On the subject of abortion

[IzzyPop]

Oh, I get the feeling you miss a lot of things.

Ohhh. Nice ad hom in an attempt to avoid the point.

Yes, there is a moral difference.

And how is a moral difference practical?

To you, I'm sure it doesn't.

And, just so you know, I know you think you're being clever by lying about what I said, but fetus still means baby.

Not technically. Of course, baby is not really a technical term, it is an emotional one. Big difference.

 

[DeathMagus]

Oh, I get the feeling you miss a lot of things.

Don't patronize me. I pulled the only two other posts you had made in this thread - both of which contained only assertions. This nice little jab might carry more weight and worth if only it wasn't so patently obvious that your pretense of "having explained something" is clearly, demonstrably false. That the two posts directly below mine agree with me suggests that, even if I do "miss a lot of things," that there's still something wrong with your position.

All I see are assertions, not explanations.

I assume this is some formatting error.

Yes, there is a moral difference.

Woo-hoo. You're just dodging questions left and right today. But you keep forgetting to answer the most important one: "If a doctor could somehow simply snip the umbilical cord and remove the fetus, would you be alright with that?"

To you, I'm sure it doesn't.

More of this? Come one, seriously. I've been wrong before with posts I've made - I'll freely admit it. Don't try to play me off as an idiot, though.

And, just so you know, I know you think you're being clever by lying about what I said, but fetus still means baby.

Lying? Sure. Of course. Not that your original posts still exist for people to read. Not that I marked the changes I made to your posts in RED. Not that I surrounded the words changed in brackets to make it even more obvious that I changed the words. Oh. Wait...

As to what I changed - there's nothing dishonest about it. What you are referring to is accurately called a fetus before birth (or maybe an embryo if you're referring to even further back. "Baby" is a term that most clinically refers to a young animal between the ages of birth and one year (though it's not a very technical term to begin with).

 

[MikeMcK]

Don't patronize me. I pulled the only two other posts you had made in this thread - both of which contained only assertions. This nice little jab might carry more weight and worth if only it wasn't so patently obvious that your pretense of "having explained something" is clearly, demonstrably false. That the two posts directly below mine agree with me suggests that, even if I do "miss a lot of things," that there's still something wrong with your position.

That's nice.

 

[karisma]

A fetus cannot have more rights than a born person. If a born child has no right whatsoever to the parent's blood or organs, a fetus cannot possibly be given that right without a woman's consent.

http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/1997/01.23/RoevWadeALegalD.html

 

[MoonlessNight]

A fetus cannot have more rights than a born person. If a born child has no right whatsoever to the parent's blood or organs, a fetus cannot possibly be given that right without a woman's consent.

http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/1997/01.23/RoevWadeALegalD.html

I see it more as a born child is protected from being killed directly or killed through neglect by his or her parents. In that respect a born child and an unborn child would have the same rights so no problem there.

 

[DeathMagus]

A fetus cannot have more rights than a born person. If a born child has no right whatsoever to the parent's blood or organs, a fetus cannot possibly be given that right without a woman's consent.

http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/1997/01.23/RoevWadeALegalD.html

I'd have to agree with MoonlessNight on this one - I think the issue is more accurately portrayed by the question "When does humanity begin?"

 

[jayem]

I'd have to agree with MoonlessNight on this one - I think the issue is more accurately portrayed by the question "When does humanity begin?"

I think to phase it more specifically, the question is if a fetus's right to live and develop overrides a woman's right to determine how her uterus and other organ systems will be used. And if so, when in pregnancy does the mother's bodily autonomy become subordinate to the fetus's right to life?

To me, the big problem is that most people envision only two anwers--which are the two extremes. 1) A fetus has no rights until it's born. 2) The fetus's right to life supercedes the mother's bodily autonomy from the moment of conception (a life-threatening maternal illness excepted.) Why can't people accept a middle position? What's wrong with picking some point between conception and birth--like when a fetus is natually viable (24 weeks)--and saying that before 24 weeks, the mother's bodily autonomy overrides the rights of a fetus. After 24 weeks, the fetus's right to be born takes precedence. If the laws would reflect this view, it would allow elective terminations of viable, 3rd trimester fetuses to be restricted, yet still provide plenty of time for a pregnant woman to make a private decision regarding her reproductive options. Sure, it's arbitrary, but our laws make arbitrary distinctions all the time. Even with life and death matters. (Example: if I commit first degree murder here in Missouri, I could be executed. But if I commit exactly the same crime in Iowa, just over our northern border, my life will be spared.)

