Rights of the Un-born

[TheMagi]

One might also suggest that, in the majority of cases of traffic fatalities, the person whose life unfortunately expired had invited the possibility of having an accident by getting in his vehicle.

Does this mean that all traffic fatalities are the responsibility of the victim?

Not hardly.

No, because traffic accidents are themselves a result of accidents - of faliures and of flaws, and not in our will, but in our body in failing to carry out that will. Babies happen as a result of bodies doing what they are supposed to do.

Consent to sex is not tantamount to consent to pregnancy any more than consent to ride in an automobile is tantamount to consent to having a traffic collision. Contraceptives and prophylactics are not perfect, nor is pregnancy even a highly probable outcome of sex absent preventative measures.

It is an extremely likely outcome of sex. In fact, the number of people who manage it without having more than one child is rather low - even with contraception. You cannot separate every sex act - because people tend to do it more than once, and it is, for most, not a slight risk but a high probability that if they choose to carry on 'risking pregancy', one of these days they will become pregant.

Waiver of the right to bodily integrity must be explicit, and consent to sex is not that. It is unreasonable to deny a person the right to protect their own body from the burden that pregnancy puts upon it if it is unwanted.

So you say. But you still haven't explained the crux of the matter - why is this a right? How do you choose to say that this is more important than that?

A person has a right to use the minimum force necessary to defend her body and protect its integrity. In the case of pregnancy, abortion is that.

'Integrity'? I don't see where the concept of a foetus as violating that integrity even comes from!

Magi

 

[Chrysalis Kat]

Or at the more sensible extreme - that you would be right (note I do not say 'have the right') not to dash into the street to pick up a child that would otherwise be run over, rather than risk your own body?

Good question.
If you were the head of a household and had a number of dependents that relied upon you for their support, wouldn't that be a morally justifiable reason to not put your life at risk in an attempt to save a child that would otherwise get run over?
What do you think?

 

[:æ:]

No, because traffic accidents are themselves a result of accidents - of faliures and of flaws, and not in our will, but in our body in failing to carry out that will. Babies happen as a result of bodies doing what they are supposed to do.

I wonder where you learned what our bodies are "supposed to do." Did yours come with a manual that informed you of the purpose of it's functions?

My question, of course, is rhetorical. You are confusing behavior with function, and further you confuse that function with purpose. My point remains that consensual sex does not carry with it consent to become and remain pregnant, and my analogy is appropriate to demonstrate that.

It is an extremely likely outcome of sex.

Quite false. The interval for human fertility is generally about 5 days out of 30.

<snip>

So you say.

It is not merely my assertion, but a constitutionally protected right.

'Integrity'? I don't see where the concept of a foetus as violating that integrity even comes from!

Then why do you pretend to have an informed opinion on the matter?

:æ:

 

[TheMagi]

I wonder where you learned what our bodies are "supposed to do." Did yours come with a manual that informed you of the purpose of it's functions?

Yup. Did you lose yours? Incidentally, mine doesn't say much about getting pregnant, because I'm male.

My question, of course, is rhetorical. You are confusing behavior with function, and further you confuse that function with purpose. My point remains that consensual sex does not carry with it consent to become and remain pregnant, and my analogy is appropriate to demonstrate that.

No. If you want your car crash analogy, you can have it. I agree to the consequences of my actions unless they are actions I do not take of my own free will. And remember - go in a car every day of your life (twice if you want) and the chances are you'll live. Have sex everyday - you'll have babies. Doesn't matter what protection you use.

Quite false. The interval for human fertility is generally about 5 days out of 30.

I know. I clearly said that it was to continually have sex (what most people do) that makes babies likely. It is unlikely only from the single act.

It is not merely my assertion, but a constitutionally protected right.

Hopefully the constitution (as I am a citizen of the UK, and live there, I live under a different and far older constitution) has moral priciples behind it? Please tell us what they are on this matter.

Then why do you pretend to have an informed opinion on the matter?

