Abortion

[ebola]

I know that this could very easily be in the Politics and Current Events section, but the reasons we believe as we do make the R&P forum a better fit, I think.



Yahzi wrote:

All of you

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm generally against abortion
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That's because you are for the oppression of women. The abortion debate is not about the fetus - who the hell cares about another baby in this overcrowded world? - it is about who will control the means of production. If women have an unfettered right to abortion, then men have no control whatsoever over childbirth. This is unfair to men. But this biological injustice cannot be corrected by robbing women of their rights. To do so would be like the old canard about equality: will we tie wieghts to the swift and the strong so they can't run faster than the slow?

Concern over the rights of some miniscule bit of tissue is irrelevant. I don't have the right to chain you down for 9 months while I use your internal organs to keep me alive. Your chosing to have sex with someone does not give me that right. End of story. Even if the fetus is a person, it's a person with no right to the property of others unless others want to give it to them.

Amazing, isn't it, how quick men are to defend their property from the clutches of the have-nots when property is defined as taxes -yet how swift they are to dispense with property in the name of the poor and needy when property is defined as a woman's body?

Forcing women to yield their physical assets to these new citizens is the ultimate act of weath transferall. You guys won't even vote tax money to feed or educate immigrants from another country, but you'll vote women's bodies to feed these immigrants from nowhere?



For the most part, I agree with you. I said I was generally against abortion. I did not say that I favored making it illegal. There is a world of difference.

I agree that it is absolutely a woman's right to choose whether or not to continue her pregnancy. I make no distinction between any cause, whether it is rape, incest, or simple carelessness.

However, life is very precious. The decision to terminate a pregnancy is to be taken far more seriously than the choice of a mate ( given the 50%+ divorce rate ), and information on ALL options should be readily available. A woman should be able to make the most informed decision possible.

The huge number of prospective parents waiting to adopt has driven many couples to foreign countries. It is insane that, given the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country, and the number of abortions performed, we can't do something to persuade more women to give their future children a chance at a life with a loving couple who desparately want a child.

My wife and I adopted an infant not too long ago. This little boy brings us so much happiness. I can't imagine my life without him. I cannot describe how much I admire the birth mother's choice.

Eric

[fidiot]

Sorry for putting it in a cold sort of way, but the demand for adopting kids is way lower than the supply, so to speak. And the difference will only grow bigger as the world population grows.

As for the decision to be taken more seriously, I think it's clear that we need more education on this subject. And I mean education, not religiously imposed(?) morals. The more people know about the subject (both sex education and abortion), the more they will analyze the situation before making a choice.

[DialecticMaterialist]

However, life is very precious.

Not always. I eat beef, fish,plants. Am okay with animal expiriments. Etc. I don't see why a fetus or embryo is thus so precious.

[Akots]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist


Not always. I eat beef, fish,plants. Am okay with animal expiriments. Etc. I don't see why a fetus or embryo is thus so precious.

Would you say that HUMAN life is precious? I don't think we're talking about aborting dog or horse fetuses.

[ebola]

fidiot wrote:

Sorry for putting it in a cold sort of way, but the demand for adopting kids is way lower than the supply, so to speak.



On the world stage, I would have to agree. In this country, people are flocking by the thousands to China, South America, and Eastern Europe to adopt infants. The problem with foreign adoption is that, in some cases, particularly Russia, it amounts to little more than baby selling. People go to Russia with a list of items ( and, of course, the items themselves ) that various government officials would like as bribes. It is truly disgusting that people would profit from the welfare of a child.

In the US, there are far more people who want to adopt than there are babies. Just talk to someone who has spent five years on an agency waiting list. There are actually lists for people who want to adopt children with Down's Syndrome. If a young woman with an unwanted pregnancy carries a baby to term here, there is a family to adopt the child.



DialectMaterialist wrote:

Not always. I eat beef, fish,plants.



We all eat. So what? Did you read the part where I said:

I agree that it is absolutely a woman's right to choose whether or not to continue her pregnancy. I make no distinction between any cause, whether it is rape, incest, or simple carelessness.


Eric

[fidiot]

Originally posted by ebola
On the world stage, I would have to agree. In this country, people are flocking by the thousands to China, South America, and Eastern Europe to adopt infants. The problem with foreign adoption is that, in some cases, particularly Russia, it amounts to little more than baby selling. People go to Russia with a list of items ( and, of course, the items themselves ) that various government officials would like as bribes. It is truly disgusting that people would profit from the welfare of a child.

In the US, there are far more people who want to adopt than there are babies. Just talk to someone who has spent five years on an agency waiting list. There are actually lists for people who want to adopt children with Down's Syndrome. If a young woman with an unwanted pregnancy carries a baby to term here, there is a family to adopt the child.

This I see as a problem either with laws concerning adoption(the forementioned baby selling) or morals(sadly, some people might not want a child that's not white, or comes from lower class parents for example), or both. The fact is that I'm pretty sure that there are more babies up for adoption than there are families that need a child to adopt, even in USA. Does anyone have any links for more information? It would be interesting to look into this closer.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Akots


Would you say that HUMAN life is precious? I don't think we're talking about aborting dog or horse fetuses.
If you were to put one-month old dog, horse and human fetuses side by side, I doubt that you would be able to tell the difference without genetic testing.

To me what makes it human is human consciousness. Without that, it is just another piece of tissue.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Akots


Would you say that HUMAN life is precious? I don't think we're talking about aborting dog or horse fetuses.

That seems to be a uniquely human concept, and understandably so.

One might do well to qualify the concept a bit and say something like:

" Human fetal life is very precious. " If, in fact that is their position with regard to abortion.

Because, that same person might not have a problem with with executing a full grown human, or dropping a bomb
on a few others.

However, I'm sure they would be sure there were no pregnant humans, in the target area first.

[Upchurch]

I'm sure there are exceptions, but I don't really think anyone is for abortions. I can't see any reasonably minded person attempting to get pregnet just so she can have the "fun" of having an abortion. So, claiming someone is "Pro-Abortion" never made any sense to me.

Now, as a man, I don't see where it's any of my business to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body. In the one situation where I was asked for advice about the matter, I pushed for her to either raise or put the kid up for adoption, but once she had made her decision, I tried to help (emotionally, etc.) her as best as I could. It was her decision and her responsiblity.

My fiancee (who is 100% anti-abortion) and I have decided that when we choose to have kids, we will have no more than one biological child (if that) and adopt all others. (in other words, we'll either have one biological child and one adopted or two adopted children) Adoption is a prefered alternative to abortion, in my mind, but it only works if people are willing to adopt, which means changing some of our social norms, I think.

For example, I'm friends with a couple who the wife has an inherited problem conceiving after a certain age (something like 25-26). When I suggested that there was always adoption, I might as well have suggested that she surgically add a second nose. She was outright offended at the possibility of adopting.

[ebola]

fidiot wrote:

This I see as a problem either with laws concerning adoption(the forementioned baby selling) or morals(sadly, some people might not want a child that's not white, or comes from lower class parents for example), or both. The fact is that I'm pretty sure that there are more babies up for adoption than there are families that need a child to adopt, even in USA.



There are currently, in the US, about 150,000 children in foster care waiting to be adopted. The overwhelming majority of these are children who have been removed from abusive homes. In years past non-white babies tended to languish in foster care. However, today, race is not as big an issue, many minority families have reached a level of affluence that allows them to afford the costs of adoption, and infants get adopted pretty quickly regardless of race.

As for Russia, the problem is system wide, and I am certain that nobody currently on the gravy train is anxious to get off. The corruption and graft in that country truly makes one's head spin.

Eric

[Q-Source]

Yazhi,

Wow, I liked your post a lot. I think that before the fetus' right to live, we have to defend the women's right to decide. Ultimately, they are the only responsible for their bodies.

ebola,

I see your concern, however try to isolate abortion from other issues. Abortion is a matter of women's right to decide over their bodies when they don't have the support of their man most of time.

Giving birth is not an easy task, it requires 9 months of care and emotional stress. Furthermore, the problem with adoption is the lack of supply of very young children with some specific characteristics. Couples always prefer new born baby than older children or teenagers.

I see that the only solution to abortion is prevention instead of coercion.

Tricky,

People generally conceive abortions as a human killing practice, when in fact, strictly speaking, there isn't any human involved. It is just a fetus without consciousness.

Q-S

[ebola]

Upchurch wrote:

My fiancee (who is 100% anti-abortion) and I have decided that when we choose to have kids, we will have no more than one biological child (if that) and adopt all others.



If she is 100% anti-abortion, you have a normal sex life, and you only plan one biological child, I hope she is 100% pro-contraception.



Upchurch wrote:

For example, I'm friends with a couple who the wife has an inherited problem conceiving after a certain age (something like 25-26). When I suggested that there was always adoption, I might as well have suggested that she surgically add a second nose. She was outright offended at the possibility of adopting.



It takes many infertile couples years to even consider adoption. Many spend so much on fertility treatments that they cannot afford the expenses associated with adoption. If the couple wants a child badly enough and they have exhausted all other possibilities, they will eventually consider it.

Eric

[MRC_Hans]

And, we are quite willing to sacrifice (post-birth) human lives for a number of other causes, such as the comfort of individual transport.

Hans

[ebola]

Q-Source wrote:

Abortion is a matter of women's right to decide over their bodies when they don't have the support of their man most of time.

Giving birth is not an easy task, it requires 9 months of care and emotional stress. Furthermore, the problem with adoption is the lack of supply of very young children with some specific characteristics. Couples always prefer new born baby than older children or teenagers.



I agree that abortion is a matter of a woman's right to decide. I have stated this before in this thread.

I never claimed that giving birth was easy. I watched my wife carry our twins, and I cannot imagine trading places.

I agree that the demand for newborns is dramatically higher than for other children. Where I differ is that the demand for newborns is high enough so that those "specific characteristics" become unimportant; if one couple is shallow enough not to adopt based on one or two aspects of the child's background, they will continue to wait, and another couple will adopt the child. Given how long some people have already waited, these "characteristics" that couples desire beome inconsequential.

Eric

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
And, we are quite willing to sacrifice (post-birth) human lives for a number of other causes, such as the comfort of individual transport.


What do you mean?

Will you discuss now why you consider that a fetus is a human?
(Check, I am not saying it is not a potential human being)

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Q-Source
What do you mean?

I mean that even if somebody considers a fetus a human (just when does it turn into one?), this "life is sacred" business seems a tad hypocritical

Will you discuss now why you consider that a fetus is a human?
(Check, I am not saying it is not a potential human being)

Uhh Q, that is a strawman (been around you-know-who for too long?). I have not said I consider a fetus a human. But at some point, it does turn into one, and it might be pertinent to discuss when.

I am certainly against making abortion illegal, for the exact reasons that Yahzi mentions, plus one more: Whether legal or illegal, provoked abortions have always and will always happen. To make it illegal is to throw a lot of luckless women into the hands of quacks.

Hans

[Tricky]

Dang it, I agree with almost everything everyone is saying.

This really is not as much fun without at least one fervent anti-abortion person in here.

[Blue Monk]

Originally posted by Tricky
Dang it, I agree with almost everything everyone is saying.

This really is not as much fun without at least one fervent anti-abortion person in here.

Give 'em time. They'll show up.

I've always thought we should divert all of our combative abortion issue energies and unite in a solid movement to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

That would not solve everything but every unwanted pregnancy that is avoided is a solid victory for both sides of the abortion issue.

[Akots]

Originally posted by Q-Source


What do you mean?

Will you discuss now why you consider that a fetus is a human?
(Check, I am not saying it is not a potential human being)

A fetus obviously doesn't have a completely matured brain, but is that a prerequisite for conciousness? Do we really understand conciousness enough to conclusively decide wether a fetus is a living human being, and has rights? Untill I was certain, I would treat it as such.

As for potential being equivelant to the fullly matured version, we are all potential Einsteins, Rockafellers, Jane Goodalls, Osama Bin Ladins, and Armstrongs. While w eall have the capacity to be brilliant and influential human beings, not all of us can be, as our civilization isn't able to support tens of millions of super-geniuses, influential leaders, and infamous mass murderers. In a normal sampling, we are not all exceptional.

On the other hand, a fetus, if given a normal chance to survive, has little choice other than to become a human being. There's nothing else for it to become.

Sure, a potential inseminated egg might not achieve maturity; it could be aborted, or could die of unintentional causes. However, we don't look at an inseminated egg and say "I wonder if it will be a human, or something else instead?"

Really, the issue is wether a fetus has a soul or not. Not wether it is concious or not.

EDIT: Hm...in retrospect, i suppose you might summarize my post thusly...
*Repeatedly whacks hornet's nest with baseball bat*
THE RETURN OF EDIT: It's not intentional. I swear.

[MRC_Hans]

Really, the issue is wether a fetus has a soul or not. Not wether it is concious or not. Does something not conscious have a soul?

If yes to that, is it only something with the potential to become conscious that has a soul?

If yes to that, are souls killed?

If no, are souls sacred?

Hans

[Thanz]

It seems to me that most of the posters in this thread have assumed away the trickiest issue (indeed, the only issue) in the abortion debate. Is the fetus a "human", deserving of all of the same rights as you an I, while still in the uterus of the mother?

It is my understanding that all of the genetic material and coding for the child has been determined within weeks of conception. Eye colour, hair colour, etc. It's all in there. This has led those on the anti-abortion side to conclude that the fetus IS a human life, worthy of those protections. It is not just a scientific conclusion, but also a moral and emotional one.

Those on the pro-choice side argue that the fetus is not human, as (in part) it relies on the mother for all of its needs. Thus, the right of the mother to choose is paramount.

I think (though I may be wrong) that the law grants protection to the fetus when the fetus reaches the point of viability (that is, can survive outside the uterus.) To me, this is an easy decision and an easy place to put the dividing line.

The hard part is deciding whether a pre-viability fetus is in fact a human life. This is the only decision. If one comes to the conclusion that the fetus is a human life, one cannot support the right of a mother to "choose" whether to end that life, any more than she could choose to throw her baby into the river.

If one comes to the conclusion (as it seems most of the people posting in this thread have) that the fetus IS NOT a human life, then it is perfectly logical for the woman to have the right to choose.

For the majority of anti-abortion activists, it has nothing to do with female oppression. It has to do with whether their belief that the fetus is a human life.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Tricky
Dang it, I agree with almost everything everyone is saying.

This really is not as much fun without at least one fervent anti-abortion person in here.

I'm not anti-abortion, but I do feel differently from a lot of people here, so I'll speak up. :)

I don't think the "a woman has a right to control her own body" argument stands up. It's certainly not the only thing that needs to be considered -- if a woman were to "control her body" in such a way that she refused to feed her child, she would be accused of neglect. If she "controlled her body" to stab someone with a knife, she would be guilty of homicide. I consider this a non-issue in the abortion arena, honestly.

To me, the only issue is whether the fetus has human-type consciousness. Before that, the fetus is either completely unconscious, or has, at best, animal-type consciousness (and we certainly have no problem killing animals for a variety of reasons, including convenience). The best information I've been able to locate says that a fetus starts exhibiting distinctly human-like brain activity at around twelve weeks. Therefore, I think that abortion after that period is definitely suspect. I certainly wouldn't do it if I were a woman, and I wouldn't encourage anyone else to, either.

I also disagree that current abortion laws give the woman significantly more reproductive freedom than the man. It takes two people to reproduce, and the man knew (or should've known) when he had sex that there was a chance that pregnancy could result. There's always a choice.

Jeremy

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by ebola
If she is 100% anti-abortion, you have a normal sex life, and you only plan one biological child, I hope she is 100% pro-contraception.That's rather personal, but yes.

If the couple wants a child badly enough and they have exhausted all other possibilities, they will eventually consider it. I know, but I don't understand why it's such a last resort.

[Akots]

Originally posted by Thanz
It seems to me that most of the posters in this thread have assumed away the trickiest issue (indeed, the only issue) in the abortion debate. Is the fetus a "human", deserving of all of the same rights as you an I, while still in the uterus of the mother?

It is my understanding that all of the genetic material and coding for the child has been determined within weeks of conception. Eye colour, hair colour, etc. It's all in there. This has led those on the anti-abortion side to conclude that the fetus IS a human life, worthy of those protections. It is not just a scientific conclusion, but also a moral and emotional one.


Obviously the easily verified factors take precedence over any philosophical or religious issues; will the mother or child survive if the birth carries through? Would giving birth endanger them? Will a defect cause the child to die before birth? Then, it's an issue of mercy killing, or sacrificing an undeveloped human for a mature one. Very prickly problem, and one I wouldn't wish on anyone.


Those on the pro-choice side argue that the fetus is not human, as (in part) it relies on the mother for all of its needs. Thus, the right of the mother to choose is paramount.


Bleh. My brother has diabetes; he'd last maybe a week or two without taking two or three needles a day. I was born prematurely, and underweight; if it hadn't been for the hospital, i would have died minutes after birth. To this day, I still have a tiny bald spot where they put the nutrient tube in my head.

Dependance on the mother doesn't make a valid point for anybody.


I think (though I may be wrong) that the law grants protection to the fetus when the fetus reaches the point of viability (that is, can survive outside the uterus.) To me, this is an easy decision and an easy place to put the dividing line.


This is law, and not philosophy; laws can differ between governments. Though understandably, you can't just put law on hold and wait for the philosophers to come up with something convincing.


The hard part is deciding whether a pre-viability fetus is in fact a human life. This is the only decision. If one comes to the conclusion that the fetus is a human life, one cannot support the right of a mother to "choose" whether to end that life, any more than she could choose to throw her baby into the river.


I'd have to say that viability would be the practical point tomake laws on the subject, but it should not be the deciding factor philosophically speaking.


If one comes to the conclusion (as it seems most of the people posting in this thread have) that the fetus IS NOT a human life, then it is perfectly logical for the woman to have the right to choose.

For the majority of anti-abortion activists, it has nothing to do with female oppression. It has to do with whether their belief that the fetus is a human life.

Well... maybe yes, and maybe no... i draw the "zealot" line here at refusing an abortion that kills either or one or both of the mother and child... if your STILL anti-abortion in such a situation, then your more concerned about asserting your viewpoint than actually doing the most good.

[Akots]

Originally posted by toddjh
I don't think the "a woman has a right to control her own body" argument stands up. It's certainly not the only thing that needs to be considered -- if a woman were to "control her body" in such a way that she refused to feed her child, she would be accused of neglect. If she "controlled her body" to stab someone with a knife, she would be guilty of homicide. I consider this a non-issue in the abortion arena, honestly.


This is largely the issue of being responsible for another life... does someone have the right to kill themselves? Is the mother's right to choose important enough to accept the repercusions?

Again, this argument depends on the situation. It doesn't adress wether killing a fetus is the same as killing an adult. Though it is an important point.


To me, the only issue is whether the fetus has human-type consciousness. Before that, the fetus is either completely unconscious, or has, at best, animal-type consciousness (and we certainly have no problem killing animals for a variety of reasons, including convenience). The best information I've been able to locate says that a fetus starts exhibiting distinctly human-like brain activity at around twelve weeks. Therefore, I think that abortion after that period is definitely suspect. I certainly wouldn't do it if I were a woman, and I wouldn't encourage anyone else to, either.


I mostly agree with this, but i'll have to go one step further... tjhe issue is wether humans have a soul. Animals can be self concious, and we don't mind slaughtering them. As well, if an inseminated ova has ABSOLUTELY no way to sense it's surroundings, it is not concious...

The question is not wether you are destroying an organism that has recorded information regarding it's experiences an dsurroundings, and then formed a sense of input/output. It's wether you are killing an entity that has a human soul.

That's the religiosu group's argument, and it's what pro-choice people are really fighting against; if they aren't, then they are bashing their heads against the brick wall of fundamental religion. A biological answer won't satisfy a religious stance on if/when a soul is concieved.


I also disagree that current abortion laws give the woman significantly more reproductive freedom than the man. It takes two people to reproduce, and the man knew (or should've known) when he had sex that there was a chance that pregnancy could result. There's always a choice.

Jeremy

I don't think this is literally about being able to control the population; more like, "controling the philosophical issues, and thereby controling the implications."

If anti-abortionists end up getting their law the way they want it, it "proves" that humans have a soul at such-and-such time, thus validating the rest of their religion by association. Though I have no doubt that some people are genuinely, honestly concerned about the idea that each aborted fetus is a slain human soul.

[Yahzi]

Ebola
I said I was generally against abortion.
I will concede that, in a perfect world, there would be no abortions. However, in a perfect world, contraception would always work when used correctly.

However, life is very precious.
That's the problem - it's not. Human life, like evertything else, obeys the laws of economics. It's value is inversely related to it's rarity.

There are way, way too many people on the planet right now. If there were only a handful of people, struggling to survive in a hostile environment, then every pregnancy would be greeted with joy. Any woman would gladly lay aside whatever career she had to bring another child into the world, because children would be so incredibly precious to society that it would trump any other path to success. This is how we lived for 3 million years.

Today, we tell women to send their kids to daycare and go get a job. Children are no longer precious to society - and never will be again, unless the human reproduction system undegoes dramatic evolution or science goes away.

(Note: I am not advocating a return to primitiveness!)

It is insane that, given the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country, and the number of abortions performed, we can't do something to persuade more women to give their future children a chance at a life with a loving couple who desparately want a child.
It's not insane, it's just a reflection of economics. What I think is insane is that we have so many fertility clinics. But wealth means choice, and so really those are just a reflection of economics too.

Upchurch
we will have no more than one biological child
You and your wife are allowed two. If everybody has one kid to replace themselves, then the planet will survive. And if your second kid is a set of twins, that's ok too. It's the people that want to have more than one per person that are greedy.

If she is 100% anti-abortion, you have a normal sex life, and you only plan one biological child, I hope she is 100% pro-contraception.
You both do understand that contraception is not 100%, yes? Abortions are a necessary complement to the contraceptive strategy. I know a guy who got snipped, and 10 years later had another child. (Yes, it was definitely his!)

MRC_Hans
To make it illegal is to throw a lot of luckless women into the hands of quacks
Or France, as the rich will always be able to fly to more liberal places. (Ed - must... resist... French... joke)

Thanz
It seems to me that most of the posters in this thread have assumed away the trickiest issue (indeed, the only issue) in the abortion debate. Is the fetus a "human", deserving of all of the same rights as you an I, while still in the uterus of the mother?
The fetus is not a human being, it is a not a citizen, and (as I stated in the very first post) even if it was it doesn't matter. We have not assumed it away, but rather shown how it doesn't matter. Throwing your baby in the river is an act against another person; deciding not to share your blood supply is an act of personal determination even if it has consequences on another person. The two are wholly different.

when the fetus reaches the point of viability (that is, can survive outside the uterus.) To me, this is an easy decision and an easy place to put the dividing line.
Except that it is a moving target. Science keeps changing it. The decision of when to extend rights to a person is a political one, nto a scientific one. Birth is not an entirely arbitrary dividing line, since as animals we are programmed to respond to babies. We are not programmed to respond to 12 week old fetuses, even if they could be raised in a vat. To me, the easist place to put the dividing line is where it's been for the last 3 million years. But I'm conservative like that.

For the majority of anti-abortion activists, it has nothing to do with female oppression
This is false, and I have the evidence to prove it: how many pro-lifers are pro-birth control? How many want to hand out condoms in schools? How many want sex education in schools?

There was one pro-life guy in New England that came to the conclusion that the best way to prevent the tragedy of abortion was by promoting contraception. They promptly kicked him out.

If I go up to a pro-lifer and say, I have a pill that will prevent %99 abortions, he'll jump for joy. But if I say I have a pill that will prevent %99 of pregnancies, he'll start lecturing me on how sex should have consequences. That's pretty telling, isn't it?

Toddjh
I don't think the "a woman has a right to control her own body" argument stands up.
Your examples are without merit. To perform an act of violence against another person is not a privacy issue. To fail to perform a duty is not a privacy issue, either. Abortion is neither of these: abortion is merely the denial of use of your private property to another person. (assuming fetus were persons, which they aren't.)

Your argument only makes sense if you assume that a woman inhierits a duty to the fetus by virtue of getting pregnant. But if she uses birth control, then she has done everything reasonable to indicate that she does not want to get pregnant. Thus, she cannot be coereced into assuming that duty. If she takes reasonable precautions, it can't be her fault, thus she can't be stuck with the duty. This is a well-established principle of law.

If you fail to build a fence large enough to keep me out of your house, my climbing into your house does not mean you have to feed me for the next nine months. The fact that you built a fence is sufficient to preserve your right to your property. In fact, you don't even have to put a fence, do you?

To argue otherwise is to say that if a woman has sex, she automatically must assume the risk of pregnancy - that pregnancy is not something one is allowed to avoid. To argue for that is to both deny women choices, and to dramatically restrict the number of times men will get laid.

There's always a choice.
If one of the choices is, "stop having sex," then I disagree. This is not a choice. The government is limited by the undue burden clause, and I absolutely garauntee you that "not having sex" is an undue burden. Since we have the technological means available to have sex and avoid pregancy, by what right can the government force upon us this undue burden? To protect a potiential citizen? No... the whole point of undue burden is that they can't pass laws that are an undue burden for any reason. Why not take away everything you make over minimum wage and use it to feed the starving in the rest of the world? Doesn't the life of a person trump the government's limits? The answer is no, and thank God for that. Actually, thank the Enlighnment, but hey, it's a figure of speech.

AKots
Dependance on the mother doesn't make a valid point for anybody.
Your examples are not relevant to the issue. There is no legal grounds that would allow me to chain you down and force you to share your internal organs with another person for nine months. Hence, there can be no legal grounds for doing it to someone else.

Keep in mind that the ultimate punishment for a neglectful parent is removal of the child. If you fail your duty, we remove your duty: we do not enslave you to your duty.

It's wether you are killing an entity that has a human soul.
Souls are supernatural, religious entities. No humans have souls, because they don't exist. You are correct that life-at-conception is really a way of encoding a religious view into law. It should be opposed for that reason, among others.

[neutrino_cannon]

I am perfectly fine with abortion as a neccesity (i.e. cases of rape, incest and times when it is needed to save the mother). Beyond that, aren't contraceptives cheeper? You would think the merciless hand of capitolism would have swept this issue into non-existance.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Yahzi
Your examples are without merit. To perform an act of violence against another person is not a privacy issue. To fail to perform a duty is not a privacy issue, either. Abortion is neither of these: abortion is merely the denial of use of your private property to another person. (assuming fetus were persons, which they aren't.)

Begging the question. Whether fetuses are people is exactly what is at issue here.

Isn't food you buy at the grocery store your private property also? Is denial of food to a child a privacy issue?

Your argument only makes sense if you assume that a woman inhierits a duty to the fetus by virtue of getting pregnant. But if she uses birth control, then she has done everything reasonable to indicate that she does not want to get pregnant. Thus, she cannot be coereced into assuming that duty. If she takes reasonable precautions, it can't be her fault, thus she can't be stuck with the duty. This is a well-established principle of law.

I disagree. If a man impregnates a woman, and she decides to carry the baby to term, then he is financially responsible even if he took reasonable precautions against it.

If you fail to build a fence large enough to keep me out of your house, my climbing into your house does not mean you have to feed me for the next nine months. The fact that you built a fence is sufficient to preserve your right to your property. In fact, you don't even have to put a fence, do you?

Ah, people seeds. Keep in mind that I am not opposed to abortion in general. I am only opposed to abortion when the fetus is sufficiently developed that it might have human-like consciousness. It's an area that needs more research, but I'd rather play it safe.

Have all the abortions you want in the first trimester, which is when most of them take place anyway.

To argue otherwise is to say that if a woman has sex, she automatically must assume the risk of pregnancy - that pregnancy is not something one is allowed to avoid.

Go ahead and avoid it -- you're allowed.

If one of the choices is, "stop having sex," then I disagree. This is not a choice.

I agree. But if you really, really don't want to reproduce, you can get snipped. I did so myself, at age 25, for precisely that reason.

But think about it in another way. You talk about taking "reasonable precautions." But what is reasonable? Are condoms reasonable? They have a mean time between failures of only around five years. Can a couple who uses condoms for birth control for a period of five years reasonably claim that they didn't expect a pregnancy to occur in that period? Same thing for ten years with single-hormone pills, and twenty years for combined hormone pills. Since most people are sexually active for longer than that, how reasonable is it to expect that a pregnancy won't occur?

Jeremy

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon
You would think the merciless hand of capitolism would have swept this issue into non-existance.

Interesting metaphor... Maybe change ' swept ' to ' beat '..:)

[Thanz]

Interesting post, Yahzi. I'll only directly comment on the portions directed at me.

Originally posted by Yahzi
Thanz

The fetus is not a human being, it is a not a citizen, and (as I stated in the very first post) even if it was it doesn't matter. We have not assumed it away, but rather shown how it doesn't matter. Throwing your baby in the river is an act against another person; deciding not to share your blood supply is an act of personal determination even if it has consequences on another person. The two are wholly different.

I strongly disagree when you say it doesn't matter if the fetus is a person or not. It is the central question. I don't buy the "act of personal determination" argument at all. Assuming that the fetus is a person, with the same rights as everyone else, one has to consider the balance of the rights of the fetus with the rights of the mother. On the one hand, we have a mother who (outside of rape) chose to engage in behaviour that could lead to pregnancy. Her interest is not going through with the pain and inconvenience of pregnancy. On the other, we have the fetus, morally innocent, who only wants to live. In my books (once we have established that the fetus is a human life) the right of the fetus to life trumps the right of the mom to "personal determination".

The fact is, you cannot do whatever you wish in your acts of personal determination. You have freedom of choice of action only so far as those actions do not infringe on the rights of others. If the fetus has the same rights as everyone else, you cannot violate the fetus right to life (the most basic of human rights) and dismiss it as an act of personal determination. IMO, if the fetus is considered a human life, there is no difference between an abortion and leaving the baby on the ground to die after birth.

All of which does not determine whether the fetus IS a human life, but your dismissal of the issue is not warranted.

Except that it is a moving target. Science keeps changing it. The decision of when to extend rights to a person is a political one, nto a scientific one. Birth is not an entirely arbitrary dividing line, since as animals we are programmed to respond to babies. We are not programmed to respond to 12 week old fetuses, even if they could be raised in a vat. To me, the easist place to put the dividing line is where it's been for the last 3 million years. But I'm conservative like that.

Why does it matter if it is a moving target? What is so special about full term? My friends had their baby close to 3 months premature, and it is still their baby. They respond to it the same way. I would imagine that no potential parents (who are pregnant because they want to be) describe the fetus as a "fetus", even when that is the accurate term. Most, if not all, will refer to it as the 'baby'.


This is false, and I have the evidence to prove it: how many pro-lifers are pro-birth control? How many want to hand out condoms in schools? How many want sex education in schools?

There was one pro-life guy in New England that came to the conclusion that the best way to prevent the tragedy of abortion was by promoting contraception. They promptly kicked him out.

If I go up to a pro-lifer and say, I have a pill that will prevent %99 abortions, he'll jump for joy. But if I say I have a pill that will prevent %99 of pregnancies, he'll start lecturing me on how sex should have consequences. That's pretty telling, isn't it?

I will partially concede on this point. You are right that many anti-abortion activists are also anti-sex education and birth control. But I don't think that their positions are OVERTLY for the purpose of oppressing women. I don't know if they would all think that we need their moral rules to keep women "in line", rather, I think that they truly believe that the fetus is a human life.

As for promoting contraception, I agree with you - there is no reason for NOT promoting contraception between consenting adults. It is also easy top promote abstinence and contraception at the same time, while still advocating the position that sex CAN have consequences. You would think that if people really wanted to stop abortion, they would go to the source and stop unwanted pregnancies. So, on that point, I agree with you.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Yahzi
Upchurch

You and your wife are allowed two. If everybody has one kid to replace themselves, then the planet will survive. And if your second kid is a set of twins, that's ok too. It's the people that want to have more than one per person that are greedy.Only interested in one natural child. It's a personal decision that we made together.
You both do understand that contraception is not 100%, yes?Of course. We know that nothing in life is certain. I was just expressing our plans. If we accidently deviate from said plan, so be it. Abortions are a necessary complement to the contraceptive strategy.Necessary? Only if the strategy is more important to you than having the baby. Neither my fiancee nor I think that it is.

[Yahzi]

(sigh) I should make shorter posts, so I don't lose everything when Netscape crashes.

Toddjh
Isn't food you buy at the grocery store your private property also? Is denial of food to a child a privacy issue?
You still do not understand the difference between privacy and duty. When you have a child, you accept a duty. Once accepted, it is binding.

Having sex is NOT the same as accepting the duty of raising children. Just because some religous types think that people who have sex should be punished by running the risk of pregnancy is no reason to create law. We have the technological ability to have sex without having children. If you do not want to enjoy that technology, then fine, don't; but by what grounds do you deny me the right to do so?

Name any other situation in which I can legally bind you to share your internal organs for nine months.

I am only opposed to abortion when the fetus is sufficiently developed that it might have human-like consciousness.
I don't see you demanding that every American be taxed until there is no more starvation in the world. You seem pretty quick to dispense with women's bodies to protect something that *might* be conscious, but you seem equally quick to protect your pocketbook from the obviously conscious and starving people around the planet.

But what is reasonable?
There is an entire body of law dedicated to undue burden. It's not really that hard of a concept. Keep in mind that many anti-abortion types are the same people that tried to argue that licensing guns, or even just having a 1-week waiting period, was an undue burden.


Thanz
Assuming that the fetus is a person, with the same rights as everyone else,
Under what conditions do I have the right to make use of your internal organs for 9 months?

In my books (once we have established that the fetus is a human life) the right of the fetus to life trumps the right of the mom to "personal determination".
You have freedom of choice of action only so far as those actions do not infringe on the rights of others
Yet the fetus has the right to infringe on your rights?

Who set up the right-trumping game? It's a simple question: do you have the right to make use of my internal organs. No? Then end of story: I don't care what rights of yours are violated in the process of protecting my rights. That's not my problem.

You agree that we have rights; you just want to take them away when you feel sorry for somebody else. Hey, I'm all down for socialism, but shouldn't we be trumping our rights for the people that already exist?

On the one hand, we have a mother who (outside of rape) chose to engage in behaviour that could lead to pregnancy. Her interest is not going through with the pain and inconvenience of pregnancy. On the other, we have the fetus, morally innocent, who only wants to live
In this single paragraph is everything I said. Look at the tone of this and tell me it's not about punishing those fornicating sluts.

1. It's not just pain, you idiot, it's actual danger. Pregnancy is dangerous. Life-threatening. I suggest you avoid dismissing pregnancy as an "inconvience" in the prescence of women, unless you particularly enjoy being clobbered.

2. Chose to engage in behaviour? If you go skiing, can the doctor not treat your broken leg because you chose to engage in risky behaviour? Maybe you wish less women would choose to have sex with you. That's fine, but let them make their own choices about me, ok?

3. Morally innocent? Who cares? Since when did moral innocence gain you the right to trump my rights? There are billions of poor people who are morally innocent, but I don't see you asking the courts to give them your property.

But I don't think that their positions are OVERTLY for the purpose of oppressing women. I don't know if they would all think that we need their moral rules to keep women "in line", rather, I think that they truly believe that the fetus is a human life.
Sure they do. But even if it were, it doesn't justify their position. It provides emotional support ("won't somebody think of the children!"), but it provides no logical support. This is exactly what you would expect from a diversionary position.

I don't care about their overt propaganda. I care about what they are really after.


Upchurch
Necessary? Only if the strategy is more important to you than having the baby. Neither my fiancee nor I think that it is.
I'll go to the wall to defend your right to choose whatever strategy you want... if you'll defend mine.

The thing the anti-abortionists can't get is that allowing the government to take your personal property and give it to people who need it is like, socialist, you know? And I think that socialism (to the extreme of denying private property rights) has been pretty well shown to be not so good.

Come to think of it, most of those anti-abortionists agree with me.
So what the hell are they going on about?

Oh right... gotta keep the woman down. And the man up. After all, without abortion laws, men have zero influence over childbirth.

Consider the unfairness of this scenario: A man and woman both have sex. Both use contraceptives. The woman gets pregnant anyway. Now the woman must decide: should she get an abortion or accept an 18 year committment? The man must decide... waith, the man has no decision. If he wants the kid and she choses abortion, tough luck. If he doesn't want the kid and she keeps it, tough luck. She gets to unilaterally decide for the man whether or not he will accept an 18 year committment.

Can you name any other contract negotian that is so one-sided? This is clearly unfair.

But balancing nature's injustice on the broken backs of women's right is less fair.

[evildave]

If you're against abortion, then I have the PERFECT solution for it.

1. Fund research into simple, reversible sterilization.

2. Have every single baby reversibly sterilized before leaving the hospital.

Within 20 years or so, both mommy and daddy HAVE to have a simple procedure done to get their fertility turned on, in order for conception to be possible.

No children getting pregnant.

No women going off their pills in an attempt to "fix" a broken relationship with a baby.

No intoxicated 'accidents'.

No more "unwanted" conceptions.

No more abortions at all.

Fight for and fund this solution, and I'll back you every step of the way.

Just try to ban something without comming up with a viable alternative, and you can shove your "morality" up your rectum. People crying for prohibition to solve every problem have no credibility at all.

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by Diogenes


Interesting metaphor... Maybe change ' swept ' to ' beat '..:)

I was serious. It seems to me that contraceptives, which are scands cheaper than abortions would have beat them out ages ago, with the exception of abortions to which I have no oppisition.

But for some reason that isn't the case.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Yahzi
You still do not understand the difference between privacy and duty. When you have a child, you accept a duty. Once accepted, it is binding.

You seem to be suggesting that some magical event occurs at birth that suddenly means the parents have accepted the duty of having the child. What is it? Note that I'm discussing ethics, not legality. I'm fully aware that the law confers special status on a baby after birth; what I want you to address is the logical reason for this distinction, which seems quite arbitrary to me.

Anyway, your views in this area are not necessarily incompatible with mine. All I'm saying is that the window during which you have to decide whether to accept that duty should end when the fetus develops human-like consciousness, rather than at birth. Since most abortions already take place during the first trimester, your view and mine would have no practical difference in 95% of the cases.

Having sex is NOT the same as accepting the duty of raising children. Just because some religous types think that people who have sex should be punished by running the risk of pregnancy is no reason to create law.

Er, I think it's biology that's responsible for sex running the risk of pregnancy.

We have the technological ability to have sex without having children. If you do not want to enjoy that technology, then fine, don't; but by what grounds do you deny me the right to do so?

On the grounds that a human being may be killed in the process, of course.

The difference between me and the anti-abortionists, before you ask, is that I suggest that a rational, scientific basis for determining when a fetus should be considered a human being.

Name any other situation in which I can legally bind you to share your internal organs for nine months.

