. It just doesn't suit the mesage that they're trying to get across, as it implies that a malicious murder is being committed (and that would only assist the pro-life camp).

It's quite simple -- "the right to end a pregnancy" is a much nicer, more palatable term for the pro-choice movement to sell to the public than, say, "a woman's right to have her fetus removed and killed." Of course, they both imply the same thing, but it's all about the verbage -- you'll never hear a member of NARAL or Planned Parenthood talk about killing a fetus. It just doesn't suit the mesage that they're trying to get across, as it implies that a malicious murder is being committed (and that would only assist the pro-life camp).

Yes, yes, that's it. It's a giant fetus-killing conspiracy.

Or perhaps, just perhaps, we're educated enough to recognize that the fetus does not qualify for life at the time of the VAST majority of elective abortions.

By the way, murder means it's illegal. Malicious implies it's done with some kind of interest in causing suffering to the fetus. So that's a pretty good post if we look past the misuse of the three most important words in it.

*Ears perk up at sound of own name*

Was it good-surprise, or bad-surprise?

I can't say I'm surprised by the number of people who would abort to be not-pregnant, because pregnancy is a royal pain. Most pregnant women don't have the luxury of taking plenty of time off and focusing on experiencing the positive sides of their pregnancies. Most pregnant women, these days, have to worry about bills and the economy, their existing family, their work responsibilities, and a lot of other concerns that don't just get out of the way when you get preggers. Since nobody is offering up a medical procedure to remove "asshole boss" from that equation, a medical procedure that removes the hastle aspects of pregnancy is attractive. Something's gotta give, right?

No slipping anything past you!

It was a relieving surprise you didn't go to town on me! When I posted the OP I had you pegged as most likely to use WebSmite2000 to rain hellfire and damnation upon me :)

If you mean surprised about people (presently) having abortions because they don't want to face pregnancy rather than that they don't want to face childbirth - I would say it was a good surprise in that it is always good to learn something, and unexpected as it was something I had not really considered as a main motivater for abortions today- until now all abortions I have been involved in or have known about have been about us/them not wanting to have a child at this point in life - or not wanting to have the responsibility of raising a downs syndrome child. Though now I can see why women would have an abortion to avoid pregnancy, and in many respects it is a fair reason. I think the only reasons that I would regard as a 'bad' surprise would be if I met someone who just liked aborting fetuses for the sake of it or if I met someone who had an abortion because they did not want a son/daughter - normally daughter :(

But as you say - if this became possible it would probably be VERY popular with women. Childbirth would probably only be carried out by those who were unable to afford this and by those crazy women today who don't use painkillers because they believe they would be missing out on the true experience of childbirth. But - if it became possible, and if the technology improved a bit, I suspect this could easily become quite economical - like how computers used to be literally millions of dolllers and are now pretty damn cheap to anyone with any form of disposable income.

It's quite simple -- "the right to end a pregnancy" is a much nicer, more palatable term for the pro-choice movement to sell to the public than, say, "a woman's right to have her fetus removed and killed." Of course, they both imply the same thing, but it's all about the verbage -- you'll never hear a member of NARAL or Planned Parenthood talk about killing a fetus. It just doesn't suit the mesage that they're trying to get across, as it implies that a malicious murder is being committed (and that would only assist the pro-life camp).

Ignoring the malicious murder bit I think this is the reason some here are so squeemish about actually refering to the termination of the fetus - particulary some of the Americans on here where abortion is really a very close issue. In the UK and Canada for example where the public is overwhealmingly in favor of legalised and publicaly funded abortions the issue is a bit safer to discuss and peope can actually talk about terminating the fetus rather than ending the pregnancy. In the US it is much more touchy, and I think many Americans would (initally) have a problem with explititly thinking of it in terms of terminating the fetus.

I think this might also be part of the reason Jocabia thinks I am some very very very bizarre Pro-Lifer - I suspect he suspects I am trying to get some sort of admission that people do it to terminate fetuses to then go nuts with.

However I disagree that talking about it in terms of terminating the fetus would be harmful to the Pro-Choice movement. To me the approach of 'it's a medical procedure like any other', 'it's about ending a pregnancy', 'it's not remotely human at all' and the like only make it much easier for the Pro-Life lot to shock people. If you convince a girl at the 16week mark that she is just having a medical procedure and the fetus is not remotely human then all you are doing is making it much much easier for the Pro-Lifers to shock her and guilt trip her with pictures of the fetus at that stage. if she knows what she's getting into then the Pro-Life shock tatic has no weight whatsoever. Kinda like how PETA shock posters about meat production don't do much to prevent sheep farmers from enjoying their Lamb Chops, but do work (a little) in scaring and guilt triping 8 year old city kids into being vegetarian.

No slipping anything past you!

It was a relieving surprise you didn't go to town on me! When I posted the OP I had you pegged as most likely to use WebSmite2000 to rain hellfire and damnation upon me :)

If you mean surprised about people (presently) having abortions because they don't want to face pregnancy rather than that they don't want to face childbirth - I would say it was a good surprise in that it is always good to learn something, and unexpected as it was something I had not really considered as a main motivater for abortions today- until now all abortions I have been involved in or have known about have been about us/them not wanting to have a child at this point in life - or not wanting to have the responsibility of raising a downs syndrome child. Though now I can see why women would have an abortion to avoid pregnancy, and in many respects it is a fair reason. I think the only reasons that I would regard as a 'bad' surprise would be if I met someone who just liked aborting fetuses for the sake of it or if I met someone who had an abortion because they did not want a son/daughter - normally daughter :(

But as you say - if this became possible it would probably be VERY popular with women. Childbirth would probably only be carried out by those who were unable to afford this and by those crazy women today who don't use painkillers because they believe they would be missing out on the true experience of childbirth. But - if it became possible, and if the technology improved a bit, I suspect this could easily become quite economical - like how computers used to be literally millions of dolllers and are now pretty damn cheap to anyone with any form of disposable income.



Ignoring the malicious murder bit I think this is the reason some here are so squeemish about actually refering to the termination of the fetus - particulary some of the Americans on here where abortion is really a very close issue. In the UK and Canada for example where the public is overwhealmingly in favor of legalised and publicaly funded abortions the issue is a bit safer to discuss and peope can actually talk about terminating the fetus rather than ending the pregnancy. In the US it is much more touchy, and I think many Americans would (initally) have a problem with explititly thinking of it in terms of terminating the fetus.

I think this might also be part of the reason Jocabia thinks I am some very very very bizarre Pro-Lifer - I suspect he suspects I am trying to get some sort of admission that people do it to terminate fetuses to then go nuts with.

However I disagree that talking about it in terms of terminating the fetus would be harmful to the Pro-Choice movement. To me the approach of 'it's a medical procedure like any other', 'it's about ending a pregnancy', 'it's not remotely human at all' and the like only make it much easier for the Pro-Life lot to shock people. If you convince a girl at the 16week mark that she is just having a medical procedure and the fetus is not remotely human then all you are doing is making it much much easier for the Pro-Lifers to shock her and guilt trip her with pictures of the fetus at that stage. if she knows what she's getting into then the Pro-Life shock tatic has no weight whatsoever. Kinda like how PETA shock posters about meat production don't do much to prevent sheep farmers from enjoying their Lamb Chops, but do work (a little) in scaring and guilt triping 8 year old city kids into being vegetarian.

You keep bring up this red herring in order to avoid the actual debate. That comment was an aside and I expressly told you why I think it. However, it has nothing, nothing to do with why I think your argument is flawed.

An abortion terminates a pregnancy, terminates a fetus. It doesn't kill it. It doesn't murder it. It doesn't do anything except end the potential.

