Abortion, right or wrong?

[raphael_aa]

Lastly, the doctor (and you, I presume) seek to endow the zygote with greater rights than persons actually enjoy -- namely, the right to enslave the body of another person and inject it with hormones against her consent. No person enjoys that right, and every person enjoys the right to liberate themselves from such a violation with at least the minimum force necessary, which in this case only includes abortion.
:æ:

That's a very interesting point which I must admit I have never thought of.

 

[DrFate]

Since abortion is an elective procedure, your statement is an obvious misrepresentation.

:æ:

No it not a misrepresentation. The State pays for poor people to abort their children.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Lastly, the doctor (and you, I presume) seek to endow the zygote with greater rights than persons actually enjoy -- namely, the right to enslave the body of another person and inject it with hormones against her consent. No person enjoys that right, and every person enjoys the right to liberate themselves from such a violation with at least the minimum force necessary, which in this case only includes abortion.

:æ:

This point begs an interesting question: With continuing advances in reproductive technology, "liberating oneself with the minimum force necessary" might not, at some point in the future, only include abortion. If a procedure could be developed to terminate a pregnancy without killing the fetus, could women and/or doctors be required to employ such a procedure, instead of abortion?

 

[DrFate]

I dont see it as "elimination of children." I see it as eliminating cells that have the potential to become a living being.

Nice rationalization or euphamism. But I think we should be honest about the subject.

 

[:æ:]

No it not a misrepresentation. The State pays for poor people to abort their children.

In reality, the state offers aid to poor people to pay for their medical needs, and this includes abortion. It is not that the state campaigns for the elimination of poor people's children as it seemed to me you insinuated with your statement.

:æ:

 

[ChiRho]

Do you have any original thoughts? Or do you simply parrot the words of other that you think qualify as some type of authority on the matter?

Better to steal from Montgomery than to formulate your damning hypotheses.

Do you know what the fallacy of Argument by Authority is?

Is fallacy the only option?

His argument suffers several fallacies. The first is the fallacy of the beard. Despite the fact that life forms a continuum from non-personhood to personhood, that doesn't mean that we can't state with sufficiently high confidence that before a certain point the embryo or fetus is not a person.

So where is that point?

The second follows from this when he insists a zygote be alotted personhood based on its potential to become a person. Rights are not allocated based on potentialities, but rather realities. Children are not given the right to vote despite their potential to become 18 years of age, just as an example.

Sorry for all the parrot-talk but...

"In most legal systems, legal personality begins at live birth. however, there are several important exceptions to this general rule, such as the law of property which grants to a fetus yet unborn a conditional legal personality. That is to say, if a fetus is subsequently born alive it may immediately receive a legacy, obtain an injunction, have aguardian, or even be an executor, even though it was, at the critical moment, en ventre sa mere.

Moreover, according to a steadily growing number of recent cases in the area of tort law, a fetus can maintain an action for the death of a parent while it is still utero...Moreover, as of early 1965 eight American courts when dealing with cases in tort law followed a biological approach and now hold that life begins at conception, thereby according legal personality to the zygote ("The Unborn Plaintiff," Michigan Law Review)."

S. Innocents 70-71


Do I need to mention Conner Peterson?

Even so, its inherent potentiality to become a person is disputable. Without the use of the mothers womb and the nutrients from her blood, it doesn't have the potential to become a person. Persons, in ordinary language, are not only conscious and self-aware, but also metabolically autonomous. Neither a zygote, an embryo, nor a fetus feature metabolic autonomy.

Do you not see whom you have also eliminated with this assertion?

Lastly, the doctor (and you, I presume) seek to endow the zygote with greater rights than persons actually enjoy -- namely, the right to enslave the body of another person and inject it with hormones against her consent. No person enjoys that right, and every person enjoys the right to liberate themselves from such a violation with at least the minimum force necessary, which in this case only includes abortion.

Not only is this lunacy...this is probably the sickest example of Narcissism I have heard!

 

[HouseApe]

Abortion is the only possible solution to an unwanted pregnancy. If unwanted pregnancies didn't happen in the first place, there would be no abortions. I recommend mandatory, free birth control.

 

[:æ:]

This point begs an interesting question: With continuing advances in reproductive technology, "liberating oneself with the minimum force necessary" might not, at some point in the future, only include abortion. If a procedure could be developed to terminate a pregnancy without killing the fetus, could women and/or doctors be required to employ such a procedure, instead of abortion?

A nitpick: my statement doesn't quite "beg the question," but rather it simply raises your question. "Begging the question" is a type of logical fallacy which I did not employ.

With regard to your question, however, I am uncertain. It may depend on the term of the pregnancy in which a procedure such as abortion is sought. I say that because I'm quite confident that zygotes, embryos, and early-term fetuses are not persons, meaning that I do not oppose first-trimester and early second-trimester abortions. For that reason, I don't see any implicit duty to preserve the life of the fetus. In later-term pregnancies, however, I feel that were such technology useable, that one could feasibly mount a convincing case for the existence of such a duty.

:æ:

 

[DrFate]

In reality, the state offers aid to poor people to pay for their medical needs, and this includes abortion. It is not that the state campaigns for the elimination of poor people's children as it seemed to me you insinuated with your statement.

:æ:

Insinuated? Stated! If you pay for something you will see more of it. It is a matter of economic policy. Aborted children are cheaper than dependent citizens or Subjects. Personally, I do not think people, like Roman Catholics, who oppose abortion on dire moral grounds should pay taxes for abortions. But then, I do not think Quakers should have to pay taxes for War either.

 

[:æ:]

So where is that point?

Where he claims, "Personhood escapes all such definitional attempts, and the reason appears to be that personality is a transcendent affair: the subjective "I" can never be totally objectified without destroying it."

