neural embryology and abortion

[wsg1991]

i did record 2 members here being restricted for being ''anti choice''
the thing is they advocate abortion limit based on fetus development
as
http://www.chups.jussieu.fr/polysPSM/neuroanat/morphologie/POLY.Chp.4.html
http://homepage.mac.com/danielbalas/Public/cours_embryo_p1/Lecture2.pdf
and for english users can have this
http://php.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=Neural_System_Developmenthttp://php.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=File:Human_thyroid_system_and_neur al_development.jpg


unlike before , doctors now use the cerebellar cortex death as the main criteria for declaring death , and by using EEG if the patient is in coma to declare his death
wouldn't be fair to use the same criteria on fetus ?

secondly , the Preterm birth\Neonatal intensive care unit ,
some babies , even if they are prematurely born , can survive on incubators , i think +7month i am not sure ,
this babies could stay alive through medical intervention , wouldn't be unethical to abort them and even comparable to denying a patient help ?

a third one did this moderator who already restricted 2 members and would probably ban me read something medical ? or just a philosophical position right defense pro choice position ?

you could say from my argument already that i am not your religious nut-head stereotype , since i am not talking about no abortion after 4 weeks
so i am already restricted , this could be ban , but at least some intelligent argument before that

[Sasha]

restriction of abortion on any grounds is a breach of the bodily autonomy/intergrety of women and as such a fundamentally sexist position.
a fetus could be recorded signing an beethoven aria and still it would be up to the woman in question whether she is willing to carry the fetus to term and if not, not of anyones buisness but hers.

[wsg1991]

restriction of abortion on any grounds is a breach of the bodily autonomy/intergrety of women and as such a fundamentally sexist position.
a fetus could be recorded signing an beethoven aria and still it would be up to the woman in question whether she is willing to carry the fetus to term and if not, not of anyones buisness but hers.

are you accusing me of being sexist ?

secondly this dogmatic position use very lame logic , as the baby it's some kind of private possession

*autonomy/intergrety*huh , the placenta it's self is a part of the baby , not the women

, and you did just throw this words , it would be more helpful if you could answer , at least point 1 and 2 with some more details , better than copy paste answer ,

so
who fetus who did develop a near 1 month baby nervous system can be thrown into trash , just like that ?

[electrostal]

restriction of abortion on any grounds is a breach of the bodily autonomy/intergrety of women and as such a fundamentally sexist position.
What about forced abortion, like that recent case in China?

[roy]

What about forced abortion, like that recent case in China?

forcing someone to have an abortion would be a very serious restriction of bodily autonomy

[wsg1991]

a third thing we should take account of the extralemniscal system and nociceptors development , which are the circuit and the receptors of pain , here is the thing , if these system has been developed , any abortion should take to account that the fetus sense already pain , so anesthetics are needed

i am still waiting for Foreskin defenders to come around

[wsg1991]

some definitions has changed , for instance death was defined as heart stop beating and lungs stop breathing , now they defined as the death of cerebellar cortex which contain what some superstitious folks call it : Soul \ YOU ,

a baby that should be protected as human , was 9 month fetus
as science advance , perhaps we should get that down to 7 , or at least no throw the baby in trash and save him

[wsg1991]

restriction of abortion on any grounds is a breach of the bodily autonomy/intergrety of women and as such a fundamentally sexist position.
a fetus could be recorded signing an beethoven aria and still it would be up to the woman in question whether she is willing to carry the fetus to term and if not, not of anyones buisness but hers.

the best way to answer such dogmatic ready claims that only works on religious folks is is statics

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
1.5% of abortions happens after 5month
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_fact2.htm/
9% in the second trimester , nearly zero in third
http://www.abortionisprolife.com/statistics.htm
"Fewer than 1% of abortions are performed after 20 weeks, and they are extremely rare after 26 weeks of pregnancy" [Ibid]. Typically abortions provided in the third trimester are limited to cases of severe fetal abnormalities.
http://www.conservap and 1% of all abortions (16,450/yr.) happen after the 20th week of pregnancy.edia.com/Abortion_statistics


if this shows something , that abortion is about 20 first week ,for +20 weeks medical necessities take place ,
so this is not such a big restriction as you claimed , neither could be taken as a sexist position to allow 99% of abortions and deny 1 %

also that question 3 answer that the moderator who restricted some users because they advocate 7 month restriction here didn't read even one statistic , and acted out of dogmatic idea that has no connection to Medicine , in simpler words , he has no fucking clue what he is talking about

you call me sexist , i call you murderer ( as you advocate killing hopeless patient that medicine could save )

[Sasha]

Yes, you are a sexist (according to my standards but also this board) no I'm not going to debate science if your goal is to restrict universal free unrestricted access to abortion for women. if I would I would wonder what makes the "life" of a fetus, according to your "science" about as "alive" as a plant, more sacred than say a carrot, or even better a teratoom (yes you can Google that), just that a fetus grows in a uterus? sexist...

[Quail]

the best way to answer such dogmatic ready claims that only works on religious folks is is statics

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
1.5% of abortions happens after 5month
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_fact2.htm/
9% in the second trimester , nearly zero in third
http://www.abortionisprolife.com/statistics.htm
"Fewer than 1% of abortions are performed after 20 weeks, and they are extremely rare after 26 weeks of pregnancy" [Ibid]. Typically abortions provided in the third trimester are limited to cases of severe fetal abnormalities.
http://www.conservap and 1% of all abortions (16,450/yr.) happen after the 20th week of pregnancy.edia.com/Abortion_statistics


if this shows something , that abortion is about 20 first week ,for +20 weeks medical necessities take place ,
so this is not such a big restriction as you claimed , neither could be taken as a sexist position to allow 99% of abortions and deny 1 %

also that question 3 answer that the moderator who restricted some users because they advocate 7 month restriction here didn't read even one statistic , and acted out of dogmatic idea that has no connection to Medicine , in simpler words , he has no fucking clue what he is talking about

you call me sexist , i call you murderer ( as you advocate killing hopeless patient that medicine could save )
If so few abortions happen late on, they must happen for a reason and it makes sense to me to allow them to happen legally, in a safe manner. Where abortion is illegal, women don't stop having them. So you'd just be forcing a small minority of desperate women to seek out illegal abortions that would put them in danger.

[Book O'Dead]

a third thing we should take account of the extralemniscal system and nociceptors development , which are the circuit and the receptors of pain , here is the thing , if these system has been developed , any abortion should take to account that the fetus sense already pain , so anesthetics are needed

i am still waiting for Foreskin defenders to come around

"Foreskin Defenders"?

A new euphemism for Antisemitism to hide behind?

[wsg1991]

"Foreskin Defenders"?

A new euphemism for Antisemitism to hide behind?

so technically arabs can't be anti Semitics ,
secondly they do practice circumcision

[wsg1991]

Yes, you are a sexist (according to my standards but also this board) no I'm not going to debate science if your goal is to restrict universal free unrestricted access to abortion for women. if I would I would wonder what makes the "life" of a fetus, according to your "science" about as "alive" as a plant, more sacred than say a carrot, or even better a teratoom (yes you can Google that), just that a fetus grows in a uterus? sexist...

what's makes fetus live more important is the very basic definition of a alive human , the medical intact cerebellar cortex as i mentioned before twice
the modern indicator of an alive Person now
what's make 7 month fetus more important the fact that he is Human being ,i think human beings are more important than teratoom , or plants , which is the same logic you apply when you start eating your veggies , what's make 7month fetus important the fact that i can save him if the woman don't want him , also it demonstrates how medical advance can create new issues and tackle our classical definitions of sex , fetus , health , a person ...


you are not going to debate in science because you can't , you obviously didn't even take decent time to think , as unrestricted abortion can allow a women to drop a bay 1 week before it's time , a grown alive baby that don't need even incubator thrown into trash ,if this is coming for moderator who did accuse me of being sexist 3 times so far, it's an indicator that such debate should have taken place in more specialized forum ,

but you can have at least some elementary school math skills , and count the irrelevancy of the restriction i advocate to the total number of abortion , as according to your own arguments , i am less than 1% sexist , this comes in one issue of the many Male-female problems , as you may ask about more subjects , and see how this position sexist claim grow weaker as you advance
until it reaches what Chemists calls negligible value
the thing is , the same kind of logic you would use to call someone anti freedom because he tried to restrict some of them that can physically harm others


my position is that only a gynecologist can order 3ird trimester abortion and in case of voluntary abortion that baby stays alive through incubators , as technically the fetus is as alive as a 1 month baby , saying otherwise is giving some women the ability to deny patient medical assistance and kill them
my restriction is simply not allowing women to kill +7 month baby

[wsg1991]

If so few abortions happen late on, they must happen for a reason and it makes sense to me to allow them to happen legally, in a safe manner. Where abortion is illegal, women don't stop having them. So you'd just be forcing a small minority of desperate women to seek out illegal abortions that would put them in danger.

first it's not safe manner for the women itself in case you don't know late abortion can cause complication (google that i am not doing it for you ) . secondly the large majority of abortion cases that happens in third semester are by doctors orders , as in some cases , the fetus can be dangerous to it's mother , or important malformation are detected through ultrasonography , that forces the doctor to go analyse Amniotic fluid , which has 15% chance of voluntary abortion , and has high chance of gynecologist( the same discipline here ) ordering abortion . NORMAL women don't go 7,8 month then decides to abort , because they had 6 to make it's decision so you can imagine the percentage of voluntary abortions

anyway for the rest of tiny percentage of the women that want to voluntary lose it's child , i am not against that , i am against normal procedures , in 7 month , the baby just need incubator to survive , in 8 month , he don't even need it . restrictions i advocate are keeping this baby alive , if she don't want it , i am astonished by the simplicity of some positions here , the same kind of positions i am for FREEDOM some noobs says

[NGNM85]

restriction of abortion on any grounds is a breach of the bodily autonomy/intergrety of women and as such a fundamentally sexist position.

That’s completely wrong; on both counts.

It will take a lot of pulling, but I’ll try to untangle this tangled knot of misconceptions. For starters; apparently, you don’t understand the concept of; ‘sexism.’ (Although; in fairness, that seems to be a common condition, around these parts.) ‘Sexism’, in the English language, connotes the discrimination against, or devaluation of persons, on the basis of their gender, much like; ‘racism’, which is the discrimination against, or devaluation of persons on the basis of ethnicity, etc., etc. Of course; you’ll never accept my word for it, not in the least because everything I say is viewed as suspect, because I said it. That’s fine. You’re under no obligation to do so.

From Merriam-Webster;

"1. prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially: discrimination against women
2. behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sexism (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sexism)

From Dictionary.com;

"1.attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles.
2.discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex, as in restricted job opportunities; especially, such discrimination directed against women."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sexism (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sexism)

From TheFreeDictionary.com;

"1.Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.
2.Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender."

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sexism (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sexism)

You may have noticed a pattern emerging. Namely; their definitions all fairly neatly match my own. Moreover; this is the same definition you’re likely to get from any English-speaking person, outside of this website.

I should also point out that ‘sexism’, like any prejudice, can be expressed in two primary ways; personally, on an individual basis, and institutionally. For an example of individual racism, we can point to Tom Metzger, who gives every impression of being completely genuinely, and violently, racist. For an example of the latter; we can cite a police officer, or a prosecutor, under apartheid, in South Africa. Even if said individuals are not racists, themselves, as a function of the policies they enforce, they are agents of institutional racism.

The argument that wsg1991 is making, which I, generally agree with, simply does not fit this definition. He didn’t say anything about gender. Not only is his argument not predicated on gender, it isn’t even a factor in the equation. (Honestly; it should be considered a general truism by Leftists, especially Radicals, that civil rights should never be contingent on such arbitrary characteristics.) This could be, in part, (Although; I sincerely doubt it.) an honest mistake on your part. Admittedly; any regulation of abortion will predominantly affect women, as a result of human evolution. However; this, by itself, does not satisfy the conditions of ‘sexism’, (See above.) for several reasons. First; because child-bearing is not a sufficient condition of womanhood. Not only that, but it isn’t even limited to women, for example; you might remember Thomas Beatie. What is most perverse about your argument is that you have the audacity to cry; “ ‘Sexism!’”, while taking a sexist position, namely; asserting that women, and women, alone, possess unique rights, and that these rights are predicated, specifically, on their gender. That’s the very definition of ‘sexism.’ (See above.)

Furthermore; to so disingenuously, and cynically employ the word, as a political weapon, as you have, is disgraceful.


a fetus could be recorded signing an beethoven aria and still it would be up to the woman in question whether she is willing to carry the fetus to term and if not, not of anyones buisness but hers.

No-one, thus far, has suggested that a woman (Or anyone else, for that matter.) is under any obligation to maintain an unwanted pregnancy. (Incidentally; I agree.) This is a red herring. That’s not what you’re saying, at all. You’re saying that women, and only women, (Textbook sexism.) not only have the right to not carry an unwanted pregnancy, but to also kill the fetus, inside her. To clarify; we’re not talking about killing the fetus to end the pregnancy, you’re talking about killing the fetus in addition to ending the pregnancy. There’s a fundamental difference.

As an aside; ‘Womans’ Body = Womans’ Business’ is a slogan, a catchphrase, meant to be scrawled on walls, and written on placards. The Radical Left is, by definition, not merely an ideological position, but a movement, (As per Karl Marx; ‘The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways-the point, however, is to change it.') but to change it.’) and political slogans are an important part of that movement. They are a mechanism for communicating our ideas. However; this impulse to take any half-baked slogan, and turn it into doctrinal law is one of the more destructive diseases of the Radical Left. Slogans are ideas reduced to their crudest, most rudimentary, and, thus, most accessible form. Sophistication, and nuance are sacrificed for accessibility. This is precisely why slogans make bad policy. They are, by definition, crude oversimplifications of philosophical positions, they are not a substitute for them.