If you can perform an abortion without severely traumatizing the fetus's body, I'd like to hear about it. It all comes back to whether and when the fetus should be considered a human being with human rights. If there comes a time before birth at which the fetus can be considered a human being, then it also has a body that should be legally protected, and abortion (as I understand it) is invasive enough to qualify as assault with a deadly weapon against the fetus, completely independently of the woman's body.

If you disagree with me about where the dividing line of humanity lies, that's fine -- we'll agree to disagree until the problem can be better defined (though I still see some value in erring on the side of caution, especially since it would make no practical difference in the vast majority of cases). But if you concede that a fetus should be considered a human being at any point during pregnancy, I don't see how you can say it's as simple as a woman controlling her own body.

I don't see you demanding that every American be taxed until there is no more starvation in the world.

I'm not responsible for starvation in the world. If I got someone pregnant, I would be responsible for that. "Not if you take reasonable precautions," I hear you saying. "It's an unexpected consequence." But as I pointed out before, most of the common forms of birth control have a mean time between failures of far shorter than most people's fertile years -- using condoms, it's as low as five years, and older methods like diaphragms, spermicides, etc. are even worse. This means that the probability of a sexually active woman getting pregnant at some point in her life while using any of the most common forms of birth control is still well over 50%. It's more likely to happen than not -- how can you argue that this is an unexpected consequence?

If those odds are unacceptable to people, there are other options. IUD's, for example, are far more effective than the pill. Or use condoms and the pill together. There is always sterilization if it's that important. I'm willing to reconsider the issue in cases where the lifetime risk of pregnancy is very small (with a vasectomy, for instance, the mean time between failures is upwards of a thousand years). But are you really claiming that people who make a conscious decision to use a relatively unreliable form of birth control which will result in a lifetime probability of pregnancy of over 50%, despite the presence of more effective alternatives, aren't responsible when the inevitable finally results?

That's like saying that, if I decide to start shooting a gun off into the distance, it's not my fault when a bullet finally kills a guy, because the probability of each single bullet hitting anyone is small.

You seem pretty quick to dispense with women's bodies to protect something that *might* be conscious, but you seem equally quick to protect your pocketbook from the obviously conscious and starving people around the planet.

First, be careful what you assume. Second, I have no interest in "dispensing with women's bodies," whatever that means, any more than I have an interest in preventing "women's bodies" from, say, pushing a knife into someone's neck.

There is an entire body of law dedicated to undue burden. It's not really that hard of a concept.

Then it should be easy to answer my question, and I'd appreciate it if you could please make the effort. Start by addressing the fact that common forms of birth control are more likely than not to result in pregnancy during a woman's life.

Keep in mind that many anti-abortion types are the same people that tried to argue that licensing guns, or even just having a 1-week waiting period, was an undue burden.

Since I am not one of those anti-abortionists, and I'm not attempting to defend them (I think they're just as nutty as you do), I don't think that's relevant here.

Jeremy

[Ceinwyn]

I am a woman, and I have had an abortion.

I'm not going to go into the details of it. I'm simply glad that the option was there for me, safely and medically, and I hope it is always there for every woman, no matter age, race, class or nationality.

[Denise]

Whether or not there are enough babies for adoption is irrelevent to the topic of abortion. Slavery is illegal, I think it's horrible that there are not enough slaves to satisfy my slave owning need.

Are all methods of birth control 100 percent? No, there have been pregnancies after sterilization, although it is clear that the sterilization did not work.

There are many poor women with kids in our society. Child support? BWAHAHA, my ex owes over 50 grand. I don't get a dime. And, by the way, for all those moralists out there I was married to before I got pregnant and he wanted Lorelei so bad. But he has only seen her once since she was an infant and now she's nine.

How anyone can say it's so easy for a woman to give a child up for adoption is amazing to me. It's also amazing to me that people think that they have a "right" to someone's unborn children for the adoption market.

To anyone who thinks they have a right to stop a woman from having an abortion, I have a right to your kidney. Give it to me now. You only need one, and hey, you have two. Quit being selfish and give me your kidney. I swear I will take good care of it, yep.

Silly, I don't think so.

I like the idea of reversable steralization, and I think money should be spent to research this idea more than it is being researched now. Much less side effects than say the pill.

Many women who have abortions have other children to support, and certainly they think of those children first. It's not easy to have an abortion, but it's very hard to be a single parent and try to pay the medical bills of another child, the time off work day care etc. So should your first child suffer because of an unplanned pregnancy? Please.

Only the event of rape or incest? Otherwise a woman deserves to be impoverished? Please.

Bad, bad women! Punish them! Mayhaps they should wear burquas also.

[Q-Source]

Great posts Denise and Buki.

I would like to hear more opinions from women. It seems like men are always discussing the most relevant issues about what we should or should not do with our bodies.

Yazhi,

Your arguments are excellent. I am really enjoying your posts!

Jeremy,

I don't think Abortion is a matter of deciding when the fetus is a person or not. What makes a fetus a person?
How can we measure his consciousness?, or his soul (if we have souls)?

Abortion has to do with women's rights and economics (as Yazhi mentioned). Ultimately, anti-abortionists don't care about the consequences that represent to raise un-wanted children in a world with limited resouces.

Q-S

[ebola]

Yahzi wrote:

Ebola

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I said I was generally against abortion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I will concede that, in a perfect world, there would be no abortions. However, in a perfect world, contraception would always work when used correctly.



The first time was an honest mistake. This time you have deliberately quoted me out of context. What I said was:



I said I was generally against abortion. I did not say that I favored making it illegal. There is a world of difference.



This appears in the very first post on this topic. For the record, I favor keeping abortion safe and legal in this country. It should be legal in cases of rape. It should be legal in cases of incest. It should be legal to save the life of the mother. It should be legal if a chosen method of birth control failed. It should be legal if the TWO people having sex were simply careless. It should be legal if the day of the week ends in "y" and the woman wants one. I don't know how I can be more clear. Legal, legal, legal.

MRC Hans had an excellent point when he said:



Whether legal or illegal, provoked abortions have always and will always happen. To make it illegal is to throw a lot of luckless women into the hands of quacks.



The alternative, as someone else mentioned, was that a safe abortion would only be available to those affluent enough to travel to someplace where it is legal.

Denise wrote:



How anyone can say it's so easy for a woman to give a child up for adoption is amazing to me. It's also amazing to me that people think that they have a "right" to someone's unborn children for the adoption market.



I cannot imagine how difficult and agonizing a mother's decision to give up her child must be. I never said it was easy. But the worry that there will not be a family to adopt her child should not factor into this decision, because it simply isn't true. As I said in my first post:



I cannot describe how much I admire the birth mother's choice.



I emphasize the word choice.

Of course nobody has the right to someone's unborn child for adoption. The people who run around abortion clinics saying "Don't kill your baby" or " I'll take it" are total loons. They are, for the most part, people who cannot sympathize with the people they are antagonizing for any number of reasons, and their rhetoric is empty.

Eric

[MRC_Hans]

I find two things enjoyable about this thread. One is the many well-thought opinions presented. The other is the good and sensible tone. I have to admit I took a deep breath before opening it the first time, but I'm glad to say, entirely without reason. Thanks everybody!

Hans :) :)

[ebola]

Yahzi wrote:



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, life is very precious.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That's the problem - it's not. Human life, like evertything else, obeys the laws of economics. It's value is inversely related to it's rarity.



In a sense, you are right. With a world population of 6 billion plus, human life, collectively, is cheap. How many wars have there been in just the last three hundred years where we have casually thrown away countless human lives?

However, an individual human is unique, priceless, and irreplaceable. Why else do we grieve when we lose those closest to us?

Eric

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Yahzi
Thanz

Under what conditions do I have the right to make use of your internal organs for 9 months?

Blatant strawman. Pregnancy is unique, that much is obvious. Why are you asking me if there is something like pregnancy?



Yet the fetus has the right to infringe on your rights?

Who set up the right-trumping game? It's a simple question: do you have the right to make use of my internal organs. No? Then end of story: I don't care what rights of yours are violated in the process of protecting my rights. That's not my problem.

If I created you through my behaviour, and knew that you would rely on my internal organs for a period of time, then yes - you do have a right to use them. And you always have to care what rights of mine are violated in protecting yours - that is part of being in society.

You agree that we have rights; you just want to take them away when you feel sorry for somebody else. Hey, I'm all down for socialism, but shouldn't we be trumping our rights for the people that already exist?

No, not about feeling sorry for someone. It is about protecting their right to live. And when you say "people that already exist", you ignore the assumption that is the heart of the debate: that fetuses ARE people and they DO exist. If one takes that assumption, there is no difference between the fetus and yourself. I know that you don't think that the fetus is a person. What I am challenging is your assertion that it doesn't matter if the fetus is a person.


In this single paragraph is everything I said. Look at the tone of this and tell me it's not about punishing those fornicating sluts.

Come down off your high horse, Yahzi. I said nothing about fornicating sluts or punishment. It is about, however, taking responsibility for one's actions. As you have said, the man has to take responsibility. So does the woman. Please also keep in mind that these arguments are premised on the idea that the fetus is a person.

1. It's not just pain, you idiot, it's actual danger. Pregnancy is dangerous. Life-threatening. I suggest you avoid dismissing pregnancy as an "inconvience" in the prescence of women, unless you particularly enjoy being clobbered.

I didn't dismiss it as "inconvenience". It is painful. It is risky. It is also quite inconvenient. If you have a stronger word for inconvenience (in terms of the "Do's" and "Do-Nots" of pregnancy) I'll gladly use it. But to suggest that every pregnancy is life-threatening is baloney, and you know it. If every pregnancy were such high risk, how did we survive as a species?

In any event, all of the risks of a normal pregnancy do not outweigh the certain death of the child (again, remember we are assuming that the fetus is a person).

2. Chose to engage in behaviour? If you go skiing, can the doctor not treat your broken leg because you chose to engage in risky behaviour? Maybe you wish less women would choose to have sex with you. That's fine, but let them make their own choices about me, ok?

False analogy. How is a broken leg like a pregnancy? How is killing a person "treatment"? If a doctor had a choice between fixing my leg and saving the life of another, which do you think she should choose?

3. Morally innocent? Who cares? Since when did moral innocence gain you the right to trump my rights? There are billions of poor people who are morally innocent, but I don't see you asking the courts to give them your property.

All right, maybe this was a bit extreme on my part. The point is, the fetus had no choice in the matter. The mother did.


Sure they do. But even if it were, it doesn't justify their position. It provides emotional support ("won't somebody think of the children!"), but it provides no logical support. This is exactly what you would expect from a diversionary position.

I don't care about their overt propaganda. I care about what they are really after.


I think that we should just agree to disagree on this point. It is irrelevant to the rest of the arguments I am making.

Q-Source

Originally posted by Q-Source
I don't think Abortion is a matter of deciding when the fetus is a person or not. What makes a fetus a person?
How can we measure his consciousness?, or his soul (if we have souls)?

Abortion has to do with women's rights and economics (as Yazhi mentioned). Ultimately, anti-abortionists don't care about the consequences that represent to raise un-wanted children in a world with limited resouces.

Abortion only has to do with women's rights and economics once you have decided that the fetus is not a person. Whether (and I suppose when) the fetus is considered a "person" with the same human rights as everyone else is the central issue in the debate.

Do you think that a mother has the right to leave a child to die on the delivery room floor? For personal determination or economic reasons? If not, then we need to decide when that baby is considered a human. Is it conception? Viability? only after birth? at some other point in the process? This cut off point is essential.

[Akots]

Yahzi

The issue is wether killing a fetus has the same existential consequences as killing a concious human.

Also, i find your "cheap" view of human life to be rather ludicrous. Our population is the standard to which all our resources are judged in value. Having twice as much food as we do people does not make people cheap; it makes food expensive.

I'm curious. Would you be more interested in supporting abortions, or more advanced means of supporting a larger population on an existing ecology?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Akots ..snip

Having twice as much food as we do people does not make people cheap; it makes food expensive.



Abortion issue asside, this confuses me..:confused:

[Akots]

What i'm saying is, which would you rather do to relieve overpopulation; kill off or sterilize humans, or improve the environment to support more of us?

That's hopelessley idealistic, though... and counter productive. Wether you kill humans or invent a better way to make food and houses, you arent adressing the problem of overpopulaiton itself.

It also has nothign t odo with the issue at hand... musta let my mind wander, and forgot to tie it up in the yard.. :o

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Akots
What i'm saying is, which would you rather do to relieve overpopulation; kill off or sterilize humans, or improve the environment to support more of us?

That's hopelessley idealistic, though... and counter productive. Wether you kill humans or invent a better way to make food and houses, you arent adressing the problem of overpopulaiton itself.

It also has nothign t odo with the issue at hand... musta let my mind wander, and forgot to tie it up in the yard.. :o

I was trying to understand how " too much " food would make it more expensive.. I thought the opposite was true.

I understand the point you are trying to make though ( think I do ), but I can't imagine a woman deciding to have an abortion because she is worried about the food supply.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Q-Source
Jeremy,

I don't think Abortion is a matter of deciding when the fetus is a person or not. What makes a fetus a person? How can we measure his consciousness?, or his soul (if we have souls)?

Since I see no evidence of souls, I don't propose measuring them. What we do see, however, is evidence of brain activity. It seems reasonable, provisionally, to suggest that a fetus develops human-like awareness when its brain activity starts resembling that of a human being as opposed to an animal. This has been measured, and found to take place at about the end of the first trimester.

Abortion has to do with women's rights and economics (as Yazhi mentioned).

I disagree. If you don't consider a fetus a human being at any stage of pregnancy, maybe. But the contention that some miraculous event happens at the moment of birth that transforms a fetus into a human being is just as laughable as the anti-abortionists' assertion that the magic moment occurs at conception.

Ultimately, anti-abortionists don't care about the consequences that represent to raise un-wanted children in a world with limited resouces.

No argument there. Once again, I am not an anti-abortionist, and I'm not defending the majority of them.

Jeremy

[Akots]

Originally posted by Diogenes


I was trying to understand how " too much " food would make it more expensive.. I thought the opposite was true.

I understand the point you are trying to make though ( think I do ), but I can't imagine a woman deciding to have an abortion because she is worried about the food supply.

Oog... me no type gooder.

I just realized I said it the other way around... grievous typo.

Also, that's not fully what i meant... if a woman has only barely as much food, money, oxygen, or other material wealth as she needs to survive on her own, then she cannot afford a child. A 15 year old pregnant girl living on her own can arguably not support herself without outside assistance. Not easily, at least.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by toddjh

Since I see no evidence of souls, I don't propose measuring them. What we do see, however, is evidence of brain activity. It seems reasonable, provisionally, to suggest that a fetus develops human-like awareness when its brain activity starts resembling that of a human being as opposed to an animal. This has been measured, and found to take place at about the end of the first trimester.

So, brain activity makes a fetus a human being?



I disagree. If you don't consider a fetus a human being at any stage of pregnancy, maybe. But the contention that some miraculous event happens at the moment of birth that transforms a fetus into a human being is just as laughable as the anti-abortionists' assertion that the magic moment occurs at conception.

I don't see why it is so hard to believe that a human being is born when he gets out of the mother's body.

Of course, I don't support any abortion in the last months of pregnancy. It is immoral rather than criminal.

Let's assume for a moment that the fetus is a human. Now, the question is whether or not the woman has the right to get rid of a human that she no longer wants to carry in his body.

Does she have the right to say no?

It would be a matter of deciding who has more rights:
1. the fetus/human to live or
2. the woman to not accept the pregnancy.


Q-S

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Q-Source
So, brain activity makes a fetus a human being?

I think that's a good place to start, yes. Feel free to disagree. :)

I don't see why it is so hard to believe that a human being is born when he gets out of the mother's body.

How is a baby that has just been born different from a baby that is five minutes away from birth? That's what I meant when I talked about a "miraculous event." It seems to me that the only significant difference is that after birth the baby is no longer inside the woman's body. When considering whether the fetus/baby is a human being with human rights, why is it relevant where it is located?

Of course, I don't support any abortion in the last months of pregnancy. It is immoral rather than criminal.

Well, morality (or rather, ethics) is all I was talking about. Legality is too complex and arbitrary for my tastes. :)

Let's assume for a moment that the fetus is a human. Now, the question is whether or not the woman has the right to get rid of a human that she no longer wants to carry in his body.

Does she have the right to say no?

It would be a matter of deciding who has more rights:
1. the fetus/human to live or
2. the woman to not accept the pregnancy.

Like Yahzi, I think you are ignoring a crucial issue: abortion is not simply a matter of the woman's body -- it is also traumatic to the fetus's body. Causing bodily harm (not to mention death) to a human's body is a crime, and is certainly unethical. If you assume that the fetus can be considered a human being, as you suggest above, doesn't the same apply?

Read about abortion procedures, and ask yourself whether the actions performed on the fetus (completely apart from the actions performed on the woman, such as dilating the cervix, etc.) would be considered criminal if performed on a post-birth baby.

As for whether the woman's desire to not accept the pregnancy is more important than the fetus's life, why does this end at birth? Why could you not use this argument for "retroactive" abortions? "Oh, I decided not to accept my child. That overrides his right to live." It's the same as before: I understand that many people consider birth to be some kind of transforming event. What I don't understand is why.

Jeremy

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Q-Source


Let's assume for a moment that the fetus is a human. Now, the question is whether or not the woman has the right to get rid of a human that she no longer wants to carry in his body.

Does she have the right to say no?

It would be a matter of deciding who has more rights:
1. the fetus/human to live or
2. the woman to not accept the pregnancy.


Q-S

Q-Source -

This has been my point in my posts above. If I assume that the fetus is a human, and I do the balance of rights that you propose, I come out in favour of the life of the human fetus. Yahzi seems to come out in favour of the right of the woman to not accept the pregnancy.

I am curious - where do you come out, if the assumption is made that the fetus is a human life?

[Akots]

Conciousness alone is not the end all and be all of a human being. If one assumes that a human soul generates conciousness somehow after the body has matured, is it then unreasonable to assume that the earliest point a soul could exist would be the insemination of the egg?

This obviously doesn't prove the existance of a soul in the first place. But it does suggest that if you believe in a soul, it would not be unreasonable to want to protect an inseminated egg as though it were a mature human being.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Akots
This obviously doesn't prove the existance of a soul in the first place. But it does suggest that if you believe in a soul, it would not be unreasonable to want to protect an inseminated egg as though it were a mature human being.

I agree. My issue with those people is two things:

1. Belief in the soul without evidence is irrational.

2. Most of them don't appear interested in promoting things that would make abortions unnecessary in the first place.

Jeremy

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by toddjh


I think that's a good place to start, yes. Feel free to disagree.

I disagree. To me, a fetus becomes a human being when he gets out of the mother's body.


How is a baby that has just been born different from a baby that is five minutes away from birth? That's what I meant when I talked about a "miraculous event." It seems to me that the only significant difference is that after birth the baby is no longer inside the woman's body. When considering whether the fetus/baby is a human being with human rights, why is it relevant where it is located?

5 minutes away from birth makes a huge difference.
Anyway, you are taking the discussion to the extremes. Nobody is suggesting that a woman should abort 5 minutes before giving birth.

The localition of the fetus matters a lot. That's why we have to take into account the decision of the woman to let another organism to use her body for 9 months.



Like Yahzi, I think you are ignoring a crucial issue: abortion is not simply a matter of the woman's body -- it is also traumatic to the fetus's body. Causing bodily harm (not to mention death) to a human's body is a crime, and is certainly unethical. If you assume that the fetus can be considered a human being, as you suggest above, doesn't the same apply?

It is traumatic to the fetus body? how do you know?
A two month fetus is conscious? Can it feel pain?

If the fetus is a human during all the pregnancy, then I don't have an answer to your question. I just can say that society would give more preference to his right to live than the mother's right to end the pregnancy.


As for whether the woman's desire to not accept the pregnancy is more important than the fetus's life, why does this end at birth?

Because by my definition (and the law definition), a person is born when the mother gives birth. As such, he has rights.


Why could you not use this argument for "retroactive" abortions? "Oh, I decided not to accept my child. That overrides his right to live." It's the same as before: I understand that many people consider birth to be some kind of transforming event. What I don't understand is why.


Maybe because one second after the baby is born, he can live outside his mother's body. He doesn't belong anymore to her.

Q

[Akots]

Originally posted by toddjh


I agree. My issue with those people is two things:

1. Belief in the soul without evidence is irrational.


True, it is a matter of faith; as is belief that souls do not or can not exist. The fact that no evidence suggests either way lends one to make a personal decision. This decision either gives a potential soul the benefit of the doubt, or it denies even the possability of a soul.

Do we go the moral way, and assume thefetus is alive untill we prove otherwise? or do we go the materialistic way, and say that lack evidence for a soul does not make an inseminated egg a human being?


2. Most of them don't appear interested in promoting things that would make abortions unnecessary in the first place.

Jeremy

I think I may have put my finger on the source of this issue... the assumption there prooves that they bdo not believe young humans are capable of being responsible with their bodies.

I expect they just want to control that aspect of their lives; among others. :mad:

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Thanz

This has been my point in my posts above. If I assume that the fetus is a human, and I do the balance of rights that you propose, I come out in favour of the life of the human fetus. Yahzi seems to come out in favour of the right of the woman to not accept the pregnancy.

I am curious - where do you come out, if the assumption is made that the fetus is a human life?

It is a difficult question to me if we consider that a fetus is a human being.

Personally, I would still go for the women's right to say no to a person that wants to use her body for 9 months.

What would be the future for that unwanted child?
Why we should force women that are uncapable emotional and economically of raising children?

Q-S

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Q-Source
5 minutes away from birth makes a huge difference.
Anyway, you are taking the discussion to the extremes. Nobody is suggesting that a woman should abort 5 minutes before giving birth.

If you consider it the same as aborting a fetus 6 weeks in, why not? It seems to me that intuitively you do consider fetal development significant, but are unwilling to articulate that.

The localition of the fetus matters a lot.

Yes, I understand that many people feel that way. What I want to know is why. What's so special about those hours of labor that suddenly transforms the fetus into a person and turns the woman into a mother? Labor is simply a biological function. It's a rather extreme one, to be sure, but what is it about those muscle contractions that changes the situation so dramatically?

It is traumatic to the fetus body? how do you know?
A two month fetus is conscious? Can it feel pain?

I meant traumatic in a physical sense; abortion causes injuries to the fetus's body that would be considered assault and/or murder if done to a person with legal rights. It was you who suggested assuming, for the sake of argument, that a fetus can be considered a human being at some stage of pregnancy, and I was going along with it.

As for whether the fetus is conscious, I suggested 12 weeks as a dividing line because that's the figure I've heard several places. I fully admit I'm not familiar with all the details; a med student friend just told me it's likely to be somewhat later than that. So, until further information is available, I acknowledge that the dividing line is not yet entirely clear, and let's try to stick to the hypothetical.

If the fetus is a human during all the pregnancy, then I don't have an answer to your question. I just can say that society would give more preference to his right to live than the mother's right to end the pregnancy.

I agree, and that's why I believe more emphasis should be placed on what exactly constitutes a human being. If women want an abortion, I would also like it if doctors suggested doing it as early as possible, just in case. We should also be doing everything we can to prevent the need for abortions in the first place -- regardless of the fetus, the procedure is very painful and traumatic to the women, and that's not the kind of thing that should be routine.

Because by my definition (and the law definition), a person is born when the mother gives birth. As such, he has rights.

Well, like I said, I'm not concerned about legal definitions. The law is bloated, based on a lot of questionable assumptions, and quite often wrong. I'm only thinking in ethical terms.

Maybe because one second after the baby is born, he can live outside his mother's body. He doesn't belong anymore to her.

I still don't see what's so special about being able to live outside her body. Suppose I had a conjoined twin with a malformed heart, who required the use of my heart to live. Does he "belong" to me? Would I have the right to detach him from me, knowing that his death would certainly result?

Yahzi, if you're reading this, there's an example of a situation where a person might be compelled to allow another to use his organs.

Jeremy

[Akots]

Originally posted by Q-Source


I disagree. To me, a fetus becomes a human being when he gets out of the mother's body.


I can only assume you mean, when it survives on it's own. Leave a baby in a crib for a month, unsupervised, and it will not last long.


5 minutes away from birth makes a huge difference.
Anyway, you are taking the discussion to the extremes. Nobody is suggesting that a woman should abort 5 minutes before giving birth.


I was born rather prematurely, myself... by a great deal more than just 5 minutes, as well.


The localition of the fetus matters a lot. That's why we have to take into account the decision of the woman to let another organism to use her body for 9 months.


You know how when you open one of those CDs from Microsoft, it says "opening this package constitutes the agreement with the specified terms" or some such?

Isn't that what having sex is like? Signing on the dotted line?

What other use does sex have, exactly?


It is traumatic to the fetus body? how do you know?
A two month fetus is conscious? Can it feel pain?


Pain is irellevant. A numb human can feel no pain. Are you even concerned about the physiological capabilities that allow a human being to understand something as arbitrary as pain?


If the fetus is a human during all the pregnancy, then I don't have an answer to your question. I just can say that society would give more preference to his right to live than the mother's right to end the pregnancy.


Unfortunately, that's the tough question... one i doubt can ever be answered empiricaly. :(


Because by my definition (and the law definition), a person is born when the mother gives birth. As such, he has rights.


Well... technically, I was never born; I was surgically removed from my mother by cesarian section. Guess I have no rights then...


Maybe because one second after the baby is born, he can live outside his mother's body. He doesn't belong anymore to her.
Q

MAY I REMIND certain persons that as a premature birth, I had an intraveinous tube stuck in my head... no other veins in my body were big enough to support an intraveinous tube. I. Would. Have. died. AND YET... I was already out of my mother's womb. Fancy that.

I do expect a response, either telling me a) how i could have survived premature birth without special treatment, or b) if I was technicaly only a human being after I was taken off life support. or perhaps only after I stopped nursing? Or after I started walking on my own? Or perhaps only after I finished going to school?

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Q-Source


It is a difficult question to me if we consider that a fetus is a human being.

Personally, I would still go for the women's right to say no to a person that wants to use her body for 9 months.

What would be the future for that unwanted child?
Why we should force women that are uncapable emotional and economically of raising children?

Q-S

Q-S: For the entirety of this post, I have made the assumption that the fetus is a human life.

Emotions and economics are irrelevant if the fetus is a human life.

In another thread, you said this:

We still call “capital punishment” to a vile act of killing another human being.

From this, I infer that you are against capital punishment. Why then would you impose it on an unborn child? Surely you would agree with me that some criminals have done far worse things to people than pregnancy does to a woman. If those people are not to be killed, why should the unborn child?

How do you morally justify the killing of a child so that the woman can have a choice as to whether to continue the pregnancy? Isn't death far worse than anything that happens to a woman during a normal pregnancy? And if the two are equal moral agents, why impose the far worse penalty?

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Akots
True, it is a matter of faith; as is belief that souls do not or can not exist. The fact that no evidence suggests either way lends one to make a personal decision. This decision either gives a potential soul the benefit of the doubt, or it denies even the possability of a soul.

Do we go the moral way, and assume the fetus is alive untill we prove otherwise?

Two things. First, I don't think anyone is arguing that the fetus isn't alive; the point of contention is whether the fetus is human.

Second, I disagree that that's the morally (or ethically) correct choice. We can use "faith" to justify any of a billion mutually contradictory positions. I could propose the existence of "air fairies," and say that you kill one every time you take a breath -- do you stop breathing? That's just as rational as suggesting the existence of souls without evidence. Our choice is either to stick to things we can observe and measure in the real world, or be stuck, paralyzed out of fear that every single action we take will harm some hypothetical being.

The rest of your post I agree with. :)

Jeremy

[Akots]

Originally posted by toddjh
Two things. First, I don't think anyone is arguing that the fetus isn't alive; the point of contention is whether the fetus is human.

You misunderstand. The argument here is "The soul exists, and it is what gives a human unique properties." Belief in a soul is not mere belief in life. (Would that it were so easy... life is actually quantifiable)


Second, I disagree that that's the morally (or ethically) correct choice. We can use "faith" to justify any of a billion mutually contradictory positions. I could propose the existence of "air fairies," and say that you kill one every time you take a breath -- do you stop breathing? That's just as rational as suggesting the existence of souls without evidence. Our choice is either to stick to things we can observe and measure in the real world, or be stuck, paralyzed out of fear that every single action we take will harm some hypothetical being.


My very own man of straw... though I do get your point, proving air-faries exist is the easy part. Even if they did exist, could we prove that they, as with fetuses, have souls?

And unfortunately for the "don't breath! save the faries!" theory, we can confirm that fetuses exist. The issue here is wether killing one constitutes ending a human life.


The rest of your post I agree with. :)

Jeremy

And i thought nobody liked my punctuation... :D



Here's one question i really want answered...

Strictly speaking, even an inseminated egg IS an organism, and it is alive. So scientificaly, it's a human being.

Name me one human being that was not, at some point, an inseminated egg. Out of all the countless numbers of humans that have ever been born, can you name any that weren't?

EDIT: Actually, let me emphasise that i really want this answered. After an egg is inseminated, you hav eproduced a livign organism; wether it can survive alone, remain concious, feel pain or do long division is irellevant... you have already produced a viable organism.

So what's the issue? How useful that organism must become before you can no longer justify destroying it?

[Q-Source]

Jeremy

Originally posted by toddjh

If you consider it the same as aborting a fetus 6 weeks in, why not? It seems to me that intuitively you do consider fetal development significant, but are unwilling to articulate that.

I said it before, abortion in the last months of pregnancy is morally wrong, although it is not criminal.

However in both cases, if the fetus is not a person, it is valid to have an abortion.


Yes, I understand that many people feel that way. What I want to know is why. What's so special about those hours of labor that suddenly transforms the fetus into a person and turns the woman into a mother?

It is special because it is the moment when the baby can live by himself. He does not need anymore the woman's body.


Akots

What other use does sex have, exactly?

Are you seriously suggesting that sex should be only used for reproduction purposes?


Thanz

From this, I infer that you are against capital punishment. Why then would you impose it on an unborn child?

IT IS NOT AN UNBORN CHILD. It is a fetus.
You cannot compare the life of a human being with an unconscious fetus. While the fetus is inside a woman's body, she must decide what to do with it, it is part of her body.

There is not a child involved here.


How do you morally justify the killing of a child so that the woman can have a choice as to whether to continue the pregnancy? Isn't death far worse than anything that happens to a woman during a normal pregnancy? And if the two are equal moral agents, why impose the far worse penalty?


why do you think that you have the right to say a woman that she should have a child, and as such forcing her to raise him for the rest of her life?

She hates the product, she abhors the child, why do you think that she should give birth?

Q-S

Edited to change a long sentence

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Akots
You misunderstand. The argument here is "The soul exists, and it is what gives a human unique properties." Belief in a soul is not mere belief in life. (Would that it were so easy... life is actually quantifiable)

But you said life. I just wanted to make sure it was clear that what I was talking about was consciousness, not merely life.

My very own man of straw... though I do get your point, proving air-faries exist is the easy part. Even if they did exist, could we prove that they, as with fetuses, have souls?

It's not a straw man; air fairies and souls have the same amount of evidence in favor of them, unless you know something I don't. Yet we take thousands of breaths each day without any ethical hand-wringing...so why worry about whether or not abortions hurt souls?

And unfortunately for the "don't breath! save the faries!" theory, we can confirm that fetuses exist.

Of course fetuses exist. But the air fairies were an analogy for souls, not fetuses. Why should I believe in souls any more than air fairies?

Here's one question i really want answered...

Strictly speaking, even an inseminated egg IS an organism, and it is alive. So scientificaly, it's a human being.

There are plenty of things that are alive, yet are not human beings. We have to define what, exactly, a human being is. That's the problem. No one can agree on that definition. I don't think that being alive and containing human genetic material is enough -- otherwise, each individual one of my cells is a human being on its own.

Name me one human being that was not, at some point, an inseminated egg. Out of all the countless numbers of humans that have ever been born, can you name any that weren't?

Name me one human being that was not, at some point, the core of a supermassive star. Should we go on an interstellar crusade to prevent supernovae?

EDIT: Actually, let me emphasise that i really want this answered. After an egg is inseminated, you hav eproduced a livign organism; wether it can survive alone, remain concious, feel pain or do long division is irellevant... you have already produced a viable organism.

So what's the issue? How useful that organism must become before you can no longer justify destroying it?

That's what we're trying to decide. Obviously, the answer lies somewhere between "more useful than any other animal we routinely kill", and "less useful than a human adult."

Jeremy

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Q-Source
However in both cases, if the fetus is not a person, it is valid to have an abortion.

Is anyone here disagreeing with that? The only point of contention, as far as I know, is the point at which a fetus becomes a person.

It is special because it is the moment when the baby can live by himself. He does not need anymore the woman's body.

Sure he does. He can't feed himself, maintain personal hygiene, or even move. If nobody cares for the baby, he will die in a matter of days, maybe even hours. Why is it relevant that he gets his food from a nipple rather than an umbilical cord?

And what about my siamese twin example? There's a person who can't survive without his twin's body, literally, yet we consider him a human being with human rights, no? What's the difference? I still don't see what birth changes.

IT IS NOT AN UNBORN CHILD. It is a fetus.
You cannot compare the life of a human being with an unconscious fetus.

What about a conscious fetus? Or does the miraculous transformation that takes place at the instant of birth also magically bestow consciousness on that heretofore inert lump of tissue?

Jeremy

[Yahzi]

EvilDave
Make it so that an individual person can reverse the effect on his or her own (without relying a possibly government controlled hospital or chemical), and you've got the *perfect* solution. But I'd go for your solution as it stands, anyway.

nuetrino_cannon
It seems to me that contraceptives, which are scands cheaper than abortions
There are a variety of reasons why contraceptives have not done this.

1. They don't always work.
2. They sometimes have enough side effects that people don't use them.
3. Their availabilty has been severely restricted by social and legal action. Here is just one exampe: To get a prescription to the pill, a woman has to undergo a pap smear - a test for cervical cancer. Does the pill cause cervical cancer? No. Is there any reason you can't sell the pill over the counter instead of by prescription? Only that you have to have a pap smear. Are you starting to get the picture? I can get a prescription to Viagra - a new drug - easier than a woman can get a prescription to the pill - a drug we've been using for 40 years without any major dangers.


Toddjh
the logical reason for this distinction, which seems quite arbitrary to me.
Because it is voluntary. Giving birth to a child is a voluntary act which implies acceptance of the duty of raising a child. Having sex does NOT imply this acceptance.

abortion (as I understand it) is invasive enough to qualify as assault with a deadly weapon against the fetus, completely independently of the woman's body.
So what? If I crawl into your house, do the police have the right to use deadly force to remove me from your property? If that's the only way, yes. If removing you from my property will cause you to die, that's ok to. I don't know if you realize this, but the Border Patrol (the guys that keep other people off our property) carry guns.

Once again you fail to understand that my excersize of my rights does not care about your rights. The woman is excersizing her rights to her body in the only way available to her. How this affects somebody else is not her problem. Your rights end where they interfere with my rights; and your right to life intereferes with my right to my internal organs.

But as I pointed out before, most of the common forms of birth control have a mean time between failures of far shorter than most people's fertile years
OK, you've convinced me. Men and women should only have sex when they are prepared to have children. So we can just dispense with all birth control, and settle for having sex 2.4 times in our lives. While we are at it, let's throw away some more ways in which technology has expanded our lives and our choices.

I don't know why you have this objection to people having an enjoyable sex life, and I don't care. You have no moral grounds to restrict my options just because they offend your moral sensibilities. You must show actual harm to your rights before you can restrict the excersize of mine, and you have not shown how abortion could possibly threaten you. It's not going to set a precedent that will someday cause you to be in danger.

We have created a technology - birth control + abortion - that allows us to escape the bonds nature laid upon us. Your example should be changed to shooting a gun at a rifle range, because if somebody gets hit, it's his fault for jumping the fence. We put up signs and fences; we did our part. And using birth control is putting up signs and fences, and when the fetus-person ignores those and attaches itself to the uterine wall, it's its fault. It doesn't become the woman's fault.

Again, you simply refuse to grant people the option of having sex without accepting the risk of pregnancy, even though we have the technological means to do so. Why not? It hasn't got anything to do with the rights of the fetus. Consider this: can you force a mother to donate a kidney to save her child? Could you force her to lie on a hospital bed and share her blood for 9 months to save her already born child? You are the one making an arbitrary distinction before and after birth: you are granting the fetus rights you would not grant an infant.

Then it should be easy to answer my question,
I am not going to explain undue burden to you. It is a common legal concept. Look it up.

But the contention that some miraculous event happens at the moment of birth that transforms a fetus into a human being
It's not miraculous, it's political. A similar miracle happens when you get pregnant in Mexico, sneak across the border illegally, and give birth in the USA: your child miraculousy becomes a US citizen.

It's not that the fetus wasn't a person before; it's that it was a person without rights (much as illegal alien can be deported to his home country even if it means certain death).


Denise
To anyone who thinks they have a right to stop a woman from having an abortion, I have a right to your kidney. Give it to me now. You only need one, and hey, you have two. Quit being selfish and give me your kidney. I swear I will take good care of it, yep.
Not only will they not give you their kidney... they won't lend you one for nine months, even if you promise to give it back.

Unless you are a fetus - and then you get special rights to other people's stuff. But man, once you're born, you're on your own. They won't even fund Head Start and feed you breakfast.

Ebola
I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I understand your complaint, since I had to put ntech on /ignore for screaming at me about my political position on abortion (even though it is identical to his).

I was just trying to agree with you: I also would prefer that abortions never occurred.

Thanz
Blatant strawman. Pregnancy is unique, that much is obvious
It's not that unique. We routinely deny immigration to people who will die if they remain in their home country. What's the difference from denying immigration to someone that doesn't even have a home country to die in?

What I am challenging is your assertion that it doesn't matter if the fetus is a person.
It doesn't matter. If I keel over in the street, and the doctors decide I need to share someone else's internal organs for 9 months until they can fix me, can I use yours? Is there any way I can legally compel anyone at all - strangers, family, my mother - to share with me? How is pregnancy different?

And don't say that we invited the fetus, because the use of birth control was a clear indication that the fetus was not invited.

The point is, the fetus had no choice in the matter. The mother did.
The mother quite clearly chose not to have a fetus. That's what the birth control was all about. If the fetus ignores that warning, then whatever happens to it is its fault.

If I have a deep, deep hole in my backyard, and I put locked fences around it, and danger/keep out signs, and then you wander in, cut through the fences, pick the locks, move the signs, and then fall into the hole... who is responsible? Am I guilty of any crime when you die?

The concept of negligence is discharged when you excersize due diligence and precaution. Using birth control is due diligence; not having sex is an undue burden which the government cannot compel me to undergo. It would be like the government holding me at fault for the deep hole accident because I didn't have armed guards in my backyard.

