Her Body, Her Choice: Woman on Trial for Terminating 6 Pregnancies

[MoonLancer]

haha, no it isn't... You just said reproductive parts... a living child is not a part. It's a human with just as much rights as you and I.

so lets just take reproductive parts out of the equation... oh wait.

 

[SuperPhil]

Yep. And neither you or a fetus or a child has the right to utilize the bodily resources of another against their will.

I am done here. This is the root.

 

[IzzyPop]

But could it be said that in order to act against another person's will one must be sentient and aware that they are imposing on another's will? A fetus cannot possess such knowledge, so they are truly innocent and unknowingly utilizing the woman's body to sustain life.

I would say that sentience is not requires at all to act against another's will. Ticks are not sentient and they literally consume my bodily resources against my will.

And for the record, I am not comparing a child to a tick. Just showing that sentience is not required to act against another's will.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

It is, but that's the way the world works. And actually, a fetus becomes a baby at the other end of the vaginal opening. And a baby=person while a fetus does not. Just a little clarification.

ROFL!

There we have it peoples. Our person-hood is decided whether a womb is around us or not..

Logic at its finest

 

[IreneAdler]

I think it's decided if we are viable OUTSIDE that womb... if we are, too late IMO, deal with it. If not, then is the mother obligated to carry it? nope.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

Yes, there is a difference. A fetus in utero is a potential human-being whilst a child is an actual one. Abortion is legal thus not murder. Moreover lest you think this a modern view point please consider the following:



Further:



lastly:



Source

To put it in the simplest possible terms: there is a difference between a foetus and a child, Mosaic law does not proscribe a punishment for the death of a foetus.

Orthodox Judaism is against Abortion.


orthodox Judaism prescribes extraction(premature birth,not abortion) ONLY in the cases where the life of the mother is in danger. only.. What about the other 95% of all abortions where the life of the mother is not in jeopardy??

"He who sheds the blood of man in man [that is, kills a fetus], shall his blood be shed." That made abortion a capital crime, but for reasons too complicated to get into here, one whose penalty can only be imposed by God, not man.

Another reason to prohibit abortion is found in the Talmudic commentaries known as the Tosafot. The Tosafot argued that abortion is forbidden to Jews because it is forbidden to non-Jews under the Noahide laws. "


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaIz4qjSji0

 

[IreneAdler]

Orthodox Judaism is against elective abortion yes, but not all abortion

 

[kiwimac]

Certain groups within Orthodox Judaism are certainly more opposed than others to abortion but they have no scriptural support for that position which explains why most orthodox Jews, most conservative and the great majority of reform and restorationist Jews support abortion as a woman's choice.

 

[MoonLancer]

ROFL!

There we have it peoples. Our person-hood is decided whether a womb is around us or not..

Logic at its finest

actually it has to do with autonomy. When a fetus is hooked up, its not autonomous. I think that makes more sense then saying two sex cells make a person because they come from people. can a single cell be called a person?

 

[IreneAdler]

Certain groups within Orthodox Judaism are certainly more opposed than others to abortion but they have no scriptural support for that position which explains why most orthodox Jews, most conservative and the great majority of reform and restorationist Jews support abortion as a woman's choice.

generally orthodoxy promotes the idea of saving a woman's life that it is imperitive that she abort which I find interesting. Not every one believes that, but it's pretty common.

 

[lux et lex]

ROFL!

There we have it peoples. Our person-hood is decided whether a womb is around us or not..

Logic at its finest

When else are you endowed with legal rights? When else are you transferable to another person's care? It's good logic, I'm sorry that you're illogical.

 

[IzzyPop]

ROFL!

There we have it peoples. Our person-hood is decided whether a womb is around us or not..

Logic at its finest

Pretty much. But I am curious as to why person-hood (whatever that is) matters. Is a person in need allowed to steal from others for their sustanence?

 

[SithDoughnut]

Pretty much. But I am curious as to why person-hood (whatever that is) matters. Is a person in need allowed to steal from others for their sustanence?

A person in need probably has a pretty good case if you're the one who put them there in the first place. Hence why being a 'person' is important. Obviously rape shouldn't apply here, but an arbitrary line has to be drawn somewhere.

 

[IzzyPop]

A person in need probably has a pretty good case if you're the one who put them there in the first place. Hence why being a 'person' is important. Obviously rape shouldn't apply here, but an arbitrary line has to be drawn somewhere.

So you would be cool with someone breaking into your house to raid your fridge as long as you put them in that position in the first place?

 

[IreneAdler]

how would you do that?