My problem with your argument is that you claim they have a right to terminate the fetus and this is why they can get abortions, but it isn't and claiming it is so is patently wrong.

They have a right to control their bodies. The fetus has NO rights. As such women's rights trump NO RIGHTS in the elective abortion debate. You've repeatedly claimed that they were trumping the rights of the fetus. The fetus has no rights and this has been supported by the law in EVERY country you've mentioned.

You keep bring up this red herring in order to avoid the actual debate. That comment was an aside and I expressly told you why I think it. However, it has nothing, nothing to do with why I think your argument is flawed.

Honestly - I really do think that your mis-belief is causing you to read the arguement in such a way. You are not reading what I am intending to say as you are looking through a lens that makes you unable to read anything without deep suspicion and looking for ways to attack it. I suspect that if you believed I was Pro-Choice you would have far far fewer issues with the arguement as a whole. I realise there may be some ambuiguity between the intended and the read comment- particulary when people start playing the semmantics game - but it seems almost everyone else managed to get the intended meaning just fine.

Yes, yes, that's it. It's a giant fetus-killing conspiracy.

Or perhaps, just perhaps, we're educated enough to recognize that the fetus does not qualify for life at the time of the VAST majority of elective abortions.

By the way, murder means it's illegal. Malicious implies it's done with some kind of interest in causing suffering to the fetus. So that's a pretty good post if we look past the misuse of the three most important words in it.

An abortion terminates a pregnancy, terminates a fetus. It doesn't kill it. It doesn't murder it. It doesn't do anything except end the potential.


So what exactly does a medical professional do to the fetus when he or she performs an abortion? Does he wave a magic wand and make it disappear? Does he perform a pagan ritual that "ends the potential", thus making the fetus cease to exist? You are so obssessed with political buzzwords that you do a disservice to your cause by refusing to admit the plain, scientific truth of the matter -- that a living fetus is killed during the abortive procedure. Be it by vaccum, saline injection, etc., an abortion is performed for the purpose of ending the fetus's life. Yes, I understand that you do not consider the fetus to really be "alive" in the sense that is it a sentient being. Gotcha. However, in spite of this belief, it is simply untruthful for you to claim that a fetus is not killed when an abortion takes place. By admitting that this is the true intent of an abortion, and by further emphasizing that the fetus is not alive, it would, as Sxh says on this page, help you to better rebut claims by the pro-life movement. The current state of the debate is disjointed: the pro-life side only discusses the fetus, while the pro-choice side only discusses the pregnancy. By addressing the fetus, and by further enforcing its status as a potential life (life in the sense of a fully functional human being), you would probably gain supporters in the debate. By refusing to acknowledge the fetus, and by denying concrete facts in your debating in order to do so, you only cast you and your fellow pro-choicers in a less-than-flattering light.

Honestly - I really do think that your mis-belief is causing you to read the arguement in such a way. You are not reading what I am intending to say as you are looking through a lens that makes you unable to read anything without deep suspicion and looking for ways to attack it. I suspect that if you believed I was Pro-Choice you would have far far fewer issues with the arguement as a whole. I realise there may be some ambuiguity between the intended and the read comment- particulary when people start playing the semmantics game - but it seems almost everyone else managed to get the intended meaning just fine.

You see, once again you dropped all the arguments to concentrate on the red herring. You've been doing it for dozens of pages.

I'll give you some examples. You touted Canada as allowing women's rights to trump the rights of the fetus. When I pointed out that according to them the fetus has no rights and is not a person. You claimed otherwise. I proved this wrong and you then just kept on with the same argument only now acting like Canada supports your argument because it doesn't consider the fetus a person, when just a minute before Canada supported your argument because they did.

So one of two things happened - your argument changed. It didn't. Or your logic was flawed one or both times. If one thing leads to a conclusion then the exact opposite cannot support the same conclusion. It's really very simple.

Now, would you care to address any arguments or would you like to continue avoiding them by dancing around holding up this anti-choice thing. Your argument is flawed whether your anti-choice or not. Arguing about whether you're anti-choice serves no purpose and even if you convince me you're pro-choice, I won't support your argument. It's hopelessly flawed and based on a wholly incorrect understanding of English, American and Canadian law.

So what exactly does a medical professional do to the fetus when he or she performs an abortion? Does he wave a magic wand and make it disappear? Does he perform a pagan ritual that "ends the potential", thus making the fetus cease to exist? You are so obssessed with political buzzwords that you do a disservice to your cause by refusing to admit the plain, scientific truth of the matter -- that a living fetus is killed during the abortive procedure.

You cannot kill a fetus. It is not a life. No more than I kill anything when I take a shower or get a circumcision.


Be it by vaccum, saline injection, etc., an abortion is performed for the purpose of ending the fetus's life.

Again, this is your flawed understanding. A fetus does not meet the requirements for life. It has no life. You keep saying this like it's a given, but that's a completely incorrect understanding of the biological requirements for life.


Yes, I understand that you do not consider the fetus to really be "alive" in the sense that is it a sentient being. Gotcha.

Ha. Who mentioned sentience? It's not alive in the sense of being a living organism. Bottle already explained to you why, but you're so busy with your amusing little fantasy argument that you're not listening.


However, in spite of this belief, it is simply untruthful for you to claim that a fetus is not killed when an abortion takes place.

I know it seems this way to you. A biology book would help you not make this argument anymore, however. Can you list the biological requirements to qualify as a living organism?


By admitting that this is the true intent of an abortion, and by further emphasizing that the fetus is not alive, it would, as Sxh says on this page, help you to better rebut claims by the pro-life movement. The current state of the debate is disjointed: the pro-life side only discusses the fetus, while the pro-choice side only discusses the pregnancy. By addressing the fetus, and by further enforcing its status as a potential life (life in the sense of a fully functional human being), you would probably gain supporters in the debate. By refusing to acknowledge the fetus, and by denying concrete facts in your debating in order to do so, you only cast you and your fellow pro-choicers in a less-than-flattering light.

Amusing. Concrete facts, huh? When exactly does the fetus become a living organism and why? This argument fails so frequently I feel like we should just have a standard link to an old argument so you can just read through and pretend you got to make your flawed argument.

If understanding biology makes us look bad, then I'm very glad I'm making us look bad.

And well let's look at what you're trying to do here -

you'll never hear a member of NARAL or Planned Parenthood talk about killing a fetus. It just doesn't suit the mesage that they're trying to get across, as it implies that a malicious murder is being committed (and that would only assist the pro-life camp).

Ok, so let's see we won't admit the "truth" because it will hurt our argument.

By admitting that this is the true intent of an abortion, and by further emphasizing that the fetus is not alive, it would, as Sxh says on this page, help you to better rebut claims by the pro-life movement.

Wait it's not admitting it that will hurt our argument. Hmmm... looks like someone wants it both ways. Apparently, the "malicious murder" hurts our argument whether we admit it or not. Nice geniune argument that is. It only took two posts for that one to become obvious.

So what exactly does a medical professional do to the fetus when he or she performs an abortion? Does he wave a magic wand and make it disappear? Does he perform a pagan ritual that "ends the potential", thus making the fetus cease to exist? You are so obssessed with political buzzwords that you do a disservice to your cause by refusing to admit the plain, scientific truth of the matter -- that a living fetus is killed during the abortive procedure. Be it by vaccum, saline injection, etc., an abortion is performed for the purpose of ending the fetus's life.

Wrong. An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. A fetus sometimes dies during an abortion procedure.

In the majority of cases, no fetus is present at the time the abortion is performed (since most abortions are performed at stages prior to the fetal stage). In addition, many abortions are performed in situations where the fetus has already died.