I said that the specific matter in question, the right to have a body unviolated by a foetus, didn't exist as a matter or a topic (until, at least, you tell us the principles which undergird it), not that I had any opinion on it.

Please. Tell us what your first principles are. We know you believe that you should be able to remove anything violating 'bodily integrity' from your body - but why? We can't reach any agreement (even that of my own defeat!) unless we know why there is a reason to believe what you believe.

Magi

 

[:æ:]

Yup. Did you lose yours?

Now you're just lying. Is that what it takes to attempt to sustain an anti-abortion stance? Lies?

No. If you want your car crash analogy, you can have it. I agree to the consequences of my actions unless they are actions I do not take of my own free will.

You are free to do so, but in this instance the law does not require it, nor should it.

And remember - go in a car every day of your life (twice if you want) and the chances are you'll live.

Have sex everyday - you'll have babies. Doesn't matter what protection you use.

Laughable. Are you seriously going to attempt to sustain the assertion that it is impossible to have sex on a daily basis with protection and not conceive? My own sex life over the last six months nearly refutes you.

I know. I clearly said that it was to continually have sex (what most people do) that makes babies likely. It is unlikely only from the single act.

But they are all single acts, and my point only concerned the single act of sex. It is not tantamount to consent to pregnancy, and nothing you can present will refute that.

Hopefully the constitution (as I am a citizen of the UK, and live there, I live under a different and far older constitution) has moral priciples behind it? Please tell us what they are on this matter.

I already have. The principle is the right to defend one's own bodily integrity against unwanted violations.

I said that the specific matter in question, the right to have a body unviolated by a foetus, didn't exist as a matter or a topic (until, at least, you tell us the principles which undergird it), not that I had any opinion on it.

I'm sorry, but this paragraph doesn't make sense to me.

Please. Tell us what your first principles are. We know you believe that you should be able to remove anything violating 'bodily integrity' from your body - but why?

Why not? In dubio pro libertate. Rights do not have to be defended. It is the denial of rights that require reasons.

:æ:

 

[Marek]

Not correct. A woman's choice to have sex is not the same as a choice to get and remain pregnant.

It is not the same, but it is a direct consequence. If I choose to drive a car down a sidewalk and unintentionally run people over, I am still held responsible for my actions. The same should hold true in this case.

I said that the fetus' right to live while occupying another person's body, forcibly extracting nutrient's from that person's blood, and injecting waste and imbalancing hormones into that person's body does not exist.

Then why should a woman's right to kill that being exist? It seems a far worse punishment is being dealt to the fetus when it is killed than to the mother having to go through childbirth.

On the contrary, the courts have sided with me. It is you that must show convincingly that a being lacking personhood can possess a right that orindary persons do not.

And the courts are always right. They were right when slavery was legal and when inter-racial was illegal... yeah right.
A being, whether or not it lacks personhood can still have the exact same right to life of anyother human being.

 

[TheMagi]

Now you're just lying. Is that what it takes to attempt to sustain an anti-abortion stance? Lies?

Um, no... to suggest that your body has a user-manual after it, and follow that with a smilie, is a joke, and is considered to be by the posters who haven't taken me literally before.[/QUOTE]

I already have. The principle is the right to defend one's own bodily integrity against unwanted violations.

But you must defend that principle: see below.

Why not? In dubio pro libertate. Rights do not have to be defended. It is the denial of rights that require reasons.

Right - this makes it easier to see what your philosophy is.
I don't agree with it; nonetheless, let us assume you are correct, and rights o not have to be defended.
Surely you have some way of distinguishing what is and is not a right, so that you know what does not need defending? If I invent a new right - say the right to music - how would you decide whether this was an unassailable right, or merely me being greedy?
Because when you assert that there is a right - which I do not recognise - to defend the body against the foetus, I must, morally, decide whether it is indeed a right, or whether it is a dangerous idea infringing the rights of others.

Magi

 

[:æ:]

It is not the same, but it is a direct consequence. If I choose to drive a car down a sidewalk and unintentionally run people over, I am still held responsible for my actions. The same should hold true in this case.