[NGNM85]

If so few abortions happen late on, they must happen for a reason and it makes sense to me to allow them to happen legally, in a safe manner. Where abortion is illegal, women don't stop having them. So you'd just be forcing a small minority of desperate women to seek out illegal abortions that would put them in danger.

For all of the relevency this has to the conversation; you might as well have informed us of the average rainfall in Sri Lanka. No-one suggested criminalizing abortion. Everyone here, myself and wsg1991, included, is Pro-Choice. The issue at hand is 'late-term' abortions. More specifically; abortions after, say, the 6th, or 7th month. You are correct, however, in that these procedures are exceedingly rare, and, almost universally, only performed on the basis of medical complications. This is not in the least because it is prohibited, (As far as I know.) in every country that has legalized abortion, to kill a fetus, after said point, without medical justification. That includes your United Kingdom, which is far ahead of us on this issue, as well as a number of other social issues. This leads me to another inconvenient truth for all of those, here, who have, so arrogantly, appointed themselves the defenders of womankind; while I have been unable to find polling data on this particular subject, by all appearances; women in the industrialized world support these restrictions, or, at the very least, they certainly don't them as some kind of gross assault on their civil liberties.

[NGNM85]

Yes, you are a sexist (according to my standards but also this board)

If you're going to use words in a non-literal sense, you should at least put it in quotes. By your lights, I am a 'sexist', but not according to the literal definition, the definition everyone understands, and the only definition they are under any obligation to respect. I could just as easily say that you are a 'pedophile.' Incidentally; the latter claim is more legitimate, because I have absolutely no evidence as your sexual predilictions, (Please, do not interpret this as a request for verification of your sexual predilictions.) whereas I have offered ample evidence that I am not a sexist.


no I'm not going to debate science if your goal is to restrict universal free unrestricted access to abortion for women.

That's not what he said, or what I said.

Really; this is just a transparent dodge. Why do you even bother to waste space with statements like; 'I have nothing to say on the issue.' (Which happens to be the subject of the thread.) None of us is under any obligation to consider an opinion that you cannot qualify, therefore; it should be ignored.


if I would I would wonder what makes the "life" of a fetus, according to your "science"

It isn't 'my' science, or 'his' science, it's everybody's science. Science is a definite thing. It isn't subjective, especially in this case, where we are talking about biology. Humans are biological organisms. Therefore; what is, or is not, a human being is an empirical question which can be definitively verified. By the 6th, or 7th month; there is no sufficient condition of 'human being' that a fetus lacks. You won't debate 'the science', because you know you don't have a leg to stand on.


about as "alive" as a plant,

You are just as 'alive' as a living plant.


more sacred than say a carrot, or even better a teratoom (yes you can Google that), just that a fetus grows in a uterus? sexist...

You used the word 'sacred.' Aside from the disquieting religious connotations, this is fairly accurate. Any sane person will agree that, in general, we have an ethical imperative to value human life. Moreover; I don't think you actually disagree. The location of a fetus, or any living being, is irrelevent to it's civil rights. As I said before; civil rights should never be predicated on such arbitrary characteristics. The relevent difference is a carrot, by definition, is not a human being, and is not capable of manifesting consciousness. If carrots were to be capable of manifesting consciousness; we would treat them with much greater care.

[Lynx]

Self-autonomy is the issue. Access to abortion is not the only example of this.

[Sasha]

The relevent difference is a carrot, by definition, is not a human being, and is not capable of manifesting consciousness. If carrots were to be capable of manifesting consciousness; we would treat them with much greater care.

http://www.medicaldaily.com/news/20120611/10247/plants-communication-survival.htm

the difference is human, a fetus is not a human (yet), a fetus is a fetus.. we can debate when something becomes a human, sure, we could argue, just for the fun of it wheter on morailist grounds its morally allowed to terminate the development of a possible future human, but even then i will say that i dont oppose killing humans, let alone possible future humans. heck i dont even oppose killing babies in various scenarios. come out as the moralist that you are and call me a monster if you want, but dont accuse me of dodging, if any thing the anti-abortionist here are (as always) dodging, hiding their all to apperent moralist "arguments" behind psuedo science.
no matter how much you try to mask it its exactly like debating the religious about abortion, "human life is sacred", o.k. fair enough but as with your "science" argument their definition of life is as made up but theirs is based on their scripture they think, completely useless argument (just like yours) but then be able to defend that idiotic slogan (and yes, you are just as musch sloganeering as you accuse me, pot meet kettle), so i will ask "pro-life" christians, jews, muslims; "if life is sacred why do you oppose abortion? your own religious, unfailible, book, written by god himself, declares that life equals breathing, fetusses dont breath, abortion is thus permitted (and for jews, by jewish law, even manditory in case of any serious risk to the carrier in every stage of the pregnancy)"
see i dont agree with religious arguments arround abortion, but i can still enjoy poking holes in their arguments, esp when i think their mindbogingly stupid.
just so i will entertain your "bla bla science bla bla life is cerebral cortex bla bla" nonsense for a bit and state that no matter all your smokescreens by
scientific definition as long as its a fetus its not a baby and as long as its a fetus its not alive but just another part of the very much alive womanand she can do damn wel with any part of her body as she damn well pleases.
and then i'll just grow bored, remind you all that our FAQ/boardrules state;

The only acceptable position on abortion on the forum is support for unrestricted, widespread, and totally free access to abortion at every stage of pregnancy throughout the entire world. The decision of whether to abort should be made only by each individual pregnant woman, and every woman has a right to choose. Any member who disagrees with this position and calls for any kind of barrier to access or suggests that any other party should have any degree of control will be restricted on the grounds that opposition to abortion is a form of sexism. and say; so yes you are sexists.
now you can either respectfully disagree and i'll allow this thread to remain open (always good to capture some other, yet unrestricted, sexists and stick them with the rest of the reactionaries where they belong) or we retract the granted privilige we only give to the anti-abortion-sexist and never to all other sexists, the racists, the homphobes, the fash, etc etc and trash this thread and give you all your ban.
you are restricted, you are guests here for us to engage or ignore and call sexists as we please, if you dont like it, there are plenty of sexist boards for sexists like you to spread your sexism on.

[wsg1991]

first of all the religious inaccuracy in many medical field is why i already quit it , i did express that several times around here ,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death#Problems_of_definition
the definition of alive individual is merely the reversion of death
you can recheck in my previous threads

''any part of her body as she damn well pleases'' , neither the fetus or the Placenta is a part of the women , she is the host if she don't want him fine , she can have abortion ,
the debate was around if the baby should stay alive or not by medical interventions ,which affects less than 1% of total abortions

4 times you say sexist so far , probably your best argument , and thanks for plants has nervous system , the funny thing you are calling arguments extracted from lectures and online embryology courses Obstetrics which i mentioned before and pseudo science , waiting to see your science medical expert

[wsg1991]

you are restricted, you are guests here for us to engage or ignore and call sexists as we please, if you dont like it, there are plenty of sexist boards for sexists like you to spread your sexism on.

don't worry i will join a medical forum instead , maybe i get some real people that can argue ,


and one more thing take some time reading our posts , and post some arguments more valuable than your lovely plants
sexist 6 times

[Comrade Trollface]

doctors now use the cerebellar cortex death as the main criteria for declaring death , and by using EEG if the patient is in coma to declare his death
wouldn't be fair to use the same criteria on fetus ?
Who cares? According to that logic, we should have accepted the heartbeat as the beginning of human life when that was the criterion for death. That argument would have fallen flat then and it falls flat now. All these benchmarks are relatively arbitrary.

But if you don't like abortion and want to approach this pragmatically, then you really should be going after the root material causes of it. If you make birth control free and universally available and provide a decent level of public material support for poor mothers, you'll be preventing a great deal more abortions than any abortion ban ever could. If you're actually interested in stopping abortions, navel gazing, moralizing and and generally assaulting women's bodily integrity isn't nearly as efficacious as fighting for socialism is.

So get out there and fight for socialism. The abortion thing will take care of itself.

[helot]

I wouldn't mind clarification on this rule though as i may have misunderstood it when i signed up...


The only acceptable position on abortion on the forum is support for unrestricted, widespread, and totally free access to abortion at every stage of pregnancy throughout the entire world. The decision of whether to abort should be made only by each individual pregnant woman, and every woman has a right to choose. Any member who disagrees with this position and calls for any kind of barrier to access or suggests that any other party should have any degree of control will be restricted on the grounds that opposition to abortion is a form of sexism.So "unrestricted" also includes temporally right? So opposing abortion regardless of when in the pregnancy upto the day the woman goes into labour?

As for 'abortion' is that limited to solely the removal of the foetus or also the complete termination of it? It may seem like a weird question but generally every single foetus after 27 weeks can survive outside the womb. Is supporting a woman for wanting an abortion after 8 months yet opposing the death of the foetus because it can survive outside of the womb sexist?






As for my views on abortion... I'm a man without any medical training so i have no real insight into it and it's not my place to make decisions about it what i do know is restrictions on abortion tends to push it underground which poses serious health risks for the woman.

[milkmiku]

you are guests here for us to engage or ignore and call sexists as we please, if you dont like it, there are plenty of sexist boards for sexists like you to spread your sexism on.


Wow, I did not expect this level of immaturity or power trip on this forum of all places.

[Sasha]

how are you going to delver that pre-mature fetus, force the woman to delver? and how? through drugs? force them a ceacar birth? how? what if a abortion is less invasive than delivering? and anyway, who can maket that call other than the woman herself.
look there is a reason late term abortions rarely happen and if they do its almost always medical nescecity, even when full abortion is allowed it will in reality never happen as that late a natural birth is less invasive and most woman already rather give up for adoption than abort. but its still her choice, no one but yourself have the right to make any descissions about these kind of procedures unless you are completely mentally incompetent.

and about the "premature babies can survive outside the womb", a. devine survive, (severe) mental and physical abnormalities are significantly higher under pre-mature born babys, if we support euthanesia to end our suffering do these babies not have the right never been born, to rather never existed than suffer one single day. the fetus is not going to notice, so this is either about what the woman wants to be done with something in her body or what society at large deems more prefferable, and full circle, this is always up to the woman.

[helot]

I wasn't trying to get into any debate on the matter, i don't know anywhere near enough about this stuff i was just trying to understand perfectly that rule. I don't know whether the method to abort a foetus differs between 24 weeks and 35. I think it may be possible that at 35 weeks (4 weeks premature) the foetus is too large for the equipment used to abort... but i don't know.

As for premature babies and serious health effects i think it varies on how premature. I've known people without any medical problems who were a week or two premature.


I definitely agree that even with no time restrictions on abortions late abortions would really only occur if there's serious medical complications. I'm sure that after a few months any woman who's pregnant would have made a decision as to whether or not abort the foetus.

[wsg1991]

and about the "premature babies can survive outside the womb", a. devine survive, (severe) mental and physical abnormalities are significantly higher under pre-mature born babys, i.

before making any pseudo-science arguments , have the decency to at least read my comments and at least wikipedia , i am not asking you to take gynecology \ obstetric classes

don't worry i will won't take more of your time , i will just re-post it somewhere else ,
http://www.doctissimo.fr/html/sante/sante.htm
it's just look decent enough

this gives me an idea who i am talking with :thumbdown:
you can do what you want with the thread

[wsg1991]

I wasn't trying to get into any debate on the matter, i don't know anywhere near enough about this stuff i was just trying to understand perfectly that rule. I don't know whether the method to abort a foetus differs between 24 weeks and 35. I think it may be possible that at 35 weeks (4 weeks premature) the foetus is too large for the equipment used to abort... but i don't know.

As for premature babies and serious health effects i think it varies on how premature. I've known people without any medical problems who were a week or two premature.


I definitely agree that even with no time restrictions on abortions late abortions would really only occur if there's serious medical complications. I'm sure that after a few months any woman who's pregnant would have made a decision as to whether or not abort the foetus.
i suggest you don't comment here any more , for your own sake
of course if you don't stay around long feel free to do what you want

[¿Que?]

I'm also not that well verse in medical biology. I do however, suspect the whole medical, advancement in science argument only serves to confuse the issue. What we are really talking about is the moral/ethical implications of certain actions, at various points in the pregnancy. What is really at issue here is personal autonomy, and how to deal with issues where personal autonomy of one individual infringes upon the autonomy of another in a mutually exclusive way. An example of this outside of the abortion debate would be self defense. If an individual exerts their personal autonomy in a matter that infringes om mine, the question becomes to what extent do I have a right to defend myself? It is rather difficult to establish general principles to such a broad statement, yet it is worth considering it since this is essentially what we're talking about.

In reference to revleft, specifically, the issue comes down to restricting members if they support restrictions on abortion of any kind. To be clear, I have no problem with this policy and would actively oppose loosening the definition of this policy to include some, limited restrictions, this being the reason I am posting this right now.

The justification for limited restrictions rests on the idea that since a certain degree of access to abortions is being conceded, that this is not a sexist position and therefore does not warrant restriction. It brings us to the issue of personal autonomy again. The arguments for this position are as follows:

1. There is a certain point after the egg is fertilized that the issue where the autonomy of the fetus becomes a social/ethical concern as opposed to a personal one. Given this, certain restrictions on abortion are justifiable.

2. Since these restrictions on abortion are justifiable by certain presumably agreed upon ethical standards, it is not sexist to propose them and it does not warrant restriction to OI.