Yes, I understand that you do not consider the fetus to really be "alive" in the sense that is it a sentient being. Gotcha. However, in spite of this belief, it is simply untruthful for you to claim that a fetus is not killed when an abortion takes place.

Actually, quite often it is the literal truth. In the US, most abortions are performed before a fetus has formed.


By admitting that this is the true intent of an abortion, and by further emphasizing that the fetus is not alive, it would, as Sxh says on this page, help you to better rebut claims by the pro-life movement. The current state of the debate is disjointed: the pro-life side only discusses the fetus, while the pro-choice side only discusses the pregnancy.

You're right, that's fucking disjointed, because according to you there is nobody discussing THE WOMAN.


By addressing the fetus, and by further enforcing its status as a potential life (life in the sense of a fully functional human being), you would probably gain supporters in the debate.

By referring to black people as "niggers," you'd probably gain some racist supporters, too. So?

Abortion rights have nothing whatsoever to do with the fetus. No human person possesses any right to live inside another person's body, or to harvest another person's tissues without their consent. Even if we assume that fetuses are full human persons, they STILL have no right or rights which would in any way trump a woman's right to end her body's participation in pregnancy.

Framing the abortion debate around the fetus is a pathetic anti-choice ploy. To do that is to allow the anti-choice to control the discussion. It's pure bullshit.


By refusing to acknowledge the fetus, and by denying concrete facts in your debating in order to do so, you only cast you and your fellow pro-choicers in a less-than-flattering light.
You are a classic concern troll. Your "helpful" advice actually does nothing but undermine real pro-choice efforts. The number one problem right now is that pro-choicers are allowing people like you to convince them that if they'd only pander to the anti-choice just a little bit more then maybe people would like them.

It doesn't work. It's never worked. It never will work.

Abortion rights are about WOMEN. Not fetuses. Anybody who tries to re-frame the discussion to be about fetuses is not helping support choice, and more likely than not they are anti-choice and just concern-trolling.

It was a relieving surprise you didn't go to town on me! When I posted the OP I had you pegged as most likely to use WebSmite2000 to rain hellfire and damnation upon me :)

Rawr.

:D


If you mean surprised about people (presently) having abortions because they don't want to face pregnancy rather than that they don't want to face childbirth - I would say it was a good surprise in that it is always good to learn something, and unexpected as it was something I had not really considered as a main motivater for abortions today- until now all abortions I have been involved in or have known about have been about us/them not wanting to have a child at this point in life - or not wanting to have the responsibility of raising a downs syndrome child. Though now I can see why women would have an abortion to avoid pregnancy, and in many respects it is a fair reason.

I grew up as a white kid in a fairly nice suburb. It wasn't until I left that quiet street and that safe little school that I learned about a world where people have abortions because they can't afford to miss work for the few days it would take to physically have the baby. I learned about women who couldn't afford contraception, but who also couldn't afford to have morning sickness and sleepless nights that interfered with their ability to feed their three existing children.

It was one helluva shock to me, as I had (naively) thought that America was a Modern Nation and therefore exempt from true poverty. Perhaps such sad things happen in OTHER countries, I thought, but not here. We're rich in America! Everybody says so!


I think the only reasons that I would regard as a 'bad' surprise would be if I met someone who just liked aborting fetuses for the sake of it or if I met someone who had an abortion because they did not want a son/daughter - normally daughter :(

I'm with you on that one.


But as you say - if this became possible it would probably be VERY popular with women. Childbirth would probably only be carried out by those who were unable to afford this and by those crazy women today who don't use painkillers because they believe they would be missing out on the true experience of childbirth.

I don't know. My own mother wanted to experience pregnancy, according to her, and she wanted to be pregnant a second time as well. She didn't pass up painkillers for the birth or anything, but she liked the feeling of growing a child inside her body.

What worries me is that the cost of this theoretical procedure would be continually dropping (as usually happens as medical technology is refined), but the medical and economic costs of being pregnant would not be dropping. Eventually we might reach a point where working-class or poor women could not choose to have a "natural" pregnancy even if they wanted to, because they would not be able to afford the medical costs and lost wages.

Personally, I don't think I would ever choose to be pregnant if it could be avoided. But that's a choice I want to be able to make for myself, and I wouldn't want to be forced into a decision due to economics or whatever. So I wouldn't want any other woman to be forced to make a choice she didn't like because she couldn't afford to do otherwise.

It's quite simple -- "the right to end a pregnancy" is a much nicer, more palatable term for the pro-choice movement to sell to the public than, say, "a woman's right to have her fetus removed and killed." Of course, they both imply the same thing, but it's all about the verbage -- you'll never hear a member of NARAL or Planned Parenthood talk about killing a fetus. It just doesn't suit the mesage that they're trying to get across, as it implies that a malicious murder is being committed (and that would only assist the pro-life camp).
You tip your hand a bit much with the "murder" line. It's so telling that anti-choicers claim to care so much about this topic, yet can't be bothered to familiarize themselves with the basic definitions of terms.

Jocabia - I sure don't question your debating skills, I do wonder where you get the time to write such detailed posts :)

For my own 2 cents, at some point we need to address our cultural morals and consider the actual benefits involved rather than get tied up with the issue of a 'right to life'.

There's no difference between terminating a fetus at 3 weeks than there is at 9 months, or even after if it is judged impassionately that there is no benefit for 'whatever we term it' to live. The mother makes that choice, if possible in consultation with doctors, not to give the doctors any say but to help best evaluate the particular situation.

Same with euthanasia.

Yes, yes, that's it. It's a giant fetus-killing conspiracy.

Or perhaps, just perhaps, we're educated enough to recognize that the fetus does not qualify for life at the time of the VAST majority of elective abortions.

By the way, murder means it's illegal. Malicious implies it's done with some kind of interest in causing suffering to the fetus. So that's a pretty good post if we look past the misuse of the three most important words in it.

Ummm I don't really agree with that. A fetus is surly alive, and is surly human.
An argument can definatly be made about brain activity, and we can discuss what it means to be human. But to suggest that a fetus is not alive is totaly wrong.

Ummm I don't really agree with that. A fetus is surly alive, and is surly human.
An argument can definatly be made about brain activity, and we can discuss what it means to be human. But to suggest that a fetus is not alive is totaly wrong.
Yeah, I know what you mean. I was walking down the street yesterday, and I accidentally bumped into this fetus. He got really angry and started yelling abuse at me. I think he was drunk. Got out of there in a hurry before he tried to attack me. Bastard.

;)

If you can discuss what it means to be human, then you can't really say a fetus is surely human then, can you?

Unlike an aborted foetus, this thread just won't die eh?
¬_¬

If you can discuss what it means to be human, then you can't really say a fetus is surely human then, can you?

He means the species is human. Which it is. Person, no, but human, yes.
And it's alive. Maybe not as meaningfully alive as the bacteria you scrub from your fingers after taking a dump, but still alive.

Yeah, I know what you mean. I was walking down the street yesterday, and I accidentally bumped into this fetus. He got really angry and started yelling abuse at me. I think he was drunk. Got out of there in a hurry before he tried to attack me. Bastard.

;)

If you can discuss what it means to be human, then you can't really say a fetus is surely human then, can you?

We can get onto that later. The point I made was to disagree with those who say that a fetus is not alive.

A plant is surly alive yes?

A single celled amebe is surly alive yes?

A fetus has all the things that constituite life. It holds genetic code that can be passed on, it metabolises, and it has a body in which to keep it's biological process.

Unlike an aborted foetus, this thread just won't die eh?
¬_¬



He means the species is human. Which it is. Person, no, but human, yes.
And it's alive. Maybe not as meaningfully alive as the bacteria you scrub from your fingers after taking a dump, but still alive.
Well, the post he was quoting didn't argue that it was or wasn't human, so I didn't know what he meant..