Abortion only has to do with women's rights and economics once you have decided that the fetus is not a person.
Not true. For this entire thread, I have argued only from the position that fetus are persons. Persons do not have the rights you are trying to give fetuses.

Abortion has to do with whether you think fetuses have rights that other people don't have, or whether you think pregnancy is a morally inescapable consequence of sex.

And economics rule all of us. Sad but true.

Isn't death far worse than anything that happens to a woman during a normal pregnancy?
This principle does not hold anywhere else in the law. The entire point of rights is that they protect you from depredation. They don't care about why the depredation is taking place. If your rights can be superseded by another person's need, then you don't have rights.

Now in ordinary legal practice, we make pragmatic exceptions. But that does not change the principle, and when the exceptions are no longer pragmatic, the principle must dominate.

Nowhere in American common law does your need trump my rights. You can inconvience me, yes, but you cannot put my life in danger to save your own. (This is why it is so important to not dismiss pregnancy as mere inconvience, and to remember that it is a potentially fatal condition.) Putting my life in danger - even just a little bit - is considered an undue burden on the excersize of my rights.

You can break into my house and eat my food and refuse to come out, and chances are nobody will do anything much. But if you put my life in danger - even just a tiny bit - the cops will shoot you in the face. This is an example of the pragmatic concerns being trumped by the actual principle. Pragmatically, I don't need my closet and that loaf of bread. In principle, I do not have to suffer a risk to my life for any reason of yours.

People cannot be compelled to risk their lives for the sake of others. Except for the draft. Now, if the nation were in danger of disappearing alltogether; if our collective survival were at stake; then we could draft women to have children. But it isn't, so we can't.

You are imperiling the woman's right to life (by compelling her to undergo a risk) to protect the fetus's right to life. There is no precedent for this, and there should not be. An uninvited fetus, like an univited trespasser, does not deserve anything of that magnitude. The woman's right to life is inviolate, and cannot be subsumed to someone else's right to life.

Akots
Would you be more interested in supporting abortions, or more advanced means of supporting a larger population on an existing ecology?
I don't see how they are related. I am supporting abortion as a means of enjoying sex without accepting the burden of children. My comments about world population were not intended to be support for abortion, but an explanation of why adoption works the way it does.

That said, I think there are way too many people on the planet right now, regardless of any technological solutions. There isn't enough space for us and the animals; and frankly, I'd rather have wild wolves in the USA than another 100 million citizens. We've got all the citizens we need; but we are kinda short on wolves.

After struggling to answer this question, I see you've answered it yourself. LOL!

Isn't that what having sex is like? Signing on the dotted line?
No, and why should it be? Who enforces that Microsoft contract? The government. Why? Because Microsoft controls the government and makes them. Who is going to enforce the pregnancy contract? The government? Why?

Futhermore, when I sign on the dotted line, I'm signing for exactly what I bought. I am not accepting the %1 chance that my computer will suddenly require 1,000 watts of power for the next nine months and I won't be able to turn it off.

What other use does sex have, exactly?
Um... if you haven't figured that out... I don't think I'm the one that can explain it to you. :p

Well... technically, I was never born; I was surgically removed from my mother by cesarian section.
That is legally equivalent to being born. A long established precedent of common law.

Q-Source
It is a difficult question to me if we consider that a fetus is a human being.
I didn't mean to imply the question wasn't difficult.

You left out one option in your list of negative consequences:

3. What about the precedent set by allowing citzens in need to sieze the personal assets of other citizens?

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by toddjh

Sure he does. He can't feed himself, maintain personal hygiene, or even move. If nobody cares for the baby, he will die in a matter of days, maybe even hours. Why is it relevant that he gets his food from a nipple rather than an umbilical cord?

Oh, come on. You were doing a great job defending your position.
A baby outside his mother's body can or cannot survive, but that is another issue. Nothing to do with Abortion :rolleyes:


And what about my siamese twin example? There's a person who can't survive without his twin's body, literally, yet we consider him a human being with human rights, no? What's the difference? I still don't see what birth changes.

Well, you cannot apply the same principle here because siamese twins are both human beings. There is not point to discuss this example, the twins are already persons and they have the right to live.

But, if you were one of the siameses, then you couldn't decide over your heart because it does not belong to you completely.

Just in the case, that one of the twins put in danger the healthy one, then it would be ethically correct to finish with his life.

Q-S

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Yahzi
Because it is voluntary. Giving birth to a child is a voluntary act which implies acceptance of the duty of raising a child. Having sex does NOT imply this acceptance.

So you keep saying. But why?? Why is no one able to answer this? What is it about the act of giving birth that "implies acceptance of the duty of raising a child?" It's a few hours of some muscle contractions. Why is that relevant at all?

So what? If I crawl into your house, do the police have the right to use deadly force to remove me from your property? If that's the only way, yes. If removing you from my property will cause you to die, that's ok to. I don't know if you realize this, but the Border Patrol (the guys that keep other people off our property) carry guns.

Police won't shoot someone unless every other possibility has been tried -- and in your example, it was the trespassers choice to break into your house. If you get pregnant, it was your choice that caused it.

Once again you fail to understand that my excersize of my rights does not care about your rights. The woman is excersizing her rights to her body in the only way available to her. How this affects somebody else is not her problem. Your rights end where they interfere with my rights; and your right to life intereferes with my right to my internal organs.

I'm not talking about internal organs. Go ahead and dilate your cervix all you want. Like I said, if you can perform an abortion without severely damaging the fetus's body, I'd like to hear about it. It's the fetus's body I'm concerned with, not yours -- and only when there's a good chance the fetus may have developed consciousness.

Incidentally, what do you think about the siamese twin example I gave a few posts up?

OK, you've convinced me. Men and women should only have sex when they are prepared to have children. So we can just dispense with all birth control, and settle for having sex 2.4 times in our lives. While we are at it, let's throw away some more ways in which technology has expanded our lives and our choices.

Try to listen carefully: I am not an anti-abortionist. I know you may have had to trot these arguments in discussions with them in the past, but they don't apply to me. Look at the points I made: people engage is sex using birth control that is more likely than not to result in pregnancy over the course of their lives, despite the presence of better forms of birth control..

Suppose I'm at an Afghan wedding and I want to shoot my gun to celebrate. I could shoot it into the air, where it has an insignificant chance of hitting somebody. But my arms are tired, so instead I aim it haphazardly in a random direction, such that it has over a 50% chance of hitting someone, and pull the trigger. If it kills someone, am I not responsible for their death? If someone chooses to use a relatively ineffective form of birth control, such as the Today Sponge, which was recently re-released, instead of a much more effective form, such as an IUD, is that any different?

I don't know why you have this objection to people having an enjoyable sex life, and I don't care. You have no moral grounds to restrict my options just because they offend your moral sensibilities. You must show actual harm to your rights before you can restrict the excersize of mine, and you have not shown how abortion could possibly threaten you. It's not going to set a precedent that will someday cause you to be in danger.

Ah, so I should only care about myself. What is your opinion of good samaritan laws? I assume you would think I was a fine upstanding citizen if I stood by and watched a gunshot victim bleed to death on the street, like those people at that gas station.

We have created a technology - birth control + abortion - that allows us to escape the bonds nature laid upon us. Your example should be changed to shooting a gun at a rifle range, because if somebody gets hit, it's his fault for jumping the fence.

The most common forms of birth control have over a 50% chance of resulting in pregnancy over a person's lifetime.

Again, you simply refuse to grant people the option of having sex without accepting the risk of pregnancy, even though we have the technological means to do so.

By all means, have sex without accepting the risk of pregnancy! Do what it takes! Get a vasectomy, like I did, and never worry about it again. I'm not going to stop you.

But if you choose to have sex without using an effective form of birth control, then don't come crying to me. Even then, I have no problems with abortion until the possibility that the fetus has human-like awareness is significant.

Jeremy

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Q-Source

Thanz

IT IS NOT AN UNBORN CHILD. It is a fetus.
You cannot compare the life of a human being with an unconscious fetus. While the fetus is inside a woman's body, she must decide what to do with it, it is part of her body.

There is not a child involved here.

Already you are forgetting the assumption that we have made to get into this debate: that the fetus is a human life, with the same rights as you or I. So therefore, for the purposes of this debate, it is an unborn child, or whatever you want to call it.

I understand that your position is that the fetus is not a human life, but we are debating under the assumption that it IS.



why do you think that you have the right to say a woman that she should have a child, and as such forcing her to raise him for the rest of her life?

She hates the product, she abhors the child, why do you think that she should give birth?

Q-S

Edited to change a long sentence

Well, I am saying that the child's right to a life is more compelling than the woman's rights over her body for the term of pregnancy. After pregnancy, there are options available for the mother and child that do not involve her taking care of the baby for life.

Again, in your response, you have ignored the central assumption: The fetus is a human life, with the same set of rights as everyone else. Under this assumption, what is the moral basis for killing the child?

[Akots]

Originally posted by toddjh


But you said life. I just wanted to make sure it was clear that what I was talking about was consciousness, not merely life.


My bad, then. Apologies.


It's not a straw man; air fairies and souls have the same amount of evidence in favor of them, unless you know something I don't. Yet we take thousands of breaths each day without any ethical hand-wringing...so why worry about whether or not abortions hurt souls?


When did I ever oppose this concept? Either it's made of straw, or it's irellevant.


Of course fetuses exist. But the air fairies were an analogy for souls, not fetuses. Why should I believe in souls any more than air fairies?


You asked why I shouldn't kill air faries... assuming they exist, it's the same reason not to kill fetuses. If someone believes a tree has a soul, then we start having problems with killing trees too.


There are plenty of things that are alive, yet are not human beings. We have to define what, exactly, a human being is. That's the problem. No one can agree on that definition. I don't think that being alive and containing human genetic material is enough -- otherwise, each individual one of my cells is a human being on its own.


Very true. And this is not merely the point of the argument; it IS the argument. One could define "having a soul" as "the property of being a human being."

So ambiguous of me... when i say "soul" I do not merely mean life, as a soul nessecarily would have to live on after life ends.


Name me one human being that was not, at some point, the core of a supermassive star. Should we go on an interstellar crusade to prevent supernovae?


Isn't all water homeopathic, eh?

I may not be able to prove that all humans came from fertilized eggs, but are you saying it's unscientific reasoning to say they did come from eggs? Out of all the observed births, all have spawned from an inseminated egg. Pretty decent sampling, and easily tested. Unlike supernova atom inheritance.


That's what we're trying to decide. Obviously, the answer lies somewhere between "more useful than any other animal we routinely kill", and "less useful than a human adult."

Jeremy

I fear I was using a sarcastic tone here, implying that human beings oughtn't be valued by the work they do, or the knowledge they accumulate. Practicaly, a human being has a material and functional value; but this is not the "Practical and Quantifiable Forum," and we are more than the sum of our parts. Queaff?

To risk tossing another opinion into the pit, I believe the existance or non-existance of souls is not a religious issue; it's philosophical. I'd argue that one could believe in souls, and not believe in God. And if it were proved, it would impact on all humans similarly; not just particular religions.

Though i imagine different religions would stil lsquabble over it anyways.


And, may I at least emphasise that my argument is not for the existance of the soul itself... i obviously cannot prove it exists. I am aware fo that. My argument is that if a soul is indeed created when a human being is concieved, then the point at which it is created determines the point at which abortion becomes immoral.

if we assume a purely materialistic stance, then strictly speaking, abortion becomes as irellevant as killing fully grown people, except as a loss of labor or companionship.

[Q-Source]

Thanz,

Sorry, you are right.
I have to leave now. I will think about the Hard Question and I will give my answer tomorrow.

Assuming that the fetus is a person...

Q-S

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Q-Source
Oh, come on. You were doing a great job defending your position. A baby outside his mother's body can or cannot survive, but that is another issue. Nothing to do with Abortion :rolleyes:

There's no need to get sarcastic; just address the question. The day before a woman gives birth, the odds are good that the baby could survive if removed from the womb. Does that make it a human then? What about a week before? Or a month? Three months? Where do you draw the line?

What if incubators are developed which can allow an egg to develop fully without ever being in a woman's body?

Well, you cannot apply the same principle here because siamese twins are both human beings. There is not point to discuss this example, the twins are already persons and they have the right to live.

*bashes head repeatedly against the wall*

That is the entire point of contention here!

But, if you were one of the siameses, then you couldn't decide over your heart because it does not belong to you completely.

Why not? Your brother has a heart of his own, it's just malformed. That's not your fault. If you hadn't had the bad luck to be born conjoined, then it would be your own heart. Being conjoined twins certainly wasn't an expected consequence of your actions...so why don't you support the right of a siamese twin to control his own body?

Jeremy

[Akots]

We just fixed that drywall, toddj!

[J3K]

I'm in favor of abortions for one big reason. I want my child to have a good life, I don't want my baby not eating supper for 2 days because I have to pay for daycare and that cuts on my spending money for food. The thought of making abortion illegal is crazy. If the parents are not in a position to take care of the child and give it a good life(such as teenage parents) abortions should be fine. If my girlfriend were to get pregnant, chances are, she would have an abortion. Because neither one of us want our child not spending its first years with US and not with our parents. We want to raise our children, not our parents. Not to mention that neither one of our families are well off money wise to pay for the costs of another kid. So the options would be, have the child, give it a crappy life. Have an abortion, have a child in the future when our lives are on track and school is behind us, and we have jobs, and give my kid a good life. Ya know, the latter seems a heck of a lot better, for us, and the child. Do anti-abortionists really think children like having to grow up in crap conditions because the mom wasn't able to get an abortion.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Yahzi
Thanz

It's not that unique. We routinely deny immigration to people who will die if they remain in their home country. What's the difference from denying immigration to someone that doesn't even have a home country to die in?

If your country has horrible refugee immigration rules, that doesn't make any difference to the abortion debate.


It doesn't matter. If I keel over in the street, and the doctors decide I need to share someone else's internal organs for 9 months until they can fix me, can I use yours? Is there any way I can legally compel anyone at all - strangers, family, my mother - to share with me? How is pregnancy different?

Pregnancy is different because the parents accepted the risk of pregnancy when they had sex. I didn't accept any risk of you needing my organs. Whether they used birth control is irrelevant. Everyone knows that birth control is not 100% effective. If you can't accept the risk, don't engage in the behaviour.

And don't say that we invited the fetus, because the use of birth control was a clear indication that the fetus was not invited.


The mother quite clearly chose not to have a fetus. That's what the birth control was all about. If the fetus ignores that warning, then whatever happens to it is its fault.

Please tell me that you are not serious about this argument. It is the fetus' fault??? :eek: As if the fetus has any choice at all in the matter?? The parents decide to have sex, and send some sperm hurtling towards an egg, and it is the sperm and egg's fault? Should they stop and have a little conversation - so, Mr. Sperm, did you have to sneak around any barriers to get here?



If I have a deep, deep hole in my backyard, and I put locked fences around it, and danger/keep out signs, and then you wander in, cut through the fences, pick the locks, move the signs, and then fall into the hole... who is responsible? Am I guilty of any crime when you die?

This argument makes no sense whatsoever. There are no signs in the uterus. The fetus is not an intruder. It is a natural consequence of your actions (and your partners).

The concept of negligence is discharged when you excersize due diligence and precaution. Using birth control is due diligence; not having sex is an undue burden which the government cannot compel me to undergo. It would be like the government holding me at fault for the deep hole accident because I didn't have armed guards in my backyard.

No, it wouldn't. Using birth control, when one knows that it is not 100% effective, does not absolve you of responsibility for pregnancy. Ask any dad who has tried to use "But I used a condom" as an argument to get out of child support.

Maybe you think that Ford should not have been liable for the Pinto because, well, it made a mostly safe car, and only 1 in 1000 would blow up, so therefore they are not responsible for any that do blow up.





You are imperiling the woman's right to life (by compelling her to undergo a risk) to protect the fetus's right to life. There is no precedent for this, and there should not be. An uninvited fetus, like an univited trespasser, does not deserve anything of that magnitude. The woman's right to life is inviolate, and cannot be subsumed to someone else's right to life.

But, if the fetus has the same rights as you or I, you are completely denying the fetus right to life in favour of a potential risk of loss of life. You have certain death on one hand, and some health risks on the other. The fetus is not an uninvited trespasser - they are the consequence of your actions.

Why is the woman's right to life inviolate, while the fetus right to life can be dispensed with? This makes no sense whatsoever. If they are the same moral agents, you cannot say that certain death to one is preferable to some health risks to the other.

Your examples about kidneys, etc. only make sense if the person from whom the kidney is being asked did something to require the other person to need his kidney (and only HIS kidney) and that this was understood by everyone. Something along the order of "If I do X, then Yahzi may need to use my kidney for 9 months. Should I do it?"

[J3K]

I've had a thought, but it seems too basic to really make a difference either way. But when people are talking about a human life and stuff. When do you celebrate being a human and your life? On your birthday, and when is that day, the day you are born. In the first few months, the baby is not going to know that he/she is living and now dying. It isn't formed enough. You don't feel bad when you step on bugs, but they are more formed than a baby fetus.
And no, birth control is not 100% effective, and there is a risk, but saying that if you take the risk, be prepared if it turns out for the worst, I disagree. Abortion is the final thing when it comes down to birth control. It is the person's choice to decide whether or not to do it.
People need to stop trying to control peoples lives like this, it's wrong.

[Peter Jenkins]

I am in favour of the womans right to choose to have an abortion. There have been a lot of good posts on that issue, so I won't rehash the arguments.

I just want to say S E X !
People do it. You teach your kids about it. you tell them how to avoid pregnacy and you don't use guilt as a teaching tool. Until British and American society can get it's head around that idea, the number of abortions are going to continue to grow, and people are going to use it as a form of post coital birth control.

Peter

[Yahzi]

Toddjh
But why?? Why is no one able to answer this?
I've answered it a dozen times: it is a political choice. We have to choose some random, arbitrary moment: this is the one we chose.

There are other arbitrary times we could chose:

1. Conception.
2. Neural system development.
3. Birth.
4. Age of self-consciousness (about 2 or so).
5. Age of reason (about 8 or so).

Since we are biologically programmed to react to birth and babies with affection, that seems like a reasonable place to draw the line. However, other societies have drawn the line at other places; medival Europe didn't bother to count children under 7, since they were so likely to die of something before reaching 8.

Birth is not the only place to draw the line; it's just a good one. But it's a political decision.

If you get pregnant, it was your choice that caused it.
Says who?

I might as well argue that it's your fault the trespasser is your house. You built a house knowing full well that trespassers might come into it. Now that one has, how do you expect the police to violate his rights just because you screwed up?

You have taken the position that pregnancy is a morally inescapable result of sex. But you have not shown why this would be the case.

Like I said, if you can perform an abortion without severely damaging the fetus's body,
Again, irrelvant. If the only way to protect my rights is violence, I am entitled to protect my rights.

Incidentally, what do you think about the siamese twin example I gave a few posts up?
The same thing Q-source said.

What is your opinion of good samaritan laws?
I oppose them, for the same reason virtually every educated jurist in the country opposes them.

Get a vasectomy, like I did, and never worry about it again.
You seem particularly resistant to the fact that even vasectomies fail sometimes.

Try to listen carefully: I am not an anti-abortionist.

I understand that. The point of contention is that you think the human status of a fetus matters. It does not. Abortion is merely the extension of the right to privacy that you take for granted. Giving a fetus a special right to cease someone else's most private property, soley because of need, is unacceptable. Nor is somehow pretending that the couple who used birth control nonetheless voluntarily agreed to pregnancy.

There is simply no legal basis for seizing someone else's internal organs. That's all there is too it.


Thanz
Well, I am saying that the child's right to a life is more compelling than the woman's rights over her body for the term of pregnancy
On what basis do you make this decision? And why doesn't it extend beyond fetushood? Why does the child's right to use your internal organs cease when it is born - supposing that it continued to require them for another 9 months?

You have arbitrarily decided to take someone else's property and give it to someone who needs it. This is beyond socialism; it's downright communistic. The fact that you only endorse this principal when it applies to women renders your motivations deeply suspect.

The fetus is a human life, with the same set of rights as everyone else.
That's the point! It has the same rights. It does not have special rights. You do not have any right to my internal organs, no matter how desperately you need them. The fetus has exactly the same rights.

[Yahzi]

Thanz
Everyone knows that birth control is not 100% effective. If you can't accept the risk, don't engage in the behaviour.
Again with the punishment of sex.

If birth control is taken to mean the pill + abortion, it is 100% effective, and quite safe.

Why do you insist on asserting that getting pregnant is the morally inescapable consequence of having sex? The entire point of technology is that it allows us to control and change natural conditions. You do not object to escaping the bounds of natural existance (such as disease, etc.) in any other sphere but this one.

If we take the fact that pregnancy sometimes occurs despite your best efforts, and that makes you culpable, then this principle must apply to everything. Hence, when the trespasser climbs into your house despite your best efforts, you are now responsible for him. You failed to keep him out (despite building a 20 ft fence and laying mines and barbed wire), hence, you must now feed him for the rest of his life.

You have taken the concept of negligence and turned it on its head: you have defined "failure to prevent the effect" as negligence, regardless of what efforts you underwent to prevent the effect. This is not sound legal or moral theory, for reasons that ought to be self-evident.

Your contention that anyone who engages in sex automatically becomes morally responsible for potential people that might result, regardless of their intentions or precautions, is a religious position, and thus has no place in public policy.

[Fade]

I see 0 difference between a young fetus and a virus.

Those who do are looking at the world through emotion coloured glasses.

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by Fade
I see 0 difference between a young fetus and a virus.

Those who do are looking at the world through emotion coloured glasses.

I see >0 difference between a fetus and a virus:

A fetus has internal machinations and processes for its own growth and maintainance. A virus has no such machinations.

A fetus does not create more of itself when inside a host, with the debateable exception of twins.

A fetus cannot crystalize, a virus can.

A fetus cannot move from host to host on its own, or even without substantial effort. And it would not take advantage of such a switchover without considerable coaxing.

A fetus is multicellular, and a virus doesn't even have cells

A fetus lives because of nutrients it gains from its host. A virus gain nothing from its host but the ability to reproduce.

Now you could say that a fetus is a parasite, but a virus? No.

[Q-Source]

Jeremy,

Apologies for being sarcastic. The discussion was going so fast that I did not take the time to think calmly.

why don't you support the right of a siamese twin to control his own body?

As far as I know, the definition of siamese twins is that they share the same body. As such, one of the twins should not perceive as an individual. Only in the case, that one of them is severly sick and put the other in danger, his life must end.


Police won't shoot someone unless every other possibility has been tried -- and in your example, it was the trespassers choice to break into your house. If you get pregnant, it was your choice that caused it.

When a woman gets pregnant -against her will- is because other possibilities have been tried.
If she gets pregnants, and it was her choice (as you say), then she wouldn't have an abortion in the first place.


Suppose I'm at an Afghan wedding and I want to shoot my gun to celebrate. I could shoot it into the air, where it has an insignificant chance of hitting somebody. But my arms are tired, so instead I aim it haphazardly in a random direction, such that it has over a 50% chance of hitting someone, and pull the trigger. If it kills someone, am I not responsible for their death? If someone chooses to use a relatively ineffective form of birth control, such as the Today Sponge, which was recently re-released, instead of a much more effective form, such as an IUD, is that any different?

Yes, there is a difference. In the first case, there is premeditation. You are not preventing anyone that you are going to shoot. You are responsible for killing someone. In the second case, independently of the contraceptive method efficiency, it is a sign that you won't tolerate the presence of any organism inside your body.

[Q-Source]

Thanz


I infer that you are against capital punishment. Why then would you impose it on an unborn child? Surely you would agree with me that some criminals have done far worse things to people than pregnancy does to a woman. If those people are not to be killed, why should the unborn child?

Assuming that the fetus is a human, then I would impose him "capital punishment" for the same reasons that Yahzi mentioned. In other words:

1) even though he is a person, he has no rights while he is inside my body.

2) even though, he is a person and has rights, his right to live is not better or stronger than my right to refuse his developing inside my womb.

3) And finally, his developing inside my body represents a threat to my physical condition (my life) and he also represents a threat to my emotional and economical stability.

On the other hand, I am against capital punishment to a criminal, because while he is in prison, he does not represent any threat for society. His life does not put in danger anybody else's life.

Besides, killing him is a pointless action since it does not prevent any more crimes and it doesn't imply an example to decrease crime's utility (which is its purpose).


How do you morally justify the killing of a child so that the woman can have a choice as to whether to continue the pregnancy? Isn't death far worse than anything that happens to a woman during a normal pregnancy? And if the two are equal moral agents, why impose the far worse penalty?

If they are two equal moral agents, then how do you explain that the fetus seems to have the right to grow inside my body and feed from my organs against my will?

Death is not far worse than pregnancy if it threatens somebody's life and emotional stability.

[Akots]

Originally posted by Q-Source
Jeremy,

Apologies for being sarcastic. The discussion was going so fast that I did not take the time to think calmly.



As far as I know, the definition of siamese twins is that they share the same body. As such, one of the twins should not perceive as an individual. Only in the case, that one of them is severly sick and put the other in danger, his life must end.



When a woman gets pregnant -against her will- is because other possibilities have been tried.
If she gets pregnants, and it was her choice (as you say), then she wouldn't have an abortion in the first place.



Yes, there is a difference. In the first case, there is premeditation. You are not preventing anyone that you are going to shoot. You are responsible for killing someone. In the second case, independently of the contraceptive method efficiency, it is a sign that you won't tolerate the presence of any organism inside your body.

If you won't tolerate the presence of an organism inside you, then why did you have sex in the first place?

Correct me if i'mwrong, but sex has no other biological purpose other than reproduction. If you decide to have it for recreational purposes, it's understood that you also happen to be performing an act of procreation.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Akots


If you won't tolerate the presence of an organism inside you, then why did you have sex in the first place?

Correct me if i'mwrong, but sex has no other biological purpose other than reproduction. If you decide to have it for recreational purposes, it's understood that you also happen to be performing an act of procreation.


Technically speaking, you may be right. Biology says that sex is for reproduction only.

But, we are more than animals, we need to satisfy other needs besides biological reproduction, let say psychological needs.

We use the best of technology to prevent procreation, when our purpose is "recreational" as you say. It does not imply that I will be forced to assume the consequences of a pregnancy if a contraception method fails.

We are in the 21st Century. We have a world population of 6 billion people.

Q-S

[Denise]

For those who believe a fetus is a human being.

1. What kind of special status should we put upon women who are pregnant, and how do we know when they are pregnant?

2. Should all women of child bearing age have to take a pregnancy test every month so that we can force them to take care of themselves when we find out that they are pregnant?

3. Should women who drink, or eat at McDonalds be jailed if they are pregnant?

4. Should they have the same fine that they would get if their child was not in a carseat as they would if they aren't wearing a seatbelt while pregnant?

5. If they do not get prenatal care, should they be jailed?

6. If a man is not providing his pregnant "partner" with money, should he be jailed? If you believe the fetus is a child, then the child should be offered support, so the father should be supporting the mother.

7. If you are only for abortion in cases of rape or incest, why is the fetus resulting from rape or incest less of a human than in other circumstances.

8. Should a woman be jailed if she lives with an abusive partner who beats her and his "unborn child" up?

9. What kind of counciling would the state offer to the mother who loses her apartment and becomes homeless because she was bedridden for a some of her pregnancy?

10. Same as above to her other two or three children that she can barely take care of.

11. If she accepts money for adoption, isn't she "selling her baby?"

Thanks!

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Yahzi

I might as well argue that it's your fault the trespasser is your house. You built a house knowing full well that trespassers might come into it. Now that one has, how do you expect the police to violate his rights just because you screwed up?

How many times are you going to use this particular flawed argument? The trespasser is at moral fault for invading your home (or hole, or whatever other example you want to put fences around). It was the choice of the trespasser to enter, despite the fences and warnings and laws. It is not the choice of the fetus to exist. It exists because of the choices of the parents. The moral choices of the trespasser make your example completely inapplicable.

You have taken the position that pregnancy is a morally inescapable result of sex. But you have not shown why this would be the case.

Why would it not be the case? People know that sex causes pregnancy. In fact, it is the only thing that causes pregnancy. If pregnancy results from sex, there are certain consequences. If you know that despite your efforts to the contrary, pregnancy may still result, you are morally responsible for it. You don't get a moral free pass just because you wore a condom. Or should Ford get a moral free pass for the Pinto, because only a few would blow up?


I understand that. The point of contention is that you think the human status of a fetus matters. It does not. Abortion is merely the extension of the right to privacy that you take for granted. Giving a fetus a special right to cease someone else's most private property, soley because of need, is unacceptable. Nor is somehow pretending that the couple who used birth control nonetheless voluntarily agreed to pregnancy.

Of course the human status matters. If this is your postition, then fathers should be able to get out of child support if they wore a condom. Mothers should be able to leave babies to die in the street. If you don't think this, then tell me why. Tell me how a human life (the same life) is worth more after birth than before.




On what basis do you make this decision? And why doesn't it extend beyond fetushood? Why does the child's right to use your internal organs cease when it is born - supposing that it continued to require them for another 9 months?

You can keep saying this, but the fact is that the situation doesn't occur. The baby does not need my organs to survive after birth. And nothing I did made it so the baby needs my organs.

You have arbitrarily decided to take someone else's property and give it to someone who needs it. This is beyond socialism; it's downright communistic. The fact that you only endorse this principal when it applies to women renders your motivations deeply suspect.

I haven't arbitrarily done anything. The parents have engaged in behaviour, and the pregnancy is the result. They cannot escape the responsibility for that pregnancy.

Also, I find your accusations regarding my motivations to be offensive. Firstly, you assume too much. I have not taken any position about whether the fetus IS in fact, a human life. I am merely arguing that the human life status of the fetus is the central question in the abortion debate. Second, you don't me or my views on gender politics. I fully support gender equality, and I have put my money where my mouth is in that support.



That's the point! It has the same rights. It does not have special rights. You do not have any right to my internal organs, no matter how desperately you need them. The fetus has exactly the same rights.

The only right I am advocating is the right to life. Yes, that life necessarily depends on the support of the mother. That is why her rights must be considered as well. It is a difficult balancing act that must be done. But if I had to balance the right to life of the baby to the risks associated with a normal pregnancy to the mother, I find in favour of the right to life as being the most basic of all rights. Yes, the right to privacy is surrendered to the right to life.

Please, remember Yahzi that I am arguing under the assumption that the fetus is a human with the same rights as everyone else. I am arguing that the status matters.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Yahzi
Thanz

Again with the punishment of sex.

It is not the punishment of sex. It is taking responsibility for the consequences of sex. Personal responsibility for your own actions. It is you who is assuming that pregnancy is punishment.

If birth control is taken to mean the pill + abortion, it is 100% effective, and quite safe.

But birth control is not taken to mean pill + abortion. If you want to include abortion in your definition of birth control, then why include the pill at all? Isn't abortion alone 100% effective? Whether abortion should be considered "birth control" when the fetus is considered a human is precisely what we are arguing about. You can't just assume away the entire argument.

Also, what are your views on a couple who have sex without using birth control? All of your arguments seem focused on birth control giving the parents a free moral pass. What if they don't use it? If the fetus is a human life, are they still entitled to abort it, from a moral perspective?

Why do you insist on asserting that getting pregnant is the morally inescapable consequence of having sex? The entire point of technology is that it allows us to control and change natural conditions. You do not object to escaping the bounds of natural existance (such as disease, etc.) in any other sphere but this one.

See my post above for the answer to this.

If we take the fact that pregnancy sometimes occurs despite your best efforts, and that makes you culpable, then this principle must apply to everything. Hence, when the trespasser climbs into your house despite your best efforts, you are now responsible for him. You failed to keep him out (despite building a 20 ft fence and laying mines and barbed wire), hence, you must now feed him for the rest of his life.

Again, the morally culpable actions of the trespasser make your example useless. The fetus has no such morally culpable actions. It exists solely because of your actions.

You have taken the concept of negligence and turned it on its head: you have defined "failure to prevent the effect" as negligence, regardless of what efforts you underwent to prevent the effect. This is not sound legal or moral theory, for reasons that ought to be self-evident.

I am not turning anything on its head. Negligence law makes you responsible for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of your actions. It was reasonably foreseeable that the Pinto would explode in certain situations, therefore Ford is liable. It is reasonably foreseeable that pregnancy will result from sex, even if birth control is used. Therefore, you are responsible for those actions.


Your contention that anyone who engages in sex automatically becomes morally responsible for potential people that might result, regardless of their intentions or precautions, is a religious position, and thus has no place in public policy.

No, it is not a religious position. It is a moral and ethical one, if we assume that the fetus is a person. It is also a legal one - ask all of the fathers out there paying child support despite the fact that birth control was used. Why are they paying? Because they are morally and legally responsible for the reasonably forseeable consequences of their actions that resulted in the baby, despite their intentions or precautions.

[Megalodon]

Originally posted by Akots


Correct me if i'mwrong, but sex has no other biological purpose other than reproduction.

OK, you're wrong.

In many species (ours is one of the biggest examples) sex is used as a tool to maintain social stability. It eases tensions and subsides agressiveness inside the group. It also improves the emotional links among the the different members.

It can also be used as a tool to enforce hierachy in the group, but that's another story

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Q-Source
Thanz



Assuming that the fetus is a human, then I would impose him "capital punishment" for the same reasons that Yahzi mentioned. In other words:

1) even though he is a person, he has no rights while he is inside my body.

The assumption is slipping again. The assumption is that the fetus is a human life, and as such, does have the same rights as you or I regardless of the fact that it is in the womb.

2) even though, he is a person and has rights, his right to live is not better or stronger than my right to refuse his developing inside my womb.

Why? Isn't the right to live the most basic of all human rights rights? Isn't it the cornerstone? Isn't the depravation of that life the worst deprevation of human rights? You (and the father) are the ones that put the fetus in the womb. Doesn't that have some bearing here?

3) And finally, his developing inside my body represents a threat to my physical condition (my life) and he also represents a threat to my emotional and economical stability.

How is a threat to life worse than the depravation of life? Are you saying that if you had an unwanted pregnancy, and abortion was not medically possible, it would be preferable to die than go through with the pregnancy? How are threats to emotional and economical stability more setrious than death?

Q-Source, I fully understand that your position is that the fetus is not a human life, and your arguments make sense in light of that position. With respect, however, I still think that you are ducking the tough question I asked you to answer.

Think of it this way. Assume you were alone in the jungle, away from modern medicine, and had a baby (abortion not being an option in the jungle). The newborn baby is just as dependant on you for the basics of life after birth as it was before. Are you morally justified in leaving the baby on the ground and walking away?

On the other hand, I am against capital punishment to a criminal, because while he is in prison, he does not represent any threat for society. His life does not put in danger anybody else's life.

But he could always escape, right? And isn't he also a danger to the other inmates?

Besides, killing him is a pointless action since it does not prevent any more crimes and it doesn't imply an example to decrease crime's utility (which is its purpose).

What about economics here? why not give the criminal a shot of windex and not have to support his life forever? What about the emotional stability of the victim's family?


If they are two equal moral agents, then how do you explain that the fetus seems to have the right to grow inside my body and feed from my organs against my will?

The fetus has no choice but to grow inside your body. The only people who had any choices were the parents. The fetus right to life is what trumps your right to not have to support it inside your body, the right to life being the most basic of all rights.

Death is not far worse than pregnancy if it threatens somebody's life and emotional stability.

Again, I cannot believe that you think this is true. Death is not worse than a threat of death? Where is the logic here? Most pregnancies do not entail a serious risk of death. Emotionally, they are a roller coaster. But if we don't condone the vengeful action of a crime victim against the criminal (like capital punishment) based on emotional stability grounds, then why is it a big factor here?

[gethane]

Newly registered just to post on this thread:

I have many many opinions about the abortion issue. However, I feel it doesn't really matter if you are for or against abortions. After all, I think most people are pretty much anti-abortion. I think we all wish technology would advance to the point that abortion was never necessary.

The KEY issue is whether the government has a right to regulate abortion. That's really what people argue about.

If you decide that the government has the right to force a woman to continue a pregnancy against her will, regulating reproduction, you are also giving the government the right to force a woman to have an abortion against her will. It's two sides of the same coin. Frankly, I don't trust any government enough to want to let them regulate reproduction in ANY fashion.

[Megalodon]

Welcome to the forum gethane

And a nice post, also :)

[Akots]

Originally posted by Megalodon


OK, you're wrong.

In many species (ours is one of the biggest examples) sex is used as a tool to maintain social stability. It eases tensions and subsides agressiveness inside the group. It also improves the emotional links among the the different members.

It can also be used as a tool to enforce hierachy in the group, but that's another story

Er... no.

I'll accept that it may be used in such a fashion among some cultures, not among others; but that seems largely a subjective behavioral choice. Is it the symbolic act of procreation that is lauded here, or is it simply the naturally thearaputic effect of enjoyment you refer to? You want me to believe that something enjoyable and pleasurable would NOT have those effects? That as intimate an act as reproduction would NOT strengthen emotional bonds? Marrying sons and daughters was once a way of ensuring an alliance between nations...

This reasoning in NO WAY invalidates the fact that reproduction produces offspring. That is it's primary and only purpose, from a biological standpoint. All other properties of sex are to keep us going at it for evolution's sake. These can be used to our advantage, obviously, but they are there in the first place BECAUSE they aid directly in raising a healthy, prosperous child. Or should, at leadt.

However... there are other, far better ways of easing tensions, subsiding agression, creating emotional links, and enforcing heirarchy. Now that we are beginning to mature as a race (in some areas, at least), these methods will become increasingly important.

I might even say that having sex to solve your emotional or social ills would be denying and delaying the real issues affecting you...

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Denise
For those who believe a fetus is a human being.

Well, I haven't been arguing that it is, but I have been arguing that certain things flow from that status, so I'll take a stab at answering your questions from the perspective that the fetus is a human life.

1. What kind of special status should we put upon women who are pregnant, and how do we know when they are pregnant?

I don't know what you are getting at here. Are parents given a special status?

2. Should all women of child bearing age have to take a pregnancy test every month so that we can force them to take care of themselves when we find out that they are pregnant?

No. We don't force parents to take any particular steps in caring for their children, except when it amounts to abuse.

3. Should women who drink, or eat at McDonalds be jailed if they are pregnant?

See above - same answer. We don't jail parents unless they are abusive (and sometimes not even then).

4. Should they have the same fine that they would get if their child was not in a carseat as they would if they aren't wearing a seatbelt while pregnant?

Sure.

5. If they do not get prenatal care, should they be jailed?

Again with the jail. We don't seem to be jailing many parents. Why do you think this would be different? Again, no, outside of abuse.

6. If a man is not providing his pregnant "partner" with money, should he be jailed? If you believe the fetus is a child, then the child should be offered support, so the father should be supporting the mother.

