Abortion before the nervous system forms?

[ebia]

... the fundamental right at stake, which is that no law, or no one person's pious convictions, should have a say in another person's right to control her own body.

Who get's to say that that's a fundamental right that overrides all other rights involved including the developing child's right to life?

 

[ebia]

Ebia,

What a statement. Not sure if you're playing devil's advocate here, but do you mean to say that you don't view the right to control your own body as fundamental? It seems to me that rights, if they exist at all, would have to begin with just that or none of the others would make sense.

No I don't view the right to control one's body as fundamental at that level - as the right from which all others flow and are secondary to, no. And I don't think a serious case has been made that it is - while simple answers suit this argument for both sides, in reality rights have to be balanced.

When you speak of "the developing child's right to life," part of me suspects that you're either being deliberately spurious or you haven't fairly thought of the issue from a counter point of view. "Developing" is right, but "child" is where we should be careful.

I know, but I couldn't find a word that worked better; that left ambigous what the sentence needed to leave ambiguous. So I went with the obvious.

Is an 8 month old fetus a child? Yes. Is a 4 month old fetus a child? Tentatively, yes. 2 months? The ground is a little shaky here. A single cell zygote? In my opinion, no. The point of division may vary but, for many people, there is one

We aren't going to resolve opinions on that one because we have different starting assumptions.

 

[ebia]

Ebia,

No, no. You misunderstood, or I failed to communicate. I do not mean to imply that, via the right of control over one's own body, all other rights are derived by consequence. That would be nonsensical.

What I aimed to say, what I feel I did say, was that in any discussion of human rights, that particular one is axiomatic and without it all other rights would lose their meaning. This is a basic tenet of libertarian philosophy, but you say that no "serious case has been made" for it?

If you really mean 'axiomatic' then no case can be made - axiomatic is axiomatic. But if we don't share the same axioms then we have something of an impass.

As far as balancing the rights of the mother and the developed fetus, we have a long way to go, but at least we agree that that's what it will take to reach a consensus.

 

[ebia]

Ebia,

We're bridging the gap a bit, but let me belabor the point. I really do mean "axiomatic." I make one unavoidable leap of faith when I say this, that everyone on the planet accepts that there is such a thing as human rights, if only for themselves.

I'm not so sure that even that is a universally accepted self-evident truth, but let that one ride for a bit.

I'm happy to accept the system of human rights as useful improvement over ony other generally accepted system so far tried, but that's about as far as I'll go.

If that is a given, then the right of control over one's own body is a self-evident truth.

It might be self-evident to you and the stream of thought you represent, but it's certainly not universally self-evident.

 

[ebia]

Ebia,

This is becoming, if you haven't noticed, a tangential semantic exchange, but I don't mind if you don't.

I agree. I think our conversation on the main topic kind of finished with the note "... then we are at an impass".

I've been making an attempt to set up my statements in an order which logically leads from one point to the next, if only within my own "stream of thought," and I've tried to be careful with my choice of words while doing so. If I haven't been convincing, the fault is obviously mine. However, in return, you've chosen to refute my statements by mere assertion, providing no examples or instances under which I may be wrong.

If it's read that way I'm sorry. I'm happy that your logic makes some sense within your assumptions, what I've attempted to do is simply point out that we aren't all starting from the same assumptions. If one starts with a different set of axioms then the rest of the 'proof' has nothing to work on.

Let me suggest an area on which to focus. You've conceded on "accept(ing) the system of human rights as useful improvement over any other generally accepted system so far tried." This has been an unnecessarily tremendous concession on your part, but I'm relieved you've made it. Within such a system, then, what might be considered some fundamental precepts? Would the right of control over one's own body apply?

Amongst others, with no particular priority, I guess so.

 

[norswede]

Norswede,

No one denies the reality that some women will have objectively better reasons for aborting their babies than others but that fails to address the fundamental right at stake, which is that no law, or no one person's pious convictions, should have a say in another person's right to control her own body.

I'm glad, also disheartened, to read that, were it not for your religious beliefs, you might support a mother's right to have an abortion in certain cases. That's a start.

When you say that "in Canada, a woman can have an abortion at any time for any reason and no it's not always a painful decision for them to make," how do you know this? Don't you think there's an element of pain and of regret for every woman that has to endure an abortion procedure? I find it difficult, almost impossible, to feel otherwise, regardless of how they may conduct themselves ostensibly.

As far as teenagers using abortion as a form of birth control, I don't believe any underage girl has the right to make a decision like that without a parent's or guardian's consent. At the same time, I don't feel anyone outside her family has any right to interfere in that decision either.

Now, I have to ask a tough question, because this was the point that you claim angered you the most and because I'm genuinely ignorant on the particular topic. Who are these "millions of women that can't have children that are on waiting lists in most cases for years before they can adopt a baby?" Do they have strict requirements for the background of the babies that become available to them? Here's why I ask. Since you seem well informed on the issue, you probably know that the grand majority of abortions today, at least in the United States, are had by black and Hispanic women. What, in your honest opinion, will happen to these babies of color who, once born, are hopeful to be adopted by the "millions of women" who have been waiting for years to adopt and raise a child? I shouldn't have to tell you, but this is no time to be politically correct. It requires an honest answer because once these babies are born, as you would exclusively have it, the rest of their lives really will be at stake. To state what may be obvious, something in me says the overwhelming majority of these babies will be denied a "loving family" for no richer reason than the harshly obvious one, that they're not white babies. I have no empirical data on this, none at all. But anyone who is familiar with racism, either other people's or their own, won't flinch if something in you simply won't allow you to disagree.