We can get onto that later. The point I made was to disagree with those who say that a fetus is not alive.

A plant is surly alive yes?

A single celled amebe is surly alive yes?

A fetus has all the things that constituite life. It holds genetic code that can be passed on, it metabolises, and it has a body in which to keep it's biological process.
For whatever it's worth:

I study embryonic development for a living. I don't use human embryos right now, I use chicken embryos, but the chicken is actually a pretty good developmental model for vertebrate studies.

I primarily work with E13 embryos. These are eggs that were fertilized 13 days earlier and have been incubated while they develop. At that stage, the embryo doesn't yet have feathers and is still pretty misshapen compared to the mature form, but it's certainly got functioning organs and a circulatory system and such. When I open the eggshell my first observation is whether or not the embryo is alive or not alive. Living embryos will twitch, for one thing, though these movements are just reflex contractions.

Of course, chickens develop much faster than humans. A human embryo would be well into its third month of gestation before it reached a state equivalent to that of an E13 chicken embryo.

As I understand it, the fetal stage in humans begins after the 8th week of gestation. That would equate to about E10 or so in a chicken embryo. At that stage, you can identify major body parts (head, feet, etc) and major organs, but they are not fully formed. One thing that creeps me out about E10s is that their eyelids haven't formed, so their bare eyeballs are just staring out. I know they can't actually "see" anything, but it still gives me the willies if I think about it.

I just figured this might give people a sense of the stages of development we are talking about.

One thing that creeps me out about E10s is that their eyelids haven't formed, so their bare eyeballs are just staring out. I know they can't actually "see" anything, but it still gives me the willies if I think about it.

Thanks Bottle, it's just about my lunchtime and between that and a joke this thread reminded me of I'm actually feeling almost queasy.

The joke:

What's red, squidgy and slides up a woman's leg?
A homesick abortion.

Lovely...

Ummm I don't really agree with that. A fetus is surly alive, and is surly human.
An argument can definatly be made about brain activity, and we can discuss what it means to be human. But to suggest that a fetus is not alive is totaly wrong.

That's your argument? Seriously? Do you need us to replace books for you?

Here, I'll tell you what - I'll help you out.

At what point have the majority of abortions occurred? 8 weeks.
How much of a brain exists at that time? None. No activity. No brain. And the brain activity doesn't begin until about four months later. So, no, no argument can be made about brain activity.

Meanwhile, it is not surely alive. It is required to behave as a whole in order to be considered a living organism. The fetus cannot do so until much, much later than the majority of elective abortions. So, no, it is not surely alive.

We can get onto that later. The point I made was to disagree with those who say that a fetus is not alive.

A plant is surly alive yes?

A single celled amebe is surly alive yes?

A fetus has all the things that constituite life. It holds genetic code that can be passed on, it metabolises, and it has a body in which to keep it's biological process.

It has genetic code, yes. That's not a requirement, but it does have genetic code. It does not matabolize as an organism yet and as such does not qualify as one.

Jocabia - I sure don't question your debating skills, I do wonder where you get the time to write such detailed posts :)

For my own 2 cents, at some point we need to address our cultural morals and consider the actual benefits involved rather than get tied up with the issue of a 'right to life'.

There's no difference between terminating a fetus at 3 weeks than there is at 9 months, or even after if it is judged impassionately that there is no benefit for 'whatever we term it' to live. The mother makes that choice, if possible in consultation with doctors, not to give the doctors any say but to help best evaluate the particular situation.

Same with euthanasia.

There is a difference between 3 weeks and 9 months. One is a sentient being and the other isn't even a being. I'm sorry but I recognize the difference between scratching myself and killing a human being.

Does that mean necessarily that abortion should illegal at some point? No there is still debate about that, but in my opinion, the moment you have a viable fetus you must kill instead of simply seperate from the mother, then you pass the line from simply excercising the right to control your body to some unheard of right to kill your children.

This is precisely why the abortion debate has always been about when personhood begins. It's because it is assumed that once you are a person that people can't willfully kill you.

Euthanasia is at the choice of the person that dies. This is hardly comparable.

That's your argument? Seriously? Do you need us to replace books for you?

Here, I'll tell you what - I'll help you out.

At what point have the majority of abortions occurred? 8 weeks.
How much of a brain exists at that time? None. No activity. No brain. And the brain activity doesn't begin until about four months later. So, no, no argument can be made about brain activity.

Meanwhile, it is not surely alive. It is required to behave as a whole in order to be considered a living organism. The fetus cannot do so until much, much later than the majority of elective abortions. So, no, it is not surely alive.

Sorry man, what are you talking about? I presented no argument in that post. I merely disagreed that a fetus is not alive.

Why come in strong, and insulting right at the start of a possible debate with me?

It has genetic code, yes. That's not a requirement, but it does have genetic code. It does not matabolize as an organism yet and as such does not qualify as one.


Then we are in disagreement at what constitutes life.

I get my stance from here:

http://www.protolife.net/news/press_articles/NewScientistFeb05.pdf

Are you saying that a fetus is not an organism?

Sorry man, what are you talking about? I presented no argument in that post. I merely disagreed that a fetus is not alive.

Why come in strong, and insulting right at the start of a possible debate with me?

You presented several arguments in that post. They were all incorrect. No brain activity and no organism at the time of most elective abortions. In fact, most aren't even in the fetal stage.

It has genetic code, yes. That's not a requirement, but it does have genetic code. It does not matabolize as an organism yet and as such does not qualify as one.

And why strong? Because you entered into a debate and said things that are factually incorrect as if they are correct and then used them as a basis for the statements you made. It's misleading and when talking about support for abortion, dangerous.

Then we are in disagreement at what constitutes life.

I get my stance from here:

http://www.protolife.net/news/press_...ntistFeb05.pdf

Are you saying that a fetus is not an organism?

I'm saying it's not an organism at eight weeks when the majority of abortions have already been formed. This is when it first enters into the fetal stage. It does not react as an organism or metabolize as an organism. The human heart meets the requirements for an organism better.

I base my judgement on the definition of life from biology texts. That article is eight pages long and assumes you either don't care or already understand the definition of life. You really should use a more educational source. Meanwhile, what does that have to do with when the fetus meets the definition of life?

You presented several arguments in that post. They were all incorrect. No brain activity and no organism at the time of most elective abortions. In fact, most aren't even in the fetal stage.

It has genetic code, yes. That's not a requirement, but it does have genetic code. It does not matabolize as an organism yet and as such does not qualify as one.

I'm saying it's not an organism at eight weeks when the majority of abortions have already been formed. This is when it first enters into the fetal stage. It does not react as an organism or metabolize as an organism. The human heart meets the requirements for an organism better.

You are wrong you know, on several counts. This is the original post of mine that you responded to:

Me:

'Ummm I don't really agree with that. A fetus is surly alive, and is surly human. An argument can definatly be made about brain activity, and we can discuss what it means to be human. But to suggest that a fetus is not alive is totaly wrong.'

I presented no arguments at all there. The first and second sentance is saying I disagree, a fetus is alive and a human fetus is of the genus Homo Sapien.

The third sentance says that we can at some later stage talk about brain activity, and also discuss what it means to be human. This is not an assertion that a fetus at this stage has any brain, but rather an admision that I know it does not, and we can discuss what bearing thgis has on being human later.

The last sentance is self evidant.

You are saying that an 8 week old fetus is not an organism? How then would you define what an organism is?