Sorry for all the parrot-talk but...

"In most legal systems, legal personality begins at live birth. however, there are several important exceptions to this general rule, such as the law of property which grants to a fetus yet unborn a conditional legal personality. That is to say, if a fetus is subsequently born alive it may immediately receive a legacy, obtain an injunction, have aguardian, or even be an executor, even though it was, at the critical moment, en ventre sa mere.

Moreover, according to a steadily growing number of recent cases in the area of tort law, a fetus can maintain an action for the death of a parent while it is still utero...Moreover, as of early 1965 eight American courts when dealing with cases in tort law followed a biological approach and now hold that life begins at conception, thereby according legal personality to the zygote ("The Unborn Plaintiff," Michigan Law Review)."

S. Innocents 70-71


Do I need to mention Conner Peterson?

What do you think this establishes other than the fact that only mothers have the right to decide to terminate their pregnancies?

And, in regard to Conner Peterson, California law specifically stipulates fetuses apart from persons in its murder statutes.

Do you not see whom you have also eliminated with this assertion?

I haven't eliminated anyone. Rather, I suspect you've only given my statements cursory thought, and in searching for a rebuttal failed to realize that I did not stipulate metabolic autonomy as the sole criterion for personhood, but rather as part of a set of necessary criteria.

Not only is this lunacy...this is probably the sickest example of Narcissism I have heard!

Your lack of a rational rebuttal is noted.

:æ:

 

[:æ:]

Insinuated? Stated! If you pay for something you will see more of it. It is a matter of economic policy. Aborted children are cheaper than dependent citizens or Subjects.

The consequence of funding abortions for qualified individuals does not establish an evidential goal of the state to see more abortions happening, your paranoid fantasies notwithstanding.

Personally, I do not think people, like Roman Catholics, who oppose abortion on dire moral grounds should pay taxes for abortions. But then, I do not think Quakers should have to pay taxes for War either.

You are entitled to your own opinions. You are not entitled to your own facts, however.

:æ:

 

[Crazy Liz]

I haven't eliminated anyone. Rather, I suspect you've only given my statements cursory thought, and in searching for a rebuttal failed to realize that I did not stipulate metabolic autonomy as the sole criterion for personhood, but rather as part of a set of necessary criteria.

By "necessary criteria," do you mean a set of criteria, each of which is essential - sine qua non? If metabolic autonomy is a necessary criterion of personhood, then I think Chi Rho has a point. You appear to have defined individuals dependent, for example, on intravenous feeding, as non-persons. Is this what you intended?

 

[:æ:]

By "necessary criteria," do you mean a set of criteria, each of which is essential - sine qua non? If metabolic autonomy is a necessary criterion of personhood, then I think Chi Rho has a point. You appear to have defined individuals dependent, for example, on intravenous feeding, as non-persons. Is this what you intended?

I don't think that requiring intravenous feeding is incompatible with metabolic autonomy, and neither would individuals like Christopher Reeve be incompatible with it. The point is that persons do not depend directly upon the metabolism of another person when they are metabolically autonomous. They are reasonably considered a "self-contained system," if you will, even if that system requires additional mechanical assistance.

:æ:

 

[ChiRho]

I don't think that requiring intravenous feeding is incompatible with metabolic autonomy, and neither would individuals like Christopher Reeve be incompatible with it. The point is that persons do not depend directly upon the metabolism of another person when they are metabolically autonomous. They are reasonably considered a "self-contained system," if you will, even if that system requires additional mechanical assistance.

:æ:

! Nice try!

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

 

[:æ:]

! Nice try!

Again, your lack of a rational rebuttal is noted.

Par for the course, I guess.

:æ:

 

[ChiRho]

Again, your lack of a rational rebuttal is noted.

Par for the course, I guess.

:æ:

No need to respond to error that evident!

I have an idea...next time you drive to a gas station that clearly states "Self-Serve," just wait there for someone else to pump your gas. Just wait there...according to your logic, there is a chance that the station still employs people to provide this service!

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

 

[:æ:]

No need to respond to error that evident!

It seems more like you don't have a response, and are simply only capable of this weak posturing of yours.

I have an idea...next time you drive to a gas station that clearly states "Self-Serve," just wait there for someone else to pump your gas. Just wait there...according to your logic, there is a chance that the station still employees people to provide this service!

If you think that this follows "according to my logic," you should probably take a remedial course in the english language.

:æ:

 

[ChiRho]

It seems more like you don't have a response, and are simply only capable of this weak posturing of yours.


If you think that this follows "according to my logic," you should probably take a remedial course in the english language.

:æ:

They are reasonably considered a "self-contained system," if you will, even if that system requires additional mechanical assistance.

Gonna need some explainin, buddha!

 

[:æ:]

Gonna need some explainin, buddha!

What's to explain?

And furthermore, isn't your request for an explanation a tacit admittance that you didn't really understand what I meant in the first place? Of course it is -- which means that your earlier claim that my statements committed some type of obvious error were nothing more than bluff and bluster.

Why would I want to continue to debate with someone who would behave so disingenuously?

:æ:

 

[DrFate]

The consequence of funding abortions for qualified individuals does not establish an evidential goal of the state to see more abortions happening, your paranoid fantasies notwithstanding.

You are entitled to your own opinions. You are not entitled to your own facts, however.

:æ:

I probably do have paranoid fantasies but not about the consequenses of economic policy or abotion.

It is axiomatic that paying for something increases that somethings availability.
The of funding abortions for qualified individuals is the manifestation of the goal of the state to reduce costs by making it possible for the Poor to kill their children before they are born. Again I ask, what is wrong with state sponsored elimination of the children of the poor?


BTW ae you have not stated any facts, just opinions.