You really like jail. Support depends on the needs of the child. So, the father should be paying for a protion of the needs of the child (eg., prenatal care). You have said before that the father of your child is a deadbeat dad and owes $50,000. Is he in jail? Do you think he should be?

7. If you are only for abortion in cases of rape or incest, why is the fetus resulting from rape or incest less of a human than in other circumstances.

This is the toughest question in the abortion debate, IMO. I don't have an easy answer. I would expect, however, that many who believe that the fetus is a human life would NOT be for abortion in the case of rape or incest. The only exception they would allow would be if the life/helath of the mother was seriously threatened.

8. Should a woman be jailed if she lives with an abusive partner who beats her and his "unborn child" up?

Not any more than a mom who can't protect her born children from an abusive partner. The partner should obviously be jailed.

9. What kind of counciling would the state offer to the mother who loses her apartment and becomes homeless because she was bedridden for a some of her pregnancy?

The state should provide more than counselling, they should provide her a place to live (or the means to find it herself).

10. Same as above to her other two or three children that she can barely take care of.

Same as above.

11. If she accepts money for adoption, isn't she "selling her baby?"

That depends. Is she being reimbursed for medical expenses, or getting wads of cash for her baby?

Thanks!

You're welcome!

[Denise]

so Thanz, if we don't know who is pregnant by testing them every month, how would we stop the child abuse in utero?

[Denise]

Thanz, isn't not wearing a seatbelt while pregnant tantamount to neglect? And why shouldn't we test all women who get seat belt tickets to make sure they are not neglecting their unborn children? Thanks!

[Thanz]

Originally posted by gethane
Newly registered just to post on this thread:

[snip]

The KEY issue is whether the government has a right to regulate abortion. That's really what people argue about.

If you decide that the government has the right to force a woman to continue a pregnancy against her will, regulating reproduction, you are also giving the government the right to force a woman to have an abortion against her will. It's two sides of the same coin. Frankly, I don't trust any government enough to want to let them regulate reproduction in ANY fashion.

I disagree. The reason for the regulation is extremely important. If the reason is that the fetus is a human life, then you are not granting the government any authority to force anyone to have an abortion. The government says that you cannot kill another person. That doesn't give them the power to either force you to kill someone or to kill someone themselves.

If, however, the reason was to have a strict control on population, then I would agree with you.

[Denise]

Thanz, also... wouldn't a woman's unwillingness to wear a seatbelt to protect her unborn child also mean that she is neglecting her children already born? If she cares so little for the fetus shouldn't her born children be taken away? Thanks!

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Denise
so Thanz, if we don't know who is pregnant by testing them every month, how would we stop the child abuse in utero?

How do we stop child abuse now? We certainly don't go door to door testing parents.

Thanz, isn't not wearing a seatbelt while pregnant tantamount to neglect? And why shouldn't we test all women who get seat belt tickets to make sure they are not neglecting their unborn children? Thanks!

It could be tantamount to neglect. You don't have to test, though - simply ask. If she doesn't know she is pregnant, there is no neglect. Where I live, however, anyone not wearing a seatbelt gets a ticket, so the point is somewhat moot.

Thanz, also... wouldn't a woman's unwillingness to wear a seatbelt to protect her unborn child also mean that she is neglecting her children already born? If she cares so little for the fetus shouldn't her born children be taken away? Thanks!

I don't see the connection between not wearing a seatbelt and neglecting children already born. Do you think that a mom who doesn't belt in her children should have them taken away? Based on that alone?

[Megalodon]

Originally posted by Akots


Er... no.



Er... yes.

You argued that biologically sex was only for reproduction. I told you that you were wrong.

In many species, sex is not only for reproduction. We are one of the examples.

Again, you were wrong. Nothing to it.

[Akots]

You listed absolutely nothing in your example for the productive purposes of sex that cannot be accomplished in other, much healthier ways. And there are no inevitable or garuanteed consequences of total celibacy outside of reproduction, besides a rather severe and sudden drop in population.

[Megalodon]

I don't know what you want...

You post an incorrect assertion as if it was a fact..

I corrected it. No big deal.

My views on abortion have nothing to do with this.

I actually think that it's the womans choice, period.
If she doesn't want the baby, so be it. No state should be able to legislate on anyones body...

I don't give a flying conception about any opinion that defends the sanctity of life or the superior morality of their actions...

But I'm not really interested in this debate, anyway...

[Akots]

Originally posted by Megalodon
I don't know what you want...

You post an incorrect assertion as if it was a fact..

I corrected it. No big deal.

I would have remembered if you'd actually refuted my statement after.

[ebola]

Excellent post gethane.

Denise:



11. If she accepts money for adoption, isn't she "selling her baby?"



Believe me, I wrestled with this one. The absolutely most bizarre part of adoption ( at least domestically ) is the percentage of money which goes to the lawyers and agencies, and the little which trickles down to the birth mother. In most cases, she is lacking emotional or financial ( or both ) support. After all, if it weren't for certain economic realities, we would have neither adoption nor abortion.

It is also nearly impossible to discuss, as each state regulates what an adoptive family can give to support a birth mother. Because there are 50 states, there are 50 differing sets of rules.

In the end, I had to content myself with doing what was best for the child.

Eric

[DialecticMaterialist]

The abortion issue is not about whether or not the fetus is alive, everyone knows that technically the fetus is alive. Cows are alive too though, as are plants, gorillas etc. The difference is whether we recognize personhood in them. Personhood is when the state deems a given agent with rights that the state is willing to protect.

There is no hard,solid scientific way to determine personhood. The matter is that of a value-judgement. Something we more or less guess at based on the overall traits of a given creature and/or consequences of such entitlement. I do not believe a fetus is a person based on its overall traits and its need for a body to live in. Also because the fetus if unwanted will suffer a horrible life, cause the mother to suffer etc. Some people just are not ready to have kids yet.

It's a very odd question and I just draw the line at birth as pre-birth and post-birth lines tend to become very blurry. Do we start at conception, preconception...a specific stage of conception? If after birth....how many months after birth? It's just much easier to draw the line at birth and the US constitution supports this, as to become a citizen you have to register, be born of US citizens or be born on US soil.

Secondly, like I said some people are not ready to become mothers. These ladies will try to give themselves abortion if the practice is outlawed, which is very dangerous. Such things are for more difficult to keep track of, due to miscarrriage and any effective way to do so would equire a violation of much of our privacy. Then is the issue of a woman's right to her own body, theoretically if you could force a woman to carry a fetus in her body you can force her to do other things to her body. Newborns on the other hand do not require a body.


Also bear in mind if a fetus is considered a person: the death of a fetus is a potential case of murder. Even in cases of natural miscarriage. Meaning the woman has to be interrogated, her house can be searched, etc. What if they decide you killed the fetus through neglect, even if you didn't know it was there? You just killed a person. You are guilty of negligent manslaughter. Imagine what it will cost to investigate any suspect miscarriage; or how this will impact woman's rights.

They did this sort of thing when abortion was illegal. Rich woman could afford abortion doctors. But poor woman had to get them from dubious sources or try it themselves.

Militant anti-abortion group that thinks its ok to kill abortion doctors:www.armyofgod.com/

Also some important information on so-called PAS i.e. the idea that woman get "depressed" after having an abortion.

www.religioustolerance.org/abo_post.htm


- In 1995, Dr. Paul Sachdef, professor of social work at Memorial University (Newfoundland, Canada), conducted 70 in-depth interviews of women who had elective abortions during the previous 6 to 12 months. 2 They are typical of women seeking abortions: aged 18 to 25, single, white females. All had terminated their first pregnancy during the first trimester giving mental health as their reason for seeking an abortion. He concluded: 3
-Two-thirds of the woman had used contraceptives rarely or not at all.
- Three-fourths of the woman thought they would not become pregnant.
-Almost 80% "felt relief and satisfaction" soon after the abortion.
- Long term guilt or depression were rare.
- Elective abortion is less traumatic than giving a child up for adoption.
-Women do not lightly decide to have an elective abortion


As for partial-birth abortions, there really is no such thing. The concept of it is made entirely by pro-life groups which are most likely reffering to D&X operations. It should be noted that about 1 percent of all abortions happen in the third-trimester and its usually done:


-

To save the life or health of a women experiencing a deteriorating health problem. This problem can rapidly grow worse with every day in late pregnancy. It is most often caused by diabetes or heart disease.

-In rare cases, the delivery of the fetus can go terribly wrong, threatening the life of the woman.



(This is why they collapse the skull in fact, to make it easier to get the fetus out because otherwise the results may be fatal for the woman.)

90 percent of abortions are done in the first-trimester:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pba1.htm

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

Lastly it seems many here are against abortion simply because they see pre-marital sex as "immoral" to quote


Why exactly is getting pregnant "immoral"? If you say "because they got pregant" or "because they will kill the fetus" then that is circular reasoning. If you say "because they aren't ready to have children" well abortion fixes that. In any case that really isn't an argument and you fail to give a convincing reason of how it is the girl "messed up."

To claim sex is just or primarily for reporduction is utterly false. Read Jared Diamond's "The Third Chimpanzee" for more on this. If sex was just for reproduction, then why do human females have hidden ovulation? Why do we have sex in pairs constantly, even when we don't want to get anyone pregnant? Why is human fertitlity so low compared to cows and such(humans is like 28 percent at peak, cows are like 78 percent during ovulation)? In nature animals that only have sex to reproduce have sex only when necessary and when the female is ovulating. Sex is a very costly act in terms of time and energy, so animals rarely do it "for fun".


Gorilla males for example who only mate for reproduction, have an entire harem to themselves and mate only a few times a year. Human being even with one wife will mate regularly, far more then a gorilla. Obviously if sex is only for reproduction, human beings are very poorly designed.

In any event I am for freedom and women's rights. I call them as I see them and a fetus is no more a person then an acorn is a tree. Preventing abortion even under "partial birth" pretenses is both invasion and a big step backwards in terms of human rights, in a world already too full of unwanted kids. To turn the clock back on this issue is folly.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Denise
For those who believe a fetus is a human being.

I don't believe a fetus is a human being until relatively late in pregnancy, but I'll answer in that context.

1. What kind of special status should we put upon women who are pregnant, and how do we know when they are pregnant?

I don't think pregnant women should have any particular special status, and, since I only believe a fetus is a human being later in pregnancy, it will almost always be plainly obvious that the woman is pregnant by the time it becomes an issue.

2. Should all women of child bearing age have to take a pregnancy test every month so that we can force them to take care of themselves when we find out that they are pregnant?

No, for the reason I said above.

3. Should women who drink, or eat at McDonalds be jailed if they are pregnant?

If they indulge in such destructive behaviors and intend to see the pregnancy through, then yes.

4. Should they have the same fine that they would get if their child was not in a carseat as they would if they aren't wearing a seatbelt while pregnant?

Yes.

5. If they do not get prenatal care, should they be jailed?

Only if there is good reason to believe that medical attention is required -- same as with a post-birth child.

6. If a man is not providing his pregnant "partner" with money, should he be jailed? If you believe the fetus is a child, then the child should be offered support, so the father should be supporting the mother.

My views on child support are somewhat radical, I'm told, but here goes. The situation, as it currently exists, gives the woman a much larger amount of control than the man -- she can choose to have an abortion or not; the man cannot. He is forced to share responsibility equally, yet is not given an equal share in the decision. Yahzi is right about one thing: removing that control is not the way to go. However, there are other ways to even the field.

I suggest this: in the "window" during which an abortion is allowed (be it 12 weeks as I suggest, or birth as others suggest), let the father file a document with the government stating that the woman is continuing the pregnancy against his wishes, and exempting him from support. If the woman doesn't like it, she can still terminate the pregnancy -- her choice remains intact, but the man is also given a similar degree of choice. If the man chooses not to file such a document, then it's assumed that he accepts the responsibility of the child.

Modify as you see fit -- for example, you might argue that the man should file a document if he does intend to support the baby, to stop women from hiding pregnancies in order to bypass it. Or, allow men to file a "standing disclaimer" that will apply until they revoke it...I imagine a significant number of men would hop on board with that. :)

7. If you are only for abortion in cases of rape or incest, why is the fetus resulting from rape or incest less of a human than in other circumstances.

That's one of the things that confused me the most in discussions with anti-abortionists. I see no difference.

8. Should a woman be jailed if she lives with an abusive partner who beats her and his "unborn child" up?

No; the man should be jailed for beating them up.

9. What kind of counciling would the state offer to the mother who loses her apartment and becomes homeless because she was bedridden for a some of her pregnancy?

She shouldn't have allowed the pregnancy to continue if she couldn't afford it. People who choose to reproduce despite a complete inability to support a child are one of my biggest...well, I hesitate to say "pet peeves," since it's a much stronger feeling of disdain.

I say revoke her custody of the child when it's born (and the father's, if applicable) -- they have proven themselves incapable of caring for the baby properly.

10. Same as above to her other two or three children that she can barely take care of.

Same as above. Don't have the kids if you can't afford them.

11. If she accepts money for adoption, isn't she "selling her baby?"

No, the baby isn't property. She's selling her legal claim to responsibility for and control over the baby, that's all.

Edited to add: I should clarify this last statement by explaining that I believe that the government should do a lot less telling people when they should or shouldn't exchange money. My view is, if you can do something, you should be allowed to do it for money. This goes for things like prostitution as well. Now, that doesn't mean that the government should not serve a regulatory purpose in such cases; there are all kinds of things that the government licenses and restricts in the public interest, and I have no problem with that being the case with adoption, too.

Jeremy

[gethane]

It always amazes me the strength in which some men truly believe that this issue is "just" as important to them. I'm not sayng you don't have the right to an opinion, but to never ever be at risk to having to make this decision, its a pretty shallow opinion. It'd be like me being for the draft. As a woman, i'm not in threat of being drafted, so it would be just so "easy" to be for it.

As someone who's been pregnant three times, and struggled with the issue of abortion once (my husband wanted me to, I did not. I didn't do it) let me assure you that being pregnant is NOT like being normal. It is not just an inconvenience, it is a life altering, perhaps life shattering, event. My heart bleeds for any woman who feels, for one reason or another, that she has to have an abortion. I wish we lived in a world where that wasn't at issue. I'd bet the vast majority of women who do have an abortion wish very much that their life circumstances were different and they could have the baby. But, I don't know that, and neither does anyone but the woman struggling with an unplanned pregnancy. The government sure as hell doesn't know the circumstances.

But again I really believe that men, although of course entitled to their opinion, just don't really have a clue when it comes to this issue. In large numbers, men are NOT behaving responsibly about children they have with women to which they are not married. Women ARE the ones that bear the brunt of the responsibility, and therefore they are the ones that must bear the brunt of the decision. Unless we go back to the days of the shotgun wedding, I see no way to force men to take more responsiblity for their offspring. The government tries, but its doing a pretty shoddy job I think.

I'm sure this will tick a lot of the men off here, and that is not my intent, but rather to point out that its all well and good to debate these hypothetical situations, but LIVING it is entirely different.

I've seen first hand that a fetus is INDEED a "someday-to-be" human. I have three children that drive me insane, but whom I love very much. And I'm still pro-choice. Because I know that the circumstances in which i faced my unplanned pregnancy (married, with home, family to support me) is NOT the situation that many women find themselves and I truly just cannot imagine why anyone thinks a bunch of (almost all) men sitting in a legistative house somewhere, is MORE able to make this decision for a woman, than the women herself.

[Akots]

What is this strange assumption that a fetus is inhuman? I seem to get the impression (ed. From some more than others, i hasten to add) that it's treated like a parasite, a non-human organism that has no place in a womb. That it only becoems human after it has properties similar to the same organism at a later stage.

Obviously the connotations are different, and i know the issue is really about wether fetuses have 'souls', or are considered people... but how can a fetus not be a human? It's a part of being human.

[gethane]

You are right, they are human.. I'll addend my post here to say a fetus in indeed a someday-to-be person. Personhood is a bit different from just the genetic makings of a human.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by gethane
You are right, they are human.. I'll addend my post here to say a fetus in indeed a someday-to-be person. Personhood is a bit different from just the genetic makings of a human.

Do you agree that whether or not the fetus is considered a "person" is the central question in the abortion debate?

From my perspective, it is just about the only question.

[Q-Source]

Thanz,


Isn't the right to live the most basic of all human rights rights? Isn't it the cornerstone? Isn't the depravation of that life the worst deprevation of human rights? You (and the father) are the ones that put the fetus in the womb. Doesn't that have some bearing here?

Life is the most basic of all human rights, it is true. But, a fetus/person is not alive yet (technically).

Besides, it is absolutely valid to kill in self-defence. As I said ad-nauseum, if I feel that the fetus threatens my life, I can exert my right to defend my own life.


How is a threat to life worse than the depravation of life? Are you saying that if you had an unwanted pregnancy, and abortion was not medically possible, it would be preferable to die than go through with the pregnancy? How are threats to emotional and economical stability more setrious than death?

No, that’s not what I say. If I don’t have any other option, then I would have the baby.

It is a matter of who has more rights and why. From my point of view (and even the law supports me here), if someone threatens my life, I can kill in self defense.

So a threat to life is worse than death itself. I am sorry, this is how the system works.


Q-Source, I fully understand that your position is that the fetus is not a human life, and your arguments make sense in light of that position. With respect, however, I still think that you are ducking the tough question I asked you to answer.

Which question?. I am not dodging the question. If the fetus is a person, then I give my life a higher price than his. The reason have been explained.


Think of it this way. Assume you were alone in the jungle, away from modern medicine, and had a baby (abortion not being an option in the jungle). The newborn baby is just as dependant on you for the basics of life after birth as it was before. Are you morally justified in leaving the baby on the ground and walking away?


Of course that in this case, I wouldn’t let him die. Why?, because once the baby is born, then he is not only a person, but he has rights. Furthermore, he doesn’t belong to me anymore and he does not represent any threat to my life. I am not an evil person, I would take care of him.

Do not confuse this, with the law’s imposition of giving birth against the women’s will.



Again, I cannot believe that you think this is true. Death is not worse than a threat of death? Where is the logic here? Most pregnancies do not entail a serious risk of death. Emotionally, they are a roller coaster. But if we don't condone the vengeful action of a crime victim against the criminal (like capital punishment) based on emotional stability grounds, then why is it a big factor here?

In my following post, you will see how you agree with me in his point, although I suspect you are going to retract. :p

Personally, I will never have an abortion. In fact, having a child is one of the most precious things that could happen to me. I am looking forward having a child. But, it doesn’t mean that I won’t fight for the women’s right to decide when to have a child.

[Q-Source]

I really love this forum. It gives me the opportunity to learn and have fun at the same time. :)


Denise asked:
7. If you are only for abortion in cases of rape or incest, why is the fetus resulting from rape or incest less of a human than in other circumstances.

Thanz responded:
I would expect, however, that many who believe that the fetus is a human life would NOT be for abortion in the case of rape or incest. The only exception they would allow would be if the life/helath of the mother was seriously threatened.




Thanz,

The above statement is in contradiction with this one:


Death is not worse than a threat of death? Where is the logic here?

So, we must imply that you are conceding that I am right when I say that if the fetus/human represents a threat to the mother (physical, emotional or economically), then it is valid to end his life.

Let’s say that the pregnancy puts seriously in danger the life of the woman, are you conceding that a threat to the life/health of the mother is more important than the fetus/person’s life?. It seems like you are.

Then, we finally agree than in this case “Death is not worse than a threat of death”.

The only difference is that you only apply this criterion to rape and incest, while I apply the same criterion to any case.



Gethane


If you decide that the government has the right to force a woman to continue a pregnancy against her will, regulating reproduction, you are also giving the government the right to force a woman to have an abortion against her will. It's two sides of the same coin.

No, the problem is that making abortion illegal is not a fair regulation.

For example, if abortion is illegal, then women who want to get rid of unwanted products cannot do that. In the other case, if abortion is legal, nobody is imposing abortion to women who decide to have their babies.

It is not a two sides of the same coin, at all.

This is why I am against Abortion, why on Earth someone is going to impose their moral values on me?. Why are they going to take a decision over my body, over my future and over my stability?

Q

[toddjh]

Originally posted by gethane
It always amazes me the strength in which some men truly believe that this issue is "just" as important to them. I'm not sayng you don't have the right to an opinion, but to never ever be at risk to having to make this decision, its a pretty shallow opinion. It'd be like me being for the draft. As a woman, i'm not in threat of being drafted, so it would be just so "easy" to be for it.

That is indeed something that we should all keep in mind, but I'd also like to suggest that it goes both ways. Many women do have much stronger feelings about it, but is strength of emotion really the best foundation on which to decide matters of ethics? I've always thought that rationality and objectivity are qualities to look for in clear thinking -- are stronger emotions more or less likely to result in either of those?

Is the way a person feels about having an abortion even relevant? What does the strength of a person's feelings have to do with whether the fetus should be considered a human being, or should have a right to live? They seem independent, to me.

As someone who's been pregnant three times, and struggled with the issue of abortion once (my husband wanted me to, I did not. I didn't do it) let me assure you that being pregnant is NOT like being normal. It is not just an inconvenience, it is a life altering, perhaps life shattering, event. My heart bleeds for any woman who feels, for one reason or another, that she has to have an abortion.

This is certainly an effective refutation against anti-abortionist claims that having abortions be legal will encourage women to have them casually. I've never understood that attitude.

Unless we go back to the days of the shotgun wedding, I see no way to force men to take more responsiblity for their offspring. The government tries, but its doing a pretty shoddy job I think.

Agreed. They really need to work on enforcement. But that's something that's separate from abortion, isn't it?

Jeremy

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Q-Source
Besides, it is absolutely valid to kill in self-defence. As I said ad-nauseum, if I feel that the fetus threatens my life, I can exert my right to defend my own life.

In cases where the pregnancy poses a clear threat to the woman's life, I agree that abortion should be allowed, even if you do consider the fetus a human being with human rights.

However, what if it's not clear that the pregnancy poses a significant risk to the woman? Most pregnancies aren't generally regarded as life-threatening. There may be some health risks, certainly -- but there are health risks when driving a car, too. Should you be allowed to go around shooting other drivers in self-defense, because they might possibly kill you in a car accident?

Jeremy

[Q-Source]

Just to make everything clear. We are assuming that the fetus is a person.

We are discussing abortion under this assumption.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by toddjh


In cases where the pregnancy poses a clear threat to the woman's life, I agree that abortion should be allowed, even if you do consider the fetus a human being with human rights.

However, what if it's not clear that the pregnancy poses a significant risk to the woman? Most pregnancies aren't generally regarded as life-threatening. There may be some health risks, certainly -- but there are health risks when driving a car, too. Should you be allowed to go around shooting other drivers in self-defense, because they might possibly kill you in a car accident?


SO, you also agree that the fetus's death is not worse than the woman's threat of death?

Then, we are done. Under this principle, abortion is valid even though the fetus is a person. This is what we have been discussing.

[Akots]

Originally posted by gethane
You are right, they are human.. I'll addend my post here to say a fetus in indeed a someday-to-be person. Personhood is a bit different from just the genetic makings of a human.

Well actually, my point was that by the time you are a fetus, you are a human... all humans spend time as fetuses, as well as fertilized eggs.. It's a part of being human, and it's a stage of human life.

The question about wether a fetus is a person or not is almost unimportant compared the the difficulty of defining what a person is... :confused:

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Q-Source
SO, you also agree that the fetus's death is not worse than the woman's threat of death?

I agree that it's justifiable to end the fetus's life (assuming it's viewed as a human being -- just being clear :)) if there is a high probability that continuing the pregnancy will result in the woman's death, and removing the fetus without killing it is not an option.

For these purposes, I am defining a "high probability" to mean greater than 50%. This is not the case with most pregnancies.

Then, we are done. Under this principle, abortion is valid even though the fetus is a person.

In a very specific set of circumstances that does not apply to most pregnancies.

Jeremy

[Akots]

So, in all those other circumstances, it's not a person?

Strange reasoning...

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Q-Source
Thanz,

Life is the most basic of all human rights, it is true. But, a fetus/person is not alive yet (technically).

Besides, it is absolutely valid to kill in self-defence. As I said ad-nauseum, if I feel that the fetus threatens my life, I can exert my right to defend my own life.

We need to consider the proportionality of the threat. If Mike Tyson was wlking toward me in the street, he is a potential threat to my life. He could break me in half, and he is a bit of a crazy dude. But that threat is different than a robber pointing a gun at my head, no?



No, that’s not what I say. If I don’t have any other option, then I would have the baby.

It is a matter of who has more rights and why. From my point of view (and even the law supports me here), if someone threatens my life, I can kill in self defense.

So a threat to life is worse than death itself. I am sorry, this is how the system works.

Yes I concede that you can kill in self defence. However, on needs to consider the level of threat.



Of course that in this case, I wouldn’t let him die. Why?, because once the baby is born, then he is not only a person, but he has rights. Furthermore, he doesn’t belong to me anymore and he does not represent any threat to my life. I am not an evil person, I would take care of him.

Do not confuse this, with the law’s imposition of giving birth against the women’s will.

I never meant to imply that you were an evil person. I was using an extreme example to illustrate a point, and you have slipped a bit again on the assumption. The assumption was that the fetus DOES have the same rights as you or I, which is why I used the baby in jungle example. I know that you do not believe that the fetus has rights. But it seems clear that if you did, you would not be in favour of abortions, any more than you would leave the baby in the jungle.


In my following post, you will see how you agree with me in his point, although I suspect you are going to retract. :p

I have read your next post, and will address it there. I am not retracting anything, but I will be clarifying.

Personally, I will never have an abortion. In fact, having a child is one of the most precious things that could happen to me. I am looking forward having a child. But, it doesn’t mean that I won’t fight for the women’s right to decide when to have a child.

Personally, I am glad that I have never been put in this situation. I am expecting my first child any day now, and am glad that conventional birth control worked for me so that I never had to fully come to grips with such a decision, as gethane has.

[Akots]

Assinging rights by the date of birth... what a marvelous idea. This only furthers the idea that the strong must rule the weak; that those with resources must rule over those dependant on them. And just think about test tube babies... these people have never seen a womb! You don't have to worry about what they think, or feel... just send them in to do the job; no matter how hard, or dangerous that job maybe.

An entire arbitrary race of disposable people. If they were real people, I might feel guilty over the idea, too... lucky thing.

[gethane]

Thanz,

Actually, no, I do not agree that a fetus' personhood status is the most important issue. I think the most important issue, is whether its "proper" for the government to regulate reproductive issues.

Q-Source: Would like to reply, but don't honestly understand what you said, or what you might be addressing to me.

Todd(somelettershere): I think that fact that men often don't take equal responsiblity here is intregal to the abortion discussion. Don't you think whether or not the father of the child is going to support her is a HUGE factor in a woman's decision about abortion? If all men DID absolutely share equally in the responsibility of pregnancy and child-rearing, then my opinion would change about how much say they should have over the issue :).

And, actually I disagree also, with whoever said feelings shouldn't be important in making decisions. I think feelings overall, is a better method of making decisions than MANY other things people do. But, if you check my Meyers-Briggs, you'll see I'm a feeler :). You go on ahead making logical decisions on issues that are in large part, emotionally based. There is not currently a factual, scientific way to answer these "logical" questions about abortion, so until there is, I'll just have to go on with my feelings.

Actually I want to add that when I took Ethics in college we discussed this issue as one of our segments, and discussed different ways you could argue this. One analogy we read still stands out in my mind, 14 years later (I tried to find it on the internet to quote here but failed) but I'm gonna summarize because I think its sums up MY personal opinions on abortion better than anything.

A girl lives in a small village and decides to go for a walk. Her family and townspeople caution her against walking in the forest. Something really bad could happen to her if she walked in the forest! She ignores them and goes on her walk. While walking she gets hit on the head and knocked unconscious.

When she awakens, she's in a room, in a hospital type bed. A white curtain surrounds the bed. A man enters and explains that she is going to need to remain here for 9 months. The man in the next bed (he whips that side open) cannot survive unless his bodliy functions are hooked up to hers (she notices IV's and such connecting her to this man). He has a rare disease and needs to use her body. At the end of this 9 months, however, the man will be cured and she can go on her way.

Issues we discussed in class:

1)Did it matter if they told the woman that the sick man was a world famous musician who contributed so much art and beauty to the world?

2) The girl was WARNED against going into the forest. She KNEW something bad could happen. Does this make her ethically responsible to stay connected to the sick man?

3) Is there ANY circumstance that would ethically force her to remain so that the sick man would not die?

Obviously, the book and class discussion was MUCH better written and discussed than I've outlined here, but I think you all get the picture.

Edit: Sadly, I must now leave work, and won't have any time to continue this debate until tomorrow (as my real life, with a husband and three children, does not allow much time for forum debating :) glad I work!!)

[Q-Source]

:eek: Thanz, are you a woman :eek:

Originally posted by Tricky
Dang it, I agree with almost everything everyone is saying.

This really is not as much fun without at least one fervent anti-abortion person in here.

I've only read three-quarters of the first page of this topic, and my blood is boiling. So get ready for some fun.

Originally posted by Thanz


I think (though I may be wrong) that the law grants protection to the fetus when the fetus reaches the point of viability (that is, can survive outside the uterus.) To me, this is an easy decision and an easy place to put the dividing line.



That line is moving farther and farther back every day. So it ain't easy. And abortions are occurring in the last weeks of pregnancy.

Originally posted by Q-Source


5 minutes away from birth makes a huge difference.
Anyway, you are taking the discussion to the extremes. Nobody is suggesting that a woman should abort 5 minutes before giving birth.



But they are....

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Q-Source


Thanz,

The above statement is in contradiction with this one:



So, we must imply that you are conceding that I am right when I say that if the fetus/human represents a threat to the mother (physical, emotional or economically), then it is valid to end his life.

Let’s say that the pregnancy puts seriously in danger the life of the woman, are you conceding that a threat to the life/health of the mother is more important than the fetus/person’s life?. It seems like you are.

Then, we finally agree than in this case “Death is not worse than a threat of death”.

The only difference is that you only apply this criterion to rape and incest, while I apply the same criterion to any case.

[/B]

Ah, here we have a problem with absolute style language.

As I put in my other post, it is all about the proportionality of the threat. A normal pregnancy is more like mike tyson walking toward me. A high-risk pregnancy is more like the robber pointing a gun at your head.

Your wording of my concession is too broad. You put it in terms of a "threat to the mother (physical, emotional or economically)". I would not go that far. All pregnancies are something of a threat emotionally and economically. Some pregnancies, however, are serious threats physically. IMO, these are different.

It all comes back to the balance of rights that needs to be done. In a NORMAL, healthy pregnancy, the threats to the mother do not outweigh the right to life of the fetus. If the pregnancy is high risk, however, such that there is a significant chance that the mother and/or baby may die if the pregnancy is continued, one balances the rights differently. One cannot morally ask someone to sacrafice their life for another.

The next question, of course, is where to draw that line? At what point if the threat to the mother significant enough to tip the balancing scale? toddjh puts it at 50%. I am not sure I would put it that high, but I can't put a number to it.

So, yes, I agree that in some circumstances a threat of death could be "worse" than death. But not ANY threat.

For the record, I did not mean to imply that the health of the mother only matters in cases of incest or rape. It is across the board. Rape and incest are separate issues entirely.

Originally posted by Q-Source


It is traumatic to the fetus body? how do you know?
A two month fetus is conscious? Can it feel pain?



Is it traumatic to kill a coma victim? How do you know? Are they conscious? Can they feel pain?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by LukeT


But they are....

How often do you think this happens, per 1,000 abortions in the U.S.? (Realistically ?... " Once is too often. " Doesn't count as a realistic answer..)

[Akots]

Originally posted by Diogenes
(Realistically ?... " Once is too often. " Doesn't count as a realistic answer..)

I guess it would be gramatically wrong to apply a plural to a single person.

At what point is a normal fetus superior to a severely deformed or brain damaged human being? Any statements about dependency or "a collection of cells," or a virus, or nothing but a mass of tissue, or whatever, can easily be applied to the handicapped.

So you want to be pro-choice? Make your choice prior to the sex act whereupon you create a human being.

Over a million babies are aborted every year in the U.S. alone. Can anyone tell me with a straight face that these are all the result of rape or incest or the failure of the pill? Abortion is what these people are using as birth control!

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Q-Source
:eek: Thanz, are you a woman :eek:

Sorry, sorry, sorry. No I am not. However, upon rereading, I realize that I worded this paragraph terribly:

Personally, I am glad that I have never been put in this situation. I am expecting my first child any day now, and am glad that conventional birth control worked for me so that I never had to fully come to grips with such a decision, as gethane has.

It should have read:

Personally, I am glad that I have never been put in this situation. MY WIFE is expecting OUR first child any day now, and am glad that conventional birth control worked for US so that WE never had to fully come to grips with such a decision, as gethane AND HER HUSBAND have.

Mea culpa.

A thousand apologies.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by LukeT


Is it traumatic to kill a coma victim? How do you know? Are they conscious? Can they feel pain?


It is not traumatic at all. That's why doctors recommend to finish with the patience's life ipso facto.

The same case applies to the fetus (even if it is a person).

[toddjh]

Originally posted by gethane
Todd(somelettershere): I think that fact that men often don't take equal responsiblity here is intregal to the abortion discussion. Don't you think whether or not the father of the child is going to support her is a HUGE factor in a woman's decision about abortion?

It's a huge factor in whether a woman would decide to have an abortion, but I don't see what it has to do with whether abortion is ethical. People decide to do unethical things all the time.

If all men DID absolutely share equally in the responsibility of pregnancy and child-rearing, then my opinion would change about how much say they should have over the issue :).

But that ends up punishing some people who have done nothing wrong because other people aren't doing the right thing. Is that fair?

And, actually I disagree also, with whoever said feelings shouldn't be important in making decisions. I think feelings overall, is a better method of making decisions than MANY other things people do.

That's a common attitude, but I just can't accept it. Look at most of the atrocities committed in the world, and ask yourself if they could have taken place if people didn't base their actions on strong feelings.

A girl lives in a small village and decides to go for a walk. Her family and townspeople caution her against walking in the forest. Something really bad could happen to her if she walked in the forest! She ignores them and goes on her walk. While walking she gets hit on the head and knocked unconscious.

When she awakens, she's in a room, in a hospital type bed. A white curtain surrounds the bed. A man enters and explains that she is going to need to remain here for 9 months. The man in the next bed (he whips that side open) cannot survive unless his bodliy functions are hooked up to hers (she notices IV's and such connecting her to this man). He has a rare disease and needs to use her body. At the end of this 9 months, however, the man will be cured and she can go on her way.

I got that one in ethics, too, but I never bought it. First, the "something really bad could happen if you walk in the forest" bit is highly disingenuous. The fact that pregnancy results from sex, and the effectiveness of various forms of birth control, are both well known. It also evades the responsibility issue by introducing fictional doctors who do the actual dirty work, thus neatly placing the blame on the shoulders of a third party. Here's what I think is a better example:

A girl lives alone on a spaceship. She has a button connected to a Star Trek-style transporter. When she pushes it, it beams up a pretty flower for her to look it -- it's fun, and she likes to do it. However, every time she presses the button, there's a 1% chance that it will malfunction and beam up a person instead of a flower. She could reprogram the transporter to reduce the odds to 0.1%, or even 0.001% if she really put her mind to it. But she figures that 1% is pretty low, and she really likes flowers, so she doesn't consider it a problem, and presses the button once a week.

Of course, eventually the inevitable happens, and some poor unsuspecting guy gets beamed up one morning while shaving. The ship is nine months away from Earth, and they could both survive the trip just fine, and disembark once they get home -- the only problem is that they'd have to share the same room along the way. But the girl really likes her privacy, so she insists that the man, who is, after all, trespassing on her spaceship, kindly step out the airlock and into space. It's not her fault that he's there, she explains -- there was only a 1% chance that it would happen; she can't be held responsible for something so unlikely.

If you consider the fetus a human being, that's pretty much the abortion situation as I see it.

Jeremy

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Thanz


So, yes, I agree that in some circumstances a threat of death could be "worse" than death. But not ANY threat.


If you make a single exception, then it means that we can discriminate between the mother and the fetus, easily. We cannot say that life itself is more important than anything else. We cannot say anymore that it is a fetus' basic right.

I think that we are going to one direction: it does not matter whether or not the fetus is a person, the mother's right to life is always more important than the fetus' right to life.

Q-S

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Thanz

The assumption was that the fetus DOES have the same rights as you or I, which is why I used the baby in jungle example. I know that you do not believe that the fetus has rights. But it seems clear that if you did, you would not be in favour of abortions, any more than you would leave the baby in the jungle.



Yes, this is another problem. Even though, the fetus may be a person, we need to determine whether or not he has rights. I think he doesn't.

Now, what would I do if he had rights?. Then I would have to respect the Laws against my will.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by gethane
Thanz,

Actually, no, I do not agree that a fetus' personhood status is the most important issue. I think the most important issue, is whether its "proper" for the government to regulate reproductive issues.



The government regulates the behaviour of persons toward other persons all the time. IF the fetus is a person, they should have equal protection under the law. So, one only gets to the level of simply "regulating reproductive issues" if the fetus is NOT a person.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Q-Source


If you make a single exception, then it means that we can discriminate between the mother and the fetus, easily. We cannot say that life itself is more important than anything else. We cannot say anymore that it is a fetus' basic right.

I think that we are going to one direction: it does not matter whether or not the fetus is a person, the mother's right to life is always more important than the fetus' right to life.

Q-S

If one abortion is morally justified, then they all are? No, that argument doesn't make any sense. It makes much more sense to balance each individual's rights in each situation to come up with a moral decision. One of the guidelines for such an analysis is the fact that the fetus does have a right to life. It is still the basic right of the fetus. We just can't say that it can NEVER be violated, any more than we can say it can ALWAYS be violated. The truth is somewhere in between, and it is far from easy.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Thanz


If one abortion is morally justified, then they all are? No, that argument doesn't make any sense. It makes much more sense to balance each individual's rights in each situation to come up with a moral decision. One of the guidelines for such an analysis is the fact that the fetus does have a right to life. It is still the basic right of the fetus. We just can't say that it can NEVER be violated, any more than we can say it can ALWAYS be violated. The truth is somewhere in between, and it is far from easy.

I think we are a little lost here in the discussion.

One of the reasons for making abortion illegal was that the right of the fetus for life is a basic right. It is unbreakable. So, let's focus on this case.

If we are in a situation where the mother may put her life in risk, then we are admiting that the fetus's right to live is not that important as we have assumed. So, the basis for making abortion illegal collapses. We cannot use the argument of the fetus's basic right anymore.

Forget about specific cases, why should we discriminate among reasons to abort if we no longer believe that the fetus has a basic human right?

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Q-Source
I think we are a little lost here in the discussion.

One of the reasons for making abortion illegal was that the right of the fetus for life is a basic right. It is unbreakable. So, let's focus on this case.

