Abortion

[yasic]

People have made the abortion debate about when this cell splits or when that organ develops, but that is not the real issue, nor the reason why all abortions should be legal (unless the baby can viably live on its own, at which point it should be a forced birth procedure).

The thing is that a woman has a right to do what she wants with HER OWN BODY and no one else's right can infringe on that. We all have bodily sovereignty, every one of us. No one can force us to give up a kidney, even if we could do it without health risks and even if it would mean saving someone else's life. Their right to live doesn't take precedence over my right to keep my kidney. The same goes for blood--even if there was a shortage of donors, people cannot be forced to give. A woman who is pregant is effectively donating her body to the life of her fetus--her time, her health, her life--and she has a right to stop that whenever she wants.

Abortion is not about the right to kill babies, it's about the right to not be pregnant. If a machine could be invented that would remove a fetus quickly, cheaply, and safely from an unwilling woman and then allow it to mature in an artificial environment and said machines were widely available, I would be the first to suggest that abortion be outlawed. Until then abortions must be allowed to continue, else we take away a fundamental human right from over half the population.

That is not entirely true. Rights have a tendency to give way when they get in the way of other peoples rights. Your right to life, your right to bodily integrety, and any other right can be forced aside when they get in the way of the right of bodily integrety, or the right of life of another If and Only If their rights are in jeopardy due to an actions you yourself made.

Getting pregnant, thus forcing a person (it it were of course) into a situation where it cannot survive (right to life) without you giving up your right to bodily integrity and lead to you losing your life.

 

[yasic]

It is the right of the woman to remove an unwanted fetus from her body. The fact that this is usually fatal to the fetus is sad, but not relevant. If you were hooked up to a machine that was keeping someone else alive using your body, you would have the right to leave the machine whenever you wanted, even if that meant the other person died. Your body, your choice, and you would not be charged. The only difference in a pregnancy is that the woman's body is the machine.

If you hooked up the person to the machine, against their consent (this includes cases where a person in unable to give consent such as youth, being under the influence of narcotics, mental illness, or the like), then legally you are not allowed to disconnect them, even at the cost of your bodily integrety.

If they did give consent, you can disconnect them at any* time, even if it result in death.


*as always, a few exceptions exist.

 

[oryx]

Hi Yasic-I don't have alot of time, so I'll make this short. I think that I mostly agree with what you just typed here, but not sure on the details-do you have any more information on this argument, that you can point me too, so that I can follow? Thanks

 

[yasic]

Hi Yasic-I don't have alot of time, so I'll make this short. I think that I mostly agree with what you just typed here, but not sure on the details-do you have any more information on this argument, that you can point me too, so that I can follow? Thanks

Certainly, would you like me to dig up information about the time frontal intellectual capacities start during pregnancy, or information about what happens in conflicts of basic human rights?

 

[jpcedotal]

It is the right of the woman to remove an unwanted fetus from her body. The fact that this is usually fatal to the fetus is sad, but not relevant. If you were hooked up to a machine that was keeping someone else alive using your body, you would have the right to leave the machine whenever you wanted, even if that meant the other person died. Your body, your choice, and you would not be charged. The only difference in a pregnancy is that the woman's body is the machine.

Do you believe that everyone should be required to give blood if they are able (or not), that everyone should be forced to check the Donor box on their drivers license, that people with healthy 'extra' organs should be forced to donate them, or that everyone should be forced to sign up for the bone marrow registry?

If the answer is no, then you do believe in personal bodily sovereignty... except for one group of people that you will probably never belong to, i.e., unwillingly pregnant women. What's it called again when a right is arbitrarily withheld from a particular set of the population? Injustice? Discrimination?


Now, if you would like to argue that control over a person's body belongs not to them but to their fellow man, that is an interesting take but much against the current trends of western society seeing as we did away with legal slavery quite awhile ago.

Again, where is the baby's rights? What makes the woman's rights more important? She was here first?

 

[jpcedotal]

A woman's integrity or her right to choose does not supersede the right of an unborn child to live.

Sorry no way no how. Argue that the child is not a child or life is not present at a certain point, but not that the woman has some extra right to kill because the child is in her body.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Jpc, if your allowed to cut off your toenails your allowed to purge yourself of a unwanted patch of cells. there is nothing at all that makes that clump of cells more important then that toenail even if toenails dont grow into new humans.

Last i checked we dont all go to jail for allowing africa to starve to death while we feed our greed. If we can get away with that murder we can get away with another if you want to call it that i really dont care any more then if you would call cutting my toenails murder, its your screwed up worldview not mine. Just dont try to pass any laws against my right to cut my toenails because you somehow believe your particular brand of delusion is worth more then my particular brand of delusion.

 

[IzzyPop]

Again, where is the baby's rights? What makes the woman's rights more important? She was here first?

What baby?

 

[jpcedotal]

Couple more things....for now I guess. (sorry about being so passionate)

A woman's rights has ZERO bearing on the abortion debate if conception is agreed upon as the beginning of life...period. Now we can argue on when life begins, but there is no argument on killing a child just because it hasn't been born or hasn't reached a certain stage IF we agree that life has already began at the time of the wanted abortion.