The first argument can be elaborated on to include:

a. Abortion restrictions are being suggested for, in one case over 7 months, and in another, after 20 weeks. This is not a full scale assault on women's reproductive rights. It merely sacrifices some of those rights for the rights of the fetus.

b. The rights of the fetus can be demonstrated by its viability after abortion. If a fetus can survive after being aborted then it must have some rights.

c. Given that the majority of abortions at this stage are due to medical necessity, the actual restriction is very limited.

The first thing to consider is that the existence of the fetus infringes on the personal autonomy of the pregnant woman. The issue of choice suggests that it is a woman's right to choose to accept this sacrifice, to willingly give up a certain degree of personal autonomy for the well being of the fetus. This choice has several implications. It is presupposed that if a woman chooses to carry a pregnancy to term, that she will sacrifice certain freedoms and liberties, otherwise, she is being negligent. I think it is obvious to see how carrying a pregnancy to term in negligent fashion is in principle, a worse offense than abortion. The long term ramifications of negligence, through for example, excessive smoking, drinking or unhealthy diet, can be disastrous for the child, and can often lead to physical abnormalities, which the people here who support restrictions seem to consider legitimate reasons to abort at any stage. These seem to fall under the broad term medical necessity.

Since pregnancy automatically involves an infringement on the personal autonomy of the woman by the fetus, it follows that it should be a woman's right to make this sacrifice. It is in a sense, analogous to the argument of self defense, since both involve the right of one individual not to enter into a relationship with another entity in which the former's personal autonomy is infringed upon. Counter to this argument is the idea that the autonomy of the fetus must be considered, or rather, that the autonomy of the fetus, at a certain point becomes a social concern, not a personal decision of the mother. I would argue that the child becomes a social concern when the mother gives birth to it. It is at this point that the existence of the child no longer necessitates an infringement on the autonomy of the mother.

However, the viability of a premature or aborted fetus is used to argue that a certain amount of restrictions on abortion should be made. Yet, the viability of the fetus outside the mother's womb is not really an issue. So long as the fetus remains in the mothers womb, its existence necessitates an infringement on the autonomy of the pregnant woman, and as such should be considered the personal decision of the woman. I will grant you that the viability of the fetus outside the womb does raise other issues. Should it be an ethical obligation to maintain the life of a viable fetus? Well, it really depends. What sort of life are we talking about? In certain cases, I would argue, it would be unethical not to terminate the life of a fetus, such as for example if the fetus will have some physical abnormalities that would seriously affect its quality of life. Indeed, since those arguing for restrictions concede that certain abortions after the time in question are for medical necessity, and since that definition is taken to include physical abnormalities, then it is clear that in some cases, maintaining the fetus alive would be a serious ethical breech, if for example it means a limited life of suffering. If on the other hand, through medical intervention, the child will be capable of living a relatively normal life, without forgetting the social ramifications of being a child without parents, since obviously one cannot force the woman to raise the child if one has granted her the right to abort, then I suspect this should be allowed, and I don't see it as an infringement on women's rights. What is necessary then is some sort of an assessment process to determine the quality of life given medical intervention, and an alternative to abortion which serves essentially the same purpose but could be adequately labeled as inducing an early pregnancy. This may be seen by some feminists as an infringement on the personal autonomy of women, however, I would argue that the answer to that question is contingent on the medical procedure. If that procedure could be shown to be less invasive or risky to the health of the woman than contemporaneously available techniques which terminate the pregnancy without considering the well being of the fetus, then it could be argued that such techniques would be preferable. This is, as far as I know, currently only a hypothetical question. In this case, it seems it is a matter for medical science to sort out.

My last argument involves the statistics. It has been shown that the percentage of abortions which occur during the proposed restriction period is rather small, and that most of these are as a result of medical necessity. I am assuming that even in the case of medical necessity, those who propose restrictions would implement some sort of assessment scheme to determine if the abortion is indeed a medical necessity, and that in turn, these abortions would still be permitted. As such, what we are talking about is a percentage of abortions which falls below 1%. I would argue that in this case, medical necessity is not the issue, rather, simply, necessity in a broader sense. Why do people get late term abortions? A link provided by the OP shows the following:


Abortion may be performed at later periods usually for the following reasons: (1) undiagnosed pregnancy until the late term, (2) medical complications (a pregnancy could worsen her health and/or threaten her life, the woman has cancer and is undergoing chemotherapy), (3) an abnormal fetus (i.e. it is developing with an incomplete spinal cord and this problem was not diagnosed until late in the pregnancy), (4) teen age pregnancy (teen must face unnecessary delays which prevent the teen from having an early term abortion, or the teen is raped and keeps it a secret in "shame" until it is obvious she is pregnant -- she should have the rapist aborted!), (5) time to raise money to pay for the abortion, (6) physician shortage in many counties so that woman must travel to major cities to have an abortion (84% of all counties in the U.S. have no abortion provider, and 94% of rural counties have none), (7) state imposed waiting periods. [Source: "Susan Dudley, Ph.D. "Abortion After Twelve Weeks" National Abortion Federation 1996]

As we can see, not all of those listed are medical necessities, however, some I would argue are necessities, nonetheless. Most of these other necessities, however, point to more general problems with society. The cost of the procedure requires money, and as such raising the money could take time. By the time enough money is raised, the pregnancy might already be in the restricted period. If people are concerned with the ethics of this, then abortions should be provided at no cost to the woman. I believe all other necessities which do not fall directly under the category of medical necessities, where ethical ambiguities remain, social policy should favor those solutions which do not directly infringe on the personal autonomy of the woman. In the example I gave, it is preferable to provide safe, free abortions to women, so that if they choose to, they can do it soon, as opposed to delaying the process by requiring that they raise a certain amount of money.

What then is being restricted. It has been established that out of that small percentage of abortions that are carried out after the time period in question, even a smaller percentage are carried out for reasons other than medical necessity, leaving only a very small number of abortions that are being carried out unnecessarily. But what are we really talking about when we talk about an unnecessary abortion? What we are really saying is that a woman's decision to abort, in these particular instances, present some ethical concerns, some ethical transgression, and in saying so, I mean a certain agreed upon, or socially constructed, ethical standard. If this is the case, then it must be clearly stated what ethical standards are being violated. We have established that the existence of the fetus necessitates the infringement on the autonomy of the woman, thus it must be demonstrated that this infringement on the woman's autonomy is justifiable. This becomes a problem because I don't think there exist to many universals at this point. Every situation is going to contingent on social conditions which may or may not suggest that abortion is justifiable. As such, to state that restrictions on abortion at this or that point is justifiable is too general a statement to really have any concrete practical advantage to women's rights.

On the other hand, the particular advantages to the restriction of women's rights in general, and specifically to reproductive rights is obvious. It essentially becomes a legal issue, defining what abortions are justifiable and which ones are not. As I have stated, it is impossible to create a general set of restrictions because the necessity or ethical implications of abortion are highly contingent on social context, because it is impossible to imagine every single scenario in which an abortion would or wouldn't be justified. We must there err on the side of the woman. The inevitable consequence of any restriction on abortion would result in justifiable abortions being denied. Conversely, the free access to abortion would inevitably allow for unjustifiable abortions to be performed. We are again confronted with the struggle between a woman's autonomy and that of the fetus, except now we are referring to the two in a collective sense, than in an individual one. However, this does not change the fundamental nature of the existence of the fetus as an infringement on the autonomy of the woman, and thus the same arguments apply.

Indeed the whole notion of unjustifiable abortions, the basic premise of the argument for any kind of restrictions is dubious and quite likely sexist. Note first, that by unjustifiable abortions, I am referring only to those abortions that were made by the willful decision of the pregnant woman. In this case, forced abortion, while technically unjustified, do not apply. I am strictly referring to abortions that the woman chose to have done. Can there be such a thing as an unjustified abortion? It is difficult to say, however, given the current stage of capitalist development and the women's struggle, it is difficult to answer in the affirmative. Mostly because it's likely that any such scenario could be better remedied by other social policies which do not infringe on the rights and specifically reproductive rights of women. As an example I heard recently, is the notion that sometimes young and teenage women use abortion as a form of birth control. Rather than practicing safe sex, they risk it, because after all, if they get pregnant, she can just get an abortion. This obviously is a problem that can better be dealt with through other forms of social interventions that do not require restricting abortion, such as improving sexual education and decreasing barriers (such as cost) to birth control. Thus, the idea that certain abortions are unjustified on ethical grounds, should this idea have any validity at all, does not immediate require the imposition of restrictions on abortion. Rather, it is more beneficial to try and find social policies which rectify the problem while maintaining unrestricted reproductive rights.

[l'Enfermé]

I wouldn't bother bringing this up. Most of the forum staff are bourgeois feminists(as opposed to Marxist/Proletarian feminists) and bourgeoisie feminists don't actually deny that a fetus is a human and as other humans deserves to live, they argue that because the fetus's life infringes on the comfort of the woman, it's killing is a just killing and humans only have the right to not be killed unjustly. They would still support abortion if it was proven that a fetus can do differential or integral calculus in it's head.

I don't think this argument is any more valid than the argument of the "Pro-Life" groups in American, though maybe it's a bit less stupid.

But I don't see how stating medical facts makes OP a sexist...unless we want to ignore scientific facts like our friends the Creationists.

[¿Que?]

I wouldn't bother bringing this up. Most of the forum staff are bourgeois feminists(as opposed to Marxist/Proletarian feminists) and bourgeoisie feminists don't actually deny that a fetus is a human and as other humans deserves to live, they argue that because the fetus's life infringes on the comfort of the woman, it's killing is a just killing and humans only have the right to not be killed unjustly. They would still support abortion if it was proven that a fetus can do differential or integral calculus in it's head.

I don't think this argument is any more valid than the argument of the "Pro-Life" groups in American, though maybe it's a bit less stupid.

But I don't see how stating medical facts makes OP a sexist...unless we want to ignore scientific facts like our friends the Creationists.
I only responded to point out the sexism in your comment. Pregnancy is a decision to undergo serious bodily modifications for a certain period of time. It is not simply a matter of comfort, there are a whole range of issues associated with it. Aside from possible complications as a result of the pregnancy, that is, the degree of risk associated with the pregnancy itself, both to herself and the fetus, she is also physically restricted. A woman's ability to move around physical space, everything from walking to utilizing certain forms of transportation, becomes limited. She may also, for the same reason, be more susceptible to physical attack. There are also economic constraints. Pregnancy requires regular doctor's visits and sometimes medical treatment that can be costly. In situations where this sort of treatment is not provided free of charge, these types of economic burdens easily become a tool to subjugate women under enforced poverty, or financial dependence, as within the institution of marriage in its most patriarchal manifestation.

You can say pregnancy is simply discomfort, you can say you're not being sexist for saying so, but I have a hard time believing it.

[l'Enfermé]

NGNMN listed definitions of sexism according to reputable sources, none apply to me.

I'm merely dismissing various arguments bourgeois-feminist arguments for unrestricted abortion. I'm not dismissing genuine arguments for abortion, and though I have moral qualms about it I do believe that it's an important task to fight the right to abortion in bourgeois society, especially since the whole thing will become a non-issue in a socialist society where abortion will for the most part seize to exist.

[¿Que?]

NGNMN listed definitions of sexism according to reputable sources, none apply to me.

I'm merely dismissing various arguments bourgeois-feminist arguments for unrestricted abortion. I'm not dismissing genuine arguments for abortion, and though I have moral qualms about it I do believe that it's an important task to fight the right to abortion in bourgeois society, especially since the whole thing will become a non-issue in a socialist society where abortion will for the most part seize to exist.
Actually, I would say they all apply to you. Particularly this one:

"discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex, as in restricted job opportunities; especially, such discrimination directed against women.""

By labeling pregnancy as an "infringement on comfort" as opposed to what the argument is, an infringement on personal autonomy, you are devaluing women, particularly by devaluing the experience of pregnancy. You are ignoring physical limitations, risks to bodily health, limitations on economic opportunities and imposition of economic responsibilities as discomforts as opposed to real, material limitations on individual autonomy. How is this not sexist?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

For all of the relevency this has to the conversation; you might as well have informed us of the average rainfall in Sri Lanka. No-one suggested criminalizing abortion. Everyone here, myself and wsg1991, included, is Pro-Choice. The issue at hand is 'late-term' abortions. More specifically; abortions after, say, the 6th, or 7th month. You are correct, however, in that these procedures are exceedingly rare, and, almost universally, only performed on the basis of medical complications. This is not in the least because it is prohibited, (As far as I know.) in every country that has legalized abortion, to kill a fetus, after said point, without medical justification.

No you cretin, it's because by that time the pregnancy is obvious to everyone, especially the mother-to-be, who by that time would have long made their mind up whether to keep it, barring unexpected circumstances.


That includes your United Kingdom, which is far ahead of us on this issue, as well as a number of other social issues. This leads me to another inconvenient truth for all of those, here, who have, so arrogantly, appointed themselves the defenders of womankind; while I have been unable to find polling data on this particular subject, by all appearances; women in the industrialized world support these restrictions, or, at the very least, they certainly don't them as some kind of gross assault on their civil liberties.

The whole discussion is a worthless red herring that conveniently downplays the role of the woman in favour of quibbling over the minutiae of human foetal development.

[l'Enfermé]

Actually, I would say they all apply to you. Particularly this one:

"discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex, as in restricted job opportunities; especially, such discrimination directed against women.""