You are wrong you know, on several counts. This is the original post of mine that you responded to:

Me:

'Ummm I don't really agree with that. A fetus is surly alive, and is surly human. An argument can definatly be made about brain activity, and we can discuss what it means to be human. But to suggest that a fetus is not alive is totaly wrong.'

I presented no arguments at all there. The first and second sentance is saying I disagree, a fetus is alive and a human fetus is of the genus Homo Sapien.

Saying a fetus is alive is an argument. I recognize in debate I have to often teach people the definitions of words, but is 'argument' really one of them?


The third sentance says that we can at some later stage talk about brain activity, and also discuss what it means to be human. This is not an assertion that a fetus at this stage has any brain, but rather an admision that I know it does not, and we can discuss what bearing thgis has on being human later.

Fair enough. I can't hear your tone so it comes across as saying you could make an argument for brain activity in the fetus. If that's not what you meant, we can drop that.



The last sentance is self evidant.

You are saying that an 8 week old fetus is not an organism? How then would you define what an organism is?

See and there is your problem. You claim the last sentence is 'self-evident' and saying this not only makes an incorrect statement but makes it sound as if there is no room for debate. That's why you feel abused. Because you made an incorrect assertion as if it's a truism.

An 8-week old fetus does not meet the requirements to be an individual organism. Organs meet it much better.

It is not until about 12-weeks that it starts to react as an entity, and this is required to meet the requirements for life.

Saying a fetus is alive is an argument. I recognize in debate I have to often teach people the definitions of words, but is 'argument' really one of them?

Heheh sometimes the lack of tone or facil expreion on tha 'net can wast soooo much time.

I made a stament 'A fetus is surly alive.' This is not an argument, as it contains no dialaloge attempting to back it self up, it is a statment of my stance on this topic, I had not yet at this stage presented any arguments to back up my claim.



Fair enough. I can't hear your tone so it comes across as saying you could make an argument for brain activity in the fetus. If that's not what you meant, we can drop that

cool.


See and there is your problem. You claim the last sentence is 'self-evident' and saying this not only makes an incorrect statement but makes it sound as if there is no room for debate. That's why you feel abused. Because you made an incorrect assertion as if it's a truism.

Again, I made no mistake here. When I said self evidant, in the context of my last post(being I was explining to you my previous post), the words 'But to suggest that a fetus is not alive is totaly wrong' need no explaination. It is self evidant what my meaing was.


An 8-week old fetus does not meet the requirements to be an individual organism. Organs meet it much better.

It is not until about 12-weeks that it starts to react as an entity, and this is required to meet the requirements for life.

This does not tell me how you define what an Organism is.

There is a difference between 3 weeks and 9 months. One is a sentient being and the other isn't even a being. I'm sorry but I recognize the difference between scratching myself and killing a human being.

Does that mean necessarily that abortion should illegal at some point? No there is still debate about that, but in my opinion, the moment you have a viable fetus you must kill instead of simply seperate from the mother, then you pass the line from simply excercising the right to control your body to some unheard of right to kill your children.

This is precisely why the abortion debate has always been about when personhood begins. It's because it is assumed that once you are a person that people can't willfully kill you.

Euthanasia is at the choice of the person that dies. This is hardly comparable.


First - is euthanasia really choice of the person - perhaps I misunderstand the meaning of euthanasia - can someone else not decide?

Second - sentient? Just because we have neural connection doesn't mean we're sentient. or does it?

First - is euthanasia really choice of the person - perhaps I misunderstand the meaning of euthanasia - can someone else not decide?
No, someone else can not decide. Euthanasia is the choice of the person.

Second - sentient? Just because we have neural connection doesn't mean we're sentient. or does it?
Sentience requires the ability to respond to stimuli in a non-reflexive manner. That's it. A cow is sentient.

I'm noticing Jocabia getting frustrated with Peep for the same reasons I got frustrated with him in several other threads: he insists his questions have not been answered, and continually says incorrect things as if they're true, when they're not, or at best, are very arguable.

I'm beginning to see a pattern.

No, someone else can not decide. Euthanasia is the choice of the person.


Sentience requires the ability to respond to stimuli in a non-reflexive manner. That's it. A cow is sentient.

It's funny thinking of a cow having the same adjective used to describe it as Skynet.

"I AM SKYNET. I WILL REMOVE THE HUMAN MENACE."

"... Moo. (Translation: "I'm a cow. I... eat this grass, here. Right here, under my head. See? Watch. Munch, munch. It's always right under my head no matter where I go.)"

Heheh sometimes the lack of tone or facil expreion on tha 'net can wast soooo much time.

I made a stament 'A fetus is surly alive.' This is not an argument, as it contains no dialaloge attempting to back it self up, it is a statment of my stance on this topic, I had not yet at this stage presented any arguments to back up my claim.

Uh-huh and when you said that I was wrong while making the exact same statement that wasn't a claim either? Hmmm...

You said in two different ways that the fetus is alive. This is a positve claim. Support it.



cool.

Again, I made no mistake here. When I said self evidant, in the context of my last post(being I was explining to you my previous post), the words 'But to suggest that a fetus is not alive is totaly wrong' need no explaination. It is self evidant what my meaing was.

And what you meant to say was an incorrect claim. You said that saying the fetus is not alive is totally wrong (of course, just another way of saying the fetus is alive). You've not backed up this assertion. That this claim is correct is not self-evident. They require support.



This does not tell me how you define what an Organism is.

I already told you repeatedly how it doesn't meet the requirements, because it doesn't metabolize as an entity. It also doesn't react as an entity. If want the entirety of the requirements look them up. It's pretty basic biology.

I'll give you a hint, how do I tell the difference between a group of organisms and a single organism?

I'm noticing Jocabia getting frustrated with Peep for the same reasons I got frustrated with him in several other threads: he insists his questions have not been answered, and continually says incorrect things as if they're true, when they're not, or at best, are very arguable.

I'm beginning to see a pattern.

I love when people pop into threads to attack me rather than present an argument. It's much more likely to carry. Why bother debating when a drive-by accomplishes your goal? Of course, this exposes that your goal isn't actually to debate your points but to 'beat' me, but, hey, I suppose that's an admirable ... I'm sorry I can't say that with a straight face. Thanks for the entertainment.

If my argument is flawed, prove it. Your weak attempts to attack me are exactly that weak and only attempts.

You see, once again you dropped all the arguments to concentrate on the red herring. You've been doing it for dozens of pages.
It isn't really a red herring - I am just pointing out why you are reading things into what I am saying.

If I somehow ended up in a discussion with someone wearing a Nazi Swastica who wanted to have a conversation about Jewish people and their influence in the world, and seemed to be making vaguely reasonable points I would be looking at his swastica and thinking 'what is he really trying to convince me, what is his real message'. If a Jewish person made the same points I would take them in a very different light and much more at face value. When you read what I have been posting you read it while staring at the giant sign saying "End Abortion Murder!" that you seem to imagine I am carrying. It would be like someone having a conversation with a Jewish guy about Jewish people while halucinating a Nazi Armbad on him.

You are reading into what I am posting, and are apparently going out of your way to misintepret what I have said. This is quite a big point in this debate as I find myself arguing with someone who is not actually arguing with me, but what they would like to think I am.

I think you are the only person reading into it like this.


I'll give you some examples. You touted Canada as allowing women's rights to trump the rights of the fetus. When I pointed out that according to them the fetus has no rights and is not a person. You claimed otherwise. I proved this wrong and you then just kept on with the same argument only now acting like Canada supports your argument because it doesn't consider the fetus a person, when just a minute before Canada supported your argument because they did.
As I said at the time to your response - I meant the people, rather than the Law. I have severe dounts that your average Canadian does not believe a 9month fetus is alive.