No, because that is not analagous. Women that have sex and get pregnant are not being negligent enough to forego their rights to bodily integrity.

Then why should a woman's right to kill that being exist?

No, the question is why shouldn't it? After all, the abortion doesn't revoke from the fetus anything that it had before the conception, and therefore it perfectly restores the status quo ante.

It seems a far worse punishment is being dealt to the fetus when it is killed than to the mother having to go through childbirth.

It's not a "punishment." As I said before, it is a restoration of the status quo ante. No party involved loses anything that they had before.

And the courts are always right. They were right when slavery was legal and when inter-racial was illegal... yeah right.

Whenever you decide you quit abusing the strawmen, you are invited to deal with my actual arguments.

A being, whether or not it lacks personhood can still have the exact same right to life of anyother human being.

I already covered this. Denying a woman the right to defend her own bodily integrity from the invasive effects of pregnancy is equivalent to granting the fetus greater rights than any person, and there is no basis to do so.

:æ:

 

[:æ:]

Um, no... to suggest that your body has a user-manual after it, and follow that with a smilie, is a joke, and is considered to be by the posters who haven't taken me literally before.

I guess I just take this issue a bit more seriously than you.

But you must defend that principle: see below.

Defend what? The right to protect one's person from unwanted health consequences? Surely you do not deny that this is a fundamental right to which all are entitled. Would you side with an assailant that, upon beig invited into a person's home, assaulted his host with a syringe loaded with an infectious disease?

Surely you have some way of distinguishing what is and is not a right, so that you know what does not need defending? If I invent a new right - say the right to music - how would you decide whether this was an unassailable right, or merely me being greedy?

It depends on what a "right to music" entails, and the extent to which it may violate the rights of others if exercised.

Moreover, I think it should be obvious to anyone examining your hypothetical that a "right to music" and a "right to protect bodily integrity" are hardly on par with eachother. I have a right to listen to my music, for example, but not to listen to it at decibel levels that literally deafen my neighbors.

:æ:

 

[Eponine]

No, because that is not analagous. Women that have sex and get pregnant are not being negligent enough to forego their rights to bodily integrity.


No, the question is why shouldn't it? After all, the abortion doesn't revoke from the fetus anything that it had before the conception, and therefore it perfectly restores the status quo ante.


It's not a "punishment." As I said before, it is a restoration of the status quo ante. No party involved loses anything that they had before.


Whenever you decide you quit abusing the strawmen, you are invited to deal with my actual arguments.


I already covered this. Denying a woman the right to defend her own bodily integrity from the invasive effects of pregnancy is equivalent to granting the fetus greater rights than any person, and there is no basis to do so.

:æ:

How can you say that women who consent to sex and get pregnant are "not being negligent enough to violate their rights to bodily integrity"? They most certainly are! Why should people be allowed to have sex without having to face the consequences? Birth control is different because the egg and the sperm separately can't live and become a human being, therefore they do not have the same right to life as a fetus or another human being.

And, the last time I checked, in abortion the fetus is very much deprived of something it had before- a life. Besides, life begins as soon as the egg is fertilized. Any science student will tell you that a cell is the smallest size possible for an organism to be living. And when that organism has the genetic makeup of a human being, it has the same rights as a human being- including the right to live, whether or not the woman, for whatever reason, doesn't want to bother going through pregnancy and childbirth.

 

[Rae]

Why should people be allowed to have sex without having to face the consequences?

Because most of us don't believe in children being condemned to a loveless relationship with their parents, for one. I had a friend who told me once, when I jokingly said that I wasn't his mother, "I wish you had been. My mother never wanted me."

Why should people be allowed to do anything? Walking can get you killed. Driving cars is a sure risk of death. Why not just let people die and get hurt?

Empathy. Caring. On a pragmatic level, because then we'd have to finance their medical bills and therapy.