By labeling pregnancy as an "infringement on comfort" as opposed to what the argument is, an infringement on personal autonomy, you are devaluing women, particularly by devaluing the experience of pregnancy. You are ignoring physical limitations, risks to bodily health, limitations on economic opportunities and imposition of economic responsibilities as discomforts as opposed to real, material limitations on individual autonomy. How is this not sexist?
Eh, I don't actually disagree with you so I'm not sure what you want from me. Material limitations on individual autonomy(I actually dislike this word because of it's association with Kant) ARE discomforts, maybe I'm just not being very dramatic when choosing my wording.

[¿Que?]

Eh, I don't actually disagree with you so I'm not sure what you want from me. Material limitations on individual autonomy(I actually dislike this word because of it's association with Kant) ARE discomforts, maybe I'm just not being very dramatic when choosing my wording.
You are so full of it. Your position is so untenable, you literally have to play dumb, in the hope that people don't see through your bullshit argument. At this point I think it's safe to say you're playing to the crowd, otherwise, I think I am justifiable in taking personal offense since you'd so clearly be insulting my intelligence.

Material limitations on individual autonomy can include death, and by your reasoning, death must then be just another form of discomfort. Furthermore, you personally chose that word not to be undramatic, but to diminish the significance of pregnancy and therefore to present an argument where such an infringement is justifiable. You chose that word specifically because it doesn't sound as bad to say you're imposing a discomfort on women by restricting abortion, than it does to say, you're imposing mobility limitation, potential bodily risk etc etc.

[electrostal]

Since when a fetus isn't a human being?
Of course it is, it can't be anything else. A baby cat is a kitten and a baby human is a baby human.


a fetus its not a baby and as long as its a fetus its not alive Fetuses are most certainly alive. Unless they die of course, then they are dead and called stillbirths. How can a fetus die if it had never been alive? Makes no sense.

[Sasha]

A kitten is a cat, a feline fetus not (yet)
A baby is human, a human fetus not (yet)
Equalling a fetus to a baby in the context of an abortion debate is a profoundly unscientific rhetorical trick employed by the sexists to by default equal pro-choice with baby killing.

And no, I wouldn't know a doctor, certainly no gynocologist who would call a fetus alive or dead unless that where the terms the patients where insisting on, they would use "viable" and "not-viable". In dutch "levensvatbaar", "potentially able to come to life" which I think is an excellent term.

[helot]

A kitten is a cat, a feline fetus not (yet)
A baby is human, a human fetus not (yet)
Equalling a fetus to a baby in the context of an abortion debate is a profoundly unscientific rhetorical trick employed by the sexists to by default equal pro-choice with baby killing.

And no, I wouldn't know a doctor, certainly no gynocologist who would call a fetus alive or dead unless that where the terms the patients where insisting on, they would use "viable" and "not-viable". In dutch "levensvatbaar", "potentially able to come to life" which I think is an excellent term.

It's a bit pedantic but a human foetus is human. A human is a member of the genus Homo, specifically Homo Sapiens. Being born doesn't suddenly determine species. The debate is one of personhood.

Viable/not-viable and alive/dead are different. Viable means being able to survive outside the womb. Just because a foetus isn't viable doesn't mean it's not alive.


/end pedantry.

[Jimmie Higgins]

the best way to answer such dogmatic ready claims that only works on religious folks is is statics

you call me sexist , i call you murderer ( as you advocate killing hopeless patient that medicine could save )

Dogmatic? Principled.

Shit on the one hand we have people arguing anti-abortion arguments in this thread and on the other we have people arguing for the one-child policy like in China in another. It's not "dogmatism" to oppose both on the principle of reproductive rights.

You can argue all the statistics you want, but when an abortion happens is less the issue than the ability for people who are going to have them to have them through a medical procedure. It's an attempt to re-frame the debate from women's rights to fetus's rights - but since a fetus can not know or articulate and fight for its rights, then it's really the rights of others on behalf of fetuses: the right for them to tell women that they must carry through with the unwanted pregnancy.

A "patient that medicine can save" - from what? From it's mother's desire not to have it?

Restrictions or not, people have abortions, and so it is inconsistent with revolutionary working class ideas to create repressive apparatuses for the control of reproduction.


Since when a fetus isn't a human beingSince it is used as an abstract concept to justify ideologically driven restrictions of women's reproductive rights.

[electrostal]

Since it is used as an abstract concept to justify ideologically driven restrictions of women's reproductive rights. What? Biology doesn't have anything to do with some abstract concepts. A fetus is a human being, it can't be anything else.
Acknowledging that isn't a "justification" for restrictions on abortion.

[Jimmie Higgins]

What? Biology doesn't have anything to do with some abstract concepts. A fetus is a human being, it can't be anything else.
Acknowledging that isn't a "justification" for restrictions on abortion.This "biological" argument is a distraction from the point of women's rights - specifically reproductive rights.

Why would a fetus's abstract rights are more important than the actual concrete and articulated desire for the right to decide to give birth or not? That's the real root to this biological debate about fetuses.

[electrostal]

Why would a fetus's abstract rights are more important than the actual concrete and articulated desire for the right to decide to give birth or not?
They aren't. It's up to the mother of course.
Although all this still doesn't invalidate the fact that fetus is a human being.

[Sasha]

again; define being human, define being alive.

being born seems to me an essential one. or is an egg or a spermazoid half a human? or does it then become a human when the one fertilises the other? (and where did i hear that one before? :rolleyes:) what is exactly the point a fetus non-human becomes a fetus-human.?
if a fetus can already be alive/a human and if there is a difference in its humanity between first day of the pregnancy fetus and last day one? point to me when that magical point is and why anyone elses point is less true than yours.
you see, you really cant have a purely "scientific" discussion on subjects like these, defining "being human" and "being alive" is always a philosophical question and not a scientific one, and as such when you talk about abortion in terms of "human" "alive" "rights" etc etc you will always wander in to the territory where the anti-abortion "you are baby killers" crowd feel most comfertable.
and sorry, but i really think the biblical definition of "life", being "breathing", is as good as any other.
and it just not up to you, like this jewish US representative argued last month, "according to orthodox jewish law late term abbortion can be mandetory, if i dont expect you to live by my chosen rules why do you expect me to life by yours", while i dont follow jewish law (far from it, i'm not religious in any sense) i really see not how in a issue where oppinions on what constitutes "life" "human" "baby" etc etc your oppion should be more valid than anyone else, and certainly not more valid than that of the person carying said fetus.
there are societies that didnt consider a baby a human until up to 4 years and where infanticide was wildly practised (which was of course because of material reason like regular draughts and ineffective medical health care but its motivation was presented purely philosophical), do i agree? no. but i have more respect for their society that wouldnt have forced a women to kill a baby she didnt want to kill even when it was diabled or unlikely to survive and it was perfectly allowed acording to their laws and traditions and the dominant oppion about when a human becomes a human than a society that forces women through their laws to cary a pregnancy to term that she doesnt want to.

its just not up to you, pro-choice mean pro-choice, not pro-choice until it becomes uncomfertable for us.

[electrostal]

again; define being human, define being alive.What can a human mother possibly carry inside her? A werewolf?
And as for being alive, i'd like to keep it simple: a baby is alive if it isn't dead. Doctors can check on the baby in a few minutes, so this is not much of a problem.



its just not up to you, pro-choice mean pro-choice, not pro-choice until it becomes uncomfertable for us. Abortion is never a "comfortable" thing. Have you even talked to someone who had one?

[helot]

again; define being human, define being alive.



A human is a member of the genus Homo, specifically Homo Sapiens. Being born doesn't determine species. The debate over foetal rights isn't about whether or not it's human but about what determines personhood. It's a legal, ethical and philosophical thing not biological.

I'm pretty sure if a pregnant woman asked her doctor if the foetus inside her is human the doctor will be telling that to their colleagues later on and laughing about it.

[Sasha]

What can a human mother possibly carry inside her? A werewolf? a fetus, duhh, 3pages in this thread and i still have not heard a definition of human besides the silly cerebral cortex one of the OP that would give any weigt to an argument that a fetus is a human being.

this is the most comprehensive definition i could find on google:

any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae characterized by superior intelligence, articulate speech, and erect carriage

again, a fetus might be a future human but i really cant see how it would already be a human, but by all means, make your case, i'm more than willing to listen to your arguments.


And as for being alive, i'd like to keep it simple: a baby is alive if it isn't dead. Doctors can check on the baby in a few minutes, so this is not much of a problem.define death. and you again, make the sneaky switch to "baby", yes a baby can be alive, a baby can be dead. even when alive and dead is difficult to define i would agree with you.
but a fetus is not a baby, i still want to know what would make a fetus alive or a fetus dead. viable and non-viable must be way more suitable when talking about a fetus for a reason, i assume because they cant be alive yet (and thus also not dead) is the obvious one.


Abortion is never a "comfortable" thing. Have you even talked to someone who had one?yes, and yes, my point exactly, so stop (pandering to those who want to be) legislating deeply invasive personal desicions of others...

[Sasha]

A human is a member of the genus Homo, specifically Homo Sapiens. Being born doesn't determine species. The debate over foetal rights isn't about whether or not it's human but about what determines personhood. It's a legal, ethical and philosophical thing not biological.

Bravo, exactly what I have been arguing all along, bravo, so how are we now going to warp this so you will use it against my argument instead of those of our resident "i really want to call pro-choicers baby killers but I'm scared to do so so I disguise my reactionary ethical objections behind pseudo-science"?

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

What about live birth abortions?

[Sasha]

if the pregnant woman without any outside pressure but while fully informed of the risks would prefer it, if it would be possible, if it would be ethically permissable (both to the future child and the mother) and again, if the pregnant woman without any outside pressure but fully informed would prefer it then yes, why not.
but i dont think above would be possible until we will invent both teleportation and ways to guarantee that future children will be physically, mentally, emotionally and socially 100% healthy and wanted this will be sciencefiction. and by the time we have that i'm sure science will have progressed so far that no one will ever have to get unwanted pregnant ever again so it is a bit of a non discussion now would it.

[l'Enfermé]

You are so full of it. Your position is so untenable, you literally have to play dumb, in the hope that people don't see through your bullshit argument. At this point I think it's safe to say you're playing to the crowd, otherwise, I think I am justifiable in taking personal offense since you'd so clearly be insulting my intelligence.

Material limitations on individual autonomy can include death, and by your reasoning, death must then be just another form of discomfort. Furthermore, you personally chose that word not to be undramatic, but to diminish the significance of pregnancy and therefore to present an argument where such an infringement is justifiable. You chose that word specifically because it doesn't sound as bad to say you're imposing a discomfort on women by restricting abortion, than it does to say, you're imposing mobility limitation, potential bodily risk etc etc.
I was quoting bourgeois feminists and lazily dismissing their arguments. I'm not anti-abortion, nor am I insensitive to the hardships women experience during pregnancy. Please don't put words in my mouth. And like I said, in general I actually don't disagree with you at all so I still don't understand why you're trying to pick a fight with me.

[¿Que?]

Well, when you say something like this:

I do believe that it's an important task to fight the right to abortion in bourgeois society...
I am not inclined to agree with you. Except that now I realize you probably omitted the word "for," so it should probably read, "fight for the right to abortion in bourgeois society."

Still, suggesting pregnancy is merely a temporary discomfort does seem a little insensitive to me. But whatever...

Can I ask why you were restricted then?

[l'Enfermé]

Well, when you say something like this:

I am not inclined to agree with you. Except that now I realize you probably omitted the word "for," so it should probably read, "fight for the right to abortion in bourgeois society."

Still, suggesting pregnancy is merely a temporary discomfort does seem a little insensitive to me. But whatever...

Can I ask why you were restricted then?
Oh yeah, haha, that's a typo. "Fight FOR the right to abortion..." is what I meant. ¿Que?, I'm NOT suggesting that pregnancy is merely a temporary discomfort, I was paraphrasing common pro-abortion arguments made by the more "radical" feminists. Forgive my poor writing skills.

Why was I restricted? The reason I was given was that I support Russian Imperialism, and in addition to that, I was told that a "weird" post I made regarding how imperialism exposes backwardness also contributed(the OP asked whether or not Imperialism exposes technological/cultural/political/etc backwardness, and I said yes). I don't know how they came to the conclusion that I support Russian Imperialism, it's really news to me, if I were to return to Russia today, Russian authorities would immediately pass on the information to Kadyrov's men in the Chechen Republic and I'd be kidnapped and tortured to death(my father fought under Mashkadov during the Chechen Wars and my fraternal and maternal uncles and other male relatives also fought and some were involved in supplying arms and munitions for the war effort through illegal means -- my parents come from some of the most anti-Russian teyps(Chechen clans) in Chechnya that have resisted Russian Imperialism since the 19th century), so I'd say I'm one of the most anti-Russian Imperialism members around here. I've appealed by restriction back in April, though my appeal was deleted in a few days and I've been inquiring about why since late May but so far I'm being completely ignored.

[NGNM85]

http://www.medicaldaily.com/news/20120611/10247/plants-communication-survival.htm (http://www.medicaldaily.com/news/20120611/10247/plants-communication-survival.htm)
the difference is human, a fetus is not a human (yet), a fetus is a fetus.. we can debate when something becomes a human,..

