Abortion

[brightmorningstar]

To gwenmead,

Well, yes, I do know a bit about human biology... I do recognize that sex is how pregnancies happen, and I am aware that pregnancy is a possible result of sex.

Then you might only possibly need contraception if you have sex. Sorry, the natural progression of penal/vaginal sexual intercourse is conception, so in all cases to avoid conception one would employ contraception. I would suggest your remark is a little off the mark.

Nonetheless sex and pregnancy are not the same thing.

How did you come to the conclusion anyone has assumed they are?

Consent to sex is consent to sex; it is perhaps also a consent to the risk of pregnancy. But it is not consent to be or remain pregnant, should a pregnancy occur.

Yes it is. If you don’t need to keep a pregnancy you don’t need contraception. Why spend all that money on contraception when one could merely abort the pesky baby.

Another possible analogy might be that crashing is a risk of driving. Driving does not mean consent to crashing, however, it just means one is willing to take on the risk of crashing.

Not at all, crashing is something that can go wrong like an unaided miscarriage, conception is likely from sex.
You don’t always work everywhere instead if driving incase you were to have a car crash. That’s not an analogy at all.

 

[cantata]

I do live in a world like that
http://www.impiousdigest.com/Livebirth.htm
http://www.priestsforlife.org/testimony/jillstanektestimony.htm

So you do if you realised it. Indeed does it make any difference to your views? If not do you even know what you are talking about?

No risk of wanted babies being killed, is there?

The reality is there is no difference to your foetus and my baby 5 mins before it is born and 5 mins after.

I agree that there is no physical difference. There is a social and emotional difference, though.

The MP in the UK who lead the fight to keep the abortion times and situation is an atheist gay lobbyist.

Your point?

(There are dozens of MPs in the UK who are in favour of keeping current abortion laws, by the way.)

Then maybe we need to make it illegal for you to be able tot address the question.

Whaaaaat?

I am finding it increasingly tiring talking to you. Everything is an almost incomprehensible jumble of words that don't seem to have any bearing on anything that's being said.

The question was about the value of the foetus/life, not the abortion of it.

Word salad.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To cantata,

No risk of wanted babies being killed, is there?

Yes.

You said Can you imagine how frightening it would be to live in a world where it was okay to kill born babies?
I do live in such a world and so do you

I agree that there is no physical difference. There is a social and emotional difference, though.

not according to you as you said it is insensible.

Your point?

same evil.

Whaaaaat?

What?

I am finding it increasingly tiring talking to you. Everything is an almost incomprehensible jumble of words that don't seem to have any bearing on anything that's being said.

that’s because you are talking nonsenseand I am not.
You said “Can you imagine how frightening it would be to live in a world where it was okay to kill born babies” I pointed out they do. You then said ‘unwanted’ babies. If you mean’t to say “Can you imagine how frightening it would be to live in a world where it was okay to kill UNWANTED born babies” then you should have said that instead. The fact is that would still be nonsense as you can see in the example the mother wanted the foetus/baby killed but the hospital didn’t. I assume the abortionist did though the abortionist was just doing their job I know some don’t want the baby killed.

So forget the the word salad bit, I suggest the there is only one of us more insensible than the foetus/baby on this issue. Just please address more precisely what is being said about the issue.

 

[cantata]

you can see in the example the mother wanted the foetus/baby killed but the hospital didn’t. I assume the abortionist did though the abortionist was just doing their job I know some don’t want the baby killed.

It's a weird and extremely unusual situation. I dare say that if I had been in that situation I would not have been able to kill a born baby and would instead have alerted social services to have the baby taken into care.

Honestly? I just give up with you. Your arguments don't have any structure that I can discern. I have stated my case, which is that we have no moral obligation to unvalued and non-self-valuing beings to preserve their lives. We may have personal emotional reasons not to want to kill them, or social reasons to think it is an imprudent idea to do so, but we have no moral obligation to those beings themselves. If you do not want to address this in a coherent fashion then we don't have grounds for a discussion.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Sorry canata but you seem unable or unwilling to address exactly what I am saying.
I understand some of your case and I think its illogical and outside reality.

If you do not want to address this in a coherent fashion then we don't have grounds for a discussion.

I give you another opportunity to address what I have said.

You said You said “Can you imagine how frightening it would be to live in a world where it was okay to kill born babies” I pointed out they do with examples. All you have reply to address that is its weird and something about unwanted babies.
Tell me did you mean to say
“Can you imagine how it would be to live in a world where it was okay to kill born babies”
Or mean to say
““Can you imagine how it would be to live in a world where it was okay to kill unwanted born babies”
If the latter you should have said that otherwise how do I know exactly what you mean. If the former clearly from the examples given you aren’t aware of the reality.