 

[Eponine]

Because most of us don't believe in children being condemned to a loveless relationship with their parents, for one. I had a friend who told me once, when I jokingly said that I wasn't his mother, "I wish you had been. My mother never wanted me."

Why should people be allowed to do anything? Walking can get you killed. Driving cars is a sure risk of death. Why not just let people die and get hurt?

Empathy. Caring. On a pragmatic level, because then we'd have to finance their medical bills and therapy.

I'd think the best scenario for everyone involved would be to offer the child for adoption. There are many couples in the world who are infertile and would love to adopt someone else's unwanted child. When I get married sometime in the future (once I'm safely in college at least, if not later), my husband and I will be one of those couples, so I'd really rather not have someone kill a child that could have been mine, or someone else's like me.

 

[AdJesumPerMariam]

I'd think the best scenario for everyone involved would be to offer the child for adoption. There are many couples in the world who are infertile and would love to adopt someone else's unwanted child. When I get married, my husband and I will be one of those couples, so I'd really rather not have someone kill a child that could have been mine, or someone else's like me.

Thank you! There are so many couples like you, and we could use more!!

Now, its still amazing to me that if you want to be pregnant, then the fetus is a baby, loved and adored from that first moment, but if you don't want to be pregnant, the baby is a 'parasite' or whatever you want to call the child. It sounds like its a matter of what is wanted at that given time.

Its sad that we think we can take away the rights of someone because we either want or not want.

Now, read the previous post, there are many couples that want a child. Its pretty selfish to be so selfish as to not give a child a chance because you are inconvenienced, or don't want to go through childbirth, or.....for whatever reason. We are so into the me society & what I want, that we seem to forget there are others.

 

[Marek]

No, because that is not analagous. Women that have sex and get pregnant are not being negligent enough to forego their rights to bodily integrity.

They aren't being 'negligent enough'? Where is the line drawn when you can say that they are being 'negligent enough'? The woman's fetus is there and only there because of a choice that she made (except in the case of rape). How does it follow that she then has the right to kill her child?

Question is why shouldn't it? After all, the abortion doesn't revoke from the fetus anything that it had before the conception, and therefore it perfectly restores the status quo ante.

Actually, abortion revokes all that the fetus has: its life. Before conception, no, the fetus didn't have anything; it didn't exist. Abortion doesn't take place before conception. Using your logic, I could kill anyone I wanted because it would 'perfectly restore the status quo ante' before they existed. I don't think you want to adopt that line of reasoning.

It's not a "punishment." As I said before, it is a restoration of the status quo ante. No party involved loses anything that they had before.

No, the fetus doesn't lose anything it had before it existed, and neither would you if I killed you. It does not justify the act of killing. What the fetus loses, and what anyone loses when they die, is its future.

I already covered this. Denying a woman the right to defend her own bodily integrity from the invasive effects of pregnancy is equivalent to granting the fetus greater rights than any person, and there is no basis to do so.

You still haven't explained why the right to protect one's 'bodily integrity' outweighs the right to life of another. When one is killed, they lose all that they have. When one's 'bodily integrity' is affected, they may lose a lot or they may lose a little, but they definately do not lose everything.

 

[:æ:]

How can you say that women who consent to sex and get pregnant are "not being negligent enough to violate their rights to bodily integrity"?

If you'll read it again, you'll note that's not what I said.

They most certainly are!

Your opinion, while insignificant and unsupported by the standing legal principles, is noted.

Why should people be allowed to have sex without having to face the consequences?

Because you can't establish intent nor can you establish negligence.

And, the last time I checked, in abortion the fetus is very much deprived of something it had before- a life.

Quite false. Before conception, it did not.

Besides, life begins as soon as the egg is fertilized.

Again, false. Life, if it ever began, did so many millions of years ago, and has propogated continually since then. Fertilization is not a beginning to life, because the gametes which fuse to form the zygote are themselves alive.

Any science student will tell you that a cell is the smallest size possible for an organism to be living. And when that organism has the genetic makeup of a human being, it has the same rights as a human being- including the right to live, whether or not the woman, for whatever reason, doesn't want to bother going through pregnancy and childbirth.