There are a couple of problems with this. First; it needs to be clarified that the term; ‘fetus’ refers to a fairly broad range of the gestational period, in fact; virtually all of it. In the beginning of the fetal stage; I would be inclined to agree. However; the difference between an 8.5 month old ‘fetus’, and a two-day-old ‘baby’ is, primarily, semantic. It has more to do with geography, than biology. As I said before; human rights should never be contingent on such arbitrary criteria. This brings me to another one of the logical problems with your argument; it produces bizarre paradoxes wherein a premature ‘baby’, delivered at 7.5 months, is considered a human, with rights, but a 8-month-old fetus is just worthless biomatter. When you get results like that in physics, or mathematics, that usually indicates you’re on the wrong track. Where does one draw the line? Or, rather, more fundamentally; by what metric does one make such a determination? The answer is neurological development. The core of what defines us, as human beings, is our brains. Let’s take an anology from bad Science Fiction. In Robocop 2, (One of my guilty pleasures.) the primary antagonist; drug kingpin, and cult leader, Cain, is mangled in an auto wreck by our cybernetic protagonist. However; the unscrupulous employees of the diabolical Omni Consumer Products Inc. obtain his remains, and use them to create a new cyborg, with a more flexible morality than the intrepid Alex Murphy. Unlike Robocop; Cain’s entire body, save his eyes, brain, and spinal cord, are discarded. However; the essence of his being remains. As long as the technology supplanting his life functions is active; he will manifest the phenomena we call; consciousness. He is still Cain, in every sense that matters. He would still have rights, which we would be obligated to respect. Therefore; by measuring fetal brain development, we can, within an acceptable margin of error, determine at which point, or, more accurately, at which range, in the normal gestational process that a fetus becomes a human being. In the interests of full disclosure; I am a history major, and, thus, my knowledge of neurology is limited to what I gleaned from a number of psychology courses, a couple of books, and from reading Scientific American on a semi-regular basis. As an aside; I would gladly defer to anyone with greater medical knowledge, than my own, who would like to shine further light on this subject. As I understand it; wsg1991 is a med student. That said; without going too deep into detail, from what I’ve gathered, by the 6th, or 7th month; all the essential neural architecture is in place. Also; incidentally, by this time, the fetus is as self-sufficient as any newborn, and has something like a 98% chance of survival, outside the womb. I don’t think neuroscience is sufficiently advanced to pin it down to an exact moment; but I this seems to be about the right spot.


sure, we could argue, just for the fun of it wheter on morailist grounds its morally allowed to terminate the development of a possible future human,

Well; the whole crux of my argument is that, by the 6th, or 7th month, a fetus is no longer a ‘possible human’, but a fully-fledged member of the human race.
　

but even then i will say that i dont oppose killing humans, let alone possible future humans. heck i dont even oppose killing babies in various scenarios. come out as the moralist that you are and call me a monster if you want, but dont accuse me of dodging,

As I understand the term; I would not qualify as a; ‘moralist.’ However; I really don’t want to derail this thread into a technical debate on Marxist jargon.

As an atheist; I’m a utilitarian, which, I would charge, is the only sensible position. From this statement; it sounds like you are, as well. However; while the rightness, or wrongness, of a given action may be dependent on the circumstances, which is why, when talking about moral guidelines we have to speak in generalities, without resorting to some bizarre Sci-Fi scenario, or some fantastical MacGuffin, I’m really at a loss to come up with a scenario where rape could be considered justifiable. Regarding human life; while I am not a pacifist, by any stretch of the imagination, I would argue that we should exercise the widest possible latitude, and that we should always err on the side of preserving human life, over destroying it. I would argue that this is the only ethical position that is truly compatible with Libertarian Socialism, with Anarchism.


if any thing the anti-abortionist here are (as always) dodging, hiding their all to apperent moralist "arguments" behind psuedo science.

There aren’t any ‘anti-abortionists‘, here, to my knowledge. I’m not ‘anti-abortion.’ I’m Pro-Choice. So is wsg1991, from what he’s said. I’m not just Pro-Choice, I’m strongly Pro-Choice. I’ve signed petitions for Planned Parenthood. My views on abortion are, by definition, (Small ‘p’) progressive. As far as I’m concerned, and I maintain that I am correct in this; abortion, within something analogous to existing (Federal) legal parameters, should be freely available to any woman that wants it, because healthcare is a fundamental human right.

Also; nothing I’ve suggested qualifies as ‘pseudoscience.’ All, or, virtually all, of the facts I cited are empirical facts, universally recognized by the scientific community. Really; the only major assertions that I have made are that humans are biological organisms, consciousness is a phenomena manifested by the human brain, and that, by something like the 6th, or 7th month, the fetal brain has developed all the prerequisite neural architecture to begin manifesting consciousness. That’s not ‘pseudoscience.’ ‘Pseudoscience’ is ‘Ancient Astronaut’ bullshit, and the Loch Ness Monster.
　

no matter how much you try to mask it its exactly like debating the religious about abortion,

No, it’s completely different. What they believe, which is the fundamental principle of the Pro-Life movement, is that the sufficient condition of what defines us, as human beings, is a magical essence, an ‘immortal soul.’ They’re position is based on unconditional belief in superstitious nonsense, mine is predicated on entirely conditional beliefs based on established, scientific facts.


"human life is sacred",

You used that word. I didn’t. As I said; it carries troubling religious connotations. However; in context, in general, I’ll accept it, as a general principle. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t situations where taking human life isn’t justifiable. I can’t fathom any reason to condemn Dietrich Bonheoffer, for example. Homicide would also be justifiable in less extreme circumstances, like a hostage situation. However; again, I believe that we are compelled to always err on the side of preserving life. This is why I oppose the death penalty, for example. (Which, incidentally, I would also argue is fundamentally incompatible with Anarchism.)


o.k. fair enough but as with your "science"

It’s not; ‘science’, it’s just science.


argument their definition of life is as made up but theirs is based on their scripture they think, completely useless argument (just like yours) but then be able to defend that idiotic slogan (and yes, you are just as musch sloganeering as you accuse me, pot meet kettle)

Again; you said it, not me. Also; I am able to articulate it, at length, why I take this position. Also; my position doesn’t contradict established medical facts, it isn’t predicated on arbitrary criteria, and it is entirely consistent.


, so i will ask "pro-life" christians, jews, muslims; "if life is sacred why do you oppose abortion? your own religious, unfailible, book, written by god himself, declares that life equals breathing, fetusses dont breath, abortion is thus permitted (and for jews, by jewish law, even manditory in case of any serious risk to the carrier in every stage of the pregnancy)"

Being Pro-Choice, and an atheist, I don't see that this has anything to do with me.
　

see i dont agree with religious arguments arround abortion, but i can still enjoy poking holes in their arguments, esp when i think their mindbogingly stupid.

As do I.


just so i will entertain your "bla bla science bla bla life is cerebral cortex bla bla" nonsense for a bit and state that no matter all your smokescreens by scientific definition as long as its a fetus its not a baby and as long as its a fetus its not alive but just another part of the very much alive woman and she can do damn wel with any part of her body as she damn well pleases.

This is exactly what I was talking about. You can’t say you’re open to rational debate, and you’re not hiding behind anything, and then add all these caveats, and boundries to the conversation, including conceding that you are right about everything, which, by definition, makes ‘debate’ an impossibility. You’re adamantly opposed to it. So don’t pull this; ‘I’m not hiding anything’ nonsense.


and then i'll just grow bored, remind you all that our FAQ/boardrules state;
and say; so yes you are sexists.

The text of the forum FAQ is not in question. I’ve cited it, myself. I’d also be fine with you hiding behind this absurd, and irrational, etc., prohibition, if you’ll stipulate, as the wording of the text actually seems to imply, that this is, in fact, a non-literal use of the word ‘sexism’, or, at the very least, will place it in quotes, or use some other indicator that you are, essentially, employing in-group slang.
　

now you can either respectfully disagree
I maintain that I have actually been the most civilized person, here.

and i'll allow this thread to remain open (always good to capture some other, yet unrestricted, sexists and stick them with the rest of the reactionaries where they belong) or we retract the granted privilige we only give to the anti-abortion-sexist and never to all other sexists, the racists, the homphobes, the fash, etc etc and trash this thread and give you all your ban.

you are restricted, you are guests here for us to engage or ignore and call sexists as we please, if you dont like it, there are plenty of sexist boards for sexists like you to spread your sexism on.

Again; I wouldn’t object to this as long as you’d clarify the language. Also; it’s a little absurd to admonish someone for alleged ‘sexism’, or homophobia (I’m an ardent advocate for gay rights, in fact, my first exposure to activism was through my High School gay advocacy group.) while promoting Sexism (The real kind.) and Transphobia. As you’ve stated, which, granted, comports entirely with the official policy; women should have unique rights, above and beyond all other members of society, on the basis of their gender. That’s the very definition of sexism. There’s no other way to see it. Furthermore; the insistence that these special rights are the sole province of women (Which is what makes it Sexist.) means that they either don’t apply to TransMen, like Thomas Beatie, or that you are referring to him as; ‘women’, both of which, are, legitimately, considered Transphobic.

[NGNM85]

A human is a member of the genus Homo, specifically Homo Sapiens. Being born doesn't determine species. The debate over foetal rights isn't about whether or not it's human but about what determines personhood. It's a legal, ethical and philosophical thing not biological.

I'm pretty sure if a pregnant woman asked her doctor if the foetus inside her is human the doctor will be telling that to their colleagues later on and laughing about it.

No, that's not really it. The word; 'person', is usually associated with consciousness, with a personality. When you are unconscious, you don't stop being human, likewise; newborns, who really can't be said to have anything like an identity, and have considerably less awareness of their environment than your average housepet, are still classified as human beings. What makes us human beings is the capacity to manifest consciousness.

[mew]

How can this thread really exist on a leftist forum? I understand this is in OI, but supposed leftists are arguing for an anti-choice view. Great job being more reactionary than leftists who lived a hundred years ago, or fuck, even a lot of liberal politicians in DC.

[NGNM85]

How can this thread really exist on a leftist forum?

There's no law of physics that prevents it from doing so. Of course; that's not what you meant. The problem lies in a misunderstanding of the nuances of this debate, among other things. To be fair; this is not entirely your fault; you just got here, and this is a long, and complex debate, which is, actually, an extension of a longer debate that's taken place, over an extended period of time, and I don't honestly expect you to have familiarized yourself with all of that. That would be unreasonable.


I understand this is in OI, but supposed leftists

If you're challenging my credentials, as such, I would be fairly amenable to that. You can read my posts. Any objective analysis will reveal that I am a fairly unremarkable Libertarian Socialist. However; I'd really rather not derail the thread. Which brings me to the next point...


are arguing for an anti-choice view.

Well; I'm not entirely sure what; 'anti-choice' means. This phrase has no objective definition, therefore; I cannot defend myself against it, and it would be pointless to do so. The crux of the thing is that you don't understand my position. (This is a relatively common condition.) I'm Pro-Choice. I ardently support womens' right to have an abortion, roughly within the established legal parameters. Moreover; I believe it should be availible, free of charge, because, as I've said, healthcare is a basic human right.


Great job being more reactionary than leftists who lived a hundred years ago,

Literally speaking; it is impossible to, simultaneously, be a Leftist, and a Reactionary. Second; what I said wasn't Reactionary. Third; what I said was entirely compatible with Anarchism, or any number of other Socialist tendencies.


or fuck, even a lot of liberal politicians in DC.

No, that's not true. I mean, again, the problem is you don't totally understand where I'm coming from, for which I'm willing to give you a certain amount of credit. No, the Liberals, and Progressives in congress want abortion to be accessible, and free, as medical care should be, as it is in every other industrialized country. I happen to agree, on that point. There isn't any major, concerted opposition to the time limits imposed in the majority decision in Roe, in Washington, or elsewhere. As I've said; by all appearances, most women, even most Pro-Choice women, either support this limitation, or, at the very least, they clearly don't see it as a gross violation of their civil rights. That also goes for virtually every other industrialized country that has legalized abortion.

[NGNM85]

No you cretin,

In the words of Seth Meyer; Really? I don’t know what I find more galling, that you, of all people, would rush to the defense of such a transparently unscientific, and, in fact, anti-scientific, party line, to the extent that you feel it necessary to sink to unprovoked, and unwarranted personal attacks, or that that’s the smartest thing you could come up with.

This is really disappointing. I have no illusions that your self-esteem is, in any way, contingent upon my estimation of you, but things like this make it very difficult to respect you. I know I’m wasting my breath, here, I mean this whole thing is, really, a farce, anyhow, but the next time you and the others are having your extended gab fests about my numerous alleged character deficits, I'd ask that I did not respond, in kind.

Now that we’ve dispatched that wholly pointless diversion…


it's because by that time the pregnancy is obvious to everyone, especially the mother-to-be, who by that time would have long made their mind up whether to keep it, barring unexpected circumstances.

That this would send you into a frenzy is positively mystifying. I never said the legal limits imposed by the Abortion Act of 1967 (Unlike yourself, I actually bothered to familiarize myself with your laws, before commenting on them.) were the only reason. In fact; I never even implied it. I only suggested, at most, that they were a significant reason, and it’s hard to argue that the illegality of such procedures is totally irrelevant. For that matter; you’ve neglected to mention another significant reason, which is that abortions, at such an advanced stage of the pregnancy, are much more complicated, and take a much greater physical toll. Also, as I mentioned earlier, many women happen to find the idea disquieting.


The whole discussion is a worthless red herring that conveniently downplays the role of the woman in favour of quibbling over the minutiae of human foetal development.

How do we define human life? Who gets civil rights, and how do we weigh them against the civil rights of others? Those questions are, absolutely, worth asking. Furthermore; this is, especially, meaningful, here, as it has the secondary value of highlighting the underlying pathology of this community, and, by extension, the Radical Left.