Now, would you care to address any arguments or would you like to continue avoiding them by dancing around holding up this anti-choice thing. Your argument is flawed whether your anti-choice or not. Arguing about whether you're anti-choice serves no purpose and even if you convince me you're pro-choice, I won't support your argument. It's hopelessly flawed and based on a wholly incorrect understanding of English, American and Canadian law.

Can you clarify exactly what arguement it is you think is flawed? As you have not actually addressed the arguement in the OP. You have spent a long itme addressing side arguements, and what you would like me to have said/ment but you have not once addressed my original question which is why do people so often focus on an arguement that lends itself to ending pregnancy rather than termination of the fetus.

As for English Law - A law that gives a woman the right to have an abortion to prevent a child is explititly a right to terminate. Ending a pregnancy does not mean there will not be a child at the end, terminating the fetus does. It is frankly a bizarre intepreation you are applying to not see it as the right to terminate the fetus.

Further to that - Why on earth do you think a woman does not have the right to terminate the fetus?

We have, I believe, agreed pretty firmly a woman has the right to terminate an embryo outside her body - a right that comes not from bodily autonomy but the right to terminate it. We also agreed that in such a situation the man also has that same right. So why when it is inside the woman do you not think she has the explicit right to terminate it? . Instead relying on the right to have a medical procedure that 'just so happens' to result in the termination of the embro? Likewise - you attribute the same rights to embryos as you do to second trimester fetuses (i.e none) so the point would surely extend to them too.

Further - You argue the fetus has no rights, a fair point though I disagree slightly, if the fetus has no rights then why does the woman not have the right to terminate it?

Now you in response to another poster actually made a comment that is very relevent to the actual topic on discussion started in the OP:

Does that mean necessarily that abortion should illegal at some point? No there is still debate about that, but in my opinion, the moment you have a viable fetus you must kill instead of simply seperate from the mother, then you pass the line from simply excercising the right to control your body to some unheard of right to kill your children.
Now - a 24 week fetus is not 'viable' in the same sense a 9month one is. If you just give birth, wrap it in a cloth and breastfeed it then you can expect it to promptly die.

IIRC a 28 week birth will have similar results,

However a 24 week birth is viewed as viable if you put the baby in an incubator with breathing tubes, feeding tubes and round the clock supervision then there is a vaguely decent chance the baby will live. Basically you have to hook it up to a very crude mechanical womb for several weeks/months.

24 weeks used to be beyond the capabilities of our technology, a while ago 28 weeks was the limit where a baby born had a sporting chance - as the mechanical wombs used could not do enought for younger babies to be viable.

Today we know a 22 week birth is viable. Technology has improved, we have a better artifical womb available.

Now - what appens when we have an artificial womb where a 18 week fetus is viable?

Say we manage to produce a biological one that can nurture a prem born at an even earlier date?

say a 16 week fetus?

or a 10 week fetus?

or a 4 week embryo?

With an artifical womb that is sufficently advanced a 4 week embryo could be just as viable as a 24 week prem is today - which was a part of the topic I was trying to address in the OP. So perhaps 'viability' might not be the best measure of when to cut off abortions if you're really looking to protect womens rights to have them.

It isn't really a red herring - I am just pointing out why you are reading things into what I am saying.

If I somehow ended up in a discussion with someone wearing a Nazi Swastica who wanted to have a conversation about Jewish people and their influence in the world, and seemed to be making vaguely reasonable points I would be looking at his swastica and thinking 'what is he really trying to convince me, what is his real message'. If a Jewish person made the same points I would take them in a very different light and much more at face value. When you read what I have been posting you read it while staring at the giant sign saying "End Abortion Murder!" that you seem to imagine I am carrying. It would be like someone having a conversation with a Jewish guy about Jewish people while halucinating a Nazi Armbad on him.

You are reading into what I am posting, and are apparently going out of your way to misintepret what I have said. This is quite a big point in this debate as I find myself arguing with someone who is not actually arguing with me, but what they would like to think I am.

I think you are the only person reading into it like this.

Again with the red herring. You care about this more than I do and I've told you this repeatedly. I suspect you cling to this because it's the only argument you haven't lost.

If I'm wrong about a point touch on that point and show where I'm wrong. Let this red herring die and quit whining about me noticing your tendencies. What's the matter? Hit a little to close to home?


As I said at the time to your response - I meant the people, rather than the Law. I have severe dounts that your average Canadian does not believe a 9month fetus is alive.

Amusing. So every time I mention the people we can only talk about the law, but when you have a claim absolutely proven wrong, you're suddenly talking about the people. If you ask Canadians they will promptly disagree with the person next to them. But the current law, reflecting the opinion of the majority, is that a fetus is not a person. Period.



Can you clarify exactly what arguement it is you think is flawed? As you have not actually addressed the arguement in the OP. You have spent a long itme addressing side arguements, and what you would like me to have said/ment but you have not once addressed my original question which is why do people so often focus on an arguement that lends itself to ending pregnancy rather than termination of the fetus.

Pardon? The argument in the OP is flawed for about a dozen reasons I've listed. It rests on the idea that most women are terminating a fetus instead of a pregnancy and you've NEVER supported that claim. There have been attempts to support it, thus the side arguments, but you abandom like red-headed children every time you get backed against the wall and then claim we've never talked about the OP.

What is your support for the claim of the OP.


As for English Law - A law that gives a woman the right to have an abortion to prevent a child is explititly a right to terminate. Ending a pregnancy does not mean there will not be a child at the end, terminating the fetus does. It is frankly a bizarre intepreation you are applying to not see it as the right to terminate the fetus.

It is? Do you know what explicitely mean? It could implicitly the right to terminate. It's not. But you could make that argument. It is not explicit. Please look that word up and come back.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/explicit

When you can show that it says it without your interpretation, you'll have a point. One it mentions NO RIGHT. At all. It doesn't mention the fetus. EVER. Thus it is not explicit. It is dealing with the burden on the family, but it never says anything about the fetus. EVER. Quote the word fetus. In the law in England. Go ahead. If you can't, it's not explicit.

English says you're wrong. Want to debate in another language?


Further to that - Why on earth do you think a woman does not have the right to terminate the fetus?

Amusing. Does the man have a right to terminate the fetus? It's not about the fetus. It's about the medical condition called pregnancy and how you weigh all the consequences of that condition and ending that condition. These are typical parts of a medical decision. If I cut my necrotic arm off, it's because of my right to make medical decision, not because I have the right to cut of my arm. Now I might consider life with and without the arm after the incident, but it's simply not the basis of the law.

You claim that the law comes from the right to terminate the fetus. This is provably wrong.

You claim the law balances fetal rights with women's rights. You claimed it was explict. This is provably false.


We have, I believe, agreed pretty firmly a woman has the right to terminate an embryo outside her body - a right that comes not from bodily autonomy but the right to terminate it. We also agreed that in such a situation the man also has that same right. So why when it is inside the woman do you not think she has the explicit right to terminate it? . Instead relying on the right to have a medical procedure that 'just so happens' to result in the termination of the embro? Likewise - you attribute the same rights to embryos as you do to second trimester fetuses (i.e none) so the point would surely extend to them too.

She has a right to property. The embryo is simply property. That's all. It's not the right you're expressing. It's like saying I have a right to get a haircut. I don't. I can get a haircut and doing so falls under rights I have, but I have no right to a haircut, or a television, or a car, or any number of other things. I'm not sure what your struggle is here.


Further - You argue the fetus has no rights, a fair point though I disagree slightly, if the fetus has no rights then why does the woman not have the right to terminate it?