No one said it was "unbreakable." Your right to life isn't "unbreakable," either. If you were coming at me with a knife, I could shoot you with impunity.

The issue is only whether a person's right to life (since we assume that the fetus is viewed as a person) overrides the woman's desire for convenience, or even the (generally mild) health risks associated with a normal pregnancy.

Jeremy

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Akots


I guess it would be gramatically wrong to apply a plural to a single person.

O.K. , How often do you think women have abortions, 5 minutes before they would have been due to give birth?

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Q-Source


I think we are a little lost here in the discussion.

One of the reasons for making abortion illegal was that the right of the fetus for life is a basic right. It is unbreakable. So, let's focus on this case.

If we are in a situation where the mother may put her life in risk, then we are admiting that the fetus's right to live is not that important as we have assumed. So, the basis for making abortion illegal collapses. We cannot use the argument of the fetus's basic right anymore.

Forget about specific cases, why should we discriminate among reasons to abort if we no longer believe that the fetus has a basic human right?

I think that toddjh has pointed out the problem in this argument. Just because there are certain circumstances that may cause a person's rights to be violated, it does not mean that the right itself is lost. As pointed out by toddjh, I have a right to life. I may lose that life if I try to attack someone with a knife. That doesn't mean that I don't have the basic right to life.

People have the right to free speech. They don't, however, have the right to yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre, causing panic, if there is no fire.

The fetus right to life is just as basic as it always was. It just doesn't AUTOMATICALLY trump the woman's right to life. If, in the balancing of the rights, the woman's life is in serious danger, her right to life will prevail. If not, her right to life is not being threatened, and therefore the fetus right to life is upheld.

You cannot forget about specific cases. You are trying to take one specific case and make it the rule for other specific cases, with different facts.

Remember, you said this:
Let's assume for a moment that the fetus is a human. Now, the question is whether or not the woman has the right to get rid of a human that she no longer wants to carry in his body.
Does she have the right to say no?

It would be a matter of deciding who has more rights:
1. the fetus/human to live or
2. the woman to not accept the pregnancy.


It is precisely this analysis that I am proposing, in each case. The threat to the woman's health is part of the analysis of her "right to not accept the pregnancy".

[DialecticMaterialist]

Jared Diamond(evolutionary biologist and historian) on human sexuality:

Our concealed ovulation, constant receptivity, and brief fertile period in each menstrual cycle ensure that most copulations by humans are at the wrong time for conception. Even young newlyweds who omit contraception and make love at maximum frequency have only a 28% probability of conception in each menstrual cycle. Whatever the main biological function of human copulation, it is not conception, which is just an occasional by-product.
One of the most ironic tragedies of this is the Catholic Church's claim that human copulation has conception as its natural purpose, and that the rhythm method is the only proper means of birth control. The rhythm method would be terrific for gorillas and most other mammal species, but not for us. In no species besides humans has the purpose of copulation become so unsuited to copulation.


http://www.redbrick.dcu.ie/~odyssey/Quotes/Life/Science/Third_Chimpanzee.html

[DialecticMaterialist]

So, in all those other circumstances, it's not a person?


Yeah basically. Its a value judgement and as of late the state has decided not to grant a fetus personhood, meaning the fetus is not a recognized person.

[neutrino_cannon]

What, may I ask, is the problem with aborting a fetus if it is to the benefit of those concerned with the fetus? I think that we can agree on extenuating circumstances for abortions (rape, incest, mother in danger) correct?

Is there anything wrong with abortion under these circumstances?

And if, as has been posited here, a fetus is a person, how can we justify putting them through the relatively dangerous and unpleasant process of birth?

[DialecticMaterialist]

Interesting point, if the fetus is a person and it can be removed more pleasantly by cutting the woman open, does the government then mandate such an action? To what degree does the government look after the fetus welfare? Does protection increase with trimester? Do you moniter the woman constantly to insure fetus health and check on how developed it is? If she has a miscarriage is it mainslaughter by negligence?

[gethane]

I think, to some extent, we are all arguing about different aspects of abortion.

In my arguments, it is completely unimportant to me whether the act of abortion is ethical. Truly, my entire support of the pro-choice position is based on the fact that I do not believe the government is better suited to decide this issue than the individual women that are faced with the decision.

The government stays out of all sorts of ethical issues. It's unethcial to be adulterous, and yet the government stays out of that one pretty much any more. It's unethical in my opinion, to "get something for nothing" and yet state governments all over the country have embraced state-operated gambling. It's unethcial to tell a young woman you love her, have sex with her, and dump her, but it breaks no laws.

Whether its ethical or not is something the woman who has one will have to struggle with. I do not feel its appropriate for the government to step into this discussion. I do not view a fetus under 12 weeks to be a person. I don't know exactly when I think it DOES become a person, but the vast vast majority of abortions are under that 12 week point. It's not a perfect solution, there aren't many in the world that are, but its a better solution, IN MY OPINION, than the government regulating it.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by gethane
The government stays out of all sorts of ethical issues. It's unethcial to be adulterous, and yet the government stays out of that one pretty much any more. It's unethical in my opinion, to "get something for nothing" and yet state governments all over the country have embraced state-operated gambling. It's unethcial to tell a young woman you love her, have sex with her, and dump her, but it breaks no laws.

That's a good point, and one I'm surprised hasn't been brought up before, but...I still disagree. ;) Can you think of another instance in which one person is free to cause the death of another without the government trying to intervene? It's the seriousness of the abortion issue that I think sets it apart from the other examples you give.

I do not view a fetus under 12 weeks to be a person. I don't know exactly when I think it DOES become a person, but the vast vast majority of abortions are under that 12 week point.

I agree. Practically speaking, late-term abortions happen so rarely that I think it's a non-issue. I don't have a problem with the current system; it's only in principle that I think it's important to make the distinction.

Jeremy

[toddjh]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Interesting point, if the fetus is a person and it can be removed more pleasantly by cutting the woman open, does the government then mandate such an action? To what degree does the government look after the fetus welfare? Does protection increase with trimester? Do you moniter the woman constantly to insure fetus health and check on how developed it is? If she has a miscarriage is it mainslaughter by negligence?

A lot of these issues can be resolved by looking at the way post-birth children are treated. Does the government mandate that children receive the absolute best treatment from their parents? No, it simply requires that the parents provide adequate treatment. You can use the same standard for a fetus.

Does birth pose an unacceptable health risk to the child? No, probably not. So, even if it's not the absolute best situation all around, it still meets the government's minimum standard. I don't think this issue is problematic.

Jeremy

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by toddjh


Can you think of another instance in which one person is free to cause the death of another without the government trying to intervene?


Jeremy

The problem here is establishing the humaness of the " another "..

This is one thing that the opposing camps will probably never agree on.

This may be off topic, but I would like to present something to think about.

Do you realize how many thousands of lives would be saved if motorists were forced to wear crash helmets?

Why do you think there is not an uproar of moral indignation over the governments failure to end this avoidable slaughter?

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Diogenes
The problem here is establishing the humaness of the " another "..

This is one thing that the opposing camps will probably never agree on.

Definitely. But earlier in this thread, a bunch of us decided that, for sake of argument, we'd assume that the fetus is a person. In reality, the odds are good that I agree with you about the personhood of the fetus.

Do you realize how many thousands of lives would be saved if motorists were forced to wear crash helmets?

Why do you think there is not an uproar of moral indignation over the governments failure to end this avoidable slaughter?

Because that's something that only endangers the life of the person making the decision. The government has long decided that citizens should be given enough rope to hang themselves; my point is that it usually doesn't let people go around hanging each other. ;)

Jeremy

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by toddjh


Because that's something that only endangers the life of the person making the decision. The government has long decided that citizens should be given enough rope to hang themselves; my point is that it usually doesn't let people go around hanging each other. ;)

Jeremy

Good answer.

However, I would suggest in that same light, a woman who decides to have an abortion (in most cases), has
decided( right or wrong in my or anyone else's opinion) they are not dealing with another person.

[Akots]

Originally posted by Diogenes


O.K. , How often do you think women have abortions, 5 minutes before they would have been due to give birth?

Well, you really ought to ask a professional about that; I haven't a clue. I have no experience with abortion clinics myself, and have never practiced in one.

The time is irellevant. Wether a fetus is a person or not is irellevant. The assumption here is "If it IS a person, is it ethical?"

And my answer is no. Barring practical situations, where health or safety is a concern, abortions are wrong if a fetus is a person. So is dying in child birth. It's a tough choice.

And people have yet to explain to me why sex should be anything other than a primarily procreative function...

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Diogenes
However, I would suggest in that same light, a woman who decides to have an abortion (in most cases), has
decided( right or wrong in my or anyone else's opinion) they are not dealing with another person.

First, is it relevant what the woman thinks? Is it okay for a white supremacist to stab a black guy because he doesn't think black people should be considered human beings?

Edited to add: one of my points in an earlier post was that people who have a large emotional investment in an issue are precisely the wrong ones to trust with deciding whether it's ethical. I'd much rather leave it in the hands of someone rational and objective. Do you agree?

Second, you'd be surprised. I would've agreed with you, but there are a couple people in this thread (Yahzi and Q-Source -- both male, as far as I know) who think that abortion is perfectly acceptable even if you do consider the fetus a human being. Pretty creepy, if you ask me.

Jeremy

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Akots
And people have yet to explain to me why sex should be anything other than a primarily procreative function...

Although I agree with the rest of your statements, I have to disagree about this one.

On the most simple, practical level, history has shown that it's simply unrealistic to expect people not to have sex. They have sex when it's unethical, they have sex when it's illegal, they have sex when it's dangerous, they have sex when they have to pay for it, they have sex when they're already having sex with someone else. Telling people to stop having sex is simply not a workable option.

On a more subtle level, the existence of things like homosexuality, even in species that don't typically indulge in sex for recreation, shows that it serves a social purpose (be it establishment of a social hierarchy, an expression of dominance, or whatnot). It's not as simple as procreation.

Jeremy

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by toddjh

Edited to add: one of my points in an earlier post was that people who have a large emotional investment in an issue are precisely the wrong ones to trust with deciding whether it's ethical. I'd much rather leave it in the hands of someone rational and objective. Do you agree?

Maybe some people become very emotional because others want to take decisions for themselves. It is creepy, isn't it?


Second, you'd be surprised. I would've agreed with you, but there are a couple people in this thread (Yahzi and Q-Source -- both male, as far as I know) who think that abortion is perfectly acceptable even if you do consider the fetus a human being. Pretty creepy, if you ask me.



I think you haven't read carefully this thread. First, I am a woman, and I already said that. Second, you are taking my opinion out of context.

If someone threatens your life, it is perfectly acceptable that you kill him in self-defence. Didn't you know that Jeremy?

Q-S

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Q-Source
Maybe some people become very emotional because others want to take decisions for themselves. It is creepy, isn't it?

The government takes decisions for itself all the time. Is it "creepy" that they don't let you go around stabbing people? Of course not.

I think you haven't read carefully this thread. First, I
am a woman, and I already said that.

Ah, then I apologize.

If someone threatens your life, it is perfectly acceptable that you kill him in self-defence. Didn't you know that Jeremy?

The objection that I have to that statement, which I have not yet seen you address, is the degree of threat which is required before the self-defense argument can be applied. Is it justifiable to kill someone whenever the probability that they will threaten your life is non-zero? Can I go around shooting other drivers on the off chance they might crash into me (especially when I can avoid the risk by not driving, or minimize it by taking a lower-traffic route)?

How much risk has to be present before it can reasonably be considered self-defense? Because the risk that a normal pregnancy poses to a woman's life is generally pretty low.

Edited to add: In cases where it is known that the pregnancy will pose a grave threat to the woman's life, I agree that abortion is justifiable even when you assume that the fetus is a human being. That does not mean that it's perfectly fine, however; merely the lesser of two very regrettable evils.

Jeremy

[Akots]

Originally posted by toddjh


Although I agree with the rest of your statements, I have to disagree about this one.

On the most simple, practical level, history has shown that it's simply unrealistic to expect people not to have sex. They have sex when it's unethical, they have sex when it's illegal, they have sex when it's dangerous, they have sex when they have to pay for it, they have sex when they're already having sex with someone else. Telling people to stop having sex is simply not a workable option.

On a more subtle level, the existence of things like homosexuality, even in species that don't typically indulge in sex for recreation, shows that it serves a social purpose (be it establishment of a social hierarchy, an expression of dominance, or whatnot). It's not as simple as procreation.

Jeremy

Clearly the human race cannot be expected to stop having sex. And I'm not saying global abstinance would be an even remotly sane mandate... but we are judging wether a new life should be destroyed based on someone's recreational activities.

Rape victims and birth complications are one thing; but recreation? The enjoyable factor only emerged to encourage reproduction. The pleasure is a side-effect, and yes, it IS designed to strengthen bonds... but producing a child i sby far the higher priority for this function.

Sex is a very intimate, bonding process. In a happy, stable coupling, it does not cause stability; it occurs because the stability or intimacy is already there. I will not agree that it should be a means of establishing or initializing such things; however much it encourages and strengthens existing intimacy. If you have sex, you have no excuse whatsoever for saying you honestly did not expect a child to result. No contraception is 100%, and nature does NOT provide mercy for those ignorant or dismissive of it's laws.

Abstinance is the only defenite method of birth control. But controling birth is not nessecarily the solution to abortion anyways.

EDIT: Being reasonable is something we always expect from people; regardless of how practical it is. A society cannot be incapable of something unless the people are ignorant or unwilling. This is known as turning an issue into a popularity contest, unless I'm mistaken.

It might be unreasonable to expect people to adopt critical thinking in massive droves. And yet, people fight on to support it. :)

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by toddjh


First, is it relevant what the woman thinks? Is it okay for a white supremacist to stab a black guy because he doesn't think black people should be considered human beings?

It is for the woman.. Otherwise we come back to the question of " who should decide ? " And that is really all we are arguing about..


Edited to add: one of my points in an earlier post was that people who have a large emotional investment in an issue are precisely the wrong ones to trust with deciding whether it's ethical. I'd much rather leave it in the hands of someone rational and objective. Do you agree?

I would agree, If I felt there were someone elses hands I could trust..



Second, you'd be surprised. I would've agreed with you, but there are a couple people in this thread (Yahzi and Q-Source -- both male, as far as I know) who think that abortion is perfectly acceptable even if you do consider the fetus a human being. Pretty creepy, if you ask me.

Jeremy

I'm not sure how you will take this, but I would say, I can find the practice (abortion of fetuses when viewed as humans )
acceptable (to me, certainly not ' perfectly ') under certain circumstances.

I certainly do not find it acceptable as a method of birth control.
But then, I don't have to worry about getting pregnant.

I also have to say I do not embrace, a philosophy of the " sanctity of human life ", much less " the sanctity of human fetal life "..

But that would be another whole 'nother thread.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Diogenes
It is for the woman.. Otherwise we come back to the question of " who should decide ? " And that is really all we are arguing about..

And why is the woman more capable of deciding than anyone else?

I would agree, If I felt there were someone elses hands I could trust..

But that's just it. Why should anyone else trust her hands? What is it, in your opinion, that makes the woman more qualified to judge whether an abortion is ethical? The fact that she feels strongly about it? Is that a reliable means of making ethical judgements?

I'm not sure how you will take this, but I would say, I can find the practice (abortion of fetuses when viewed as humans ) acceptable (to me, certainly not ' perfectly ') under certain circumstances.

Hmm, I'd have to have more information before I could comment. Do you think "retroactive abortions" should be allowed? Should a woman who decides that she doesn't want children after all be allowed to kill her six-month-old? If not, what's the difference between that and an abortion -- if we assume that the fetus is a human being?

Jeremy

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Thanz


I think that toddjh has pointed out the problem in this argument. Just because there are certain circumstances that may cause a person's rights to be violated, it does not mean that the right itself is lost. As pointed out by toddjh, I have a right to life. I may lose that life if I try to attack someone with a knife. That doesn't mean that I don't have the basic right to life.

I thought that we were discussing the principle to life and not the right to life.

Rights are based on principles. We are trying to see why abortion it is legal or illegal.



The fetus right to life is just as basic as it always was. It just doesn't AUTOMATICALLY trump the woman's right to life. If, in the balancing of the rights, the woman's life is in serious danger, her right to life will prevail. If not, her right to life is not being threatened, and therefore the fetus right to life is upheld.

So, we agree again that the threat of death is more important than death itself.


You cannot forget about specific cases. You are trying to take one specific case and make it the rule for other specific cases, with different facts.

No, I am trying to avoid specific cases in order to get to the core of the reason why Abortion is illegal and unethical.

If you concede that the threat of the mother's life is more important than the foetus’s life, then it means that Abortion is legal and ethical when the mother's life is in danger.

So, once again, even if the foetus is a person, it is permissible to end his life.

You see?, the principle and right to life does not work anymore. The basis for making abortion illegal is flawed.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by toddjh

Edited to add: In cases where it is known that the pregnancy will pose a grave threat to the woman's life, I agree that abortion is justifiable even when you assume that the fetus is a human being. That does not mean that it's perfectly fine, however; merely the lesser of two very regrettable evils.


And this is exactly my point.

Let's talk about those justifiable cases, let's talk about when you and Thanz find Abortion permissible.

Let's talk about what you consider the reasons why Abortion is legal.

It is hipocrisy that you find abortion legal and ethical in some cases, and condemn it in other cases. The principle that you both use is flawed if you make exceptions.

I also want to add that my comments here are based on the assumption that the fetus is a person. In reality, I consider that it is not.

Q-S

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Q-Source
Let's talk about those justifiable cases, let's talk about when you and Thanz find Abortion permissible.

Okay. I consider abortion permissible when the pregnancy represents a serious threat to the woman's life. As for how serious the threat needs to be, I suggest using the same standards for self-defense that you'd use if you shot someone coming at you with a knife.

It is hipocrisy that you find abortion legal and ethical in some cases, and condemn it in other cases.

That's the part that I just don't get. If I shoot someone who is coming after me with a knife, that's self-defense. That doesn't mean that killing another person is always acceptable -- if I shoot someone because I just don't like him, that's murder.

Is it hypocrisy that I find killing an adult legal and ethical in some cases, and condemn it in other cases?

Jeremy

[Akots]

If i shoot my brother because he's coming at me with a gun, that's self defence. Let's say I shoot some guy because I casually agreed to let him stay over for a year while he looks for a job, and since I lost my own job right i did that, I am unable to even support myself, let alone rent.

Assuming that he needs exactly nine months to get his life back together, and that if I send him away before then he has almost NO chance for survival and WILL starve or freeze to death in the harsh winter...

Then am i justified in shooting him?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by toddjh


And why is the woman more capable of deciding than anyone else?

I would say she's not( necessarily more capable). But, at present (under U.S. law) she's the one who makes the decision. I'm not in agreement with giving that decision to someone else.

But that's just it. Why should anyone else trust her hands? What is it, in your opinion, that makes the woman more qualified to judge whether an abortion is ethical? The fact that she feels strongly about it? Is that a reliable means of making ethical judgements?

I'll have to give more thought to this, to add to my answer above. But I think, if you want to take the abortion decision away from the mother ( when sanity( of the mother) etc .. not subjective morality, is an issue), you are viewing the mother as a vessel, surrogate and etc, and viewing her as such, is no less immoral than than the abortion issue itself can be.. IMO

Hmm, I'd have to have more information before I could comment. Do you think "retroactive abortions" should be allowed? Should a woman who decides that she doesn't want children after all be allowed to kill her six-month-old? If not, what's the difference between that and an abortion -- if we assume that the fetus is a human being?

Jeremy

Do you think "retroactive abortions" should be allowed?

Definitely not.

But, I'm not prepared to define the point at which I believe a human fetus, becomes a candidate for the protection of the
law, that a full term human is entitled to.

I will say, that it involves survivability without extraordinary support. ( again, not to say their are not moral questions
with regard to providing extraordinary support, to sustain human life(at any age) that would not continue without it.
( Another thread perhaps..)


I think it is disingenuous suggest that there are not different levels of ethics, and personal commitment involved,
in making the decision to have an early term abortion, a late term abortion or murdering a child that has survived being born.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Diogenes
I will say, that it involves survivability without extraordinary support. ( again, not to say their are not moral questions
with regard to providing extraordinary support, to sustain human life(at any age) that would not continue without it.
( Another thread perhaps..)

Another thread indeed. But I don't agree that viability is a good measure. There are plenty of adults (Christopher Reeve, for example) who cannot survive without life support equipment.

I think it is disingenuous suggest that there are not different levels of ethics, and personal commitment involved,
in making the decision to have an early term abortion, a late term abortion or murdering a child that has survived being born.

Are there, then, different levels of ethics involved in murdering a child who was just been born, and murdering a child who is five years old? If so, is it right that they are treated the same by the law? If not, what are the grounds for saying there are different levels involved in abortions during various times, since the differences between a newborn and a five-year-old are just as drastic as the differences between a fetus at 12 weeks and a fetus at 8 months?

This is, as most of us have admitted by now, a question that we cannot resolve to the satisfaction of everybody. We desperately need a better understanding of the nature of consciousness, and the development of the fetus in relation to it, before we can begin to formulate a rigorous answer. Alas.

Jeremy

[Yahzi]

Akots
Correct me if i'mwrong, but sex has no other biological purpose other than reproduction. If you decide to have it for recreational purposes, it's understood that you also happen to be performing an act of procreation.
You are wrong on both counts.

1. Sex has other biological functions than reproduction. Human beings are social animals, and sex is a social act.

2. This has to be the only case in which you allow biology to trump morality. Men are biologically built to commit violence (what else is all that upper body strenght for?) but that in no way makes it moral. Rape is a biologically successful way of procreating: does that mean it's morally ok in your book?

Wasn't somebody complaining about "just-so" stories and socio-biology? Isn't this the ultimate just-so story? And finally, who the hell cares what biology wants? It is the function of humans to create justice. We reject our biological heritage in favor of our cultural and intellectual heritage constantly. Just one example that springs to mind is racism. It is obviously biologically sensible to discriminate on the basis of race (simply because those different-looking people are almost certainly not your closest kinsmen). By your argument, racism becomes perfectly acceptable legal theory.

Why do you insist on honouring biology in this particular case of sex, but not in any other?


Thanz
It is not the choice of the fetus to exist. It exists because of the choices of the parents.
The parents explicitly made the choice NOT to have a baby. That's what the contraception was all about.

If a fetus can be assigned rights, then it can be assigned choices.

People know that sex causes pregnancy.
Name any other case in which you would accept this argument.

People know that skiing causes broken legs. Does that then make them responsible for their broken leg, even if they took the appropriate precautions? You have defined the term "accident" out of existance: if you know a result is possible, then you are responsible for it regardless of any effort to prevent it.

If your brakes fail while you are driving (despite your following the recommended maintainence schedule), and you run into someone and kill them, have you just committed pre-mediatated murder? You knew there was a possibility that they could fail, no matter how well maintained; you chose to drive anyway. Hence you must accept responsibility for the death. And it can't be accident or negligence, because you have defined these terms out of existance: so it must be murder. But that's absurd, isn't it?

You reject the concepts of negligence and accident, but only when it comes to sex and pregnancy.

Tell me how a human life (the same life) is worth more after birth than before.
For the nth time, because we politically decided so. It's the same reason that a citizen's life is worth more than a non-citizen's life. It's the same reason we send immigrants back to their home country to die.

It's called politics. And unless you want to dispense with immigration policies altogether, you might want to reconsider how many rights you want to grant non-citizens.

As for condoms and child-support, I already said that giving women the exclusive right to decide for or against an abortion was unfair (and that any other solution would be even more unfair).

but the fact is that the situation doesn't occur. The baby does not need my organs to survive after birth
I assure you, somewhere, sometime, this happens. It is a physical possibility; therefore, it occurs.

Please, remember Yahzi that I am arguing under the assumption that the fetus is a human with the same rights as everyone else.
No, you are not. You are arguing the fetus has a special right that no other person, under any other circumstance, ever has. You are arguing that the fetus has this right because of actions the parents made, even though they took every reasonable precaution.

They cannot escape the responsibility for that pregnancy.
You and Akots keep saying this, but you never say why. We use technology to escape all sorts of naturally necessary conditions. We save lives that biology has given up on; we travel faster and further; we eat too much meat, and then work it off in our high-tech gyms. What is so special about sex that suddenly our technological prowess is not acceptable?

Are you absolutely certain that your arguments do not revolve around a religious conception of sex?

It is reasonably foreseeable that pregnancy will result from sex, even if birth control is used.
As somebody else posted, it will fail once in 5 years or so. Assuming sex twice a week, that's one out of 500. You have just defined a %0.2 chance as "reasonably foreseeable."

At what point do you draw the line?

More importantly, why do we care? The point is you made your intentions known. If I put a fence, it doesn't have to be the biggest, best fence in the world: it just has to be adequate to make my intentions known. Why do you refuse that same standard to people who use contraception?

Gethane
It always amazes me the strength in which some men truly believe that this issue is "just" as important to them.
It is just as important to us. As I pointed out earlier, abortion is quite unfair to men, who have simply no say. If the woman doesn't want a kid, they don't get one. If the woman wants to accept a 18 year committment, then they have to accept it to.

Children are the most important thing produced on this planet. Until quite recently, men had some control over the production and ownership of children (albeit at the cost of women's rights and freedom). Now that we have surrendered that control, what do we get in return? Biology gave you children, and gave us strength to steal them. If we give up our biological advantage because it's reasonable to do so... will you give up yours? How will women make sure that men are not completely sundered from children, now that we have abandoned the economic, social, legal, and physical violence that once gave men some control?

I'm completely for abortion on demand, because I think the rights of privacy are paramount. Still, I'd like to point out that men are left at the mercy of women when it comes to children, and that shouldn't seem fair to anyone.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by toddjh


Another thread indeed. But I don't agree that viability is a good measure. There are plenty of adults (Christopher Reeve, for example) who cannot survive without life support equipment.

Whether it is equipment or the aid of another human, it is one thing to to believe someone is entitled to support, and another to provide it yourself, at any cost, or insist that someone else do it..

Are there, then, different levels of ethics involved in murdering a child who was just been born, and murdering a child who is five years old? If so, is it right that they are treated the same by the law? If not, what are the grounds for saying there are different levels involved in abortions during various times, since the differences between a newborn and a five-year-old are just as drastic as the differences between a fetus at 12 weeks and a fetus at 8 months?

One man's ' drastic ' might be another man's ' so what?'.. Again you are talking about imposing one's beliefs/perceptions upon another., and something we are unlikely to reach a consensus on..

This is, as most of us have admitted by now, a question that we cannot resolve to the satisfaction of everybody. We desperately need a better understanding of the nature of consciousness, and the development of the fetus in relation to it, before we can begin to formulate a rigorous answer. Alas.

Jeremy

Resolving the question of the nature of conciousness and when it begins, will probably parallel the evolution of conciousness, to a point where unplanned human conceptions will be a meaningless concept.

Try to imagine, a widespread belief, that slavery is cool.. Unthinkable, huh?

[Yahzi]

Akots
You listed absolutely nothing in your example for the productive purposes of sex that cannot be accomplished in other, much healthier ways
Um dude... you just gave away the game. By perjorativly catergorizing sex as not healthy, you have revealed your true bias.

You don't object to abortion; you object to sex for pleasure.

Like I said: it's all about punishing those fornicating sluts.

LukeT
Make your choice prior to the sex act whereupon you create a human being.
Luke, you're good guy. Don't jump on this wagon, it's going straight for a cliff.

Let me modify my position a tiny bit: I don't think you have to put up a fence to keep the bums out. I don't even think you have to lock your door. The mere fact that you did not invite somebody into your house is sufficient to maintain your rights.

Just because people have sex does not mean they intend to have children. To assert that biology trumps their intentions is to create a dangerous precedent. There is a strong biological incentive for male lions to kill all the cubs when they take over the pride; does that mean we must accept step-father's murder of their step-children as biological hence unavoidable?

We routinely subjugate biological destiny to intentional choice (it's called medicine). We're not going to halt cancer treatments just because we find a gene for cancer; hell, we're not going to withhold cancer treatments from people that smoked for 40 years!

The "sex is biologically equivalent to choosing pregnancy" argument cannot hold up, because no-one will support that biological primacy in any other field.

The point of technology is wealth, and the definition of wealth is choices: the implementation of your intentions. If two people had sex without intending to get pregnant, then I say they are morally exculpated from pregnancy. You can make an argument about due diligence, but since the victim cannot ever bring suit in a court of law, it doesn't seem terribly relevant.

I have no idea why someone as reasonable as Luke would want to eshrine the act of sex as immune to intention, like some kind of punishment meted out to us by a divine force that we can't ever hope to escape, but it depresses me. The rights of the fetus are utterly irrelevant. What is at stake is whether or not you are allowed to commit an act for pleasure while escaping the price biology has laid upon that act. We all agree the answer is yes, in every other case, save sex. Luke will argue that sex is different because their is a person's life at stake, while ignoring that pregnancy puts a woman's life at stake. The fact that the relative risks of death for each are dramatically different doesn't matter. What matters is that you aren't allowed to imperil my life for any reason, even to save your own; and the fetus has no special rights once I've made clear my intention not to have children.

[Yahzi]

Neutrino, Q-Source
I think that we can agree on extenuating circumstances for abortions (rape, incest, mother in danger) correct?
You both make the excellent point that if we allow the fetus's right to life to trump the mother's right to privacy, then no exemption can be made for rape or incest (after all, the fetus is morally innocent). And even in case of life-threatening danger, the decision has to be made by evaluting who is more likely to survive.

The only way they work an exemption in is by asserting that the mother did not make a "choice" in the case of rape, etc. But the act of using contraception doesn't count as choosing. Only abstinence does.

See why I originally characterized the debate on abortion as an attempt to control women's sexuality?

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Yahzi
Thanz

The parents explicitly made the choice NOT to have a baby. That's what the contraception was all about.

If a fetus can be assigned rights, then it can be assigned choices.

If the fetus is a human life (the premise we are arguing under) it is not ASSIGNED rights, it just has them, the same as you or I. We can't just assign it choices that we know for a fact it did not make. You are just making stuff up here. The fetus cannot be "assigned" choices just so that your fence analogy makes sense. The fetus, as a FACT, did not make any choices. The parents did, as a FACT. Your analogy makes no sense.

Further, the parents did not explicitly make the choice not to have a baby. They made the choice to engage in a behaviour that might result in a pregnancy. Yes, they took some precautions so that pregnancy does not occur, and they hoped pregnancy would not occur, but that doesn't relieve them of reponsibility once it does occur. Just because you don't want a baby doesn't mean you aren't responsible for it.


Name any other case in which you would accept this argument.

People know that skiing causes broken legs. Does that then make them responsible for their broken leg, even if they took the appropriate precautions? You have defined the term "accident" out of existance: if you know a result is possible, then you are responsible for it regardless of any effort to prevent it.

I haven't defined anything out of existence. Even things that are accidents have consequences. Is the skier going to think that his broken leg was someone else's fault, and punish them for it? Do we need to assign responsibility for his broken leg? With the fetus, we are talking about a human life - not a broken bone.

If your brakes fail while you are driving (despite your following the recommended maintainence schedule), and you run into someone and kill them, have you just committed pre-mediatated murder? You knew there was a possibility that they could fail, no matter how well maintained; you chose to drive anyway. Hence you must accept responsibility for the death. And it can't be accident or negligence, because you have defined these terms out of existance: so it must be murder. But that's absurd, isn't it?


I'd agree that your example is absurd, but of course, that's why you make it. The fact is that it is not reasonably foreseeable that properly maintained brakes would fail, and thus the rest of your example is pointless. Especially absurd is your comparing it to pre-meditated murder.

You reject the concepts of negligence and accident, but only when it comes to sex and pregnancy.

I'm not sure what you mean here. I haven't rejected any of these concepts.


For the nth time, because we politically decided so. It's the same reason that a citizen's life is worth more than a non-citizen's life. It's the same reason we send immigrants back to their home country to die.

You just do that because you are bastards. :p

It's called politics. And unless you want to dispense with immigration policies altogether, you might want to reconsider how many rights you want to grant non-citizens.

We are debating ethics, not politics. And if you really believe that politically or ethically we can say that we can kill some people because they are worth less than others, I find that quite offensive.


I assure you, somewhere, sometime, this happens. It is a physical possibility; therefore, it occurs.

Find me one reference and I might believe you. Otherwise, it is too far fetched to be of any value in this debate.


No, you are not. You are arguing the fetus has a special right that no other person, under any other circumstance, ever has. You are arguing that the fetus has this right because of actions the parents made, even though they took every reasonable precaution.

They could have not had vaginal intercourse. That is 100% effective.

And, I am just arguing that the fetus has a right to live. There is no other circumstance like pregnancy. The fetus that exists SOLELY because of the parents actions DESPITE THEIR INTENTIONS. Their intentions are not relevant.


You and Akots keep saying this, but you never say why. We use technology to escape all sorts of naturally necessary conditions. We save lives that biology has given up on; we travel faster and further; we eat too much meat, and then work it off in our high-tech gyms. What is so special about sex that suddenly our technological prowess is not acceptable?

You haven't explained why they should not take responsibility. Just because they don't want to be pregnant, they get a free pass? People use technology to prevent pregnancy. However, sometimes it doesn't work. When that happens, you have to take responsibility. You don't abdicate responsibility simply because the technology failed.

The "technology" of abortion is irrelevant if it means killing people.

Are you absolutely certain that your arguments do not revolve around a religious conception of sex?

Yes, I am absolutely certain that my arguments do not revolve around a religious conception of sex.


As somebody else posted, it will fail once in 5 years or so. Assuming sex twice a week, that's one out of 500. You have just defined a %0.2 chance as "reasonably foreseeable."

In this case, yes. Look at the box for any contraceptive. It will tell you what the rate of contraception is, if used correctly. None of them are 100%. Therefore, pregnancy is reasonably foreseeable. Why do you think that contraceptive makers can't be successfully sued for unwanted pregnancies?

How many Pintos exploded? I'd venture it was much fewer than 1 in 500. Yet, they were still liable.

More importantly, why do we care? The point is you made your intentions known. If I put a fence, it doesn't have to be the biggest, best fence in the world: it just has to be adequate to make my intentions known. Why do you refuse that same standard to people who use contraception?



Because "making their intentions known" is irrelevant. Who are you saying they are making their intentions known to? Certainly not the fetus. The fetus has no choice but to exist. The actions of the parents are the only things that made the fetus exist. To say that they can abdicate that responsibility by saying "but, I didn't want to get pregnant" is absurd.

All of your arguments so far have assumed that the parents have used some form of birth control that is at least moderately effective, and I have answered on that basis. What about those who don't use birth control at all? If the fetus is a person, is there any ethical justification for aborting a normal, healthy pregnancy when the parents simply didn't bother using any birth control?

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Yahzi
The rights of the fetus are utterly irrelevant.

The rights of the fetus are irrelevant to you because you don't think that the fetus has any rights. It seems that you are incapable of arguing under the assumption that a fetus has just as much right to live before birth as after birth.

What is at stake is whether or not you are allowed to commit an act for pleasure while escaping the price biology has laid upon that act. We all agree the answer is yes, in every other case, save sex.

Oh, bullsh*t.

Let's say Bob goes to a bar and has a few drinks. Bob gets a little drunk. As a result, Bob's reflexes are slower, he can't think as fast, and his co-ordination is off. He gets in his car and just wants to drive home. He doesn't want to hit anyone. He just likes his beer and now wants to go home. But, on the way, he hits another car and the other driver is killed. But that's not Bob's fault is it? After all, he didn't want to hit anyone. He even yelled it out before he got in the car - "I DON'T WANT TO HIT ANYONE". That should be enough to exonerate him, right?

Luke will argue that sex is different because their is a person's life at stake, while ignoring that pregnancy puts a woman's life at stake. The fact that the relative risks of death for each are dramatically different doesn't matter.

Again bullsh*t. Of course the relative risks of death matter. If I came at you with a wet noodle, would you be as justified in shooting me as if I came at you with a machete?

What matters is that you aren't allowed to imperil my life for any reason, even to save your own; and the fetus has no special rights once I've made clear my intention not to have children.

The fetus doesn't have to have any "special" rights, and your intention is completely irrelevant. You engaged in the behaviour. live up to it.

Before you engaged in vaginal intercourse, you knew that pregnancy is a possible result. Whatever birth control method you use. You then do a risk/reward analysis to see if the risk of pregnancy is worth the reward of vaginal intercourse. By going ahead with vaginal intercourse, you have accepted the risk of pregnancy and are responsible for the fetus, whether that was your preferred outcome or not.

(sorry about the language, but you really are dropping some steaming piles here)

[gethane]

I could almost buy that, except its always ONLY the woman that absolutely has to take responsibility for her actions, not the man. Child support? You know how many men evade that? And that's not even counting the 9 months of pregnancy, many of them miserable (been there, done that) and the up to 2 days of labor.

If a man had to face the possibility of 2 days of gut wrenching torture, followed by permanent body changes, for every sexual act, maybe i could buy it. As is though, nope, its a way for people to control those horrible sluts.

The whole responsibility argument truly just sounds false to me. Very biblical. And in cases of rape, it would be like charging the passenger of the car, one forced into it, with DUI.

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by Thanz


If the fetus is a human life (the premise we are arguing under) it is not ASSIGNED rights, it just has them, the same as you or I.



Documentation that makes contrary assertions aside, ALL 'Rights' are granted.

What is a 'right' if nobody recognizes it?



Further, the parents did not explicitly make the choice not to have a baby. They made the choice to engage in a behaviour that might result in a pregnancy. Yes, they took some precautions so that pregnancy does not occur, and they hoped pregnancy would not occur, but that doesn't relieve them of reponsibility once it does occur.



Perhaps not, but taking precautions that prove to be ineffective is often taken into account when judging cuplability for other acts.



I'd agree that your example is absurd, but of course, that's why you make it. The fact is that it is not reasonably foreseeable that properly maintained brakes would fail, and thus the rest of your example is pointless. Especially absurd is your comparing it to pre-meditated murder.



Nonsense. You're simply stating that it's not reasonably forseeable because you've arbitrarily judged the likelyhood of one to result in responsibility while the other is not.

Just how 'unlikely' would something have to be before you'd accept that the person involved was not responsible?

FYI, just claiming that it is absurd to compare the case in point to pre-meditated murder is not a rebuttal, especially when he's simply using your own criteria.



They could have not had vaginal intercourse. That is 100% effective.



People could not drive. This would be 100% effective at eliminating all drunk driving deaths.



And, I am just arguing that the fetus has a right to live. There is no other circumstance like pregnancy. The fetus that exists SOLELY because of the parents actions DESPITE THEIR INTENTIONS. Their intentions are not relevant.



Why does the fetus have a right to live?