No, gender is the red herring. It has absolutely no place in my argument, and you know that, because you’re one of the only people, here, that seems to understand it, or almost understands it. It also depends on what issue we are supposed to be debating. Are we having a debate about the sufficient conditions of a human being, or weighing the civil rights of two human beings? I’m going to presume you’ve conceded the former, as there’s no rational argument to the contrary. How do we weigh the rights of individuals when they come into conflict? The only sensible answer is that, at such times, it may become necessary to curb the rights of an individual, or individuals, so as to avert a greater infringement on the right of another individual, or individuals. Like Spock says in Wrath of Khan; 'The good of the many outweigh the need of the few, or the one.' It's tough to argue with that. However; that’s incomplete. It’s totally conceivable that one might be ethically obligated to slightly inconvenience the many, in order to protect just a few individuals, or, even, a single individual from grievous harm. I know I’ve said this before, (You’ve never presented a convincing counterargument.) but I don’t assign the same moral weight to both actors. However; even if you assign a lesser moral value to the fetus, in question, you can still get the same answer, depending on how you classify the degree of infringement on the rights of each individual. Clearly; there is a hierarchy of infringements that one could postulate, and, I would argue, the greatest of those is homicide, because it reduces the sum total of all the near-infinite possibilities of human existence to zero. It not only violates and individuals’ civil rights, it ends the possibility of ever exercising any of those rights, forever. Also; I concede that the fetus, in question, probably does not suffer in this equation. However; that isn't the point. Let’s use another example. It’s perfectly possible, albeit rare, to kill a human being without inflicting any physiological, or psychic distress. Say our intended victim is a hermit. He lives hundreds of miles from civilization. Her has no contact with the outside world. He has no friends. He has no living family. He has no pets. Even the local wildlife are almost completely oblivious to his existence. In killing him, as such, not only does he not suffer, but this action, apparently, has no deleterious effect on anything. The universe is completely oblivious. Is it still wrong? Of course it is. To suggest otherwise would be crazy. Also; again, as I’ve said before, if we’re going to err on either side of the equation, as human beings, we have an ethical imperative to always err on the side of preserving human life, as opposed to destroying it.

[Landsharks eat metal]

Again; I wouldn’t object to this as long as you’d clarify the language. Also; it’s a little absurd to admonish someone for alleged ‘sexism’, or homophobia (I’m an ardent advocate for gay rights, in fact, my first exposure to activism was through my High School gay advocacy group.) while promoting Sexism (The real kind.) and Transphobia. As you’ve stated, which, granted, comports entirely with the official policy; women should have unique rights, above and beyond all other members of society, on the basis of their gender. That’s the very definition of sexism. There’s no other way to see it. Furthermore; the insistence that these special rights are the sole province of women (Which is what makes it Sexist.) means that they either don’t apply to TransMen, like Thomas Beatie, or that you are referring to him as; ‘women’, both of which, are, legitimately, considered Transphobic.

Actually, the "special rights" that people who have a fully functioning uterus have are nothing to do with gender at all. Women and others do not have those rights simply because of their identity. It is only because of the biological function that their body is physically equipped to serve, whether or not they should choose to. Someone who cannot, and will never be able to be pregnant can't pretend to know what it's like to be pregnant. The choice of whether or not to abort the fetus should stand only with the person who is pregnant, and cisgender men in particular seem to try to strongarm themselves into the situation when it's not even their body, and that is definitely sexism.

As for the transphobia, although I try to avoid using problematic language (as a transman myself), I don't think it's important to this conversation. Trying to turn a debate about reproductive rights into one about transphobia is pretty much derailing. And I know that other people have different viewpoints than me, I'm okay with the use of the word "women" in these sorts of debates. I have accepted the reality of my body, that it is one that people will say is biologically female, but at the same time, I realize that doesn't define me. I am what I say I am no matter what words people use.

[If anybody can think of a better way to say what I've tried to say here, feel free.]

[NGNM85]

Before I respond to uour post, I just want to point out that you are the only person, so far, who not only clearly grasps the fundamentals of the debate, but was also willing, and able, to engage in civilized, rational debate. I may disagree with you, on a number of points, (Although, I think I actually agree with most of what you said.) I just want to say that the manner in which you have conducted yourself is exemplary.

Moving on...


I'm also not that well verse in medical biology. I do however, suspect the whole medical, advancement in science argument only serves to confuse the issue. What we are really talking about is the moral/ethical implications of certain actions, at various points in the pregnancy. What is really at issue here is personal autonomy, and how to deal with issues where personal autonomy of one individual infringes upon the autonomy of another in a mutually exclusive way.

Exactly.


An example of this outside of the abortion debate would be self defense. If an individual exerts their personal autonomy in a matter that infringes om mine, the question becomes to what extent do I have a right to defend myself? It is rather difficult to establish general principles to such a broad statement, yet it is worth considering it since this is essentially what we're talking about.

Indeed. The only thing I would add is to simply clarify that while the self defense analogy is instructive, that there are fundamental differences, however; you didn’t really suggest otherwise. I just think it bears mentioning.


In reference to revleft, specifically, the issue comes down to restricting members if they support restrictions on abortion of any kind. To be clear, I have no problem with this policy and would actively oppose loosening the definition of this policy to include some, limited restrictions, this being the reason I am posting this right now.

That’s unfortunate. Clearly; I completely disagree. I’m of the radical opinion that we should dispel with the ideological purity test, altogether. However; I am especially opposed to this tenet, which is irrational, unscientific, (Paradoxically.) Sexist, Transphobic, and, incidentally, not a fundamental tenet of any branch of Socialism, that I am aware of.


The justification for limited restrictions rests on the idea that since a certain degree of access to abortions is being conceded, that this is not a sexist position and therefore does not warrant restriction.

Again; I don’t think restrictions should be predicated on ideology, at all. I would also insist on some clarification. First; to say; abortion is being conceded ‘to a certain degree’ is, at best, highly misleading. ‘To a certain degree’, in this instance, is something like 100 percent. Not only that, I believe it should be available at every local hospital, totally free of charge, as, again, I am of the opinion that healthcare should be provided to all persons, free of charge, as it is an essential human right.



It brings us to the issue of personal autonomy again. The arguments for this position are as follows:

1. There is a certain point after the egg is fertilized that the issue where the autonomy of the fetus becomes a social/ethical concern as opposed to a personal one. Given this, certain restrictions on abortion are justifiable.

2. Since these restrictions on abortion are justifiable by certain presumably agreed upon ethical standards, it is not sexist to propose them and it does not warrant restriction to OI.

More-or-less, yes.


The first argument can be elaborated on to include:

a. Abortion restrictions are being suggested for, in one case over 7 months, and in another, after 20 weeks. This is not a full scale assault on women's reproductive rights. It merely sacrifices some of those rights for the rights of the fetus.

20 weeks is on the early side. I’m actually more inclined toward a more liberal interpretation, more in the area of 6-7 months, barring a medical emergency.


b. The rights of the fetus can be demonstrated by its viability after abortion. If a fetus can survive after being aborted then it must have some rights.

Actually; I disagree. This was the justification given in Roe, and, while I generally agree with the decision, I think it was made for the wrong reasons. ‘Viability’ is not the issue. For example; if it were possible to nurture a zygote to maturity in some sort of life support chamber, I don’t see any reason why there would be an ethical imperative to do so. The most important metric is neurological development, the development of the neural architecture which manifests the phenomenon of consciousness. I think this is an important distinction.



c. Given that the majority of abortions at this stage are due to medical necessity, the actual restriction is very limited.

Essentially, all of them are. As I understand it, it’s not even legal to perform these procedures, otherwise.


The first thing to consider is that the existence of the fetus infringes on the personal autonomy of the pregnant woman. The issue of choice suggests that it is a woman's right to choose to accept this sacrifice, to willingly give up a certain degree of personal autonomy for the well being of the fetus. This choice has several implications. It is presupposed that if a woman chooses to carry a pregnancy to term, that she will sacrifice certain freedoms and liberties, otherwise, she is being negligent. I think it is obvious to see how carrying a pregnancy to term in negligent fashion is in principle, a worse offense than abortion. The long term ramifications of negligence, through for example, excessive smoking, drinking or unhealthy diet, can be disastrous for the child, and can often lead to physical abnormalities, which the people here who support restrictions seem to consider legitimate reasons to abort at any stage. These seem to fall under the broad term medical necessity.

Agreed.


Since pregnancy automatically involves an infringement on the personal autonomy of the woman by the fetus, it follows that it should be a woman's right to make this sacrifice. It is in a sense, analogous to the argument of self defense, since both involve the right of one individual not to enter into a relationship with another entity in which the former's personal autonomy is infringed upon. Counter to this argument is the idea that the autonomy of the fetus must be considered, or rather, that the autonomy of the fetus, at a certain point becomes a social concern, not a personal decision of the mother. I would argue that the child becomes a social concern when the mother gives birth to it. It is at this point that the existence of the child no longer necessitates an infringement on the autonomy of the mother.

Here’s where you start slipping off the rails. No-one, certainly not I, has suggested that anyone be required to carry an unwanted pregnancy. That’s a red herring, as is gender, for that matter. At the stage of gestation in question; the fetus simply does not need to remain inside it’s mother to survive. It is as self-sufficient as any newborn. Abortion, also, by definition, implies the removal of the embryo/fetus/what-have-you from the parents’ body. The question is not; Does the parent have the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy?’ It’s; ‘Does the parents’ right of bodily autonomy allow them to terminate what is, in truth, a baby, when this is not medically necessary?’

We could have a long, complex debate about what we should care about. However; in brief, I would argue that we have an ethical imperative to protect, and preserve human life, and to always err on the side of the latter, as opposed to the former. I think we should exercise great care when making such decisions, lest we marginalize an entire strata of humanity, on the basis of arbitrary characteristics, something to which, Leftists, I should think, should be especially sensitive.


However, the viability of a premature or aborted fetus is used to argue that a certain amount of restrictions on abortion should be made. Yet, the viability of the fetus outside the mother's womb is not really an issue.

It has no bearing on determining what it is, which is a biological question. However; it does impact how we proceed. For example; there simply is no possibility of removing a non-viable fetus, therefore, we can’t even consider it. See above, for more on the issue of viability.


So long as the fetus remains in the mothers womb, its existence necessitates an infringement on the autonomy of the pregnant woman,

The pregnant parent, yes.


and as such should be considered the personal decision of the woman.

That doesn’t follow. I don’t think anybody, here, is a deontologist. There are numerous instances in which it is, quite reasonably, considered acceptable to violate the bodily autonomy of individuals, for the good of another individual, or individuals. For example; hospital patients, mental patients, persons in the correctional system, persons under quarantine, children, etc., etc. I submit that, in the abstract; those are totally justifiable infringements on the bodily autonomy of those individuals. It makes no sense that in this one instance we use a radically different type of moral calculus. It’s irrational. Let me use two analogies; one real, one hypothetical. The first, the hypothetical involves a person suspected of carrying a pathogen, a new deadly bio-weapon. Let’s further suggest that this diabolical concoction, while totally lethal, can only be spread to a single person. I submit that even under such circumstances, where only one persons’ life is possibly in jeopardy, that said individual would be quarantined, and subjected to some uncomfortable medical tests, and, furthermore; that we would be entirely justified in doing so. The second scenario, from real life, is the story of a teenager, I think he was maybe 16, or something, maybe 17, whatever, the point is he was hardly an infant. Unfortunately; this young man had the misfortune to have developed a treatable, but deadly cancer, and a devout Christian Scientist for a mother. Both mother and son refused the necessary medical treatment, and, eventually, went on the run, after doctors contacted the authorities. The young man, and his mother were found, he received the treatment, and, as far as I know, he’s alive, today, no thanks to his dingbat of a mother. Now; here we have a case of a patient, on the cusp of adulthood, able to take driving lessons, and own a gun, in many states, who is actually protesting the efforts to save his life. Again; I conclude that the decision made by the authorities was the right one. In this light; I don’t see any cogent ethical argument why it should be permissible to, unnecessarily, kill a human being, simply to reduce the infringement on someone else’s’ bodily autonomy. (Mind; abortion is, by definition, invasive.)


I will grant you that the viability of the fetus outside the womb does raise other issues. Should it be an ethical obligation to maintain the life of a viable fetus? Well, it really depends. What sort of life are we talking about? In certain cases, I would argue, it would be unethical not to terminate the life of a fetus, such as for example if the fetus will have some physical abnormalities that would seriously affect its quality of life.

Agreed.


Indeed, since those arguing for restrictions concede that certain abortions after the time in question are for medical necessity, and since that definition is taken to include physical abnormalities, then it is clear that in some cases, maintaining the fetus alive would be a serious ethical breech, if for example it means a limited life of suffering.

Agreed.


If on the other hand, through medical intervention, the child will be capable of living a relatively normal life, without forgetting the social ramifications of being a child without parents, since obviously one cannot force the woman to raise the child if one has granted her the right to abort, then I suspect this should be allowed, and I don't see it as an infringement on women's rights.

If I’m understanding you correctly; you just conceded the heart of my argument.


What is necessary then is some sort of an assessment process to determine the quality of life given medical intervention, and an alternative to abortion which serves essentially the same purpose but could be adequately labeled as inducing an early pregnancy. This may be seen by some feminists as an infringement on the personal autonomy of women, however, I would argue that the answer to that question is contingent on the medical procedure. If that procedure could be shown to be less invasive or risky to the health of the woman than contemporaneously available techniques which terminate the pregnancy without considering the well being of the fetus, then it could be argued that such techniques would be preferable. This is, as far as I know, currently only a hypothetical question. In this case, it seems it is a matter for medical science to sort out.

Exactly! This is what I’ve been saying all along.


My last argument involves the statistics. It has been shown that the percentage of abortions which occur during the proposed restriction period is rather small,

It’s barely a handful. Almost none. For example, in England, in 2006, 90% of abortions were performed within the first 12 weeks.


and that most of these are as a result of medical necessity.

Essentially, all of them.