She has a right to decide to do as she wishes to her property. However, again, and I've explained this repeated, just because actions fall under rights we DO HAVE, doesn't mean we have 80 billion rights to cover every action we can do.


Now you in response to another poster actually made a comment that is very relevent to the actual topic on discussion started in the OP:

All of this is relevant to the OP. The fact that you can't see the larger picture is your flaw. An unfortunate flaw since it's the basis of much of your arguments. I've attempted to explain some of the bigger picture to you, but you just keep getting confused.


Now - a 24 week fetus is not 'viable' in the same sense a 9month one is. If you just give birth, wrap it in a cloth and breastfeed it then you can expect it to promptly die.

IIRC a 28 week birth will have similar results,

However a 24 week birth is viewed as viable if you put the baby in an incubator with breathing tubes, feeding tubes and round the clock supervision then there is a vaguely decent chance the baby will live. Basically you have to hook it up to a very crude mechanical womb for several weeks/months.

Yes, I happen to not agree with this line alone as the line for making law. It happens to coincide with the line for sentience and this is the line where I attribute personhood since it is consistent with every other point of your life. I've made this point repeatedly, but as per normal, you consistently ignore anything that doesn't help your point. I mentioned viable here, because it has to be both viable and a person in order for it to be an issue.


24 weeks used to be beyond the capabilities of our technology, a while ago 28 weeks was the limit where a baby born had a sporting chance - as the mechanical wombs used could not do enought for younger babies to be viable.

Today we know a 22 week birth is viable. Technology has improved, we have a better artifical womb available.

Now - what appens when we have an artificial womb where a 18 week fetus is viable?

Say we manage to produce a biological one that can nurture a prem born at an even earlier date?

say a 16 week fetus?

or a 10 week fetus?

or a 4 week embryo?

With an artifical womb that is sufficently advanced a 4 week embryo could be just as viable as a 24 week prem is today - which was a part of the topic I was trying to address in the OP. So perhaps 'viability' might not be the best measure of when to cut off abortions if you're really looking to protect womens rights to have them.

Again, I've addressed this. And I've addressed it again in this post. Let me know when you get it and we can move past repeated explanations of relatively simple points.

Pardon? The argument in the OP is flawed for about a dozen reasons I've listed. It rests on the idea that most women are terminating a fetus instead of a pregnancy and you've NEVER supported that claim. There have been attempts to support it, thus the side arguments, but you abandom like red-headed children every time you get backed against the wall and then claim we've never talked about the OP.

Ok, in the UK the vast majority of abortions are carried out under reasons C and D. These are about the result of the pregnancy rather than the pregnancy itself. Hence the abortion is about not having a child rather than not being pregnant.

There are abortions under other reasons, which are due to being pregnant but these do not make up the majority of abortions, they also do not account for a very large portion of elective abortions.

Now - I was surprised that some women would have an abortion simply because they did not want to go through pregnancy rather than because they did not want their entire life altered for the next 16-18 years. I had previously based my opinions on people I know who have had abortions - all bar one had abortions because they did not want to have to drop out of university and work in a McJob the rest of their lives. The other one did not want a Downs child, which she found she was pregnant with. Any time I have ever talked about this or read peoples experiences it has always been that people I know would have an abortion because they don't want a child at this time in their life - university/early career. Rape is an exception - where the poeple I know would not want to carry the rapists baby, but I have doubts that the majority of abortions are the result of rapes. Aside from on this site I have never read anything suggesting women get abortions because they don't want to be pregnant - the exception on this site is Bottle who has a number of times expressed an aversion to having children.

I don't suppose you have any source to enlighten me with evidence that droves of women are having abortions simply because they don't want to be pregnant?


It is? Do you know what explicitely mean? It could implicitly the right to terminate. It's not. But you could make that argument. It is not explicit. Please look that word up and come back.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/explicit

Can you sugest any way to guarentee a child does not result from a pregnancy other than by terminating the fetus?


When you can show that it says it without your interpretation, you'll have a point. One it mentions NO RIGHT. At all. It doesn't mention the fetus. EVER. Thus it is not explicit. It is dealing with the burden on the family, but it never says anything about the fetus. EVER. Quote the word fetus. In the law in England. Go ahead. If you can't, it's not explicit.
How can the pregnancy lead to a burden on the family after the pregnancy without a new child being born? (without casing harm to the mother, which would be covered under C or for severe harm by several other qualifiers depending on the severity) How can that child exist without the fetus? How can you have an abortion without a fetus? It is not mentioned as it is assumed it is there - the whole reason the abortion is required.


Amusing. Does the man have a right to terminate the fetus? It's not about the fetus.
I would say yes, but he does not have the means to access that right.


She has a right to property. The embryo is simply property. That's all. It's not the right you're expressing. It's like saying I have a right to get a haircut. I don't. I can get a haircut and doing so falls under rights I have, but I have no right to a haircut, or a television, or a car, or any number of other things. I'm not sure what your struggle is here.
Semmantics. You're pissing about with uses of the word.

For example - you have the right to property, you do not however have the right to include 10kg of Herorin in the property you own.


Yes, I happen to not agree with this line alone as the line for making law. It happens to coincide with the line for sentience and this is the line where I attribute personhood since it is consistent with every other point of your life. I've made this point repeatedly, but as per normal, you consistently ignore anything that doesn't help your point. I mentioned viable here, because it has to be both viable and a person in order for it to be an issue.

It coincides by coincidence. The point of sentience did not get pushed back (or forwards) a month by new developments in medical technology, and it wil not get pushed back another month if technology improves. Given that viability will obviously change with technology but the sentience wil not why do you use viability as a criteria. If we had technology that ment only a 30 week birth had a decent chance of survival but we knew sentience began at 24 weeks would you support termination of a 29 week fetus?

No, someone else can not decide. Euthanasia is the choice of the person.

I don't think so. Maybe certain laws in certain countries require consent but euthanasia does not need choice of the person in its strict sense

Euthanasia by consent
There is involuntary, non-voluntary, and voluntary. Involuntary euthanasia is euthanasia against someone’s will and equates to murder. This kind of euthanasia is almost always considered wrong by both sides and is rarely debated. Non-voluntary euthanasia is when the person is not competent to or unable to make a decision and it is thus left to a proxy like in the Terri Schiavo case. This is highly controversial, especially because multiple proxies may claim the authority to decide for the patient. Voluntary euthanasia is euthanasia with the person’s direct consent, but is still controversial as can be seen by the arguments section below.[2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia

Sentience requires the ability to respond to stimuli in a non-reflexive manner. That's it. A cow is sentient.

Understood - my point is it doesn't really matter. If it's judged best to terminate a pregnancy at 9 months, the same principles would be applicable at 3 weeks. Not to say the same complications arise at 3 weeks as 9 months but the principles should be the same.

Ok, in the UK the vast majority of abortions are carried out under reasons C and D. These are about the result of the pregnancy rather than the pregnancy itself. Hence the abortion is about not having a child rather than not being pregnant.

There are abortions under other reasons, which are due to being pregnant but these do not make up the majority of abortions, they also do not account for a very large portion of elective abortions.

Now - I was surprised that some women would have an abortion simply because they did not want to go through pregnancy rather than because they did not want their entire life altered for the next 16-18 years. I had previously based my opinions on people I know who have had abortions - all bar one had abortions because they did not want to have to drop out of university and work in a McJob the rest of their lives. The other one did not want a Downs child, which she found she was pregnant with. Any time I have ever talked about this or read peoples experiences it has always been that people I know would have an abortion because they don't want a child at this time in their life - university/early career. Rape is an exception - where the poeple I know would not want to carry the rapists baby, but I have doubts that the majority of abortions are the result of rapes. Aside from on this site I have never read anything suggesting women get abortions because they don't want to be pregnant - the exception on this site is Bottle who has a number of times expressed an aversion to having children.