All of your arguments so far have assumed that the parents have used some form of birth control that is at least moderately effective, and I have answered on that basis. What about those who don't use birth control at all? If the fetus is a person, is there any ethical justification for aborting a normal, healthy pregnancy when the parents simply didn't bother using any birth control?

I don't know about him, but since I don't by fiat give fetuses the right to life, I don't have a problem with this.

[Yahzi]

Thanz
Let's say Bob goes to a bar and has a few drinks. Bob gets a little drunk. As a result, Bob's reflexes are slower, he can't think as fast, and his co-ordination is off. He gets in his car and just wants to drive home. He doesn't want to hit anyone. He just likes his beer and now wants to go home. But, on the way, he hits another car and the other driver is killed. But that's not Bob's fault is it? After all, he didn't want to hit anyone. He even yelled it out before he got in the car - "I DON'T WANT TO HIT ANYONE". That should be enough to exonerate him, right?
And you accuse me of making bad analogies.

So now you are comparing sex to reckless endangerment?

In your example, Bob is clearly being negligent. In the example of a couple that use contraception, they are not being negligent. You simply refuse to acknowledge that ANY level of precaution excuses you from negligence when it comes to having sex.

They could have not had vaginal intercourse. That is 100% effective.
Here is the crux of the argument. I reject this position; you endorse it.

To be anti-abortion, Thanz-style, means to accept that NOT having sex is legitimate option.

I choose to live in a society that considers abstinence an undue burden. You do not. These are value judgements, so all we can do is appeal to our democratic citizens to choose one.

When you finally frame the choice in honest terms - that people could decide to stop having sex - how many people are gonna vote for you?

The rights of the fetus are irrelevant to you because you don't think that the fetus has any rights. It seems that you are incapable of arguing under the assumption that a fetus has just as much right to live before birth as after birth.
Your density becomes grating. To dismiss something as irrelevant is not the same as denying its existance; furthermore, at no point in this thread have my arguments depended upon the non-person hood of the fetus.

It is you that that thinks it has less right to live after birth. You are the one that denys it continued access to the resources that sustained it for the first nine months. You create an arbitrary situation: if you come into the country from nowhere, you get to sieze a citzen's personal assets for nine months. If, however, you enter the country under any other means, then this option is denied to you.

You then do a risk/reward analysis to see if the risk of pregnancy is worth the reward of vaginal intercourse.
Why? Who is going to inflict the penalty of pregnancy on me? What agency is going to ignore my intentions and force me to submit to natural consequences? Oh, that's right... you.

In every other imaginable case, you ignore the natural consequences of your acts. You expect medicine when you are sick, entertainment when you are bored, transportation when you want to travel, food when you are hungry. You expect technology to overcome whatever natural obstacles exist to provide you with these things. And you expect the government to use deadly force to protect your access to these luxuries.

But if a man and woman have sex, then suddenly Mother Nature becomes a Force That Must Be Obeyed. It's not about the rights of the fetus; because if it were, you would not make an exception for rape and incest. No, your entire argument hinges on pregnancy as a morally inescapable consequence of sex.

That is a religous position.


Only God knows why some men spend so much time trying not to get laid.

:rolleyes:

[Yahzi]

Valmorion
For the sake of argument, this thread assumes that a fetus is a person with the same rights as other persons.

Whether or not a fetus is a person is a different discussion. I'm just trying to show that it doesn't matter: even if it were, it wouldn't change a woman's right to have an abortion.

[J3K]

I think a great point was made that if we are speaking about the fetus's rights and everything. Then, durning situations that involve rape or incest, then no abortion should still take place.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Thanz

The fetus doesn't have to have any "special" rights, and your intention is completely irrelevant. You engaged in the behaviour. live up to it.

What you hold is the most extremist of any possible position. So you mean that if a woman gets pregnant, she has to deal with it. And the only way to avoid pregnancy is abstinence.


By going ahead with vaginal intercourse, you have accepted the risk of pregnancy and are responsible for the fetus, whether that was your preferred outcome or not.

What on earth makes you think that?

I know that eating fries and hamburgers will make me get weight, does it mean that I don't have the right to do exercise?

I know that eating sugar will cause a cavity, does it mean that I don't have the right to go to a Dentist?

A fetus is not that special. He won't trump my right to privacy.

If you were really so concerned about the fetus' right, then you would never accept any exception to the rule. Even if it puts in danger the mother's life, she cannot abort.

[Q-Source]

Yahzi

Your arguments for abortion make sense. I must admit that, before this thread, I did not have very clear idea why the mother has always the right to make the final decision.

In my country, Abortion is still illegal and I don't think there is any chance that this issue will be even open to discussion in the short run. The President belongs to the right-wing conservative party. :rolleyes:
(So, if I get pregnant, no matter what I will have to give birth an unwanted child)

I wonder if you know what are the arguments in the USA for considering abortion legal. Is there any restrictions according age, reasons for abortion or pregnancy period, for example?.

I would also like to know your opinion about the father. Do you think that the father should have any take on abortion? (assuming that he will take care of the child).


Q-S

[J3K]

Q-Source, to respond to your thing about the father. I believe that the father should have some say in what happens, if the father and mother have a good relationship. Couldn't make this legal though because knowing whether the relationship is good or not, is pretty hard to know. But I believe any women(if the father stays around and is a good man) will talk with the father for the final decision.

[Yahzi]

I wonder if you know what are the arguments in the USA for considering abortion legal. Is there any restrictions according age, reasons for abortion or pregnancy period, for example?.

It varies from state to state. What the federal law. However, if you are over 18 and in the first trimester (or is it first 2?), the government cannot prevent you from obtaining an abortion.

I would also like to know your opinion about the father. Do you think that the father should have any take on abortion? (assuming that he will take care of the child).

By the logic I've argued here, the father cannot have any say, because he isn't entitled to the woman's internal organs either.

He does have a property right in the fetus (it's half his). If you could take it out and let him raise it, there might be an issue. But since you can't, and since his investment in the property is so small, it's just not worth the court's time.

We men have chosen to give up a biological asset (well, most of us, in civilized countries). That's the right thing to do, for our own sakes. But if women were interested in being fair, they would give men something in return. Common sense says they should reward us for setting violence, so that we will be encouraged to continue doing so. I vote for sex: I think women ought to consciously decide to put out more, to show men that being not violent gets them more sex than being violent.

But, as you can see, some men actually object to that plan, so how can we convince all women of it?

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Yahzi

We men have chosen to give up a biological asset (well, most of us, in civilized countries). That's the right thing to do, for our own sakes. But if women were interested in being fair, they would give men something in return. Common sense says they should reward us for setting violence, so that we will be encouraged to continue doing so. I vote for sex: I think women ought to consciously decide to put out more, to show men that being not violent gets them more sex than being violent.


This is definitely another interesting topic, I would like to discuss more about it. In the mean time, I think that biologically, women are predetermined to choose the man that they think is the most protective and strong. Tests show that very masculine characteristics are preferred over soft characteristics. Unfortunately, being strong and protective is sometimes confused with being violent (or is it part of being violent?).


Q-S

[Akots]

Sorry to get back to this so late... i would be posting if i hadn't seen this:

Originally posted by Yahzi

Um dude... you just gave away the game. By perjorativly catergorizing sex as not healthy, you have revealed your true bias.

You don't object to abortion; you object to sex for pleasure.

Like I said: it's all about punishing those fornicating sluts.



Utterly ridiculous.

Obviously, sex is a healthy thing. It would be odd for a species' single most important mechanism for survival to be inherantly unhealthy. There are dangers, yes, but it is still a natural process.

Pleasure and enjoyment are not functional things; I condemn irresponsible sex no more than I condemn tasty food with no nutritional value, pleasent conversationg with no meaning, or games that offer no benefit. All things must be taken in moderation, and the exact measure to be taken varies from person to person. And in that area, I'm not the boss of anybody.

My personal feelings have no place in the statement "If you have sex, the consequences are understood, and ignorance is an ineffective argument for defence."

*noncommital shrug*

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Yahzi


In your example, Bob is clearly being negligent. In the example of a couple that use contraception, they are not being negligent. You simply refuse to acknowledge that ANY level of precaution excuses you from negligence when it comes to having sex.

You are the only one talking about negligence, or of pregnancy as a punishment. I am talking about the rights of individuals, and the right to life. If the fetus is a person, no amount of birth control usage allows you to intentionally kill that person. Whether you used birth control or not is irrelevant to the ethics of whether or not you can kill the fetus.



Here is the crux of the argument. I reject this position; you endorse it.

To be anti-abortion, Thanz-style, means to accept that NOT having sex is legitimate option.

I choose to live in a society that considers abstinence an undue burden. You do not. These are value judgements, so all we can do is appeal to our democratic citizens to choose one.

I disagree that this is the crux of any argument, as I don't see how birth control is relevant to the debate. You have argued that people should be exonerated if they used birth control, as it makes their intentions known. I think that is a ridiculous argument, and one that doesn't work after the baby is born.

You'll note that I used the term "vaginal intercourse" not "sex". I don't want to get into a clinton-esque debate over what "sex" is, but I would like to point out that there are many ways to be sexually active without engaging in vaginal intercourse to ejaculation.

Further, in what way is not having sex an "undue burden", in comparison with death? In Yahzi-verse, people getting killed = not undue burden, people not having sex = undue burden. Right. You can kill people, in order to protect your right to worry free sex. Is that what you are saying?




It is you that that thinks it has less right to live after birth. You are the one that denys it continued access to the resources that sustained it for the first nine months.

How have I denied it access to anything? What are you talking about?

You create an arbitrary situation: if you come into the country from nowhere, you get to sieze a citzen's personal assets for nine months. If, however, you enter the country under any other means, then this option is denied to you.

You think that I have created this "arbitrary situation?" Firstly, how is an immigrant equivalent to a fetus in any way? The immigrant is like your fictional trespasser - both make their own choices. The fetus does not. The fetus exists soley due to the choices of the parents. NO matter how much you talk of birth control, the choices were still the parents. Not the fetus.


Why? Who is going to inflict the penalty of pregnancy on me?

See? Why is pregnancy a "penalty"? It is the natural result of your actions. It is not a broken leg, or a cancer. Under the assumption we are arguing, it is a person, of moral equivalence to you. This is why I do not think that your brain is truly engaged in the assumptions around the debate.


In every other imaginable case, you ignore the natural consequences of your acts. You expect medicine when you are sick, entertainment when you are bored, transportation when you want to travel, food when you are hungry.

If I take medicine, no one dies. If I go to a movie, no one dies. If I take the subway, no one dies. If I eat, no one dies. See a pattern here? However, if the fetus is a person, and someone gets an abortion, then someone DOES die. And that makes it completely different from your other examples.

But if a man and woman have sex, then suddenly Mother Nature becomes a Force That Must Be Obeyed. It's not about the rights of the fetus; because if it were, you would not make an exception for rape and incest. No, your entire argument hinges on pregnancy as a morally inescapable consequence of sex.

It is all about the rights of the fetus. And yes, pregnancy is a morally inescapable consequence of sex. Why would it not be? Because you don't want it to be? You need a better argument than that.

Also, where have I made an exception for rape or incest? I have simply been arguing that the personhood of the fetus matters. In fact, in my answers to Denise's questions (I think) I said that rape/incest is the toughest question in the abortion debate and that I did not have an easy answer.

That is a religous position.

No, it isn't. It is an ethical position. Why can't you tell the difference? Or are you saying that religion actually does have a monopoly on morals and ethics, and that athiests are all a bunch of immoral bastards?

I notice that you have ducked this paragraph in your responses. Not surprising, considering how much emphasis you place on birth control:

All of your arguments so far have assumed that the parents have used some form of birth control that is at least moderately effective, and I have answered on that basis. What about those who don't use birth control at all? If the fetus is a person, is there any ethical justification for aborting a normal, healthy pregnancy when the parents simply didn't bother using any birth control?

We know that birth control does work for the majority of the time. More abortions are the result of people NOT using birth control rather than birth control failing. Why don't you address this part of the argument?

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Q-Source


What you hold is the most extremist of any possible position. So you mean that if a woman gets pregnant, she has to deal with it. And the only way to avoid pregnancy is abstinence.

How, exactly is this extremist? It is the way things are now - people get pregnant, and they are forced to deal with it. It doesn't go away on its own. All that I am suggesting is that you cannot avoid the responsibility if you don't want it.

And it is simply a fact that the only sure fire, 100% effective way to avoid pregnancy is abstinence. Other ways can be highly effective. But when using them, one accepts certain risks.

What on earth makes you think that?

I know that eating fries and hamburgers will make me get weight, does it mean that I don't have the right to do exercise?

But if you eat the fatty foods, you are accepting the risk that you may need to exercise. Of course you have the right to exercise. Does any other person get killed if you exercise?

I know that eating sugar will cause a cavity, does it mean that I don't have the right to go to a Dentist?

Of course you can go to the dentist. Does any other person killed if you go to the dentist?

A fetus is not that special. He won't trump my right to privacy.

But the assumption we are arguing under IS that the fetus is special (or at least as special as the baby after it is born). IF you can't kill the baby, why can you kill the fetus?

If you were really so concerned about the fetus' right, then you would never accept any exception to the rule. Even if it puts in danger the mother's life, she cannot abort.

Not true. It is a balance of rights, as I have said all along. At some point in a high risk pregnancy, the risks to the mother's life (and most often, the fetus' life as well) will outweigh the fetus right to life. This does not invalidate the fetus right to life.

[Yahzi]

Q-source
Unfortunately, being strong and protective is sometimes confused with being violent (or is it part of being violent?).
It's part of being violent. You can't be a credible defense against violence unless you are capable of violence.

Akots
"If you have sex, the consequences are understood, and ignorance is an ineffective argument for defence."
So you concede that your argument does not hinge on the rights of the fetus, but rather, on pregnancy being a morally inescapable consequence of sex?

Thanz
The fetus exists soley due to the choices of the parents
Trespassers exist solely because of the choice of the land-owner. If you didn't build a house, they couldn't have entered it. If you didn't disallow access to your land, then they couldn't commit trespassing. If we didn't have immigration laws, then no one could be an illegal immigrant.

If I eat, no one dies
Do you eat crab meat? Are you aware that the crab fishing industry is amongst the most dangerous in the world, and that every year at least one person dies while fishing for crab?

And yes, pregnancy is a morally inescapable consequence of sex. Why would it not be? Because you don't want it to be? You need a better argument than that.
Why would I need a better argument? Whom do I have to convince? Where is it written that pregnancy is a morally inescapable consequence of sex? Who passed this moral law? Who enforces it?

Death is a physically inescapable consequence of life. Does that mean it is morally inescapable? Is any action done to prevent death and prolong life a violation of the natural moral order? You were born; it is inevitable that you will die. How can you morally justify taking actions that prolong your life - particularly since those actions deny your heirs access to the wealth they are morally entitled to. And your competitors, who morally deserve access to the resources you were using to sustain yourself. Some of them might even die as a consequence of your selfishly hogging medicine, food, and energy long after your natural (read: the first disease you ever had to take medicine for) death should have occurred. Doesn't this mean that death is a morally inescapable consequence of life, and your attempts to escape it are therefore immoral?

Why doesn't your "physically inescapable = morally inescapable" work in any other setting except sex?

Also, where have I made an exception for rape or incest? I have simply been arguing that the personhood of the fetus matters. In fact, in my answers to Denise's questions (I think) I said that rape/incest is the toughest question in the abortion debate and that I did not have an easy answer.

How can you not have an easy answer? The answer is obvious. If the fetus is innocent, then its right to life must be protected. Crimes committed against third parties cannot possibly matter. The answer is obvious: you just don't have the courage of your convictions to embrace it.

Ordinary, rational people might think that if your argument forces you into the absurd position of demanding that a nine-year old rape victim carry her child to term is too repugnant to accept, that possibly your argument might be incorrect. But not you: you reject the absurd consequences of your position, while affirming your position. But of course, you haven't actually rejected them: you have left yourself wiggle room to tell that nine year old girl that her rights are less important than the fetus's rights, because after all she's not going to die. To hell with what bearing a child will do to her body or her mind; it won't kill her, so she loses all rights.

Looks like men have a way to control childbirth after all. They can always commit rape, and thus garauntee themselves a child. And here I had just finished saying how most of us men had given up our biological asset of violence. I guess the emphasis should have been on "most."

The notion that threat of death somehow disrupts my property rights and allows you to take whatever you need from me is a communist notion. I'm pretty sure you reject communism in every other form, and in every other venue - except this one. Once again, we are faced with a person willing to sign away somebody else's property rights to save lives - but only because he knows he'll never have to sign away his.

We know that birth control does work for the majority of the time. More abortions are the result of people NOT using birth control rather than birth control failing. Why don't you address this part of the argument?
I already did, when I said that you don't have to lock your door. If you have sex without INTENDING to get pregnant, then I think your intentions were made clear, and I think your rights are protected. Just as if you DON'T put up barbed wire, no-trespassing signs, or even bother to lock your door: your private property rights remain protected in the absence of any action on your part. To lose your property rights, you have to intentionally act to do so. And no, having sex for pleasure does not in any way signify an intention to get pregnant, just as drinking a beer does not signify an intention to drive drunk and kill someone.

Having sex without birth control is a worst an act of negligence, but since I don't want the government spying on my bedroom and trying to determine who did what to who when, I'm willing to just assume my fellow citizens were behaving competently. I'm willing to trust their judgement, and take their word when they say it was an accident. Particularly since it costs me nothing to do so.

[Akots]

Yahzi... what's this "morally" inescapable consequence you keep going on about? It is quite obviously a "physical" consequence.

It was in response to your opinion that a fetus is little more than an inconvenient parasite, when in fact it is a stage of life for a human being; a stage as natural as infancy or adulthood.

The fact that it's off topic isn't my fault. You keep refusing to acknowledge that, and I keep having to bring it up.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Thanz

But the assumption we are arguing under IS that the fetus is special (or at least as special as the baby after it is born). IF you can't kill the baby, why can you kill the fetus?


Look at this one, Yahzi. Thanz recognises that the fetus is special.

Well, we never made that assumption. We only said that the fetus is a person during all the pregnancy. And we still disagree whether or not it has rights while it is inside the mother's body.

I think that it has no rights at all, if I consciously decided that I didn't want to have a child. A born baby does have rights, because he is already an independent individual. "Killing" a fetus only means that we are giving priority to our own private rights, it is not immoral, it is just a survival mechanism.

Q-S

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Q-Source



Well, we never made that assumption. We only said that the fetus is a person during all the pregnancy. And we still disagree whether or not it has rights while it is inside the mother's body.

Q-Source, you keep changing the assumption here. The whole point of assuming that the fetus is a person is to assume that it has the same rights as everyone else. I have said this many times, including my very first post in this thread:

It seems to me that most of the posters in this thread have assumed away the trickiest issue (indeed, the only issue) in the abortion debate. Is the fetus a "human", deserving of all of the same rights as you an I, while still in the uterus of the mother?

Saying that the fetus is a person, but doesn't have any rights, is the same thing as saying that the fetus is not a person. I understand that this is your position. But it ignores the debate based on the assumption that the fetus IS a person and DOES have rights.


I think that it has no rights at all, if I consciously decided that I didn't want to have a child. A born baby does have rights, because he is already an independent individual. "Killing" a fetus only means that we are giving priority to our own private rights, it is not immoral, it is just a survival mechanism.

I understand that this is your position, but as above, it ignores the assumption. From this paragraph, and from your answer to my jungle question, I think that you would agree with me that the personhood status (or rights-achieving) status matters.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that your position could be accurately described as follows: "If a fetus did have rights, the same as a baby, then in some circumstances it might be wrong to kill the fetus, just as it would be wrong to kill the baby. But the fact is that the fetus is not a "person", and does not have any rights, and so the woman's right to choose is paramount."

It is not hypocritical to say that the "personhood" of the fetus matters in the debate (that is, it matters if we decide if the fetus has rights) and then ultimately decide that the fetus does not have those rights. I am just trying to get people to acknowledge that the question needs to be addressed, regardless of which side you come down on.

[TexasBEAST]

Originally posted by Blue Monk

Give 'em time. They'll show up.
I'll join in an represent the other side. I just had a major electrical wiring short in the house over the weekend and I couldn't get to the computer. If y'all don't mind, I'll respond to the comments from the other thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13533) first, though.

Note: By taking the pro-life stance, I am mostly arguing in the abstract. I still have not totally made up my mind on this one. But ironically, I actually tend to lean toward siding with the religious kooks, for a change. Not an apology. Just a frame of reference...

[c4ts]

I say that while it may be alive by the time the embryo looks different enough from the basic embryo that looks kind of like Geiger's alien, it's not human until the medulary plate becomes functioning neural tissue actively handling information before the senses. Is that even relevant? Probably not. But that's my two cents anyway.

[Yahzi]

Q-Source
Thanz is right: this thread assumes the fetus is a person and thus has the same rights as a person.

Although I can't explain why he described it as "special." That does seem to concede my point that he wants to give it rights other people don't have.

Akots
It is quite obviously a "physical" consequence
You are being deliberately obtuse (at least, I hope it is deliberate).

The physical consequences are not the issue; the moral consequences are. If the mother does not incur a moral debt by choosing to engage in sex, then your argument collapses. The mother becomes no more responsible for this fetus person's plight than any other stranger. Shall we grab people at random off the street and implant the fetus in them?

(edited for formatting)

[TexasBEAST]

From “JREF Forums > General Academics > Religion and Philosophy > Of particular interest to Women. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13533)”

Originally posted by Pie
this is sad and cruel, rape is one ordeal but being denied (allegedly) the morning after pill by a religion is in my eyes as bad as the rape. This breaks my heart and is probably why I hate religion so much.:mad: [...]

I feel sick and cold reading this.
Again, I'm still not absolutely sure what to think about all this. I'm only floating my ideas. I don't mean to preach or force anything.

Yes, this is sad and cruel. And disgusting and infuriating! :mad: It's sad the girl was raped. It's sad she got pregnant by someone's else's devices. It's sad she was forced to make such an important decision in a state of emotional and physical turmoil. It's sad a church was given a license to run a hospital. It's sad she chose to go to that church-run hospital. And it's sad she didn't get her request filled.

But IMO, I don't think that the refusal to grant the pill was anywhere near as bad as the rape. As upsetting to a rape victim as it may be, declining to kill the innocent is not an evil thing--deciding to go ahead and kill them even though you know they're innocent is.

Originally posted by Pie
Why, life is one thing but how can they expect a rape victim to go through with what would be an unwanted pregnacy and possiblly re-live that horrifc event.
Granted. I'm a guy, so I will not insult any woman's intelligence by claiming to know with certainty what would be going through a rape victim's mind in the aftermath. Completely maddening chaos! :(

I think we can all concede that for most women it would be extremely difficult to accept a policy of being forced to continue the pregnancy full-term. It's just too horrible. Granted. But does that make it right for her to turn around and kill an innocent over it? No, it doesn't. If she's so hot-to-trot to kill, then go after the rapist. I live in TX--I'd support a woman all the way in that regard. Or join the military and take out that hostility on middle-eastern terrorists and their ilk. There are plenty of real mysogenistic men over there who deserve it. But don't kill the baby because of your anger at the sick father! It's the Bible morons and their kind who supposedly believe in visiting the punishment of sinners on their descendants. Don't sink to their level.

That said, the horrible facts surrounding the forced insemination and fertilization must be taken into account. We have to bear it in mind. Maybe a fetucide by rape victim could be considered manslaughter, rather than murder. (If that's not a case of "extenuating circumstances" or “extreme emotional disturbance”, then what is?)

But just because you're mad your car was wrecked does not give you reason to kill the rental car agent who further inconveniences you with a bad replacement vehicle. It's not his fault. No, ideally you shouldn't have to bother with it at all. But sometimes, you have to anyway, as difficult as that is. Just don’t blame and punish the innocent in the process.

[TexasBEAST]

Originally posted by Yahzi
Whose side are you on, anyway?
Um, apparently, you already figured that one out for yourself. I must be on the side of all those evil women-haters. After all, you said so yourself:

Originally posted by Yahzi
All of you

That's because you are for the oppression of women.
For clarification, no ma’am, I am not for the oppression of women. I am for the ideal of widespread freedom, to the extent possible with our limited resources. Killing our own innocent babies, well, that just doesn’t seem to qualify. Sure, women should be able to be “free”, too. But they shouldn’t be able to kill innocent babies with impunity in order to feel free. Maybe women should sacrifice a little of their freedoms in order to save the lives of those children. I don’t think it’s right at all that the babies should have to sacrifice everything because you aren’t willing to sacrifice your unrealistic ideal of total personal autonomy. (Especially when deep down you know that that ideal isn’t real, anyway...)

[TexasBEAST]

Originally posted by Yahzi
But if we really thought spontaneous abortions were the death of innocent people, wouldn't we be morally obliged to spend some of our research dollars on figuring out how to lower the rate? Just like we spend money on diseases that kill people?
Sure, we are obliged to try to address that health problem, just like we’re obliged to try to address any other health problem. What’s your point?

Our obligation to try to help people does not in any way translate to an obligation or license to try to hurt people (by killing innocent babies).

Originally posted by Yahzi
And once we had the medical technology to prevent or reduce spontaneous miscarriages, wouldn't it be the woman's moral duty to use it?
We already do have the tech (and duty) to reduce miscarriages. Prenatal pediatric medicine is a whole slew of ways designed to help improve and maintain the health of a human embryo/foetus. It includes such kernels of wisdom as “Don’t drink or smoke or snort or shoot up if you’re pregnant”. A mother is obliged to use that kind of tech and wisdom. If she fails to do so, it’s child abuse, reckless endangerment, negligence, etc. So...what’s your point? Still doesn’t make it alright to deliberately kill babies.

Originally posted by Yahzi
And then wouldn't we just make sex 3 times more likely to result in pregnancy than it already is? (Because spontenaous miscarriages are about 3 out of 4 pregnancies). Wouldn't that make women 3 times more likely to not have sex?
Yes, with advancing medical technology, we increase the probability of successful fertilization and full-term pregnancies. Duh. The worldwide population explosion and overcrowding is ample proof of that.

Doesn’t make it alright to kill the unwanted babies. Makes it an obligation to be even more careful about your sexual activities.

As to whether or not it would dissuade women by a factor of 3 from having sex, I can’t speak for women. I can only speak for myself. I keep it in my pants unless I’m ready to be a husband and a father. If I ain’t ready for that, then I ain’t ready for sex. Now, since you asked me, I’d say the same should go for women. How’s that for gender equality?

[TexasBEAST]

Originally posted by Yahzi
Texas Beast
There are institutions which are privately owned, but have public duties. Hospitals recieve a license from the state to operate. Part of the requirements to recieving that license is an agreement to provide certain public services. [...]

Are you aware that hospitals are required by federal law to provide emergency service to anyone who walks through their doors? Allowing them to deviate from normal medical practice for religious reasons is just another way of violating the law.
True, a hospital must render emergency “treatment” to any patient requesting such. But it is up to the hospital’s doctors to determine what the best treatment is. Just because a patient comes in requesting drugs doesn’t necessarily obligate a doctor to give it to them. A doctor’s initial oath and ultimate obligation is “to do no harm”, and when some harm is unavoidable, to do the least harm necessary. That is a matter of the medical professional’s judgment. It certainly shouldn’t be left up to a hysterical rape victim to make a life-or-death decision like that.

Yes, I think a dumb-ass institution like a church should still be allowed to continue to be dumb-ass, if it so chooses. (No, I wouldn’t actively join in and support it in doing so, but I would passively support it, by not doing anything.) That’s part of what it means to be free. We are generally free to do as we like, even when it seems dumb to somebody else—as long as it does not actively contribute to the suffering of another. In this case, it’s primarily the freedom of religion of the hospital’s sponsors that’s being asserted. And in this case, as dumb-ass as they are in other respects, I choose to support them. If our country is going to allow conscientious objectors the freedom to abstain from killing when they are called upon to do so by their own war-crazed government, they I definitely think that conscientious doctors should be able to abstain from killing when they are called upon to do so by grief-stricken, irrational, traumatized patients.

What if they feel emergency medical treatment for black people is immoral? Would you support them then?
As far as a KKK-type hospital not wanting to help Black people, I guess it would depend on exactly what kind of “help” they were denying. If they were refusing to give a Black woman a desperately needed blood transfusion or defibrillatory procedure, then of course that would be criminally wrong. Racially-discriminatory, attempted homicide. Murder. A hate crime. But if they were refusing to give that same Black woman a desired abortion and kill her unborn child or actively interfere with the natural fertilization/gestation process, then no, I wouldn’t think that was wrong. In that case, they would be doing the right thing. For the wrong reasons. But the right ends.

I agree that a private hospital can refuse service to whomever it wants; but only if you agree that the State can refuse to license any hospital it wants. And I elected my State officials with the understanding that they would not license public institutions that would use rape as a method of foisting their religious beliefs onto the population.
I agree that the government should be able to decide who they’re going to give hospital licenses to. I thought they already did that, though?


All of you

That's because you are for the oppression of women. The abortion debate is not about the fetus -- it is about who will control the means of production.
First off, the abortion debate is about a whole lot of issues. It is intellectual dishonesty on your part (both to your audience and to yourself) to oversimplify it like this.

For me, it does not come primarily from a desire to control production. (That’s where responsible contraception comes in; it is a desire to have some measure of control in the process, and understandably so.) But I don’t presume to tell women to carry a baby full term out of a desire to control them. I’m not that easy to please. I’m certainly not some mere cartoonish bad-guy who gets off on world domination or women-domination. I resent that kind of wildly presumptuous misrepresentation.

I don’t take the notion of compelling a woman to carry a baby she helped to create lightly. But I take the idea of intentionally killing that baby even less lightly. I feel that the best way to deal with it is to do the least harm and inconvenience the mother, for the sake of the innocent child’s continued life.

For me, it is about the foetus. But as a teenager, I was pro-choice. I disliked the idea of telling a woman what to do so much that I never even tried to see past the women with the megaphones. I just didn’t want to piss the angry feminists off. Eventually, I grew up some, and I stopped making all of my decisions simply out of fear. (Like when I stopped believing in “God”...) I took all those history lessons about how history is written by the victor, and all those civics lessons about how there are always two sides of a coin (and sometimes even more). I took the time to consider the other voice, the one that I hadn’t been hearing (or listening to) all that time as a teen. I stood up for the underdog.

I don’t want to tell a woman what to do. I feel lousy having to do it. Just don’t try to kill your baby in the name of “freedom”, and I won’t have to.

And stop telling me what my motivation is. I’m not some hack actor who needs direction from the likes of you. Sorry. But you don’t know me. So stop acting like you do.

Amazing, isn't it, how quick men are to defend their property from the clutches of the have-nots when property is defined as taxes -yet how swift they are to dispense with property in the name of the poor and needy when property is defined as a woman's body?

Forcing women to yield their physical assets to these new citizens is the ultimate act of weath transferall. You guys won't even vote tax money to feed or educate immigrants from another country, but you'll vote women's bodies to feed these immigrants from nowhere?
I’m not defending “my property”. I’m defending a human life. I’m not a father, and frankly don’t wish to ever become one. I’m not thinking about any sort of material that I ever want to have anything to do with. I don’t want a baby. But I certainly want babies that do exist to be able to enjoy as full of a life as I have, and not have it cruelly cut short because Mommy didn’t want to put a crimp in her style.

Immigrants from another country choose to come here. They know the risks and the challenges. So let them handle it themselves.

But human foetuses don’t choose to come into this country (or this world). Their parents make that decision for them, by participating in activities that they know have an ever-increasing chance of successfully conceiving and producing a child. If parents are going to choose to bring those foetuses into this world, then make them take care of those “new citizens”. Don’t let them be “Indian-givers” (no racism intended). Don’t let them welch out on their de facto contractual obligation as parents.

It’s all fun and games...till somebody gets pregnant. (Then, it’s time to act like a grown-up and stop your obsession with personal freedom and flight from obligation.)

If women have an unfettered right to abortion, then men have no control whatsoever over childbirth. This is unfair to men. But this biological injustice cannot be corrected by robbing women of their rights. To do so would be like the old canard about equality: will we tie wieghts to the swift and the strong so they can't run faster than the slow?
Sorry, but this is an empty argument. Granted, we can never make things absolutely equal. We just have to suck that up. But that doesn’t mean that we should overindulge in our differences. We certainly shouldn’t kill babies, just in the name of asserting our differences.

Originally posted by Yahzi
who the hell cares about another baby in this overcrowded world? [...]Concern over the rights of some miniscule bit of tissue is irrelevant.
Um, I care! At least as much as I care about the life of a pompous loudmouthed woman who presumes to tell me why I am against abortion based on no other fact than that I am a man.

If concern over that “miniscule bit of tissue” is irrelevant, then I guess that concern over some really fat person should take priority over your rights, huh? And I guess that NBA players are more worthy of our concern and respect than you, as well, because they certainly have a lot more “tissue” than you or I do. Since the size of the person in question is apparently so important...

Oh, Goliath, Goliath, wherefore art thou, Goliath?...

I don't have the right to chain you down for 9 months while I use your internal organs to keep me alive. Your chosing to have sex with someone does not give me that right. End of story. Even if the fetus is a person, it's a person with no right to the property of others unless others want to give it to them.
No, you don’t have the right to obligate me. But then again, I’m not your father or mother. If I were, then you would have that right. No, my simply choosing to have sex would not give you the right to obligate me in such a fashion. But my helping to conceive you sure would.

Copulating and subsequently conceiving a child does incur certain responsibilities, not the least of which is the protection of the developing child. A foetus is a person, and it has the right to its survival (“life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”...), even if it doesn’t have the right to property. It at least has the right to protection of its life from those who brought it into being.

And if you even think of suggesting the woman is somehow responsible for having had sex - then just give up the notion that you will ever get laid again. If the use of birth control is not an adequate and sufficient act to discharge her from the risk of pregancy, then you might as well resolve yourselves to having sex 2.4 times in your entire life.
So be it. Vindictively threatening me doesn’t change my mind. It only makes me more resolute. Er, stubborn. No, I’ll go with resolute.

“End of story.”

[TexasBEAST]

Originally posted by Tricky
If you were to put one-month old dog, horse and human fetuses side by side, I doubt that you would be able to tell the difference without genetic testing.
So if you look like something else, it's OK to equate you with that something else? (And negate you for further consideration?...)

To me what makes it human is human consciousness. Without that, it is just another piece of tissue.
So are we conscious when we're asleep? What about the temporarily comatose? Or the longterm comatose? Or really elderly folks nearing the ends of their lives?

Could I just knock somebody out, rendering them unconscious, then shoot them? Would that make it OK to kill? You just have to render (or merely deem) them unconscious first. That's the rule.

[TexasBEAST]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I'm sure there are exceptions, but I don't really think anyone is for abortions. I can't see any reasonably minded person attempting to get pregnet just so she can have the "fun" of having an abortion. So, claiming someone is "Pro-Abortion" never made any sense to me.
I kinda understand this. But if we're not gonna come right out and say abortion is wrong, then it seems like tacit approval. And to concede that it is a legitimate, valid medical procedure that should be protected by law, well that seems to be a form of support. Sounds "pro-" to me.

Then again, I nominally defend religionists right to be religious, even though I don't support their religions. Is that kinda the same thing?

Now, as a man, I don't see where it's any of my business to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body.
I will not presume to interfere in your particular relationship.

But in general, I think the issue of abortion is understatedly misrepresented by using these familiar terms (what's the opposite of "hyperbole"?). It is not just a matter of what a woman can do with her body. I get really upset when people say that. Abortion is a procedure involving at least 2 bodies--the mother's, and the baby's. Abortion is an action involving multiple people's bodies. It is gross oversimplification to characterize it as merely a matter of a woman's being able to maintain control over her own body. A woman who wants an abortion is asserting control over her body and the body of another human being. But she is claiming it is merely an action involving her own body. That's just not true.

It becomes someone else's business to take interest and maybe even action when a person tries to kill someone else under false premises. I've begun to think that it is our duty to do something, when women assert mortal (fatal?) control over their babies' growing bodies, only to dismiss it as a mere elimination of waste, like so many sheets of toilet paper or Kleenex.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Yahzi

Although I can't explain why he described it as "special." That does seem to concede my point that he wants to give it rights other people don't have.


No, Yahzi, it does not concede that at all. If you had read what I wrote in the context of what I was responding to, this would be clear. Q-Source wrote that the fetus was "not that special". I was clarifying that the fetus was as "special" as the baby after it is born. Simply trying to get Q-Source to stick to the assumption. The "special" language was hers, not mine.

[Akots]

Originally posted by Yahzi
[B}Q-Source
Thanz is right: this thread assumes the fetus is a person and thus has the same rights as a person.

Although I can't explain why he described it as "special." That does seem to concede my point that he wants to give it rights other people don't have.

Akots

You are being deliberately obtuse (at least, I hope it is deliberate).


Hm... possible... *rubs chin*


The physical consequences are not the issue; the moral consequences are. If the mother does not incur a moral debt by choosing to engage in sex, then your argument collapses. The mother becomes no more responsible for this fetus person's plight than any other stranger. Shall we grab people at random off the street and implant the fetus in them? [/B]

I'd like to clarify something... do you believe there ARE any moral consequences incurred by having an abortion?

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Thanz

The "special" language was hers, not mine.


Oh, there is a misunderstanding here.

What did you call it special in the first place?. That made me think that you were saying that he his rights trumps mine.

Let's say that it has the same rights as a well-born baby. However, if he threatens a women's emotional and physical stability (as he does), then they have to do something about it.

I know that you hate this idea, but this is what actually happens. This is part of taking responsability, Abortion is part of the solution.

I wonder if it would be covenient to move further into the discussion. What are the consequences of having unwanted children?

I think that the effects on society in the long run are negative. Those childre usually live in dysfunctional families and most of them are abused as a result. Personally, I find it immoral and cruel to provide this kind of life to an innocent child.

[Akots]

Originally posted by Q-Source



Oh, there is a misunderstanding here.

What did you call it special in the first place?. That made me think that you were saying that he his rights trumps mine.

Let's say that it has the same rights as a well-born baby. However, if he threatens a women's emotional and physical stability (as he does), then they have to do something about it.

I know that you hate this idea, but this is what actually happens. This is part of taking responsability, Abortion is part of the solution.

I wonder if it would be covenient to move further into the discussion. What are the consequences of having unwanted children?

I think that the effects on society in the long run are negative. Those childre usually live in dysfunctional families and most of them are abused as a result. Personally, I find it immoral and cruel to provide this kind of life to an innocent child.

I would be VERY intersted for you to back this up, please.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Thanz

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that your position could be accurately described as follows: "If a fetus did have rights, the same as a baby, then in some circumstances it might be wrong to kill the fetus, just as it would be wrong to kill the baby. But the fact is that the fetus is not a "person", and does not have any rights, and so the woman's right to choose is paramount."