I am assuming that even in the case of medical necessity, those who propose restrictions would implement some sort of assessment scheme to determine if the abortion is indeed a medical necessity, and that in turn, these abortions would still be permitted.

Yeah; that’s how most countries do it, I know that’s how Sweden does it.


As such, what we are talking about is a percentage of abortions which falls below 1%.

Probably.


I would argue that in this case, medical necessity is not the issue, rather, simply, necessity in a broader sense. Why do people get late term abortions? A link provided by the OP shows the following:

Well, there’s a difference between a mother, in an emergency room, who will die, shortly, if the fetus is not removed, and a perfectly healthy parent, who has had numerous opportunities to terminate the pregnancy, inexplicably deciding to do so, at 8 months.


As we can see, not all of those listed are medical necessities, however, some I would argue are necessities, nonetheless. Most of these other necessities, however, point to more general problems with society.

Yes.


The cost of the procedure requires money, and as such raising the money could take time. By the time enough money is raised, the pregnancy might already be in the restricted period. If people are concerned with the ethics of this, then abortions should be provided at no cost to the woman.

I concur. I’ve repeatedly insisted that essential medical care must be available, free of charge. It is not a commodity. You don’t decide to have chemotherapy like you decide to buy a new pair of shoes, you do it because you’ll die if you don’t.


I believe all other necessities which do not fall directly under the category of medical necessities, where ethical ambiguities remain, social policy should favor those solutions which do not directly infringe on the personal autonomy of the woman.

There’s no reason why a conflict would arise. The two are not mutually exclusive.


In the example I gave, it is preferable to provide safe, free abortions to women, so that if they choose to, they can do it soon, as opposed to delaying the process by requiring that they raise a certain amount of money.

Agreed.


What then is being restricted. It has been established that out of that small percentage of abortions that are carried out after the time period in question, even a smaller percentage are carried out for reasons other than medical necessity, leaving only a very small number of abortions that are being carried out unnecessarily. But what are we really talking about when we talk about an unnecessary abortion? What we are really saying is that a woman's decision to abort, in these particular instances, present some ethical concerns, some ethical transgression, and in saying so, I mean a certain agreed upon, or socially constructed, ethical standard. If this is the case, then it must be clearly stated what ethical standards are being violated. We have established that the existence of the fetus necessitates the infringement on the autonomy of the woman, thus it must be demonstrated that this infringement on the woman's autonomy is justifiable. This becomes a problem because I don't think there exist to many universals at this point. Every situation is going to contingent on social conditions which may or may not suggest that abortion is justifiable. As such, to state that restrictions on abortion at this or that point is justifiable is too general a statement to really have any concrete practical advantage to women's rights.

Granted, when talking about ethics, and this echoes what you were saying, before, we have to speak in broad generalities. For example; there are some circumstances where taking human life is ethically permissible, there are situations where we might even be ethically obligated to do so. However; I’m presuming that we’re talking about the industrialized world, where universal healthcare is the norm, as it should be.


On the other hand, the particular advantages to the restriction of women's rights in general, and specifically to reproductive rights is obvious. It essentially becomes a legal issue, defining what abortions are justifiable and which ones are not.

Yes.


As I have stated, it is impossible to create a general set of restrictions because the necessity or ethical implications of abortion are highly contingent on social context, because it is impossible to imagine every single scenario in which an abortion would or wouldn't be justified.

Again; it’s impossible to cover every conceivable situation. This is an unrealistic expectation. By this standard; we shouldn’t have laws, at all.


We must there err on the side of the woman.

I would argue that we must err on the side of the party whose rights are most severely violated. I don’t see how being killed is a lesser violation of civil rights over a slightly more invasive surgical procedure, when one has already consented to invasive surgery.


The inevitable consequence of any restriction on abortion would result in justifiable abortions being denied.

The inevitable consequence of a criminal justice system is that innocent people will be convicted. (One of the other reasons I oppose the death penalty.) However; under the proposed guidelines, it should be clarified that no-one is ever required to carry an unwanted pregnancy.


Conversely, the free access to abortion would inevitably allow for unjustifiable abortions to be performed. We are again confronted with the struggle between a woman's autonomy and that of the fetus, except now we are referring to the two in a collective sense, than in an individual one. However, this does not change the fundamental nature of the existence of the fetus as an infringement on the autonomy of the woman, and thus the same arguments apply.

See above.


Indeed the whole notion of unjustifiable abortions, the basic premise of the argument for any kind of restrictions is dubious and quite likely sexist.

It’s probably Sexist, but not necessarily sexist. Specifically; my argument was not Sexist, literally speaking. While we’re on the subject; the forum policy is explicitly (Again; paradoxically.) Sexist, and Transphobic.


Note first, that by unjustifiable abortions, I am referring only to those abortions that were made by the willful decision of the pregnant woman. In this case, forced abortion, while technically unjustified, do not apply. I am strictly referring to abortions that the woman chose to have done. Can there be such a thing as an unjustified abortion? It is difficult to say, however, given the current stage of capitalist development and the women's struggle, it is difficult to answer in the affirmative. Mostly because it's likely that any such scenario could be better remedied by other social policies which do not infringe on the rights and specifically reproductive rights of women. As an example I heard recently, is the notion that sometimes young and teenage women use abortion as a form of birth control. Rather than practicing safe sex, they risk it, because after all, if they get pregnant, she can just get an abortion. This obviously is a problem that can better be dealt with through other forms of social interventions that do not require restricting abortion, such as improving sexual education and decreasing barriers (such as cost) to birth control. Thus, the idea that certain abortions are unjustified on ethical grounds, should this idea have any validity at all, does not immediate require the imposition of restrictions on abortion. Rather, it is more beneficial to try and find social policies which rectify the problem while maintaining unrestricted reproductive rights.

Again; it’s not a zero sum game. Most European countries have universal healthcare, including abortion, and I’d gather that they probably don’t suffer from Americans’ absurd Victorian aversion to making contraceptives available, and I’m nearly positive that they don’t teach ‘abstinence only’ sex ed. However; they still have these legal restrictions.

[NGNM85]

Actually, the "special rights" that people who have a fully functioning uterus have are nothing to do with gender at all. Women and others do not have those rights simply because of their identity. It is only because of the biological function that their body is physically equipped to serve, whether or not they should choose to.

It doesn't have to be. I grant that. However; when a policy specifically states that these rights are the sole preserve of women, and only women, because they are women, it absolutely is.


Someone who cannot, and will never be able to be pregnant can't pretend to know what it's like to be pregnant.

Agreed.


The choice of whether or not to abort the fetus should stand only with the person who is pregnant, and cisgender men in particular seem to try to strongarm themselves into the situation when it's not even their body, and that is definitely sexism.

That doesn't follow. Judges and politicians must, regularly, make decisions for people whose circumstances are significantly different from their own. Second; the inevitable extension of this thinking is an infinitely compartmentalized legal system. Not only would this be a logistical nightmare, but variances in civil rights predicated on such abitrary distinctions has been a defining feature of a disproportionate number of the darker chapters of humanity. Justice must be blind, otherwise; it isn't justice.


As for the transphobia, although I try to avoid using problematic language (as a transman myself), I don't think it's important to this conversation. Trying to turn a debate about reproductive rights into one about transphobia is pretty much derailing. And I know that other people have different viewpoints than me, I'm okay with the use of the word "women" in these sorts of debates. I have accepted the reality of my body, that it is one that people will say is biologically female, but at the same time, I realize that doesn't define me. I am what I say I am no matter what words people use.

[If anybody can think of a better way to say what I've tried to say here, feel free.]

That's fine, that's your personal decision. However; in the instance of official policy, I think it matters.

[~Spectre]

As an atheist; I’m a utilitarian, which, I would charge, is the only sensible position.

What an odd thing to be. How on earth do you justify your pro-life positions with utilitarian mysticism?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

In the words of Seth Meyer; Really? I don’t know what I find more galling, that you, of all people, would rush to the defense of such a transparently unscientific, and, in fact, anti-scientific, party line, to the extent that you feel it necessary to sink to unprovoked, and unwarranted personal attacks, or that that’s the smartest thing you could come up with.

Maybe if you didn't become so fuckdamned indignant every time someone dared express a forthright opinion, then I might be less inclined to consider you cretinous.


This is really disappointing. I have no illusions that your self-esteem is, in any way, contingent upon my estimation of you, but things like this make it very difficult to respect you. I know I’m wasting my breath, here, I mean this whole thing is, really, a farce, anyhow, but the next time you and the others are having your extended gab fests about my numerous alleged character deficits, I'd ask that I did not respond, in kind.

What on Earth are you talking about?


Now that we’ve dispatched that wholly pointless diversion…

You know, you could have just complete ignored my insult, like any fucking adult would have.


That this would send you into a frenzy is positively mystifying. I never said the legal limits imposed by the Abortion Act of 1967 (Unlike yourself, I actually bothered to familiarize myself with your laws, before commenting on them.) were the only reason. In fact; I never even implied it. I only suggested, at most, that they were a significant reason, and it’s hard to argue that the illegality of such procedures is totally irrelevant. For that matter; you’ve neglected to mention another significant reason, which is that abortions, at such an advanced stage of the pregnancy, are much more complicated, and take a much greater physical toll. Also, as I mentioned earlier, many women happen to find the idea disquieting.

I see your indignation has got the better of you. I wasn't talking about the fucking law. The law is a fucking ass.

I was talking about the fact that by the time a pregnancy has advanced to the stage when you're clutching your pearls over the prospect of the mother-to-be deciding to abort, the pregnancy has been long obvious to everyone, especially the woman who is heavily pregnant!

If woman has allowed the pregnancy to come that far, then she either plans to keep it, or the decision to abort was prompted by outside circumstances most likely beyond her control.


How do we define human life? Who gets civil rights, and how do we weigh them against the civil rights of others? Those questions are, absolutely, worth asking. Furthermore; this is, especially, meaningful, here, as it has the secondary value of highlighting the underlying pathology of this community, and, by extension, the Radical Left.

Hmm, what a difficult ethical conundrum, choosing between bringing a foetus to term or letting an adult woman have bodily autonomy. Are you for real?


No, gender is the red herring. It has absolutely no place in my argument, and you know that, because you’re one of the only people, here, that seems to understand it, or almost understands it. It also depends on what issue we are supposed to be debating.

It looks like you have gender (a social construct) and sex (a physiological characteristic) confused.

Perhaps your confusion can be eased by pointing out that anyone with a functioning uterus, by virtue of that uterus being part of their body, has in any ethical society the sole binding decision as to what happens to it.


Are we having a debate about the sufficient conditions of a human being, or weighing the civil rights of two human beings? I’m going to presume you’ve conceded the former, as there’s no rational argument to the contrary. How do we weigh the rights of individuals when they come into conflict? The only sensible answer is that, at such times, it may become necessary to curb the rights of an individual, or individuals, so as to avert a greater infringement on the right of another individual, or individuals. Like Spock says in Wrath of Khan; 'The good of the many outweigh the need of the few, or the one.' It's tough to argue with that. However; that’s incomplete. It’s totally conceivable that one might be ethically obligated to slightly inconvenience the many, in order to protect just a few individuals, or, even, a single individual from grievous harm.

Your problem is that you conflate person and human. All persons are humans, but not all humans are persons. You can't have a meaningful relationship with a human that is a corpse or a foetus.


I know I’ve said this before, (You’ve never presented a convincing counterargument.) but I don’t assign the same moral weight to both actors. However; even if you assign a lesser moral value to the fetus, in question, you can still get the same answer, depending on how you classify the degree of infringement on the rights of each individual. Clearly; there is a hierarchy of infringements that one could postulate, and, I would argue, the greatest of those is homicide, because it reduces the sum total of all the near-infinite possibilities of human existence to zero. It not only violates and individuals’ civil rights, it ends the possibility of ever exercising any of those rights, forever. Also; I concede that the fetus, in question, probably does not suffer in this equation. However; that isn't the point. Let’s use another example. It’s perfectly possible, albeit rare, to kill a human being without inflicting any physiological, or psychic distress. Say our intended victim is a hermit. He lives hundreds of miles from civilization. Her has no contact with the outside world. He has no friends. He has no living family. He has no pets. Even the local wildlife are almost completely oblivious to his existence. In killing him, as such, not only does he not suffer, but this action, apparently, has no deleterious effect on anything. The universe is completely oblivious. Is it still wrong? Of course it is.

Yes, but do you know why? Because even this hypothetical hermit would have had parents, friends while growing up, and so on and so forth before taking up hermitry. Even once this person became a hermit, they would still have their own thoughts and opinions on various stuff, personal habits and quirks, etc. Your creation of this hypothetical is a tacit admission of the idealist basis of your argument, which considers human beings in the abstract rather than as the social creatures that they are.


To suggest otherwise would be crazy. Also; again, as I’ve said before, if we’re going to err on either side of the equation, as human beings, we have an ethical imperative to always err on the side of preserving human life, as opposed to destroying it.

And in the case of pregnancy, the mother-to-be always has more of what it takes to be a human than the foetus, because humanity is more than its genes.

[NGNM85]

Maybe if you didn't become so fuckdamned indignant every time someone dared express a forthright opinion, then I might be less inclined to consider you cretinous.

This is complete nonsense. I have been remarkably reserved, and civil, which is more than you can claim.


What on Earth are you talking about?

It’s immaterial. Nevermind.


You know, you could have just complete ignored my insult, like any fucking adult would have.

This is ridiculous; that you have the gall to provoke me with schoolyard taunts, and then question my emotional maturity. I’ll say this; you’re audacity is boundless.



I see your indignation has got the better of you. I wasn't talking about the fucking law. The law is a fucking ass.