Why does abortion have to be all or none? What's wrong with a compromise?

 

[karisma]

I'd have to agree with MoonlessNight on this one - I think the issue is more accurately portrayed by the question "When does humanity begin?"

That's irrelevent. To be consistent with the law, a fetus certainly cannot have more rights than any born person, and whether they have equal rights is questionable. Even at that, since no born person has any rights to another's blood or organs, even to save their life, a fetus cannot have that right either without the woman's consent. A child has no rights to their parents blood or organs- we cannot force a parent to donate blood to their dying child, as it's a violation of the parent's right to their own body. Same goes for fetus's.

 

[RangerJoe]

Laws against illegal drugs won't entirely eliminate drug use, but they limit drug use by raising the street price of drugs and making it less affordable. Otherwise, we'd be able to buy heroin for five bucks a pop at 7-11. Laws against abortion won't eliminate abortions, but they would reduce the incidence from 1M+ per year to a few thousand per year. Saving 950k lives per year is worth it.

All laws are controlling to some extent--society isn't possible without laws that control.

For those who are unsure about when life begins, ask yourself where the burden of proof lies. When human life is the subject, does it not make sense to err on the side of caution? I've heard that by the time a mom even knows she's pregnant (when the first period is missed), her baby already has brain waves and a heartbeat. The responsible thing is the bear the child to term and make the necessary life adjustments (perhaps adoption or marrying the father, or, in the case of rape, making sure the father is sent to prison).

Did you just compare street drugs to abortions? People go to dealers because they want the high....Women don't just go have abortions because it's fun...

 

[flicka]

I think to phase it more specifically, the question is if a fetus's right to live and develop overrides a woman's right to determine how her uterus and other organ systems will be used. And if so, when in pregnancy does the mother's bodily autonomy become subordinate to the fetus's right to life?

To me, the big problem is that most people envision only two anwers--which are the two extremes. 1) A fetus has no rights until it's born. 2) The fetus's right to life supercedes the mother's bodily autonomy from the moment of conception (a life-threatening maternal illness excepted.) Why can't people accept a middle position? What's wrong with picking some point between conception and birth--like when a fetus is natually viable (24 weeks)--and saying that before 24 weeks, the mother's bodily autonomy overrides the rights of a fetus. After 24 weeks, the fetus's right to be born takes precedence. If the laws would reflect this view, it would allow elective terminations of viable, 3rd trimester fetuses to be restricted, yet still provide plenty of time for a pregnant woman to make a private decision regarding her reproductive options. Sure, it's arbitrary, but our laws make arbitrary distinctions all the time. Even with life and death matters. (Example: if I commit first degree murder here in Missouri, I could be executed. But if I commit exactly the same crime in Iowa, just over our northern border, my life will be spared.)

Why does abortion have to be all or none? What's wrong with a compromise?

Nothing. It's just that the people who feel that way usually don't speak out.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Before I ask this question, allow me to make my position on abortion clear: It should be entirely up to the mother whether or not to have an abortion, except in the third trimester, at which point I'm not entirely sure.

Now, here's my question: Why do certain groups of people feel it is in their power to control the lives of others? Why do they feel they have the right to decide what a woman can and cannot do to her own body?

Not intended to flame or troll or anything. Just trying to understand.

Same reason society seeks to control all those other areas, like taxes, laws about murder/rape/suicide (heck, come on, if it is do what ever you want to your self, why stop suicide), even where one can park.

I think it is just all part of the social contract, and some people see it different from others.

 

[lawtonfogle]

That's irrelevent. To be consistent with the law, a fetus certainly cannot have more rights than any born person, and whether they have equal rights is questionable. Even at that, since no born person has any rights to another's blood or organs, even to save their life, a fetus cannot have that right either without the woman's consent. A child has no rights to their parents blood or organs- we cannot force a parent to donate blood to their dying child, as it's a violation of the parent's right to their own body. Same goes for fetus's.

But that is not the problem. The parent is already donating the blood. While we can't force a parent to donate blood, can we force them not to stop. It would be killing them even if they are justified. While inaction that leads to death may or may not be killing (depends upon if you think no action is action), actual action is killing them.