I don't suppose you have any source to enlighten me with evidence that droves of women are having abortions simply because they don't want to be pregnant?

I know. No source I've ever provided you has ever changed your position even when they directly contradict your claims. You're good like that. Enlightenment requires a bit of effort on your part. You've made it clear that's not interesting to you.


Can you sugest any way to guarentee a child does not result from a pregnancy other than by terminating the fetus?

Sure can. End the pregnancy. This may mean ending the fetus. It may mean ending the embryo. But it always means ending the pregnancy. If I also use condoms do I have the right to terminate a fetus or to prevent a pregnancy from coming to term. The only thing common about ALL birth control is that it prevents a pregnancy from coming to term.


How can the pregnancy lead to a burden on the family after the pregnancy without a new child being born? (without casing harm to the mother, which would be covered under C or for severe harm by several other qualifiers depending on the severity) How can that child exist without the fetus? How can you have an abortion without a fetus? It is not mentioned as it is assumed it is there - the whole reason the abortion is required.

Again, you're demonstrating exactly why it's not explicit. If it was explicit you wouldn't have to make an argument. Here is where a dictionary is your friend.

You do realize that no fetus exist in most abortions, no? Again, here is where just a bit of research would help you not to appear bent on looking silly.



I would say yes, but he does not have the means to access that right.

You would say yes. According to you only law matters. Did you forget you said that? Please quote the law that supports that right.



Semmantics. You're pissing about with uses of the word.

For example - you have the right to property, you do not however have the right to include 10kg of Herorin in the property you own.

You're correct. Thank you for supporting my point. You're wrong. I'm right. And you've just demonstrated why. Thankfully, since you've made the point too, we won't that absurd assertion anymore. I'm sure that will please us all.

Semantics are very important to your argument. A dictionary would be quite helpful to you. Then you'd realize why adding "explicitly" to your argument and then showing why it's not explict makes you look silly or why when you keeping claiming a right when what you meant is the result of a right we both agree on only makes you look silly.


It coincides by coincidence. The point of sentience did not get pushed back (or forwards) a month by new developments in medical technology, and it wil not get pushed back another month if technology improves. Given that viability will obviously change with technology but the sentience wil not why do you use viability as a criteria. If we had technology that ment only a 30 week birth had a decent chance of survival but we knew sentience began at 24 weeks would you support termination of a 29 week fetus?

Not sure how this helps your argument. I point the consistent use of sentience throughout life. This is the position of medical professionals up to and through your own death. To look at it consistently this way is pretty much the only non-arbitrary position.

I think it's funny that you bring up that "it coincides by coincidence" like I didn't just say that. I pointed out that both should be required, but that sentience is required for personhood. I'm glad you agree. Yet another point I won't have to hear you ignorantly expound upon.

Well, this is one of the more confused abortion threads I've read. Skipping all the repetitive arguments and especially skipping the chunks of bait thrown out by a few anti-choicers, here are my two cents on the issue and the OP:

1) Women have the absolute right to make their own medical decisions, regardless of the effect of those decisions upon others. Period. The right to choose whether to continue a pregnancy is not and cannot be predicated upon some fantasy of what a fetus might or might not want. Any attempt to make fetuses the focus of a discussion of abortion rights is an attempt to argue against the right of women to make their own medical decisions out of concern for someone else. But that someone is not me and, therefore, has no rights over me. Again, period. There is no way past the obstacle of my ownership of my own body. I cannot be forced to remain pregnant on the assumption that the fetus would want it, anymore than I can be forced to abort on the assumption that a severely damaged fetus would not want to be born only to die in pain a few days later.

2) On the subject of the things fetuses want: A) As has been pointed out, they do not have the brain cells required to "want" things, and (B) no one, in or out of the law, can know what a fetus would want if it could want things. So all arguments about the needs/wants of a fetus are nothing but fantasy. So are all arguments about the "rights of a fetus" because (1) fetuses do not have rights, and (2) fetuses cannot have rights because they have no needs to form a foundation for any rights.

3) The OP suggests an alternative reality in which an extracted embryo can be gestated outside a woman's body. It offers this as an alternative to abortion. But, such a procedure would still be an abortion because it aborts the woman's pregnancy. What happens to the embryo after the procedure is immaterial. I know this was already pointed out, but I felt it important to repeat because I believe there was a motivation behind characterizing it as something other than abortion. See point 4, following.

4) The OP further suggests that if a woman can avoid pregnancy by having the embryo removed, she might still be obligated to become a parent by being responsible for the out-of-body gestation of the embryo until it is birthed (somehow).

But what if the woman's motive for getting an abortion is to avoid parenthood? The OP tries to insist that the only motivation is to avoid pregnancy, and if a woman can avoid that, she should still be willing to be a parent. But what if she is not? The OP has more than once implied that a woman could be forced to care at least partially for a child, even if she chose to abort her pregnancy and has even tried to challenge the extent of legal abandonment laws in order to press that notion. But why would he/she want to press such a notion?

I wonder if the OP argument is not really an elaborately disguised attempt to argue that women should not be allowed to avoid motherhood -- which, as we veterans of abortion rights debates know, is just a way of using babies as a punishment for women having sex. Look at it this way: If we allow the OP to say that his artificial womb idea is not an abortion, then in a sense, isn't the woman still having a baby even though she is not physically pregnant? And if she is having a baby, then she's its mother and must be bound to it by legal obligations. Whereas, if she got an abortion, there would be no baby, no obligation, no long term punishment by which to pay for her life choices. This interpretation is backed up by the OP's attempts to deny that women can abandon a baby and thus give up/lose all parental rights and, with them, all parental obligations. It is further backed up by the OP's repeated questions as to whether the woman would have the right to kill a fetus that is outside her body, which I see as little more than an attempt to trip up pro-choice arguers.

4) But the solution to this problem is obvious. If you lose a finger in an accident, you can make the choice whether to try to have it reattached or not. If you choose not, and if you do not take the finger with you when you leave the hospital, then your finger becomes something you discarded as unwanted, i.e. trash. And the minute it becomes trash, guess what? It's not your property anymore. It's the same with anything you throw away. The minute it hits the curb out front your house, i.e. the minute it leaves your private property, it is free stuff for anyone to legally take as they wish.

So, why should a discarded embryo be any different?

Let's say this artificial womb thing exists. A woman who wants a baby but not a pregnancy (and who refuses to adopt for some reason), may "take her embryo with her" after the abortion, i.e. pay for its out-of-body gestation to full term. A woman who does not want a baby at all, can simple leave it behind after the abortion, maybe sign a paper saying she doesn't want it, and then it becomes the property of the hospital, or maybe of the state. And they can do with it whatever they want -- including destroy it. The woman will have no rights over it after she discards it -- she cannot dictate nor object to whatever any future owners do with or to it. Likewise, she bears no obligation to it. Future owners cannot make her pay for its upkeep any more than someone who fishes an old lamp out of your garbage can make you pay to have it repaired.

What would this lead to? Well, possibly it would lead to a state-run embryo bank that would run very much the way private fertility clinics run now, except more draconian. Probably a lot of aborted embryos would eventually be destroyed anyway, over time. Or possibly they would be used in medical research. Possibly, they might be offered to help infertile couples who cannot afford to be as picky in their choices as those who use private fertility clinics. Can you imagine one woman leaving an abortion clinic and another getting a phone call telling her that an embryo has become available?

Whatever, all this is mere fantasizing. The practical point is that, for the woman who wants neither pregnancy nor child, the procedure remains the same -- an abortion.