 

[brightmorningstar]

The other question we need to raise is you talk of the mother valuing and wanting the foestus/baby but not of the father. The father provided half the action and half the substance to produce the foetus/baby. Why should the mother that carries the foetus/baby be the only one who has a say in value of the foetus/baby and whether it is wanted? Why exclude the father?

I would say any mother who is prepared to abort a foetus baby isnt fit to be a mother, in which case you should cal her a woman with a foetus.

 

[cantata]

Sorry canata but you seem unable or unwilling to address exactly what I am saying.
I understand some of your case and I think its illogical and outside reality.

I give you another opportunity to address what I have said.

You said You said “Can you imagine how frightening it would be to live in a world where it was okay to kill born babies” I pointed out they do with examples. All you have reply to address that is its weird and something about unwanted babies.
Tell me did you mean to say
“Can you imagine how it would be to live in a world where it was okay to kill born babies”
Or mean to say
““Can you imagine how it would be to live in a world where it was okay to kill unwanted born babies”
If the latter you should have said that otherwise how do I know exactly what you mean. If the former clearly from the examples given you aren’t aware of the reality.

I would contend that these are highly unusual examples and arguably it was not "okay" for them to be killed. At any rate it is legally dubious.

I would further add that the legality of killing them, if it was legal, clearly does not make it seem acceptable to most people, and hence, not "okay".

And finally, I would contend that it has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Why do you think it's important to our discussion? What bearing do you think it will have on the outcome of our conversation about abortion?

The other question we need to raise is you talk of the mother valuing and wanting the foestus/baby but not of the father. The father provided half the action and half the substance to produce the foetus/baby. Why should the mother that carries the foetus/baby be the only one who has a say in value of the foetus/baby and whether it is wanted? Why exclude the father?

Because I do not believe that anyone but the woman carrying the foetus is in a position to make a decision about which is more important: her bodily integrity, or the life of the foetus.

I would say any mother who is prepared to abort a foetus baby isnt fit to be a mother, in which case you should cal her a woman with a foetus.

Irrelevant.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To canata,

I would contend that these are highly unusual examples and arguably it was not "okay" for them to be killed. At any rate it is legally dubious.

Ok but that means you do live in a world where you can imagine how frightening it is to be okay to kill born babies. I was merely pointing out that your comment like many you make is incorrect. And just as an observation nor do you seem particularly bothered let alone frightened.

And finally, I would contend that it has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Why do you think it's important to our discussion? What bearing do you think it will have on the outcome of our conversation about abortion?

Its crucial as it’s the same issue oneofthediaspora challenged you on.
The original point we were arguing was about terminating the foetus/baby 5 mins before birth and terminating it 5 mins after birth.
The fact is the baby doesn’t change in physical state nor in value yet it still gets killed. Your argument was incorrect and baseless, you might just as well kill a baby as a foetus/baby.
Secondly that the examples given is highly unusual is firstly irrelevant to your statement, it occurs live born babies are killed and your statement was incorrect, and that you find it highly unusual is just because the abortion you propose has failed. All its means is the abortion is usually effective.

Because I do not believe that anyone but the woman carrying the foetus is in a position to make a decision about which is more important: her bodily integrity, or the life of the foetus.

But again that’s not addressing the question. Firstly not all abortion are life threatening. Secondly I asked about the father, the woman isnt the father is she. Thirdly you aren’t the part owner of any foetus/baby except your own, so why do you see fit to make decisions on behalf of the father?

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

.

 

[cantata]

Ok but that means you do live in a world where you can imagine how frightening it is to be okay to kill born babies. I was merely pointing out that your comment like many you make is incorrect. And just as an observation nor do you seem particularly bothered let alone frightened.

We are going round in circles. You can have this one. Well done.

Its crucial as it’s the same issue oneofthediaspora challenged you on.
The original point we were arguing was about terminating the foetus/baby 5 mins before birth and terminating it 5 mins after birth.
The fact is the baby doesn’t change in physical state nor in value yet it still gets killed. Your argument was incorrect and baseless, you might just as well kill a baby as a foetus/baby.

Yes, you may, as far as the value of the foetus/baby is concerned.

I do not deny, and have never denied, that other factors are involved in the case of a born baby.

However, while I would not recommend it as I think it would be a traumatising experience, I do not think there is an argument to be made against painlessly killing an unwanted newborn.

But again that’s not addressing the question. Firstly not all abortion are life threatening.

Most abortions aren't life threatening. I don't know what that has to do with anything.

Secondly I asked about the father, the woman isnt the father is she.