I'll say it once again, Thanz. Even if the fetus is a person with rights, my right for life is more important than his. I can kill in self- defense if I feel that he is a threat. Just simple as that.

Remember, the fetus being a person is just an assumption. I think that you want us to accept all your arguments as assumptions in order to win the debate. It is not the case. Let's discuss what happens if the fetus is not a person and has no rights too. Would you accept Abortion?

Q-S

[Akots]

Originally posted by Q-Source


I'll say it once again, Thanz. Even if the fetus is a person with rights, my right for life is more important than his. I can kill in self- defense if I feel that he is a threat. Just simple as that.

Remember, the fetus being a person is just an assumption. I think that you want us to accept all your arguments as assumptions in order to win the debate. It is not the case. Let's discuss what happens if the fetus is not a person and has no rights too. Would you accept Abortion?

Q-S


So, essentially, the baby is raping you?

EDIT: If either the mothere or the Fetus will die, an abortion is not optional.. it is nessecary. In such a situation it CEACES TO BE a moral dilemma. It's the doctor's call.

[Q-Source]

Umm...

You need to read my arguments about why I consider that a fetus threatens his mother's life.

About your previous post. I am not doing the homework for you, Akots. I am going to give you a hint, though. Most of the criminals come from dysfuctional families.

Q-S

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Q-Source


I'll say it once again, Thanz. Even if the fetus is a person with rights, my right for life is more important than his. I can kill in self- defense if I feel that he is a threat. Just simple as that.

I agree that if the woman's life is actually threatened, then an abortion may be justified even if the fetus is a person. In a normal pregnancy, however, there is no real threat to the life of the mother such that the fetus right to life is trumped. I am arguing that if the fetus is a person, then the mother's pricacy rights alone will not be enough to make an abortion justified.

Even in regular self-defense murder cases, the threat to your life has to be a real threat. I can't just shoot mike tyson for walking down the street towards me.

Remember, the fetus being a person is just an assumption. I think that you want us to accept all your arguments as assumptions in order to win the debate. It is not the case. Let's discuss what happens if the fetus is not a person and has no rights too. Would you accept Abortion?

I think that you misunderstand my position.

My position is simply that the personhood status of the fetus (whether or not the fetus is a person and has human rights) is what drives the entire abortion debate. My position is that IF one believes that the fetus is a person (with rights) one must also believe that abortion is not justifed on privacy grounds alone. This is the point I have been trying to make here, in furtherance of my point that it is all about the "personhood" of the fetus.

If we go the other way, and assume that the fetus is not a person and has no rights, then the woman's right to privacy trumps the fetus and abortion is justified. To me, this is the easier point to make (especially on this board) and thus have not focussed on it.

So, to recap, my position is as follows:

1. If the fetus is a person with rights, abortion is not justifed on privacy grounds alone.

2. If the fetus is not a person with rights, abortion is justified on privacy grounds alone.

3. Tough question: when does the fetus become a person with rights? Is it at conception, development of brain activity, viability or birth?

I think that it is possible for us to agree on points 1 and 2, and then debate the question in number 3, which in my view, is what it is all about.

[Akots]

You mean these?

I think that before the fetus' right to live, we have to defend the women's right to decide.

People generally conceive abortions as a human killing practice, when in fact, strictly speaking, there isn't any human involved. It is just a fetus without consciousness.

Abortion has to do with women's rights and economics (as Yazhi mentioned). Ultimately, anti-abortionists don't care about the consequences that represent to raise un-wanted children in a world with limited resouces.

I don't see why it is so hard to believe that a human being is born when he gets out of the mother's body.

Of course, I don't support any abortion in the last months of pregnancy. It is immoral rather than criminal.

To me, a fetus becomes a human being when he gets out of the mother's body.

Maybe because one second after the baby is born, he can live outside his mother's body. He doesn't belong anymore to her.

It is special because it is the moment when the baby can live by himself. He does not need anymore the woman's body.

As far as I know, the definition of siamese twins is that they share the same body. As such, one of the twins should not perceive as an individual.

We use the best of technology to prevent procreation, when our purpose is "recreational" as you say. It does not imply that I will be forced to assume the consequences of a pregnancy if a contraception method fails.

Life is the most basic of all human rights, it is true. But, a fetus/person is not alive yet (technically).

Besides, it is absolutely valid to kill in self-defence. As I said ad-nauseum, if I feel that the fetus threatens my life, I can exert my right to defend my own life.


That last one is the only one that mentioned it up to that point... and it doesn't explain how every possible abortion is an act of self defence.

Plesae bear with me and explain how an abortion is an act of self defence... none of your previous answers (that i can find) justify the means set forth; i.e., killing a human being.

[Akots]

Originally posted by Thanz


I agree that if the woman's life is actually threatened, then an abortion may be justified even if the fetus is a person. In a normal pregnancy, however, there is no real threat to the life of the mother such that the fetus right to life is trumped. I am arguing that if the fetus is a person, then the mother's pricacy rights alone will not be enough to make an abortion justified.

Even in regular self-defense murder cases, the threat to your life has to be a real threat. I can't just shoot mike tyson for walking down the street towards me.

[B]

I think that you misunderstand my position.

My position is simply that the personhood status of the fetus (whether or not the fetus is a person and has human rights) is what drives the entire abortion debate. My position is that IF one believes that the fetus is a person (with rights) one must also believe that abortion is not justifed on privacy grounds alone. This is the point I have been trying to make here, in furtherance of my point that it is all about the "personhood" of the fetus.

If we go the other way, and assume that the fetus is not a person and has no rights, then the woman's right to privacy trumps the fetus and abortion is justified. To me, this is the easier point to make (especially on this board) and thus have not focussed on it.

So, to recap, my position is as follows:

1. If the fetus is a person with rights, abortion is not justifed on privacy grounds alone.

2. If the fetus is not a person with rights, abortion is justified on privacy grounds alone.

3. Tough question: when does the fetus become a person with rights? Is it at conception, development of brain activity, viability or birth?

I think that it is possible for us to agree on points 1 and 2, and then debate the question in number 3, which in my view, is what it is all about.

Makes me feel bad for being off topic...

I've mentioned before that the issue here is not about brain activity, biological growth, or feotal maturity; it's about when a human soul is created.

If brain activity alone does not make a person a person, such that they cannot be morally killed, then brain activity, and therefore conciousness is not the deciding factor. Trying to define the properties of a soul is putting the cart before the horse... a soul is a property of a human being. Specificaly, that property that makes it immoral to kill the human.

Whatever that is.

[Yahzi]

Texas-Beast
You've made the unusual choice of actually reading the thread from the beginning. I commend you, although I'd like to think that you recognize that some of your comments have already been addressed.

But it is up to the hospital’s doctors to determine what the best treatment is.
No, actually, there are standards of practice that largely control this. I don't know who sets them or where they come from, but if you violate them your insurance company will have you shot (well, the doctors act like that is true).

At least as much as I care about the life of a pompous loudmouthed woman who presumes to tell me why I am against abortion based on no other fact than that I am a man.
Who is this person you are referring to, and why are you dragging them into this debate? If you aren't going to quote them, please don't refer to their comments.

For clarification, no ma’am, I am not for the oppression of women.
You may not be intentionaly, but don't you see how establishing the rights of the fetus trump the rights of mother provides men with a way to obtain children without women's consent? All they have to do is impregnate them. This is is exactly how men have excersized control over the means of production for the last 3 million years: by violence.

What you are in effect doing is rewarding men for rape, by allowing them to reproduce. There is a principle that the criminal should never be allowed to profit from the crime, and you are ignoring it.

And again, who is ma'am? You seem to be addressing this comment to me. Are you under the mistaken impression that I am a woman? No... that couldn't be... surely you wouldn't make the mistake of basing your comments on no other fact than that I am a woman?

You will find few women who will stop in the middle of a debate on abortion to complain about men trying to not have sex or the unfairness of abortion to men.

because Mommy didn’t want to put a crimp in her style
Sentences like this destroy the illusion that you are impartial. Pregnancy is a potentially life-threatening situation: more women die from being pregnant than from having abortions. Dismissing nine months of physical burden, 18 years of committment, and a possible death threat as a "crimp in her style" shows a need to downplay the effects of pregnancy, which itself shows that you understand there is something wrong with your position. Yes, you made it clear that you understood pregnancy was a difficult situation; and then you wiped it all away with this single, perjorative sentence.


Apparently you have not read, or more accurately, commented on the later half of the debate. Let me try to summarize:

The fact that a person's life is in danger does not invalidate your property rights. Just because Bob will die if he doesn't borrow your internal organs for nine months does not allow Bob to legally compel you to share. Thus, we see that the fetus' right to life is not our problem; in that, while we must protect it's existance, we need not provide it with anything particular. The Constitution doesn't say "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Thus we have no legal framework with which to compel any random person to share his internal organs with some other random person.

Thus, your argument for abortion hinges on the idea that a woman choosing to have sex is making a choice to become pregnant, despite any amount of birth control. But this destroys the notion of due diligence; it renders the concept of "accident" incoherent. If a woman does everthing reasonable to prevent pregnancy, then how is the occurence of pregnancy not an accident? And why should a woman be morally or legally bound to surrender her rights for an accident? She made it clear she did not wish to invite a stranger into her body; the fact that one got there is no more relevant than you coming home and finding a bum in your house who says, "but the door was unlocked, so I assumed that meant I could help myself to your property."

Requiring men and women to abstain from sex altogether is an undue burden, and thus the government cannot impose that as the only way to negate the risks of sex.

You at least are consistent at opposing abortions in the case of rape and incest; but this just means that you agree with the Catholic Church that the nine-year old Nicaraguan girl should carry her child to term. This is a result so violently savage to the rigths of children as to render your entire position absurd. The notion that the State should continue to punish the victims of rape should make it clear to you just how unfair this property siezure is. And of course, once you cave on the rape thing (once you concede that pregnancy should be a choice, not a biological imposition), then your entire case against abortion collapses.


Akots
I'd like to clarify something... do you believe there ARE any moral consequences incurred by having an abortion?
No. Excersing your rights does not morally inculpate you.

I would be VERY intersted for you to back this up, please.
There was a marked drop in the crime rate exactly 18 years after Roe Vs. Wade. Not enough evidence to make a definitive call, but then, this is the sort of thing that's going to take a lot of evidence, and we haven't been looking for it very hard.

I think it's safe to say that it seems likely that unwanted children are more of a problem for society than wanted ones.


Thanz
My position is that IF one believes that the fetus is a person (with rights) one must also believe that abortion is not justifed on privacy grounds alone
Um. No. My entire argument here has been that this is not true.

You have failed to show how a fetus has a particular right to the mother's body simply because it is a person. Instead, your position requires that the mother be a particular person; that is, one who chose to engage in sex. You assert that pregnancy is a condition one is not allowed to refuse, that it is impossible to establish due diligence in avoiding pregnancy (save for abstinence, which is an undue burden), and therefore the fetus gains a special right to invade another person's property because of negligence.

Your argument does not hinge on the fetus being a person: it hinges on the mother surrendering rights because she chose to engage in sex. The death of a person is a perfectly acceptable outcome of me excersizing my rights. (I think this is what Q-source means when she calls abortion "self-defense") You agree to this in cases of self-defense, immigration, even extreme poverty. You only disagree in the case of abortion because you think the woman chose to surrender her right of privacy by choosing to have sex.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Yahzi

Thus, we see that the fetus' right to life is not our problem; in that, while we must protect it's existance, we need not provide it with anything particular. The Constitution doesn't say "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Thus we have no legal framework with which to compel any random person to share his internal organs with some other random person.

You must protect its existence, but not provide anything in particular? The fetus can only continue to exist in the uterus. It only does exist because of your actions. There are not random persons in pregnancy, there are the parents and the fetus, the DIRECT RESULT of the parents actions. It isn't some refugee from a foreign land. It is more like someone you kidnapped.


Um. No. My entire argument here has been that this is not true.

You have failed to show how a fetus has a particular right to the mother's body simply because it is a person. Instead, your position requires that the mother be a particular person; that is, one who chose to engage in sex. You assert that pregnancy is a condition one is not allowed to refuse, that it is impossible to establish due diligence in avoiding pregnancy (save for abstinence, which is an undue burden), and therefore the fetus gains a special right to invade another person's property because of negligence.

Let's try this one more time. The fetus, as a person, has a right to life. The only way for the fetus to survive is in the uterus. The only reason that the fetus is in the uterus is due to the actions of the parents. Whether they used birth control or not is irrelevant. (I note that you have again ignored the question of what to do when the parents simply don't care and don't use birth control).

Once pregnancy happens, then no, you are not allowed to refuse it. To use one of your other analogies, is the skier allowed to "refuse" the broken leg? No - it is laready broken. What we are debating is what to do about it. A broken leg can be fixed without killing anybody.

The fetus does not invade anyone else's body - it is specially invited in and placed there by the parents. You keep saying that abstinence is an "undue burden". Why? What I am saying is that if one is going to engage incertain behaviours, one has to be willing to accept the outcome of that behaviour. If one does not want to be pregnant, there are several ways that pregnancy can be prevented. Everyone knows that they are not 100% effective, but in combination (pill+condom) they can be pretty darn close.

All I am asking is for people to assess the risks of their behaviour and live up to them. For responsible people, that may mean the 1/100 chance that a pregnancy will result. If not being pregnant is more important to you than the 1/100 chance of being pregnant, then do something else. How is that an "undue burden"?

Asking people to take responsibility for their own actions is an "undue burden"? :rolleyes:

Your argument does not hinge on the fetus being a person: it hinges on the mother surrendering rights because she chose to engage in sex. The death of a person is a perfectly acceptable outcome of me excersizing my rights. (I think this is what Q-source means when she calls abortion "self-defense") You agree to this in cases of self-defense, immigration, even extreme poverty. You only disagree in the case of abortion because you think the woman chose to surrender her right of privacy by choosing to have sex.

This is absurd. "The death of a person is a perfectly acceptable outcome of me exercising my rights"

Okay, let's take that to a logical conclusion. The rights you are talking about are property rights. You like to talk about invading your home. Well, once that baby is born, you are going to have to support it for the the next 18 years. Your hard earned money, out of your pocket, to support some intruder that you didn't want. Some immigrant can't come up to you and ask for that support, so why this kid? You didn't want the kid - you made that clear when you wore a condom. Now he is going to be picking your pocket every month. I guess you are justified in just throwing the kid in the river, because the death of a person is a perfectly acceptable outcome of you exercising your rights. :rolleyes:

[Q-Source]

Akots

Plesae bear with me and explain how an abortion is an act of self defence... none of your previous answers (that i can find) justify the means set forth; i.e., killing a human being.

You made me go and search my quotes... :)

O.K. this is what I said and it also summarises my position:

1) even if the fetus is a person, he has no rights while he is inside my body.

2) even if he is a person and has rights, his right to life does not trump my right to refuse his developing inside my womb.

3) And finally, his developing inside my body represents a threat to my physical condition (my life) and he also represents a threat to my emotional and economical stability.


Now, I am going to explain the last one. Basically, I am referring to three kind of threats that a woman -who does not want to have a child- has to face:

Life-threating: a pregnacy during 9 months may be a threat to her life if her physical condition cannot resist it. During this period, her life is in a higher risk.

Emotional-threating: being forced to have an unwanted child may cause a lot of distress, depression and anxiety.

Economical condition threating: giving birth an unwanted child represents a commitment for at least 18 years of her life. Somebody has to pay for it.

This is subjective and some women (who didn't plan to have a baby) will decide to end their pregancies voluntarily. However, it does not mean that for those women who decide to abort this is so. Being forced to have a pregnancy cannot be compared to decide voluntarily to have the child.

Q

[Q-Source]

Thanz

I agree that if the woman's life is actually threatened, then an abortion may be justified even if the fetus is a person. In a normal pregnancy, however, there is no real threat to the life of the mother such that the fetus right to life is trumped. I am arguing that if the fetus is a person, then the mother's pricacy rights alone will not be enough to make an abortion justified.

But, who will determine which threats are real??

You?, our Society?, the Church? the father?

From any women's POV, those reasons explained before are very real. Lets say that I am pregnant, and I don't have my boyfriend's economic and emotional support and I don't have a job.

Don't you think the pregnancy represents to me a real threat more than a happy thing in my life?

What do you think a woman in those conditions should do?

Q-S

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Q-Source


But, who will determine which threats are real??

You?, our Society?, the Church? the father?

From any women's POV, those reasons explained before are very real. Lets say that I am pregnant, and I don't have my boyfriend's economic and emotional support and I don't have a job.

Don't you think the pregnancy represents to me a real threat more than a happy thing in my life?

What do you think a woman in those conditions should do?

Q-S



... I'm writing my guess, on this here piece of paper, and sealing it in an envelope... I will open and read it, after the fire department leaves.... :D

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Q-Source


But, who will determine which threats are real??

You?, our Society?, the Church? the father?

From any women's POV, those reasons explained before are very real. Lets say that I am pregnant, and I don't have my boyfriend's economic and emotional support and I don't have a job.

Don't you think the pregnancy represents to me a real threat more than a happy thing in my life?

What do you think a woman in those conditions should do?

Q-S

I would expect that a doctor would determine what the level of threat is. And by threat, I mean physical threat.

I am not trying to say that having a child is easy, let alone an unplanned child. But, the demand for adoption of infants is quite high.

Economic or emotional factors would not allow you to kill the child. Could you kill a six month old, if you decided that you couldn't handle it emotionally, physically or economically? If not, why kill the child in the womb for the same reasons?

[Q-Source]

I think that you need to be a woman to understand.

That's why Abortion is a woman's issue.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Q-Source
I think that you need to be a woman to understand.

That's why Abortion is a woman's issue.

Oh, come now Q-Source! I expected better from you.

You do realize that there are plenty of women who believe that the fetus is a person from conception, and as such, killing the fetus is wrong, don't you? Do these women not understand either? Are they not "real women"? Do their opinions not count?

We are debating the moral and ethical consequences if the fetus is granted the status of "person with human rights". Are you really saying that as a man I can't understand this?

I get the sense from you that you don't want to admit that killing a fetus if it is a person is wrong because you think I will then try to trap you into admitting that the fetus is a person. I don't think I could do that even if I tried. I am just trying to set the parameters for the real debate: if and when the fetus becomes a person.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Abortion can be a woman's issue without merely being a woman's issue. I don't see why men are to be totally brushed aside during the debate. It's true that it's the woman that gets pregant and has to raise the kid. But the man usually has to pay child support too.(And I imagine this is very frustrating when the man didn't want the kid: in this case the woman gets a choice and the man does not in terms of raising the kid.)

Secondly, the issue does impact society. If women are not free that indirectly harms the freedom of men and many of their loved ones as well.

Your statement is sort of like saying that since Jim Crow laws only affected colors....whites shouldn't have gotten involved.

[Yahzi]

Thanz
Let's try this one more time. The fetus, as a person, has a right to life. The only way for the fetus to survive is in the uterus.
Let's try this one more time. No where in the Constitution will you find a law or principle allowing you to take my property simply because you need it to live. The principle that your need trumps my property rights does not exist in American law or morality.

The only way you justify your position is by the culpability of the parents. If I can't change your position on abortion, can I at least get you to understand that it does not depend on the status of the fetus, but rather, on the actions of the parents?

Even if you conceded that the fetus was only a potential person, you could still advance the argument that the parent's actions rendered them culpable. Your entire argument depends on sex necessarily compelling one to accept pregnancy. The fetus as a person is unimportant, to both of our arguments.

keep saying that abstinence is an "undue burden". Why?
Either you don't understand what "undue burden" means or you don't value sex the same as the rest of the human race.

You didn't want the kid - you made that clear when you wore a condom.
And I wouldn't have that kid, if it weren't for you interfering.

When people have children because they chose to have the child, that does imply choice, acceptance, and commitment. To freely enter into a contract is binding. The difference in our positions is simply this: you consider sex to be a binding contract for pregnancy and I do not.

The question is, why do you? It can't be simply because it is a physical consequence of the act, because there are any number of physical consequences you reject. So why?

[Yahzi]

Q-Source
I think that you need to be a woman to understand.
From this one must conclude either a) Yahzi is a woman, or b) Q-source does think Yahzi understands.

I reject both options.

:mad:

[Akots]

Originally posted by Yahzi
Thanz

Let's try this one more time. No where in the Constitution will you find a law or principle allowing you to take my property simply because you need it to live. The principle that your need trumps my property rights does not exist in American law or morality.

The only way you justify your position is by the culpability of the parents. If I can't change your position on abortion, can I at least get you to understand that it does not depend on the status of the fetus, but rather, on the actions of the parents?

Even if you conceded that the fetus was only a potential person, you could still advance the argument that the parent's actions rendered them culpable. Your entire argument depends on sex necessarily compelling one to accept pregnancy. The fetus as a person is unimportant, to both of our arguments.


Either you don't understand what "undue burden" means or you don't value sex the same as the rest of the human race.


And I wouldn't have that kid, if it weren't for you interfering.

When people have children because they chose to have the child, that does imply choice, acceptance, and commitment. To freely enter into a contract is binding. The difference in our positions is simply this: you consider sex to be a binding contract for pregnancy and I do not.

The question is, why do you? It can't be simply because it is a physical consequence of the act, because there are any number of physical consequences you reject. So why?

This is not an issue of some alien organism, yahzi. And except in the case of a rape victim, this was not an uninvited guest in a woman's womb. And EVEn in that event, the propertyship of your organs is, essentialy, a material convenience.

You are essentialy arguing that an inconvenient fetus may morally be aborted. Is this not the sort of moral that encourages irresponsability? And therefore, is it not harmful to the race as a whole?

There is also the issue of wether someone is "stealing" your organs. If this were really an alien organism, your body would violently reject it, and your immune system would do it's best to anhhialate all traces of it. I think we can agree that a fetus is a welcome thing in a human body. Despite what your selfish and self concious mind chooses to believe, the womb is designed to house a fetus, and a human woman is designed to accomodate for this organism. (Though i find the term "designed" a touch inappropriate, it's what springs to mind.)

You have every right to toss out a tresspasser; what if you offer somebody a life-support system, and then decide to kick them out? Legal or not, this is the path of might-makes-right. By that standard alone, it is an immoral decision.

[Peter Soderqvist]

TO AKOTS


You wrote on page 6, 03-12-2003 04:19 AM: You have every right to toss out a trespasser; what if you offer somebody a life-support system, and then decide to kick them out? Legal or not, this is the path of might-makes-right. By that standard alone, it is an immoral decision.


Soderqvist1: "Offer"? :confused:
The supposed "mother" has never admitted her organs to be used by this tumor!
This is high-handed using of another person's organs without permission to do so in the first place! These invading genes carries out the instruction to build a body on private grounds, and by stealing food to do so, an abortion as a woman's self-defense under these conditions are therefore justified, because a sperm is only welcome as a temporary guest as long as he behave properly! :D

[Ceinwyn]

This is kind of getting silly, in my opinion (take it as it's worth).

But...

As a woman, I have the right to do what I want with my body. If I want to have a lot of kids, that's my right. If I want to have no children at all, that's my right too.

That's all.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Yahzi


From this one must conclude either a) Yahzi is a woman, or b) Q-source does think Yahzi understands.

I reject both options.


Oh no!, Yahzi. I am sorry.

I was pissed off with Thanz's and TexasBEAST's comments. They keep on referring to Abortion as a "killing babies" practice :mad: . It is a pejorative name that makes women look like cold-hearted killers. I just cannot stand that.

For the argument's sake, we are considering that the fetus is a person and Thanz does not accept that even if it is so, a woman would still have the right to protect her privacy. He thinks that those reasons I gave are not that real. Well, maybe from his POV they are not, but I see them as real threats.

Anyway, apologies again. At this moment, I consider that your arguments for Abortion are quite consistent and objective. I am learning a lot from you.

Q-S

[Peter Soderqvist]

These are the consequences when we consider a prenatal entity have a genuine personality! I am from Sweden, and I cannot understand why abortion is something to fuss about, because abortion is free here, and even the Christian party (KDS) admits abortion as morally accepted. It is only some minor sects because of their religious beliefs who are against it!

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Yahzi

Let's try this one more time. No where in the Constitution will you find a law or principle allowing you to take my property simply because you need it to live. The principle that your need trumps my property rights does not exist in American law or morality.

The U.S. Constitution is irrelevant to this debate. However, if you want to go the legal route, let's see where that goes. If the fetus is a person with rights, including the right to life, then killing it is homicide. The question is not whether the fetus has a right to the mothers organs, the question is whether the mother is justified in killing it. I say that the law requires some sort of real threat to the life or health of the person before the homicide is justified. In a normal, healthy pregnancy, that threat is not present.

Further, there are laws that allow a person to take your property simply because they need it. Ever hear of child support? What is child support based on? THE NEEDS OF THE CHILD. It is exactly the same after birth as before under my assumption - the only difference is how the child's needs are satisfied. Before birth, there is only one way to satisfy the child's needs. After birth, there are more options. But if the parents refuse to provide the necessities of life to the child, they will be criminally charged. So, there is quite a bit of law that says another is entitled to your property based solely on need. And look - it is directly on point (parents and children) and not some made up analogy (alien immigrant trespassers).

The only way you justify your position is by the culpability of the parents. If I can't change your position on abortion, can I at least get you to understand that it does not depend on the status of the fetus, but rather, on the actions of the parents?

No, it doesn't depend on the culpability of the parents. You are trying to excuse them from responsibility, based on some rather spurious arguments. I am saying that your arguments do not excuse them from the fact that the fetus is a person with rights, not an alien invader. The law does not allow you to abandon the children you create - I am simply extending that principle back in time.

Even if you conceded that the fetus was only a potential person, you could still advance the argument that the parent's actions rendered them culpable. Your entire argument depends on sex necessarily compelling one to accept pregnancy. The fetus as a person is unimportant, to both of our arguments.

You are not understanding my arguments, it seems. I am not arguing against abortion, per se. I am arguing that the status of the fetus as a "person" or not is the central question in the abortion debate. The parents actions make them responsible, regardless. Whether or not the fetus is a person, the pregnancy must be addressed in some fashion. The status of the fetus is of critical importance in defining what those responsibities are.


Either you don't understand what "undue burden" means or you don't value sex the same as the rest of the human race.

Why don't you address the rest of my arguments instead of making these cute quips?


And I wouldn't have that kid, if it weren't for you interfering.

Wrong. You (as a man) do not have a choice. The choice is the mother's. So, you do have the kid. Why don't you try addressing the rest of the paragraph now?

When people have children because they chose to have the child, that does imply choice, acceptance, and commitment. To freely enter into a contract is binding. The difference in our positions is simply this: you consider sex to be a binding contract for pregnancy and I do not.

But you do, from the man's perspective. You have admitted that men should not be able to weasel out of paying child support. The man does not get an abortion vote.

My position is this: By engaging in vaginal intercourse, you accept the risks and responsibilities of pregnancy should it occur. You can reduce those risks by using various form of birth control. If you want to be 100% assured of no pregnancy, you can engage in sexual activities other than vaginal intercourse.

The question is, why do you? It can't be simply because it is a physical consequence of the act, because there are any number of physical consequences you reject. So why?

What are these physical consequences that you say I reject? What are you talking about?

Once again, you ignore people who don't care and don't use birth control at all. While my arguments do not depend on parental culpability, yours do. Why do you keep failing to address this?

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Q-Source


I was pissed off with Thanz's and TexasBEAST's comments. They keep on referring to Abortion as a "killing babies" practice :mad: . It is a pejorative name that makes women look like cold-hearted killers. I just cannot stand that.

I use this language on purpose to try to force you to see the reality of the assumption we are arguing under. The assumption is that the fetus is the same as the baby - it is a person with human rights, just like the rest of us. The use of the word "fetus" insulates you from that reality (in the assumption). If the fetus is a person, you are killing the baby. Same as if you tossed it into the river.

For the argument's sake, we are considering that the fetus is a person and Thanz does not accept that even if it is so, a woman would still have the right to protect her privacy. He thinks that those reasons I gave are not that real. Well, maybe from his POV they are not, but I see them as real threats.

Threats enough to kill the baby? Would they be sufficient reasons to throw the baby in the river? If not, why do you accept them for the baby before birth? A newborn baby is just as dependent on you for its everyday needs as it was before it was born. It cannot feed or clothe itself. You and the father are responsible for those needs.

If the fetus is a person, you can't draw a line at birth and make different rules. You seem to want to do this.

It seems that you cannot get your brain fully engaged in the assumption, because of your firm belief that the fetus is NOT a person with rights.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Thanz

...snip....

If the fetus is a person, you can't draw a line at birth and make different rules. You seem to want to do this.

It seems that you cannot get your brain fully engaged in the assumption, because of your firm belief that the fetus is NOT a person with rights.

Why not we do it all the time about othe kinds of murder. We say killing someone is "illegal". Then we make exceptions. Don't see why we can't do the same based on an "in and out" of womb difference.

[Akots]

Originally posted by Peter Soderqvist
TO AKOTS



Soderqvist1: "Offer"? :confused:
The supposed "mother" has never admitted her organs to be used by this tumor!
This is high-handed using of another person's organs without permission to do so in the first place! These invading genes carries out the instruction to build a body on private grounds, and by stealing food to do so, an abortion as a woman's self-defense under these conditions are therefore justified, because a sperm is only welcome as a temporary guest as long as he behave properly! :D

Did you even read a single word of my post?



To say a fetus invades a body is like saying a burn victim invades a hospital or an ambulance. If you had a parasitic fetus growing in your lung or something, maybe then you have a case... otherwise, the mother's body nurtures the fetus to the point of infancy. It's not like some spider is laying eggs in your eyes while you sleep.

Can we please settle wether or not the fetus is a cancerous growth? I posit that it demeans the human race, which is to demean one's self. It's starting to annoy me.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Darat


Why not we do it all the time about othe kinds of murder. We say killing someone is "illegal". Then we make exceptions. Don't see why we can't do the same based on an "in and out" of womb difference.

I didn't say we couldn't make exceptions. In fact, I said that if the life of the woman was seriously threatened, then abortion would be justified. Just like if your life was seriously threatened you could kill in self defense.

But, if you kill someone for emotional or economic reasons, they don't call that "justification" they call it "motive". I am simply applying the same logic to the baby before birth as after.

If you want to make an exception to the rule that it is wrong to kill someone based on an "in and out" of womb difference, the burden is on you to justify it. On what grounds do you justify it?

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Thanz

Threats enough to kill the baby?

YES!

How many times do you want me to say it?



Would they be sufficient reasons to throw the baby in the river?

Lets say that Mike Tyson looks very angry and is right in front of my house. He is a threat to me.

You find difficult to understand that:

1. If he stays outside my house, I cannot kill him in self defense, even if I am scared and I want to kill him. I have to respect his right for life (a new born baby, a person outside my body).

The best I can do is to call the Police and ask them to take him out of my sight.

In this scenario, you are right, if I cannot prove that he is a real threat, I cannot kill him.

2. But... if he enters into my house, without invitation, then I have the right to kill him immediately and claim that it was in self- defense (a fetus, a person inside my body).

Tyson (fetus/person) will have to die. I am not responsible at all.


It seems that you cannot get your brain fully engaged in the assumption, because of your firm belief that the fetus is NOT a person with rights.

O.K., the fetus is a person with rights :rolleyes: . But there is a HUGE difference depending on where he is (inside or outside the mother's body) in the moment that a woman decides whether or not to trigger the gun.

Q

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Q-Source


Lets say that Mike Tyson looks very angry and is right in front of my house. He is a threat to me.

You find difficult to understand that:

1. If he stays outside my house, I cannot kill him in self defense, even if I am scared and I want to kill him. I have to respect his right for life (a new born baby, a person outside my body).

The best I can do is to call the Police and ask them to take him out of my sight.

In this scenario, you are right, if I cannot prove that he is a real threat, I cannot kill him.

2. But... if he enters into my house, without invitation, then I have the right to kill him immediately and claim that it was in self- defense (a fetus, a person inside my body).

Tyson (fetus/person) will have to die. I am not responsible at all.

Let's go with this example. The scenario you describe, however, is not accurate. It is not Mike entering your house without invitation. It is you seeing Mike walk down the street, and yelling from your window "hey mike - come here!". The chances are slim that Mike tyson will actually go to your house. But, he might. And you can't just shoot him when he walks in the door.

Further, even if mike tyson, looking mad, came into your house you DO NOT have the right to shoot him dead. He would have to do something more threatening than that.


O.K., the fetus is a person with rights :rolleyes: . But there is a HUGE difference depending on where he is (inside or outside the mother's body) in the moment that a woman decides whether or not to trigger the gun.

Why is there a HUGE difference? what is that HUGE difference? Remember the baby in the jungle? The baby relies on you for all of its needs both before and after birth. Why are you justified in killing it before, but not after? Simply because of the way in which it relies on you?

What is the compelling reason? It can't be emotional - the emotional reasons you describe have to do with caring for an unwanted child (not pregnancy itself). The same with the economic reasons you put forth. The only difference is the physical. The physical risks of a normal, healthy pregnancy is not enough to justify the killing of another person.

If you want to cling to the before/after birth dividing line, you need to come up with some reason for it. Simply asserting it does not make it so.

[Yahzi]

AKots
(Though i find the term "designed" a touch inappropriate, it's what springs to mind.)
Because it is a weak argument. Men are "designed" to rape women, kill other men, and commit other acts of violence. That's what upper body strength and testosterone is all about. Yet neither of us thinks that matters for a discussion on morality, do we?

Nor should the fact that women are "designed" to have children matter. Except in carrying out the will of the designer; which is, as I have said, a religious position.

what if you offer somebody a life-support system,
This is the entire issue. You maintain that having sex is a de facto offer. I maintain that an offer requires intention, and having sex without the intention of having children is both reasonable and morally defensible.

Perhaps the ultimate difficulty is that you feel a human life is too high a cost to preserve our rights to have sex without reproducing. The problem with this position is that it is inconsistent; there are a number of other areas in which the excersize of your rights also incurs the death of a person, and in those instances you don't care. You seem to feel that the voluntary act of producing food does NOT entitle those who need it to take it for free (I say this because at no point have you endorsed communism). You seem to endorse private property rights as understood by ordinary US law. Only in the case of sex do you feel that the voluntary physical act automatically must include the intention of sharing your property.

I maintain that it is morally and reasonably possible to have sex without extending an invitation to other persons to sieze your property. If those persons do, then recovering your property (even if it costs the other his life) is simply the excersize of your rights.

I maintain that private property rights trump other people's needs. You do too - except in this one case.

Q-Source
They keep on referring to Abortion as a "killing babies" practice
It is killing babies. The fact that you cannot emotionally accept the truth of your position is as damaging to your case as TexasBeast's need to dismiss pregnancy as a crimp in style.

Of course, if you reject the notion that fetuses are persons, then it isn't. But - for purposes of this discussion we have agreed that they are. If you cannot support abortion even if the fetus is a person, then you should not concede that point for argument's sake. I, however, have no problem with killing people I've never met to defend my property rights. I must admit, however, that this is easy for me only because the person in question does not suffer, has no consciousness, no history, no friends or relatives, no debts, promises, obligations, or ties to the world of any kind. I would still do it, though, even if it weren't easy, because ultimately I defend property rights as necessary to human well-being.

Thanz
The question is not whether the fetus has a right to the mothers organs, the question is whether the mother is justified in killing it.
The act of killing it is the denial of access to the organs. If you could extract the fetus and allow it to surivive, then it would be a different issue. But you can't, so it isn't.

I say that the law requires some sort of real threat to the life or health of the person before the homicide is justified. In a normal, healthy pregnancy, that threat is not present
Your failure to understand the nature of pregnancy does severe damage to your case. For your information, ALL pregnancys carry an implicit death threat, because there is always a chance that something will go wrong.

So, there is quite a bit of law that says another is entitled to your property based solely on need.
Wrong. The law is based on assumption of an obligation - having children is an assumption of an obligation that the law will force you to oblige. If it were based solely on need, then the law could take YOUR money to support MY children.

The law does not allow you to abandon the children you create
Because you chose to create them. Your argument does hinge on the culpability of the parents.

The parents actions make them responsible, regardless
Why?

By engaging in vaginal intercourse, you accept the risks and responsibilities of pregnancy should it occur.
But we don't want to accept the responsibility of pregnancy. Why should we have to? Just because some other person - whom we've never met - might die? Why should we care? It is not a violation of the golden rule. I am never going to be a fetus, I am never going to know a fetus, so I can't complain about you treat fetuses. (Unless it degrades your interactions with other human beings, but we already know such collateral harm does not occur)

What are these physical consequences that you say I reject?
Death is the physical consequence of life. Broken legs are the physical consequence of skiing. You reject the skiing argument because no has to die to fix my leg, but his is just another way of saying you support our property rights untill death is involved. Yet you aren't demonstrating against immigration laws that kill people, the crab-fishing industry, or stores that let food sit on their shelves while people are starving in other countries.

Once again, you ignore people who don't care and don't use birth control at all.
No, I addressed them. I said that mere lack of intention was sufficient to preserve your rights.

While my arguments do not depend on parental culpability, yours do.
Are you so committed to winning that you cannot learn? I have clearly shown that your central thesis is that pregnancy is a morally inescapable result of sex. The fetus' status as a person is irrelevant, because you do not feel that people who need should be allowed to take from you without asking. Or do you? If you embrace communism, now is the time to say so.

Akots
To say a fetus invades a body is like saying a burn victim invades a hospital or an ambulance.
Absolutely incorrect analogy.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Yahzi
Thanz

The act of killing it is the denial of access to the organs. If you could extract the fetus and allow it to surivive, then it would be a different issue. But you can't, so it isn't.

I assume, then, that you would be against abortions after the point of viability.


Your failure to understand the nature of pregnancy does severe damage to your case. For your information, ALL pregnancys carry an implicit death threat, because there is always a chance that something will go wrong.

You make it sound so grave. "Implicit death threat". For your information, I do understand that there is always the chance that something may go wrong. However, in the vast majority of normal, healthy pregnancies, nothing does go wrong. It is how we survive as a species. The normal risks of pregnancy do not outweigh the certain death of an abortion.


Wrong. The law is based on assumption of an obligation - having children is an assumption of an obligation that the law will force you to oblige. If it were based solely on need, then the law could take YOUR money to support MY children.

"having children is an assumption of an obligation that the law will force you to oblige." Exactly. So, when you, the father, do not intend to have children but father them anyway, you are subject to certain responsiblities. Just as I would impose on parents if the fetus is given status as a person. Just the same as the obligation to a baby once it is born.

The obligation is based on the needs of the child. Upon whom should this obligation fall? Upon those that created the child (regardless of their intentions) because the child exists due to their actions.


Because you chose to create them. Your argument does hinge on the culpability of the parents.