Let's line up all the people who would like to say thank you to their mother for not aborting them.
Let's line up all the people who would like to tell there mother that they wished she would have aborted them.

Now...

Let's line up all the people who were aborted who would like to thank their mother for doing it.
Let's line up all the people who were aborted who would like to tell their mother I wish I would have been given a chance EVEN if you personally did not want me or did not have the time for a child or even if you were raped.

Oh wait, those who were aborted don't even get to have an opinion...even if it is the wrong one.

That's why it goes against everything human rights is supposed to stand for..man's and woman's.

That's why it is murder.

 

[Jaycee.Forte]

But when the baby comes outside of the women, is the baby not it's own person? That being said, the baby is a different person than the women and is therefore not necessarily the women. The baby is connected but that is for growing purposes until it goes outside of the womb.

 

[yasic]

What baby?

This is the big issue with abortions threads. Pro-choice people tend to fall into 3 categories- sentience, viability, and bodily integrity.

People who argue against someone who is pro-choice start arguing against one such view, when another person with a different view pops in and starts giving their particular argument causing havok to everyone involved.

I am not sure how to solve this issue, but it must be addressed somehow...

 

[jpcedotal]

So just to be clear.....

If by science it is proven beyond a reasonable, rational doubt that life begins at conception.....

then.....(your answer here) in relation to abortion and or rights of mother/child of course

 

[yasic]

jpc (what nickname do you prefer btw?)

I do disagree with you in that if it is decided that personhood starts at conception that a woman has no right to remove it, if she got pregnant against her will (rape). In this case alone, the woman is not responsible for the existence of the child and in this case the right to bodily integrity does in fact apply, and overrules the right of life of the child.

By current law (and rightfully so IMO), a person cannot be forced to supply their body to keep someone else alive (unless responsible for the other persons condition in certain situations), this includes the use of the womb, blood, kidneys, and the like for a baby.

 

[Jaycee.Forte]

Yasic,
I believe that even in situations of rape, even though they may be hard to deal with, it is not the woman's or child's fault that this happened to them. It is still hard to say who has the right to life here. Even in situations of rape, the child has a right to their life. The baby is separate from the woman, both have rights and both should be respected.

 

[jpcedotal]

jpc (what nickname do you prefer btw?)

I do disagree with you in that if it is decided that personhood starts at conception that a woman has no right to remove it, if she got pregnant against her will (rape). In this case alone, the woman is not responsible for the existence of the child and in this case the right to bodily integrity does in fact apply, and overrules the right of life of the child.

By current law (and rightfully so IMO), a person cannot be forced to supply their body to keep someone else alive (unless responsible for the other persons condition in certain situations), this includes the use of the womb, blood, kidneys, and the like for a baby.

jp or jpc is cool man.

I just have to respectfully disagree. We are talking about nine months of care, then if the mother wants, she can walk away and never look back. She just has to put herself second for nine months. New innocent life, no matter what the circumstances, is worth 9 months.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

If life begins at conception. Too bad for life.
Going with this scenario for a moment.

1. We have plenty of humans already we really dont need to keep multiplying like rabbits.
2. who says life is sacred? we have had no problem slaughtering all life on this planet so far unless we happen to think it looked cute.
3. Who says we have to right to impression a person into a life time of servitute just because a condom ripped.

by all means though. I dont think life starts untill the age of reason at 8years. anyone under that should be a viable candidate to abort. Okay ill meet you half way, we could i supose add fine for the 'murder'

edit:
just for sake of arguement. What if it was proven life is present in both egg and seed from the beginning?

 

[Belk]

jp or jpc is cool man.

I just have to respectfully disagree. We are talking about nine months of care, then if the mother wants, she can walk away and never look back. She just has to put herself second for nine months. New innocent life, no matter what the circumstances, is worth 9 months.

Just as a hypothetical, what if it was not an "Innocent life"? what if it was a guilty life, would it still be worth 9 months no matter what the circumstances?

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

going with that for a minute.. Arent we all born sinners?

 

[yasic]

Yasic,
I believe that even in situations of rape, even though they may be hard to deal with, it is not the woman's or child's fault that this happened to them. It is still hard to say who has the right to life here. Even in situations of rape, the child has a right to their life. The baby is separate from the woman, both have rights and both should be respected.

Both do have the right, and while a woman does not have a right to directly kill the child, she does have a right to stop supplying nutrients to the child which indirectly results in the child's death.

The point is, in cases where nobody is at fault, the default position of each person walking away applies. If it makes you feel any better, were it declared that the fetus is a child, when this happens the rapists would also be slapped on with murder.

 

[yasic]

jp or jpc is cool man.

I just have to respectfully disagree. We are talking about nine months of care, then if the mother wants, she can walk away and never look back. She just has to put herself second for nine months. New innocent life, no matter what the circumstances, is worth 9 months.

It is more than just 9 months, it is 9 months with medical risks, emotional harm, and a host of other issues.

And even if it were just 9 months, the child still has no right to mooch off an innocent victim against her consent. The woman on the other hand is not using any of the child's bodily functions and can simply choose to leave the matter.