And my response was that only the mother is in a position to judge the respective values of her bodily integrity and the foetus' life, and therefore her decision trumps the father's.

Thirdly you aren’t the part owner of any foetus/baby except your own, so why do you see fit to make decisions on behalf of the father?

I'm not. I'm very much in favour of allowing pregnant women to make the decision.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To cantata,

Yes, you may, as far as the value of the foetus/baby is concerned.

Have you not understood? The foetus/baby with no value inside the womb 5 mins before birth, is no different from the baby 5mins after birth. We can see it is still killed when the abortion fails. The argument about the foetus in the womb is therefore a big lie, and has nothing to do with insensibility or any of that.

Most abortions aren't life threatening. I don't know what that has to do with anything.

And my response was that only the mother is in a position to judge the respective values of her bodily integrity and the foetus' life, and therefore her decision trumps the father's.

But as you said most abortions aren't life threatening, so what about where they aren’t. In cases which are not life threatening the father has more right to decide what rights he has than you do, as you aren’t part owner like the father is.

 

[cantata]

Have you not understood? The foetus/baby with no value inside the womb 5 mins before birth, is no different from the baby 5mins after birth. We can see it is still killed when the abortion fails. The argument about the foetus in the womb is therefore a big lie, and has nothing to do with insensibility or any of that.

As I said, from the point of view of the value of each, you may just as well kill an unwanted newborn baby as a foetus.

However, also as I said (it is getting tiresome repeating myself), I think there are good psychological and social reasons not to kill an unwanted newborn baby which are not present with regard to foetuses.

But as you said most abortions aren't life threatening, so what about where they aren’t. In cases which are not life threatening the father has more right to decide what rights he has than you do, as you aren’t part owner like the father is.

Firstly, no one owns a foetus except perhaps the woman carrying it.

Secondly, what does the life threatening nature or otherwise of an abortion have to do with anything? You ask me why I think I have the right to decide what rights a father has. My answer is, I don't. He has as much right as the woman he impregnated chooses to give him.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To cantata,

As I said, from the point of view of the value of each, you may just as well kill an unwanted newborn baby as a foetus.

Yes I think I agree with Mother Theresa on that one, how could you tell someone not to kill another if they didn’t value it?

However, also as I said (it is getting tiresome repeating myself), I think there are good psychological and social reasons not to kill an unwanted newborn baby which are not present with regard to foetuses.

Then where does value fit in?

Firstly, no one owns a foetus except perhaps the woman carrying it.

No the father part owns it, half of its DNA is the father’s and the woman had intercourse with the father to conceive the baby. The father and the mother are the owners not other people.

 

[cantata]

Yes I think I agree with Mother Theresa on that one, how could you tell someone not to kill another if they didn’t value it?

You can give them pragmatic reasons not to kill.

Then where does value fit in?

Here I go, having to repeat myself again. I have never said that value is the only relevant concern. However, the social and psychological reasons for not killing an unvalued baby are not, in my view, present in the case of an unvalued foetus.

No the father part owns it, half of its DNA is the father’s and the woman had intercourse with the father to conceive the baby. The father and the mother are the owners not other people.

I take it you understand foetuses to be persons?

If you do, do you really want to talk about ownership of persons?

If you really believe that the father and the mother together constitute the full ownership of the foetus, how can you object in any way to them disposing of their property as they see fit?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To cantata,

You can give them pragmatic reasons not to kill.

or give them pragmatic resons to kill, which I think is the pro-choice abortion position.

Here I go, having to repeat myself again. I have never said that value is the only relevant concern. However, the social and psychological reasons for not killing an unvalued baby are not, in my view, present in the case of an unvalued foetus.

Sorry what social and psychological reasons? Why would you go to the shop and buy something you dont want? Why would you hsve sex and conceive if you didnt want the baby?

I take it you understand foetuses to be persons?

I take it you understand the differnce between a father and a foestus/baby. Come on we have discussed wht we are calling the foetus/baby at length. The point is the father has more right to decide than anyone else apart from the mother of the foetus/baby. For some other person to say which of the parents has a right is sticking their nose into other peoples rights.
I note also that those who propose same sex unions are keen to tell fathers and mothers what their rights are, and not keen to have fathers and mothers interfere with their rights.

If you really believe that the father and the mother together constitute the full ownership of the foetus, how can you object in any way to them disposing of their property as they see fit?

Your point was the mother decides, whether the mother decides or the father is up to the mother and the father of the baby not you or me. On your point, if the mother and father are the owners of their child, the same sex couple arent the owner thats for sure. Same unreality of thinking.

 

[cantata]

or give them pragmatic resons to kill, which I think is the pro-choice abortion position.