You keep ignoring the point, Yahzi. You, as father, are responsible for the child regardless of your intentions, choices or desires. The mother is just as responsible. The law is clear on this point. What I am saying, and you are rejecting, is that this responsibility, that you must accept after birth, naturally extends back before birth once we make the fetus a "person" with the same rights as the baby after birth.



Me: The parents actions make them responsible, regardless

Yahzi: Why?

I have already explained this. The whole quote is this:

The parents actions make them responsible, regardless. Whether or not the fetus is a person, the pregnancy must be addressed in some fashion. The status of the fetus is of critical importance in defining what those responsibities are.

The pregnancy must be addressed. By whom? The parents. Why? Because they are the one who will be responsible for the child they have created.



But we don't want to accept the responsibility of pregnancy. Why should we have to? Just because some other person - whom we've never met - might die? Why should we care? It is not a violation of the golden rule. I am never going to be a fetus, I am never going to know a fetus, so I can't complain about you treat fetuses. (Unless it degrades your interactions with other human beings, but we already know such collateral harm does not occur)

You are seperating the fetus from the person in this paragraph. Why? So that you can say "I am never going to be a fetus" rather than "I am never going to be a person"? The whole point of the assumption is that the fetus IS a person just like the rest of us. So it does violate the golden rule, unless you want someone whom you don't know to kill you.

Whether you want to accept the responsibility of pregnancy is irrelevant. I don't want to have to pay my mortgage. That doesn't mean I don't have to. And you will have to accept the responsibilities of pregnancy if you get someone pregnant who wants to keep the baby. Regardless of what you want.


Death is the physical consequence of life. Broken legs are the physical consequence of skiing. You reject the skiing argument because no has to die to fix my leg, but his is just another way of saying you support our property rights untill death is involved. Yet you aren't demonstrating against immigration laws that kill people, the crab-fishing industry, or stores that let food sit on their shelves while people are starving in other countries.

How is any of this relevant? You cannot compare the intentional killing of another person with the people starving in Africa, or whatever the plight of the crab fisherman may be.

The fact is, the law says that your property rights can be infringed in order to provide for the essential needs of your biological offspring. All I am saying is, if we grant the fetus the status of person with the same rights before birth as after, that this principle of property rights infringment to provide the necessities of life extends into the time before birth. You have no more right to kill the fetus to protect your property rights as you do to kill the 2 month old baby to protect your property rights.


No, I addressed them. I said that mere lack of intention was sufficient to preserve your rights.

Then you should be able to not pay child support, either. The principle is the same.


Are you so committed to winning that you cannot learn? I have clearly shown that your central thesis is that pregnancy is a morally inescapable result of sex. The fetus' status as a person is irrelevant, because you do not feel that people who need should be allowed to take from you without asking. Or do you? If you embrace communism, now is the time to say so.

Are you so committed to winning that you cannot see what is plain in front of your face? The responsibilities of parenthood are well established. Both parents, regardless of their original intentions, are responsible for the care of the child once it is born. I don't think that you seriously dispute this. Both parents are obligated, both morally and legally, to care for the needs of the child.

The question that the abortion debate asks is if those same responsibilities extend to the fetus prior to the birth of the child. What I have been arguing is that if the fetus is the same as the baby in terms of personhood and rights, then those same responsibilities of the parents that extend to the baby must also extend to the fetus. I have seen no argument from you as to why this wouldn't be so.

That is why personhood status is relevant. If the fetus is NOT a person, then there is no reason to extend those same responsibilities of the parents to it, as it has no rights.

When I look at it this way, I realize that I think I may be saying that the rights of the child places responsibilities on the parents. Therefore, it is critical to determine when the fetus has those rights, to see when the parents have the responsibilities. Hmm...

[Peter Soderqvist]

TO AKOTS


You wrote on page 6, 03-12-2003 01:54 PM: Did you even read a single word of my post?


Soderqvist1: Yes!


To say a fetus invades a body is like saying a burn victim invades a hospital or an ambulance.


Soderqvist1: your analogy is too gross in order to have merit!
Rather in general a healthy sperm invade the ovum, but a victim is seldom an invader, because they are in general welcome to our hospital according to our culture! If Mike Tyson is an intruder in the house or a temporary guest, or a lodger for nine month, or if the sperm analogously is a welcome invader or not, is up to the host to judge, not you, because you have no jurisdiction there!


If you had a parasitic fetus growing in your lung or something, maybe then you have a case...


Soderqvist1: I cannot be pregnant because I am a male!


otherwise, the mother's body nurtures the fetus to the point of infancy. It's not like some spider is laying eggs in your eyes while you sleep.


Soderqvist1: If the fetus is parasitic or not cannot be decided objectively, because these questions stems from sentimental values and can thus only be solved arbitrarily, but the host's decision is the only one with merit anyway!


Can we please settle whether or not the fetus is a cancerous growth? I posit that it demeans the human race, which is to demean one's self. It's starting to annoy me.


Soderqvist1: The fetus is not a cancerous growth but a cell-aggregate!
Hence, if the cell-aggregate is an parasitic intruder or lodger under 9 month is only decidable by the host's judgment, and the woman in question is even free to use whatever label she prefers; tumor, cell-aggregate, or my child! :eek:

[Yahzi]

[B}Thanz[/B]
The normal risks of pregnancy do not outweigh the certain death of an abortion.
But it does for every entity except fetuses! Consider this: a person is dying in a hospital, and the only thing that can save them is a temporary medical operation on another person. The operation has a very tiny risk of death. Can the government compel you to undergo that tiny risk solely because this random person is dying?

You will answer no, because you have no obligation to that person. This makes my point: your argument does NOT revolve around the rights of the fetus, it depends on the OBLIGATION created by sex.

Do you understand this? Your rejection of communism makes it clear that you don't think persons have a right to your internal organs merely because they are dying; your argument is that fetuses have a right created by the parent's voluntary action.

My argument is simply that having sex (as opposed to giving birth) does not obligate me to providing for children, and I am allowed to use various methods to exclude myself from their demands.

You keep ignoring the point, Yahzi. You, as father, are responsible for the child regardless of your intentions, choices or desires
No, you keep ignoring the point. Why are we responsible for a fetus? I can tell you why we are responsible for babies - it is because the act of carrying through with a pregnancy and giving birth to a child are all voluntary acts that signify a willingness to accept the obligation of children.

Having sex does not imply the above. You keep saying that it must, but you won't tell me why it must.

The whole point of the assumption is that the fetus IS a person just like the rest of us.
I was trying to point out that the Golden Rule allows us to kill people, under appropriate situations. If you concede that point, then I'll drop this not particularly clear argument.

What I have been arguing is that if the fetus is the same as the baby in terms of personhood and rights,
What you refuse to acknowledge is that a baby is the result of intentional choice, and a fetus is not. That is how they are different, regardless of their status as persons.

Having sex does not necessarily signal a desire to have children. Having babies does - particularly since you could have chosen to not have children by choosing an abortion. Yes, you could also have chosen not to have sex, but if you think having an abortion is an equal burden to not having sex, you don't understand people very well.

I assume, then, that you would be against abortions after the point of viability.
Actually, I'm not, but that is an extension of the argument that we don't need to delve into at this time. I probably wouldn't complain too much if you banned abortions after the 8th month; but then again, what if the child is deformed or the mother's life is endangered? I'd rather not have to make these decisions at all, so I'd be happy to leave them up to the people involved.

I want to make as few decisions for other people as I can get away with.

[Akots]

Originally posted by Peter Soderqvist
Soderqvist1: your analogy is too gross in order to have merit!
Rather in general a healthy sperm invade the ovum, but a victim is seldom an invader, because they are in general welcome to our hospital according to our culture! If Mike Tyson is an intruder in the house or a temporary guest, or a lodger for nine month, or if the sperm analogously is a welcome invader or not, is up to the host to judge, not you, because you have no jurisdiction there!


If I rent an apartment to someone for a year, I cannot kick them out unless there are extenuating cirucumstances recognized by the law.

By having sex, you agree to the possability of producing a child. It's a done deal; your genetic signature on the contract of procreation. The ONLY way to avoid having a child is to avoid having sex, and avoid artificial insemination.


Soderqvist1: I cannot be pregnant because I am a male!


And you aren't concerned about the concept of a woman with a fetus growing out of her lung? I was emphasizing that an unnatural or dangerous birth is not a moral dilemma... the child MUST be removed to save the mother; any decision that may endanger either life is a medical dilemma.


Soderqvist1: If the fetus is parasitic or not cannot be decided objectively, because these questions stems from sentimental values and can thus only be solved arbitrarily, but the host's decision is the only one with merit anyway!


Utterly outrageous. If a fetus is as much a person as anyone, my feelings are irellevant. The hosts feelings are then also irellevant, as far as execution is concerned.


Soderqvist1: The fetus is not a cancerous growth but a cell-aggregate!
Hence, if the cell-aggregate is an parasitic intruder or lodger under 9 month is only decidable by the host's judgment, and the woman in question is even free to use whatever label she prefers; tumor, cell-aggregate, or my child! :eek:

But it is not parasitic. It's not stealing the mother's womb at all. It's doing nothing you didn't agree to, by having sex.

I'd appreciate it if I didn't have to point this out again.

[Akots]

Originally posted by Yahzi
Thanz

But it does for every entity except fetuses! Consider this: a person is dying in a hospital, and the only thing that can save them is a temporary medical operation on another person. The operation has a very tiny risk of death. Can the government compel you to undergo that tiny risk solely because this random person is dying?


Police officers, firefighters and soldiers all put themselves at risk to save others. These are government positions. If we had no police or fire fighters, the government would have to do something about it, possibly by offering greater benefits, or even drafting people. Civilization requires these positions for the greater safety; Firefighters save more lives than they themselves suffer deaths.


You will answer no, because you have no obligation to that person. This makes my point: your argument does NOT revolve around the rights of the fetus, it depends on the OBLIGATION created by sex.


You will see that I, in fact, answered yes. A little uncharacteristic of me, given the scenario, but there it is... if the need is great, a sacrifice must be made.


Do you understand this? Your rejection of communism makes it clear that you don't think persons have a right to your internal organs merely because they are dying; your argument is that fetuses have a right created by the parent's voluntary action.


Hm... not aimed at me, i believe.


My argument is simply that having sex (as opposed to giving birth) does not obligate me to providing for children, and I am allowed to use various methods to exclude myself from their demands.


Sex without procreation is a luxury. Regardless of wether sex "strengthen bonds" in a way that cannot be duplicated otherwise, luxuries can be done without.


No, you keep ignoring the point. Why are we responsible for a fetus? I can tell you why we are responsible for babies - it is because the act of carrying through with a pregnancy and giving birth to a child are all voluntary acts that signify a willingness to accept the obligation of children.


I think i'm getting the hang of your reasoning here... A baby is a fetus that was cared for, and that survived due to a loving, healthy relationship; while an aborted fetus was simply not in the position of having a pair of mature, prepared parents. Whereas a fetus, prolonged without caring and prepared paretns is nothing but a burden. Do you think of the fetus as just another stage of life, where social and economic evolution determine wether it advances to infancy? (not being sarcastic here at all... I'm trying to get a feel for your argument)


Having sex does not imply the above. You keep saying that it must, but you won't tell me why it must.


There ar etwo kinds of impregnation in thw world.
a) natural sex
b) artificial insemination

These two functions are the only methods of producing a child, apart from future advances in cloning.

Seems to me you want to eat your cake, and have it too... is the idea of abstinance really that abhorrent to you?


I was trying to point out that the Golden Rule allows us to kill people, under appropriate situations. If you concede that point, then I'll drop this not particularly clear argument.


Do unto others as you would have them do unto you?
Blessed is he who preferreth his brother above himself?

Are we thinking of the same Goldden Rule here?


What you refuse to acknowledge is that a baby is the result of intentional choice, and a fetus is not. That is how they are different, regardless of their status as persons.


Then you say it is wrong to kill a sucesfully generated infant, as opposed to saying it is wrong to kill a person.


Having sex does not necessarily signal a desire to have children. Having babies does - particularly since you could have chosen to not have children by choosing an abortion. Yes, you could also have chosen not to have sex, but if you think having an abortion is an equal burden to not having sex, you don't understand people very well.


A child is not a side-effect of sex... it is the singular, entire purpose of sex.

You don't understand sex very well.


Actually, I'm not, but that is an extension of the argument that we don't need to delve into at this time. I probably wouldn't complain too much if you banned abortions after the 8th month; but then again, what if the child is deformed or the mother's life is endangered? I'd rather not have to make these decisions at all, so I'd be happy to leave them up to the people involved.


I can understand that an abortion might seem more reasonable if the baby is destined to grow up malformed or parentless.

But please realize that your argument of using abortion as birth control is essential saying "No other solution exists to prevent this suffering before it happens, so we must simply kill those who suffer, to eliminate the suffering."


I want to make as few decisions for other people as I can get away with.

I can respect that. Heck, I can even admire that. But some decisions are made by society, for the benefit of society.

I don't know what abetter solution woudl be to unwanted children, but I refuse to believe that abortion is the only/best solution. :(

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Thanz

Let's go with this example. The scenario you describe, however, is not accurate. It is not Mike entering your house without invitation. It is you seeing Mike walk down the street, and yelling from your window "hey mike - come here!". The chances are slim that Mike tyson will actually go to your house. But, he might. And you can't just shoot him when he walks in the door.

No, you cannot say that I consciously asked him to come to my house.

Let's say that I am just responsible for his anger, I called him a "coward" [I had sex and knew that I could get pregnant].

So, Mike may or may not come to my house and take revenge.

If he decides to get into my house, I know that his presence may cause suffering to me (including my death). Why wouldn't I have the right to kill him in self-defence?

I didn't invite him, I don't want him around and he is really a threat to me.

If he stays outside the door, there is no way that I can shoot him, no matter what.


Further, even if mike tyson, looking mad, came into your house you DO NOT have the right to shoot him dead. He would have to do something more threatening than that.

But, who determines when a threat is real or fictitious?

The only circumstance that determines if I shoot him dead is whether or not he invades my house under those circumstances.


Why is there a HUGE difference? what is that HUGE difference? Remember the baby in the jungle? The baby relies on you for all of its needs both before and after birth. Why are you justified in killing it before, but not after? Simply because of the way in which it relies on you?

Because a baby in the jungle is not invading a woman's private property rights. Once, he is outside the womb, a woman cannot kill him and claim that her private rights trumped his right to life.

Being a person does not make you infallible and does not give you special rights over the others.


Q-S

[Akots]

Originally posted by Q-Source
No, you cannot say that I consciously asked him to come to my house.


Are you saying someone can become pregnant without sex or artificial insemination?


Let's say that I am just responsible for his anger, I called him a "coward" [I had sex and knew that I could get pregnant].

So, Mike may or may not come to my house and take revenge.

If he decides to get into my house, I know that his presence may cause suffering to me (including my death). Why wouldn't I have the right to kill him in self-defence?


This is my first time trying to point out a logical fallacy, so plesae excuse me (if someone else could help me out here, i'd really appreciate it!) What do you call it when someone says that an action under certain cirumstances can be used as a sample for the same actions under all circumstances? Surely not everyone who crosses your home is Mike Tyson. Not every impregnation is lethal, or even dangerous.


I didn't invite him, I don't want him around and he is really a threat to me.


Clearly, as wit ha dangerous abortion, extreme measures must be taken to ensure your safety. But the idea that all people are as dangerous as Tyson...?


If he stays outside the door, there is no way that I can shoot him, no matter what.

But, who determines when a threat is real or fictitious?

The only circumstance that determines if I shoot him dead is whether or not he invades my house under those circumstances.

Because a baby in the jungle is not invading a woman's private property rights. Once, he is outside the womb, a woman cannot kill him and claim that her private rights trumped his right to life.


A baby is not invading a woman's private property rights. And yet somehow fetuses are guilty until proven innocent?


Being a person does not make you infallible and does not give you special rights over the others.
Q-S

And yet an abortion is just that, if the baby is a person.

[Yahzi]

Akots
Police officers, firefighters and soldiers all put themselves at risk to save others
This is different. I actually agree that we should tax the community at large to feed poor. I also agree that society has the right to draft people (i.e.e compel them to risk their lives) for the preservation of society. So why don't I think these two principles apply to abortion?

1. Taxing the community to support the needy is one thing: we all benefit from the communal good, so we should all contribute to it. I don't object to the government taking a portion of all of our incomes.

But to apply your principle of "need trumps property rights" would be like the government holding a lottery, and whosever name comes up is assigned a needy person to care for out of their own pocket.

My way preserves property rights: the money I give up is actually less than what I receive in social benefits. Your way accomplishes the same thing - feeding the needy - but in an entirely different way, whereby personal need (instead of collective well-being) trumps property rights. I agree that my property rights must be trumped by social considerations; I disagree that they need to be trumped by personal considerations.

Arguably, if I do not release my property to defend society, I'll lose all my property when society is destroyed. But this argument does not support your principle.

In other words: we feed the hungry not because they are hungry, but because not doing so has negative consequences for society. What are the negative consequences (for society) of abortion?

I think you want to argue that we feed the hungry because they are hungry - what I referred to as the communistic principle. I reject this principle for two reasons: 1) it doesn't work, and 2) it is not a necessary consequent of my moral philosophy (which is merely the Golden Rule).

2. We aren't at risk of disappearing due to lack of babies. If we were, then, as a society, we could draft women into bearing children, just as we draft men into military service. But we aren't, so we can't.

Sex without procreation is a luxury. Regardless of wether sex "strengthen bonds" in a way that cannot be duplicated otherwise, luxuries can be done without
From what we know about biology, this does not appear to be true. There is reason to believe that sex serves a social function that is at least as necessary as its procreative function.

Secondly, who are you to be dispensing with my luxuries? Eating meat is a luxury. Shall we all be forced to vegatarianism to support the burgeoning global population? We live a society practically defined by its luxuries. And that is normally considered a good thing, isn't it?

Even if I agreed sex without procreation is a luxury, I just don't think that the needs of some person who I have no obligation to trump my rights to that luxury. Much like the fact that I eat two sandwiches for lunch, even though there are starving people in Africa right now.

Do you think of the fetus as just another stage of life, where social and economic evolution determine wether it advances to infancy?
What I actually think is that a fetus is a potential person. At conception, its percentage of personhood is so small I care about it as much as I care about cockroaches (which isn't very much!). At birth, I'm up to 50-75% of a person. I'm not actually intellectually concerned about children until they reach the age of reason; I am emotionally bonded to them based on biological cues towards babies. I, like most people, have very little emotional attachment to those odd shapes exhibited during the first trimester or two. Emotionally, I might be more concerned if I actually thought fetuses were persons; but logically, I would hold the same views. Just as I emotionally am dissatisfied with immigration laws because they wind up killing some people, while intellectualy I realize they are necessary.

However, for terms of this argument, I am treating the fetus like a person. I can find no compelling interest of the State or third parties in protecting the rights of this person, and hence I cannot find any compelling reason for the State to intefere with the rights of the mother. I also think mothers should have the absolute right to abandon their children at any time: I do not think anyone is well served by forcing a parent to raise a child. It would be nice if society could pick up the slack and raise the kid in a viable home; but if that is not possible, I suspect society is rendered less harm by the destruction of the child than by the abuse of the child at the hands of unwilling parents (and subsequent release of the adult monster on society).

Not specifically on topic, but might be helpful to understanding my position: I do not object to killing per se, I object to suffering.

[Yahzi]

Akots
A baby is not invading a woman's private property rights
Explain, please.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Q-Source


Because a baby in the jungle is not invading a woman's private property rights. Once, he is outside the womb, a woman cannot kill him and claim that her private rights trumped his right to life.

Being a person does not make you infallible and does not give you special rights over the others.

Q-S

No I asked you if you would be justified in leaving the baby to die in the jungle. You said that you would not. The only way that the baby is going to survive is by living off of your property. It is just as dependent after birth as before. It does infringe on your property rights. It is just easyier to deny them access. Yet you cling to the idea that there is a difference.

What is the difference? If you cannot deny a child access to the parents property after the birth, why can you before?

[Thanz]

Yahzi -

You keep evading the question.

Lets try this in baby steps. ;) Let me know when you disagree.

2 people have sex. At the time, they aren't doing it for the purpose of procreation. The man specifically does not want a child, and wears a condom. The condom does not prevent the pregnancy, however (for whatever reason) and the woman gets pregnant.

The woman talks about the pregnancy with the man. The man says that he doesn't want the baby - she should get an abortion. The woman thinks about it, and decides that she will keep the baby anyway. The man cannot force her to have an abortion.

The man is now liable for child support until the child is 18. He is liable despite the fact that he didn't want children, despite the fact that he wore a condom, and despite the fact that he asked the mother to have an abortion. He does not want to pay child support, but he must. His property rights will be infringed for 18 years because he is the father of the child. The extent of the infringement will be decided by the needs of the child.

I posited the idea in my last reply to you that the rights of the child create responsibilites in the parents, regardless of their desires. One of the rights of the child is to life. With children, however, it seems that their right to life expands beyond the protection we all share against others actively depriving us of that life. Children have a right to have the necessities of life provided for them by their parents. This right creates the responsibility on the parents to provide those necessities if they are able. The responsibility is on the parents because they created the life.

If the rights and personhood are extended to the fetus such that they have the right to life and provision of the necessities of life from the parents, then the mother has the corresponding obligation to provide them during pregnancy. If, however, the fetus has no personhood and no rights, then there is no obligation on the mother to provide anything.

And that is why the personhood status of the fetus is important.

[DialecticMaterialist]

A child is not a side-effect of sex... it is the singular, entire purpose of sex.

You don't understand sex very well.

Well then neither do leading biologists/doctors like Jared Diamond.....

[DialecticMaterialist]

You are not understanding my arguments, it seems. I am not arguing against abortion, per se. I am arguing that the status of the fetus as a "person" or not is the central question in the abortion debate. The parents actions make them responsible, regardless. Whether or not the fetus is a person, the pregnancy must be addressed in some fashion. The status of the fetus is of critical importance in defining what those responsibities are.

I agree this is the central question in the debate.

Pro-lifers are asking the government to protect the fetus, and this request can only be met if the fetus is a person. The entire debate hinges on this question of personhood. If one cannot establish personhood the pro-life argument doesn't even get off the ground.

Likewise in regards to property, life rights do take precendence over property. Lets say someone wants to stab you with "his knife", the fact that it is his knife does not allow him to stab you with it. Likewise you cannot allow you kids to starve to death just because its "your food." Likewise if the fetus is a person you can't deny it anything it needs to live, just because its "your womb". The Constitution says the government will protect life and liberty before property. Also this can be seen as a matter of the Ninth Amendment.

[Peter Soderqvist]

TO AKOTS


Akots wrote on page 6, 03-13-2003 07:00 PM: If I rent an apartment to someone for a year, I cannot kick them out unless there are extenuating circumstances recognized by the law.


Soderqvist1: Yes this is something quite obvious!
Maybe you should try to address my concept rather than my formalization?
If Mike Tyson wants to rent a room and the woman say no! That ends the question!
But if she say yes, yes only in this room, but I have one clause, namely the rest of my house is private, your contract is ruled out if you intrude there! Analogously, your sperms are welcome as long as they not intrude in the area there my eggs are, you will be evicted (abortion) if it is a fact that one of your sperms has invaded one of my eggs! Alternatively, you are welcome here as a temporary guest in the entrance hall, but I will call the police to kick you out (abortion) if you go further!


By having sex, you agree to the possibility of producing a child. It's a done deal; your genetic signature on the contract of procreation. The ONLY way to avoid having a child is to avoid having sex, and avoid artificial insemination.


Soderqvist1: No!
It is analogous to say that you have agreed to the possibly get warts under your feet when you know that swimming halls have higher probability to infest your feet with warts, so if you get one there after a visit, you must take your responsibility for the wart! (No abortion)


And you aren't concerned about the concept of a woman with a fetus growing out of her lung? I was emphasizing that an unnatural or dangerous birth is not a moral dilemma... the child MUST be removed to save the mother; any decision that may endanger either life is a medical dilemma.


Soderqvist1: I cannot see your concept here, because a fetus growing out her lungs is unreal! Maybe your concept have merit, if so; point out something in the real life!


Utterly outrageous. If a fetus is as much a person as anyone, my feelings are irrelevant. The hosts feelings are then also irrelevant, as far as execution is concerned.


Soderqvist1: This is what I mean with sentimental values!
That a fetus is a person has no base in biology. A wart have more cells than a zygote, but I think you can remove a wart without sorrow, the only difference between a wart and a zygote is how the nucleotides are strung together, it is only a matter of molecular configurational difference!


But it is not parasitic. It's not stealing the mother's womb at all. It's doing nothing you didn't agree to, by having sex.


Spoderqvist1: It is parasitic because it consumes food; energy in general without contributes with anything! In short, the fetus is a freeloader! But sentimental values can possibly change this point of view, for instance if the woman in question is in love!


I'd appreciate it if I didn't have to point this out again.


Soderqvist1: yes end your strawman! ;)

I will be back at Monday!

[Yahzi]

Thanz
Let me know when you disagree.
I don't disagree with anything in your example.

I have already said that abortion is unfair to men, and that I don't know of any way to make it fair.

I posited the idea in my last reply to you that the rights of the child create responsibilites in the parents, regardless of their desires
I am not the one evading the question. The question is simply this: is having sex a contractual agreement to have children? I say if the intent to create children does not exist, then you cannot be contractually held to it. You, on the other hand, want to enforce the terms of a contract created by nature, regardless of our intentions or desires.

You keep repeating that sex incurs an obligation, but you haven't said why it does.

Here are the reasons you have implied, and my rebuttals:

1. It is a natural consequence.
This can't be accepted, because you reject the natural consequences of lots of other actions. You tried to prop this up with the fact that people don't usually die to rectify those other natural consequences, but that just changes the argument and requires you to invent the principle that other people's needs trump my property rights.

2. It is a result of negligence.
You have made it clear that abstinence is the only precaution that you will endorse. This is an undue burden. Furthermore, abstinence can be violated by violence, and no sane person could call that an act of negligence.


I assert that the act of sex does not morally inculpate me. I do not incur a debt or obligation to anyone by mere virtue of having sex. Choosing to have a child is entirely different, but merely having sex is not the same as choosing to have children. I don't care what natural consequences biology has set up, because I have the technological ability to escape them. Women throughout history bore children as a result of sex not because they were morally required to do so, but simply because they were physically incapable of not doing so - much as people died to the Black Plague not because they deserved it but because they couldn't stop it.

Once a child is born, then other factors enter the equation. Biological cues tell us to care about it. Since it can survive without direct access to the mother, it becomes a transferable piece of property. The father's property rights start to matter, because they can be enforced.

However, many cultures have set the line at a different place and still flourished. China has tolerated post-partum abortions for many centuries. Their technological solution was a pile of ashes next to the birthing bed (to smother the infant with). This was not a rejection of the infant's personhood; it was the due excersize of the right of the parents (well, father, since only men had rights).

Just because the fetus is a person is not sufficient reason to grant it rights to seize other people's property. You (or is it Akots) posited an additional principle - what I called the communistic principle - to assert that it does, but this principle lacks support in any other area.

What is required to overrun the mother's right to privacy is not mere personhood, but an obligation created by the mother. You assert that the physical act of sex creates this obligation: I assert that obligation requires a psychological intention.

Imagine we put up a fence around a dangerous hole in the ground. Now someone comes along, climbs the fence, and dies. Are we guilty of manslaughter? Can we say we built a fence that was reasonably high. or are you going to convict us because we chose to have a hole in the ground? If we extend your logic to holes in the ground, then the only acceptable precaution is abstinence - to never dig holes, because someone might fall into them despite all our precautions. Surely you can see how such a principle is paralyzing to the free excersize of rights.

Once I have signaled my intention not to have guests, then you are not allowed to enter my house and eat my food. The fact that I cannot shoot you for doing so stems from a different principle. It is not defense of your right to need, but rather a reflection of our social wealth (it is presumed that your eating out of my kitchen cupboard is a trivial imposition on me). If I had even a %.05 chance that I could not replace that food and would thus starve, you can bet your life that the courts would let me off the hook for defending my life with deadly force. Pregnancy is not a trivial imposition. The State cannot compensate me for it (like they could replace my food). Ergo, the use of deadly force is justified in preserving my property rights, even against persons.

So we are back to the fact that the fetus is an invited guest. If I open my door, it is a physical consequent that people can walk through it. Does merely opening my door extend an invitation to people to enter, or do I have to also signify my intention to admit guests?

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Yahzi


I don't disagree with anything in your example.

I have already said that abortion is unfair to men, and that I don't know of any way to make it fair.

I think that maybe you missed my point in the example. My point was that your property rights can be infringed upon based solely on your biological status as a parent. It doesn't have anything to do with fairness to men. It is simply that as a society, we have decided that children have the right to the support of both parents. Neither the intentions of the parents nor their property rights trump this.


I am not the one evading the question. The question is simply this: is having sex a contractual agreement to have children?

This is not a relevant question. It doesn't matter if it is a contract. The right of the kid to support creates the obligation.

I say if the intent to create children does not exist, then you cannot be contractually held to it.

But you agree that you are, in fact, held to it: by the requirement to pay child support.

You, on the other hand, want to enforce the terms of a contract created by nature, regardless of our intentions or desires.

Not just me, but society. You agree with this, in the context of men paying child support (as in my example).

You keep repeating that sex incurs an obligation, but you haven't said why it does.

The right of the kid creates the obligation. Biology tells us WHO owes the obligation. It is not base on the sex, but the need of the kid.

1. It is a natural consequence.
This can't be accepted, because you reject the natural consequences of lots of other actions. You tried to prop this up with the fact that people don't usually die to rectify those other natural consequences, but that just changes the argument and requires you to invent the principle that other people's needs trump my property rights.

Wrong. I do not have to invent the principle that other peoples's needs trump your property rights. I just have to recognize the principle that the needs of children trump the property rights of their parents. That this principle exists is obvious from my example, which you have agreed with. I don't need to expand this principle beyond the sphere of parent/child relationships - the relationship of parent to child is unique among relationships.

I don't care what natural consequences biology has set up, because I have the technological ability to escape them.

What does technology have to do with it? We are debating whether it is justified to kill a fetus if it has the same rights as the baby afterr birth. We have always had the "technology" to kill a baby right out of the womb. That doesn't make it right. Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean that you SHOULD.


Once a child is born, then other factors enter the equation. Biological cues tell us to care about it. Since it can survive without direct access to the mother, it becomes a transferable piece of property. The father's property rights start to matter, because they can be enforced.

Again, this is all irrelevant. Biological cues? So what? What does that have to do with whether the baby can be killed? The baby is not a transferrable piece of property - we don't sell people anymore. It is possible for others to take on the obligations of the biological parents, but we are not selling people. And when you say that the father's property rights can be enforced, don't you mean infringed?


Just because the fetus is a person is not sufficient reason to grant it rights to seize other people's property. You (or is it Akots) posited an additional principle - what I called the communistic principle - to assert that it does, but this principle lacks support in any other area.

It is not communistic, and it doesn't need support in any other area. The child has rights to the parents property. This is undisputed. It doesn't have to expand to immigrants, or mike tyson, or someone off the street wanting a sandwich. Children have the right to the property of their parents for the necessities of life.

What is required to overrun the mother's right to privacy is not mere personhood, but an obligation created by the mother. You assert that the physical act of sex creates this obligation: I assert that obligation requires a psychological intention.

I assert that the unique set of rights granted to children creates this responsibility. So, it is personhood of a child.


[snip hole and visitor]


I thought that we were done with the hole and visitor stuff. It is irrelevant to my argument.

The unique relationship of parent and child grants the child rights and places corresponding responsibilities on the parents. Once we say the fetus is a person with those rights, it is entitled to the property of the parents for survival. For the first 9 months, it only has access to the property of the mother as a matter of biological fact. After birth, it has access to both sets of property. The intentions of the parents are completely irrelevant.

[Yahzi]

Thanz
It is simply that as a society, we have decided that children have the right to the support of both parents.
We agree that children obligate support. The question is, why do they? Because a) they are persons with rights, or b) parenthood is a contractual obligation?

I maintain that you cannot assert a) without being inconsistent, because you don't think that their status as persons grants them support from anyone else but the parents (the government can't snatch women off the street and implant fetuses from dying mothers into them). Also, you have taken to referring to unique rights, which indicates you think this right to support is not generally applicable.

Therefore, your argument must hinge on b). I assert that having sex is not a contractual obligation to have children. I agree that having children is an obligation. I maintain that sex can be had without the intent of children, and if children result despite that intent, people are entitled to enforce their rights regardless of the consequences.

I assert that the unique set of rights granted to children creates this responsibility
And what grants children a "unique" set of rights? Not their personhood. So it must be the actions of their parents. Again we see that your argument hinges on the idea that sex is a contractual obligation to pregnancy.

Now that you have acknowledged that children have unique rights, perhaps you can see that assigning them the status of personhood is irrelevant, since their rights are unique and not merely the rights associated with personhood.

Your argument is based on the actions of the parents, not the status of the fetus.

At this point I'm not even trying to change your mind about abortion; I am just trying to get you to understand your own position.

Children have the right to the property of their parents for the necessities of life.
Why? Because the parents chose to accept the obligation of children, and consequently are bound to it. But if the parents did not chose this obligation, then by what right can they be morally bound to it? If a rape victim is pregnant, she clearly did not chose, so how can you enforce an obligation on her? Everyone knows that contracts made under duress are not binding. If somebody drops a kid on your doorstep, you are not legally or morally bound to provide for it.

And once you acknowledge that rape victims are protected because they did not choose to have children, it is only a small step to understanding that people who have sex without choosing to get pregnant also did not choose to have children.

Children do not gain access to other people's property simply because they are persons. Rather, they gain access to specific people who have been obligated by their acts.

The question, then, is simply this: what is an obligating act? Is it mere physical action, or is it physical action + intention?

Edit: I do not mean to imply that personhood of the fetus is unimportant to your argument. I am trying to say that it is not strictly necessary: even if fetuses were not persons, you could still maintain that parents were obligated by their contractual actions. This would be a harder argument (since the death of a person would not be a motivating factor) but it would still be possible to make that argument. However, once you grant that sex is not contractually obligating, then your argument collapses even if the fetus is a person.

[Thanz]

Yahzi - I am not sure that anyone else is interested in this debate, but I thought that you deserved a response.


Originally posted by Yahzi


We agree that children obligate support. The question is, why do they? Because a) they are persons with rights, or b) parenthood is a contractual obligation?

I maintain that you cannot assert a) without being inconsistent, because you don't think that their status as persons grants them support from anyone else but the parents (the government can't snatch women off the street and implant fetuses from dying mothers into them). Also, you have taken to referring to unique rights, which indicates you think this right to support is not generally applicable.

A right does not have to be generally applicable in order to be a right. I guess the correct formulation of my reason would be because if they are persons, they are children, and children possess a unique set of rights. I don't have to expand the rights of children to adults to make them coherent, and I don't have to obligate support from anyone other than the parents either. But parenthood does not have to be a contractual obligation - one can achieve the status of parent without specifically agreeing to it, as in my reluctant father example.

Therefore, your argument must hinge on b). I assert that having sex is not a contractual obligation to have children. I agree that having children is an obligation. I maintain that sex can be had without the intent of children, and if children result despite that intent, people are entitled to enforce their rights regardless of the consequences.

But they are not, as you have agreed with my father example. Parenthood is not a contractual obligation. It is an obligation that is based on the status of the adult and the needs of the child.



And what grants children a "unique" set of rights? Not their personhood. So it must be the actions of their parents. Again we see that your argument hinges on the idea that sex is a contractual obligation to pregnancy.

Not just their personhood, but also their status as children. Sex does not have to be a "contractual obligation" to have children - the parents will be obligated regardless of their intention, which is not something that is associated with contract.

Now that you have acknowledged that children have unique rights, perhaps you can see that assigning them the status of personhood is irrelevant, since their rights are unique and not merely the rights associated with personhood.

Without the status of personhood, they wouldn't have any of those rights. full stop.

At this point I'm not even trying to change your mind about abortion; I am just trying to get you to understand your own position.

I haven't even told you what my opinion is on abortion. I have, however, found this debate quite interesting, though I do take exception to the implied condescension in "I am just trying to get you to understand your own position"


Why? Because the parents chose to accept the obligation of children, and consequently are bound to it. But if the parents did not chose this obligation, then by what right can they be morally bound to it?

Why do you insist on ignoring this question when it comes to the father? You have agreed that the father can be obligated despite all of his choices. That parent didn't choose to accept the obligation - yet it still exists. If the child is a person (and the child of the parents) I am simply extending that obligation of both parents back in time 9 months.


Children do not gain access to other people's property simply because they are persons. Rather, they gain access to specific people who have been obligated by their acts.

The question, then, is simply this: what is an obligating act? Is it mere physical action, or is it physical action + intention?

The parents are obligated because of their relationship to the child. No one else has this relationship. As has been shown time and again, thier intention is not relevant to whether or not they have the obligation.

Edit: I do not mean to imply that personhood of the fetus is unimportant to your argument. I am trying to say that it is not strictly necessary: even if fetuses were not persons, you could still maintain that parents were obligated by their contractual actions. This would be a harder argument (since the death of a person would not be a motivating factor) but it would still be possible to make that argument. However, once you grant that sex is not contractually obligating, then your argument collapses even if the fetus is a person.


On the contrary, personhood is essential as there is no reason to assign rights to the fetus if it is not a person. I am not asserting that sex is a contractual obligation. I am saying that contract concepts are not relevant. Parenthood is not a contract - it is a status based obligation, which will adhere to individuals regardless of their intentions.

[Peter Soderqvist]

TO THANZ


You wrote on page 6, 03-18-2003 08:27 PM: A right does not have to be generally applicable in order to be a right.


Soderqvist1: What objective evidence do you have in order to support your way of reasoning? Your lack of objective evidence pointing to that the fetus has rights is only a sentimental value!


I guess the correct formulation of my reason would be because if they are persons, they are children, and children possess a unique set of rights. I don't have to expand the rights of children to adults to make them coherent, and I don't have to obligate support from anyone other than the parents either. But parenthood does not have to be a contractual obligation - one can achieve the status of parent without specifically agreeing to it, as in my reluctant father example.


Soderqvist1: The assumption that lipomas can posses a unique set of rights is coherent too! What kind of evidence do you have that the fetus should have rights, but not a lipoma, when both need a human being to live, and is its origin of life? Frankly, a dedicated pro-life assumption that cancer tumors can posses a unique set of rights, even if it is dangerous to its host, is coherent too, but humans are biased in this issue, and because of that removes cancers, but it is an immoral act from a cancer tumor's point of view! If all that matter is coherence of rights, why are you biased in favor of humans, regarding cancer tumors? :D