More falsity. Not every organism with human DNA is protected from death. HeLa cells, cancer cells, etc... are some ready examples. It is only persons which are entitled to such protections, but even then it does not entitle them to occupy another person's body against their will, it does not permit them to steal nutrients from a person's body, nor does it entitle them to inject that person's body with waste and hormones.

:æ:

 

[butterfoot]

Because you can't establish intent nor can you establish negligence.

Quite false. Before conception, it did not.

Quite true but after conception there is life.

Again, false. Life, if it ever began, did so many millions of years ago, and has propogated continually since then. Fertilization is not a beginning to life, because the gametes which fuse to form the zygote are themselves alive.

So we go back to what came first the chicken or the egg. But you are wrong Fertilization of the Egg begins Human Life.

More falsity. Not every organism with human DNA is protected from death. HeLa cells, cancer cells, etc... are some ready examples. It is only persons which are entitled to such protections, but even then it does not entitle them to occupy another person's body against their will, it does not permit them to steal nutrients from a person's body, nor does it entitle them to inject that person's body with waste and hormones.

:æ:

You are right here. Cancer is a cell that is Human DNA and aren't the human but part of the Human. However an embyo is the beginning stages of human life


-cw

 

[:æ:]

They aren't being 'negligent enough'? Where is the line drawn when you can say that they are being 'negligent enough'?

I don't know, nor do I need to. To insist that I must is to commit the fallacy of the beard.

The woman's fetus is there and only there because of a choice that she made (except in the case of rape). How does it follow that she then has the right to kill her child?

Because, as I've said and have grown tired of repeating, choosing to have sex is not the same as choosing to become and remain pregnant.

Actually, abortion revokes all that the fetus has: its life.

That is not representative of the status quo ante.

Before conception, no, the fetus didn't have anything; it didn't exist. Abortion doesn't take place before conception. Using your logic, I could kill anyone I wanted because it would 'perfectly restore the status quo ante' before they existed. I don't think you want to adopt that line of reasoning.

It is not my line of reasoning. The status quo ante refers to the state of things before the violation occurred.

You still haven't explained why the right to protect one's 'bodily integrity' outweighs the right to life of another.

Firstly, we do not have "another," as in another person. We have a fetus. The two are not the same.

Second, it is not entirely true that "the right to protect one's 'bodily integrity' outweighs the right to life of another," and that is not my argument. The right to protect one's bodily integrity outwieghs the right of the other to live at the expense of another person -- as I have already said many times over in this thread.

It seems you are either intent on misrepresenting my position, or incapable of fully comprehending it. If that were not the case, I wouldn't need to keep correcting the same distortion many times over in this series of posts. I'll leave it to the reader to draw their own conclusions about the soundness of the pro-life arguments which apparently require such misrepresentations of the pro-choice position in order to maintain some semblance of reasonability.

:æ:

 

[:æ:]

Quite true but after conception there is life.

If you would've paid attention to the subject that was at hand when I wrote my response, you'd have noticed that I was describing what I meant by "status quo ante."

So we go back to what came first the chicken or the egg. But you are wrong Fertilization of the Egg begins Human Life.

That's a great assertion, but I've already shown it false. The gametes (the sperm and egg) are already alive, so it cannot be the case that their fusion begins life.

:æ:

 

[Eponine]

If you would've paid attention to the subject that was at hand when I wrote my response, you'd have noticed that I was describing what I meant by "status quo ante."





That's a great assertion, but I've already shown it false. The gametes (the sperm and egg) are already alive, so it cannot be the case that their fusion begins life.

:æ:

They aren't fully alive, though. They only have half the genetic material necessary to sustain life.

 

[TheMagi]

That's a great assertion, but I've already shown it false. The gametes (the sperm and egg) are already alive, so it cannot be the case that their fusion begins life.

Mabye - but it can begin another life!

Magi