We are talking about born persons. Generally speaking I think that there are more pragmatic reasons not to kill born persons than to kill them.

Sorry what social and psychological reasons?

How do you think you would feel after killing a newborn baby?

Why would you go to the shop and buy something you dont want? Why would you hsve sex and conceive if you didnt want the baby?

Because sex is fun.

I take it you understand the differnce between a father and a foestus/baby. Come on we have discussed wht we are calling the foetus/baby at length. The point is the father has more right to decide than anyone else apart from the mother of the foetus/baby. For some other person to say which of the parents has a right is sticking their nose into other peoples rights.

Ultimately one person must make the final decision. Mothers have more stake in the decision than fathers by virtue of the fact that they are the ones required to sacrifice their bodily functions for nine months. Therefore mothers must be the final arbiters of the decision.

I note also that those who propose same sex unions are keen to tell fathers and mothers what their rights are, and not keen to have fathers and mothers interfere with their rights.

This is both irrelevant and false.

Your point was the mother decides, whether the mother decides or the father is up to the mother and the father of the baby not you or me.

That is what I said. Fathers have as much right as mothers give them to make the decision. But ultimately the final decision must rest with the mother because she has more stake in the decision than he does.

On your point, if the mother and father are the owners of their child, the same sex couple arent the owner thats for sure. Same unreality of thinking.

No one is the owner of a child.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To cantata,

We are talking about born persons.

No we are not. You may be but I am not so ‘we’ aren’t.

How do you think you would feel after killing a newborn baby?

the same as I would killing a foetus, they are both life which wouldn’t have developed but for conception. The baby 5 mins after birth is no different from the baby 5 mins before birth. If you can make up reasons for a difference I am sure so can others and decide they can kill people.

Why would you go to the shop and buy something you dont want? Why would you hsve sex and conceive if you didnt want the baby?

Because sex is fun.

But obviously because something is fun is no justification for removing the consequences. It might be fun for Fred Phelps supporters to protest at funerals. Your psychology seems to be all around what please you despite everyone else.

Ultimately one person must make the final decision.

Who says?

Mothers have more stake in the decision than fathers by virtue of the fact that they are the ones required to sacrifice their bodily functions for nine months.

tough! They shouldn’t have had sex then should they.

Therefore mothers must be the final arbiters of the decision.

Not if the mothers say the father should have. You have missed the point, you and I are not the owner of any child another mother and father have conceived, so you cant say the mother has more choice than the father. True if you were the mother you might say that, but if I was the father the woman would have accepted the consequences or there would have been no sex.

No one is the owner of a child.

Yet you previously said

It is possible for a life to be valued by its owner and by other people. However, not all lives can be valued by their owners.

So yes those who value the life can consider themselves owners according to you.

 

[Freodin]

So yes those who value the life can consider themselves owners according to you.

I´d say you misunderstood the quoted statement: the "owner" who values a life is the one who lives it.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Freodin,

I´d say you misunderstood the quoted statement: the "owner" who values a life is the one who lives it.

Ah I see. So why would anyone want to tenrinate that life?

The life was created by the man and woman who concived it. For them to then deny it is a life is no different from anyone denying their life. They may not agree but then those who terninate their life might not agree either.

 

[cantata]

the same as I would killing a foetus, they are both life which wouldn’t have developed but for conception. The baby 5 mins after birth is no different from the baby 5 mins before birth. If you can make up reasons for a difference I am sure so can others and decide they can kill people.

Then I suggest you don't get a job performing abortions.

Most people would suffer severe emotional trauma from killing a baby.

The same is simply not the case for foetuses, whether you think that reasonable or not.

But obviously because something is fun is no justification for removing the consequences. It might be fun for Fred Phelps supporters to protest at funerals. Your psychology seems to be all around what please you despite everyone else.

You asked me why people have sex without wanting to conceive, and I told you.

Who says?

Well, suppose two people are making a decision about something, and they disagree irrevocably. What are you going to do now?

tough! They shouldn’t have had sex then should they.

A baby is a punishment?

Not if the mothers say the father should have.

Precisely. So the mother is the final arbiter of the decision about who has a say in the matter. Which is what I said before.

You have missed the point, you and I are not the owner of any child another mother and father have conceived, so you cant say the mother has more choice than the father.

The mother must be the final arbiter of who will make the decision.

True if you were the mother you might say that, but if I was the father the woman would have accepted the consequences or there would have been no sex.

What if she changes her mind?

Yet you previously said
So yes those who value the life can consider themselves owners according to you.

By "its owner" I mean the person whose life it is, i.e. in this case, the foetus. I am the owner of my life and you are the owner of yours. No one can own a child or any other person.