Up till now we (society) didn't have a problem with it because the concept of forcing the maintaining of a donation (as opposed to the forcing of a donation) has not yet entered society though any other view.

I may be more for abortions if the baby was not killed by the abortion, but by the lack of support from the mother (nutrients, oxygen).

 

[DeathMagus]

I may be more for abortions if the baby was not killed by the abortion, but by the lack of support from the mother (nutrients, oxygen).

Interesting. While I can see it being easier to sleep at night, the pragmatist in me is inquiring what makes the latter any better than the former.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Interesting. While I can see it being easier to sleep at night, the pragmatist in me is inquiring what makes the latter any better than the former.

With current technology, not much to an outside observer. I think it has something to do with watching someone fall off a cliff and not help them (when you could) and pushing them off.

 

[DeathMagus]

With current technology, not much to an outside observer. I think it has something to do with watching someone fall off a cliff and not help them (when you could) and pushing them off.

To me, the analogy seems more accurate if you contrast pushing someone off the cliff with instead cutting the cliff out from under them. That's just me, though.

 

[lawtonfogle]

To me, the analogy seems more accurate if you contrast pushing someone off the cliff with instead cutting the cliff out from under them. That's just me, though.

Maybe, still, as of right now I don't like abortions.

 

[karisma]

But that is not the problem. The parent is already donating the blood. While we can't force a parent to donate blood, can we force them not to stop.

Legally, no, we can't force anyone to give blood/organs. Hypothetical scenario: a hemophiliac baby with a rare blood type is born and needs several emergency blood transfusions from the father. Even if the father made one voluntary donation and the baby needed another, it couldn't be forced. Are you saying we should force parents to donate? That would have to change in order for the law to be consistent.

It would be killing them even if they are justified.

What?

While inaction that leads to death may or may not be killing (depends upon if you think no action is action), actual action is killing them.

Only because we have no other method of removing an embryo/fetus at this point in time. Women don't have abortions because they actively want to kill their fetus, they just want it removed. But even if the embry/fetus could be removed intact, it would still die, so I don't really know how important the distinction is here.

 

[RobertByers]

First time pro-lifer here from Canada.
Why do pro-choicers ask why pro-lifers want abortion outlawed?
Pro-life ism has said very well that abortion kills a child. Therefore since the killing of children, except for rare self-defence reasons, is morally wrong and evil then Abortion must be illegal.
A simple and consistent line of reasoning.

Pro-choicers say and indeed truly that they don't believe abortion kills a human being. Therefore logically a pregnant woman has the right to abort because one has the right to dominance over ones physical state.
Most pro-lifers would agree with women having control over pregnancy if there was not another person within the body.

Both positions by the vast majority or more come from the opionion of whether a human is within a woman while shes pregnant or whether there is not a human. All other conversation about abortion is a wastage of energy.

Pro-lifers must persuade theres a kid there. Pro-choicers must persuade there isn't.
Both sides are regular people with regular morality that would back up either side relative the the kid-in-womb question.
Robert Byers
Toronto,ontario

 

[cantata]

Can someone please help me out by defining what these "rights" are supposed to be that get bandied about all the time? I understand what a legal right is, but I think that it's not being used in that sense.

 

[karisma]

First time pro-lifer here from Canada.
Why do pro-choicers ask why pro-lifers want abortion outlawed?
Pro-life ism has said very well that abortion kills a child. Therefore since the killing of children, except for rare self-defence reasons, is morally wrong and evil then Abortion must be illegal.
A simple and consistent line of reasoning.

Pro-choicers say and indeed truly that they don't believe abortion kills a human being. Therefore logically a pregnant woman has the right to abort because one has the right to dominance over ones physical state.
Most pro-lifers would agree with women having control over pregnancy if there was not another person within the body.

Both positions by the vast majority or more come from the opionion of whether a human is within a woman while shes pregnant or whether there is not a human. All other conversation about abortion is a wastage of energy.

Pro-lifers must persuade theres a kid there. Pro-choicers must persuade there isn't.
Both sides are regular people with regular morality that would back up either side relative the the kid-in-womb question.
Robert Byers
Toronto,ontario

If you would refer to my previous posts, you'll see why legally, it doesn't matter whether one considers the fetus "human" or not. It's irrelevent.