But, by all means, respond.

-Tom

I'm sure you didn't mean for your words to come accross this way, but it sounded to me like you were implying that most of the successful women out there who are waiting to adopt a baby are racist white women. I'm not denying that there is still a level of racism in the United States and Canada as well as around the world, but I do know that there are also many successful, kind and loving women of all races who are unable to have children. If you look around you, you will see that the white population has become the minority. To say that black babies are better off dead because no one would want them if they had a chance to live is ridiculous.

As for the issue of no one having the right to tell another person what to do with their body, that idea has already gone out the window. Most drugs are illegal, Prostitution is illegal although it still goes on. Polygamy is illegal, assisted suicide is illegal and the list goes on and on. The truth is, we don't have the right to choose what to do with our own bodies in many cases. If our choices affect the rights of others in a negative way, we are penalized for it. But this is very quickly changing. The selfishness of society is taking over. I can't remember the exact verse but there's a verse in the Bible that says that "They will trade light for darkness and darkness for light" That is what is going on today. What used to be considered wrong is now considered right and what used to be considered right is now considered wrong. All the examples I have given above are being discussed as possibly being legalized. We are heading towards a society of pure selfishness. "If it makes you happy, do it. and don't let anything or anyone stand in your way." The reason God gave us laws and guidelines was to protect us and help us create the kind of society he intended for us. By forgetting those laws and focusing on ourselves, we eliminate the line between right and wrong and everything becomes relative. Each person decides what is right for them and there's no order. If we allow this to continue, we will have a real mess on our hands. Personally, I don't want to be around to see it. I'm just happy to know that Jesus will return to restore order before it gets too far out of control. COME SOON LORD JESUS!

 

[TomTomHatesCats]

Hello All,

I have, as it were, been banned from this area of the forum due to my status as an atheist. If any of you would like to continue discussion, perhaps we can do so after I have produced 15 posts in any non-exclusive areas of this site, after which I can send private messages.

Thanks for reading.

-Tom

 

[lawtonfogle]

Who get's to say that that's a fundamental right that overrides all other rights involved including the developing child's right to life?

Because if one denies that right, then all rights are denied.

Anyways, the kidney example gives a pretty good reason. Unless you want to make it legal to force people to donate organs they can live without to those who need them to live, you hold bodily integrity stronger than right to life.

If you place right to life above all else, you will have a nasty snowball as any dangerous activity not needed for life is banned, as it begins to infringe on people's right to life.

 

[lawtonfogle]

As for the issue of no one having the right to tell another person what to do with their body, that idea has already gone out the window. Most drugs are illegal, Prostitution is illegal although it still goes on. Polygamy is illegal, assisted suicide is illegal and the list goes on and on. The truth is, we don't have the right to choose what to do with our own bodies in many cases.

In the case that it infringes on someone else's right, or with out social contract (e.g. being forced to go to jail after committing a crime), then our right to our body can be limited. Also in the case for lack of consent (such as a child cannot choose to do some things, like get a tattoo). But otherwise, the law should (though clearly in some cases it does not) allow us freedom.

 

[ebia]

Because if one denies that right, then all rights are denied.

Says who? Though you'll see above that I regard the whole system of "rights" as a pragmatic compromise, not truly inherent or self-evident.

Anyways, the kidney example gives a pretty good reason. Unless you want to make it legal to force people to donate organs they can live without to those who need them to live, you hold bodily integrity stronger than right to life.

Sorry, but I refuse to reduce the picture to convenient black and whites. The balance of considerations is different in that instance and so one might, quite reasonably, arrive at different conclusion over the two questions.

If you place right to life above all else,

I didn't place the right to life above all else, I talked about balancing conflicting rights, and about refusing to put the right to determine what happens to one's body above all other rights.

 

[ebia]

In the case that it infringes on someone else's right, or with out social contract (e.g. being forced to go to jail after committing a crime), then our right to our body can be limited.

And, in this case, it does infringe on somebody else's right - a pretty serious one - the developing child's right to life.

 

[simon reyburn]

frsity i think that this is a womens issue and should be something men for the most part stay out of because we dont have babys its not our bodys. but as lots of guys have had their say then i think i will. i belive that life begins as soon as the sperm and the egg meant at that point the "seed" begins to grow in to a "tree" (the baby if i didnt make the metafore clear). i belive this because when this happerns the bible says that that "lump' of sells as a plan for its life (jer 1:5). but this is a complext topic that you have to take alot into conseterateion for exsample i would not be completly pro life because i would be afaired that we would go back to the days that both mothers and babys died because of not safe abortions and girls trying to do it themselfs.

 

[KM Richards]

And, in this case, it does infringe on somebody else's right - a pretty serious one - the developing child's right to life.

Ain't this a classic case of those that
are able running over those that aren't?

Normally, the ACLU and the liberal infantry
would be fighting tooth and nail for the
little babies...but no, they favor murder!