 

[SithDoughnut]

So you would be cool with someone breaking into your house to raid your fridge as long as you put them in that position in the first place?

If I forced them into a situation where the only way they could survive was to raid my fridge, with no other available options, then I'd have brought it upon myself really. Of course, in accidental pregnancies or rape, the situation is different, but should the foetus suffer or the mother? Both are innocent of any wrongdoing. The problem with treating the body as property and accusing the foetus of stealing is that you're attempting to put blame somewhere where no blame exists. Blaming the mother doesn't really work either - while I think that the man raiding my fridge is there because of me, he still doesn't have a right to my property. You're using criteria that doesn't exist to draw a line that cannot be drawn.

This is why personhood is an easier criteria to actually come to a conclusion on. We already have a line set where killing people is bad but killing non-people is ok (except in certain situations), the decision then becomes which group to put a foetus in. It's not much better but the framework already exists for a decision to be made.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Pretty much. But I am curious as to why person-hood (whatever that is) matters. Is a person in need allowed to steal from others for their sustanence?

It depends upon who is doing the allowing. Some laws may very, and while it may not be allowed, the punishment for doing such may be drastically reduced.

Some people may go as far as saying stealing for need is a completely different crime than stealing for greed. Of course, there will be cases the blur the line.

 

[lawtonfogle]

If I forced them into a situation where the only way they could survive was to raid my fridge, with no other available options, then I'd have brought it upon myself really. Of course, in accidental pregnancies or rape, the situation is different, but should the foetus suffer or the mother? Both are innocent of any wrongdoing. The problem with treating the body as property and accusing the foetus of stealing is that you're attempting to put blame somewhere where no blame exists. Blaming the mother doesn't really work either - while I think that the man raiding my fridge is there because of me, he still doesn't have a right to my property. You're using criteria that doesn't exist to draw a line that cannot be drawn.

This is why personhood is an easier criteria to actually come to a conclusion on. We already have a line set where killing people is bad but killing non-people is ok (except in certain situations), the decision then becomes which group to put a foetus in. It's not much better but the framework already exists for a decision to be made.

But blame... well it isn't actually blame, more so justifiable punishment... for a wrongful act can exist without any wrong doing. The depressing case is a soldier who is guarding a base. A child approached holding a bag. There could be food in there, and the child is wanting to give it to the soldier as thanks. Or there may be a bomb in there, and the child was tricked into delivering it to the soldier. In either case, the child has done no wrongdoing, but, assuming the child does not stop approaching when told to do so (as the child does not understand the language the guard is speaking in), the child will be shot if they get too close because of the danger they pose. Will the soldier shoot to kill? No. Can it kill the child? Yes. Granted, these days you probably will have options that allow you to stop the child with much less chance of killing them, but in the past, this was not an option.

The child is being punished, and justifiably so (this is not the say the child deserves to be punished, but the response, shooting the child, is justified in that it upholds the safety of the base the soldier is guarding), but has done no wrong.

 

[lawtonfogle]

So you would be cool with someone breaking into your house to raid your fridge as long as you put them in that position in the first place?

If I put someone in the position they have to steal from me to live, then I would say that I deserve at least that much. Granted, if I did so unknowingly, and I was informed of having done such, I would give them food. Granted as of now, my fridge has no food in it.

 

[SithDoughnut]

But blame... well it isn't actually blame, more so justifiable punishment... for a wrongful act can exist without any wrong doing. The depressing case is a soldier who is guarding a base. A child approached holding a bag. There could be food in there, and the child is wanting to give it to the soldier as thanks. Or there may be a bomb in there, and the child was tricked into delivering it to the soldier. In either case, the child has done no wrongdoing, but, assuming the child does not stop approaching when told to do so (as the child does not understand the language the guard is speaking in), the child will be shot if they get too close because of the danger they pose. Will the soldier shoot to kill? No. Can it kill the child? Yes. Granted, these days you probably will have options that allow you to stop the child with much less chance of killing them, but in the past, this was not an option.

The child is being punished, and justifiably so (this is not the say the child deserves to be punished, but the response, shooting the child, is justified in that it upholds the safety of the base the soldier is guarding), but has done no wrong.

That is a very good analogy, except that the line with abortion is blurred even further in that the majority of the time there is no danger to anyone's life or health. If you deal with a situation like this it becomes a question of who's rights are more important, which will never end up anywhere close to productive.

This is why I think that the 'personhood' line(s) is necessary, as it allows you to create a heirarchy of importance much more easier than when you deal with 'property'.