Eloquent in it’s brevity. This is nonsense. Let’s roll back the clock; Nox said, among other things, that abortions, performed at such an advanced stage in the pregnancy are exceedingly rare, (Which; incidentally, I’ve never denied, in fact, I’ve said so, repeatedly.) and, generally, performed because of a medical emergency. I responded to this by pointing out, that in almost every country that has legalized abortion, these are the only circumstances where such a procedure is legally permitted. This idle comment, which happens to be both accurate, topical, and prescient is what sent you into a tizzy. So; as I was talking about the law, and you were responding to my, admittedly, rather banal comment about the law; you were talking about the law.

When you say, and I quote; ‘The law is a fucking ass.’ I’m presuming you’re talking about the Abortion Act of 1967, and not law, as a concept. I don’t see any reason why this fairly unremarkable piece of legislation, should arouse such outrage. It legalized abortion, in England, it took us almost a decade to get around to it. Furthermore; unlike, here, in America, this medical service is made available to the public. In the United States, you are free to have an abortion, up to between 24-28 weeks; if you can pay for it. You’re a bit ahead of us, culturally, in that respect. However; getting back to the point; I certainly don’t have my finger on the pulse of British society, but, as far as I know, this is not perceived bt the pubic at large, including British women, as horrifically oppressive. Similarly; while I’m only peripherally aware of the Pro-Choice movement in the United States (As I happen to live in Massachusetts, in the ‘Liberal North’, the Evangelical right doesn’t wield the kind of power, here, that it has in Texas, or Tennessee.) as far as I know, even the major Pro-Choice groups aren’t that focused on the time limits imposed by Roe, they’re incensed about all these asinine laws sponsored by Republicans in the state legislatures; limiting funding for organizations that provide abortion, creating legal roadblocks, like requiring parental consent, or trying to intimidate patients by requiring unnecessary ultrasounds, etc., etc.



I was talking about the fact that by the time a pregnancy has advanced to the stage when you're clutching your pearls over the prospect of the mother-to-be deciding to abort, the pregnancy has been long obvious to everyone, especially the woman who is heavily pregnant!This is just a more hostile, and belligerent version of what you said, last time. You’re simply sidestepping the issue, wailing; ‘But that almost never happens!’ That’s not an argument. The frequency, or likelihood of an event has no bearing on the ethical ramifications of said event. For example; it is simply unconceivable that homicide would ever get so rare that we would cease to bother to condemn, or discourage it. To the contrary; as human civilization has evolved, we’ve gradually, in the broadest sense, become more sensitive to the plight of others. While I’m not especially fond of the Animal Rights movement, I thinks it’s fair to say that this is an extension of the same phenomenon. Not so long ago; most humans, even in the West, had very few rights, as time has gone on, (Admittedly; largely, as the result of popular struggle.) that circle has been expanded.



If woman has allowed the pregnancy to come that far, then she either plans to keep it, or the decision to abort was prompted by outside circumstances most likely beyond her control.

Probably. However; again, this completely ignores the issue at hand.
　


Hmm, what a difficult ethical conundrum, choosing between bringing a foetus to term or letting an adult woman have bodily autonomy. Are you for real?

This is a strawman argument, and unlike most of the others, I think you know that. I’ve said it multiple times; rights should never be contingent on arbitrary characteristics, such as gender. (Or ethnicity, etc.) Gender simply has no bearing on my argument. It isn’t even a factor.

Let’s also stop pretending that anybody, including you, believes bodily autonomy is sacrosanct. This is bullshit. Again; there are numerous occasions where bodily autonomy is overriden, that nobody has any objection to. In this light these vehement protestations make no sense.

Also; the question is not; which party has the right to bodily autonomy, but; How do we weigh that right against the rights of another?

Also; one does not have to assign the same moral weight to both actors, in order to arrive at this conclusion. I certainly don't. However; it's hard for me to see that an extremely minor limitation on how exactly a pregnancy may be terminated, specifically; which procedure may be used, is greater than the imposition of being killed, which, again, is the supreme violation of ones' civil rights.

Finally; again, as you very well know; I’ve never suggested that anyone should ever be required to carry an unwanted pregnancy.
　
　

It looks like you have gender (a social construct) and sex (a physiological characteristic) confused.

Is Thomas Beatie a woman?


Perhaps your confusion can be eased by pointing out that anyone with a functioning uterus, by virtue of that uterus being part of their body, has in any ethical society the sole binding decision as to what happens to it.

Again; this is completely irrational, and unprecedented. No-one believes this right as sacrosanct, certainly, you don’t. I am limited in certain things that I am able to do with my body, as I should be. As I stated; we detain people, and subject them to invasive, and uncomfortable medical tests, merely on the possibility that they may be carrying a pathogen. Moreover; I believe that we would do so, even if said pathogen only represented a risk to a single person, and we would be right to do it.

In an ethical society; when the rights of individuals come into conflict, it often becomes necessary to curb, or limit the rights of one party, or parties, to avert a greater imposition on the rights of another party, or parties, as I was saying before. This is neatly summarized by Spock, at the end of Wrath of Khan. However; his formulation is incomplete, for example, I can’t see any rational argument that it would not be justifiable to modestly inconvenience several individuals, to protect just a few individuals, or a single individual, from grievous injury.
　

Your problem is that you conflate person and human. All persons are humans, but not all humans are persons.

Absolutely. However; ‘personhood’ in this sense, is inadequate as the sole arbiter of rights. Infants, for example, cannot be said to be persons. A newborn has less of an identity, and less awareness than your average, domesticated, dog, or cat. This has led some, erroneously, to conclude that we should actually assign greater moral weight to the former, than the latter, most notably, Dr. Peter Singer. In fact; I was debating a Singerite, who made that very same assertion, when I was Restricted. I find it fascinating that my comments have initiated this firestorm of controversy, yet her assertion that one should be free to, arbitrarily, euthanize an infant up to, I think she said I year-and-a half, of age, merited nary a peep. That’s just interesting to me.
　

You can't have a meaningful relationship with a human that is a corpse or a foetus.

First of all; again, as you well know, the word; ‘fetus’ does not refer to a single frame of gestation, but, rather; virtually all of it, from 11-43 weeks. So; depending on what point you want to drop in on, we’re talking about radically different things. You simply cannot equivocate a 12-week-old fetus, and a 40-week-old fetus. There is a radical difference.

Second; a corpse represents a former human being. A human being that once was. It is still, biologically human, but it is not a human being. It is mostly inert biomatter. It is waste. It is not only incapable of manifesting consciousness, it will never be able to manifest consciousness.

Third; civil rights should not be contingent on social interaction. No matter how far removed you become from the human species, I am never allowed to arbitrarily kill you, to murder you.
　　

Yes, but do you know why? Because even this hypothetical hermit would have had parents, friends while growing up, and so on and so forth before taking up hermitry.

Again; the hypothetical stated that said individual has no surviving friends, relatives, or acquantances, who can recall his existence.


Even once this person became a hermit, they would still have their own thoughts and opinions on various stuff, personal habits and quirks, etc.

Of course. I never suggested otherwise. I thought it was implicit.


Your creation of this hypothetical is a tacit admission of the idealist basis of your argument, which considers human beings in the abstract rather than as the social creatures that they are.

Oh, marvelous. You hit all the bases on that one. How disappointingly predictable. Not all human beings are social. In truth; there are probably, at least, several hundred people who, roughly, fit the perameters of my hypothetical, more likely; thousands, albeit, mostly in rural areas. It was simply a device to prove a point. The point was that I should never consider myself entitled to, arbitrarily, deprive any human being of their life, regardless of how much suffering I cause, if any, even if no-one suffers one iota from this action. This is what I was trying (Unsuccessfully.) to make you understand.
　

And in the case of pregnancy, the mother-to-be always has more of what it takes to be a human.

Nope. It’s a zero-sum game. I’m no more human than you, a newborn baby is no less human than I, etc.


than the foetus, because humanity is more than its genes.

Of course it is. (I never suggested otherwise.) If I were to list the sufficient conditions of a human being, just offhand, I would choose something like the following;
Posessing human DNA, being a direct genetic descendent of other humans.
Posessing the quality of life.
Posessing the capacity to manifest consciousness, or ‘proto-consciousness’, if you like.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

This is complete nonsense. I have been remarkably reserved, and civil, which is more than you can claim.

I'm not seeing the relevance as I've made no claims of civility.


It’s immaterial. Nevermind.

Suit yourself.


This is ridiculous; that you have the gall to provoke me with schoolyard taunts, and then question my emotional maturity. I’ll say this; you’re audacity is boundless.

You should know my posting style and habits by now, and you should also know I don't play favourites when it comes to arguments I think are crap.


Eloquent in it’s brevity. This is nonsense. Let’s roll back the clock; Nox said, among other things, that abortions, performed at such an advanced stage in the pregnancy are exceedingly rare, (Which; incidentally, I’ve never denied, in fact, I’ve said so, repeatedly.) and, generally, performed because of a medical emergency. I responded to this by pointing out, that in almost every country that has legalized abortion, these are the only circumstances where such a procedure is legally permitted. This idle comment, which happens to be both accurate, topical, and prescient is what sent you into a tizzy. So; as I was talking about the law, and you were responding to my, admittedly, rather banal comment about the law; you were talking about the law.

When you say, and I quote; ‘The law is a fucking ass.’ I’m presuming you’re talking about the Abortion Act of 1967, and not law, as a concept. I don’t see any reason why this fairly unremarkable piece of legislation, should arouse such outrage. It legalized abortion, in England, it took us almost a decade to get around to it. Furthermore; unlike, here, in America, this medical service is made available to the public. In the United States, you are free to have an abortion, up to between 24-28 weeks; if you can pay for it. You’re a bit ahead of us, culturally, in that respect. However; getting back to the point; I certainly don’t have my finger on the pulse of British society, but, as far as I know, this is not perceived bt the pubic at large, including British women, as horrifically oppressive. Similarly; while I’m only peripherally aware of the Pro-Choice movement in the United States (As I happen to live in Massachusetts, in the ‘Liberal North’, the Evangelical right doesn’t wield the kind of power, here, that it has in Texas, or Tennessee.) as far as I know, even the major Pro-Choice groups aren’t that focused on the time limits imposed by Roe, they’re incensed about all these asinine laws sponsored by Republicans in the state legislatures; limiting funding for organizations that provide abortion, creating legal roadblocks, like requiring parental consent, or trying to intimidate patients by requiring unnecessary ultrasounds, etc., etc.

Christ, you do love to bleat on about bourgeois legal crap. Yes British women get a better deal than their American counterparts, I do not contest that so you need not lecture me. I'd rather you call me a shithead and then move on to the point.


This is just a more hostile, and belligerent version of what you said, last time. You’re simply sidestepping the issue, wailing; ‘But that almost never happens!’ That’s not an argument. The frequency, or likelihood of an event has no bearing on the ethical ramifications of said event. For example; it is simply unconceivable that homicide would ever get so rare that we would cease to bother to condemn, or discourage it. To the contrary; as human civilization has evolved, we’ve gradually, in the broadest sense, become more sensitive to the plight of others. While I’m not especially fond of the Animal Rights movement, I thinks it’s fair to say that this is an extension of the same phenomenon. Not so long ago; most humans, even in the West, had very few rights, as time has gone on, (Admittedly; largely, as the result of popular struggle.) that circle has been expanded.

Probably. However; again, this completely ignores the issue at hand.

The issue is the circumstances of the woman involved. Fuck.
　

This is a strawman argument, and unlike most of the others, I think you know that. I’ve said it multiple times; rights should never be contingent on arbitrary characteristics, such as gender. (Or ethnicity, etc.) Gender simply has no bearing on my argument. It isn’t even a factor.

Let’s also stop pretending that anybody, including you, believes bodily autonomy is sacrosanct. This is bullshit. Again; there are numerous occasions where bodily autonomy is overriden, that nobody has any objection to. In this light these vehement protestations make no sense.

Not your uterus? Not your decision, as far as I'm concerned. I'd be interested to hear more of these "numerous occasions" you mention.


Also; the question is not; which party has the right to bodily autonomy, but; How do we weigh that right against the rights of another?

Also; one does not have to assign the same moral weight to both actors, in order to arrive at this conclusion. I certainly don't. However; it's hard for me to see that an extremely minor limitation on how exactly a pregnancy may be terminated, specifically; which procedure may be used, is greater than the imposition of being killed, which, again, is the supreme violation of ones' civil rights.

Finally; again, as you very well know; I’ve never suggested that anyone should ever be required to carry an unwanted pregnancy.


Is Thomas Beatie a woman?

Is this germane to control over one's reproductive organs? I'm not seeing it. Gender a red herring? You're the one who brought it up, not me!


Again; this is completely irrational, and unprecedented. No-one believes this right as sacrosanct, certainly, you don’t. I am limited in certain things that I am able to do with my body, as I should be. As I stated; we detain people, and subject them to invasive, and uncomfortable medical tests, merely on the possibility that they may be carrying a pathogen. Moreover; I believe that we would do so, even if said pathogen only represented a risk to a single person, and we would be right to do it.

Not relevant to terminating a pregnancy, which has vastly different consequences to allowing someone to play the role of Typhoid Mary, which unlike abortion can result in the deaths of multiple uninvolved third parties.


Absolutely. However; ‘personhood’ in this sense, is inadequate as the sole arbiter of rights. Infants, for example, cannot be said to be persons. A newborn has less of an identity, and less awareness than your average, domesticated, dog, or cat. This has led some, erroneously, to conclude that we should actually assign greater moral weight to the former, than the latter, most notably, Dr. Peter Singer. In fact; I was debating a Singerite, who made that very same assertion, when I was Restricted. I find it fascinating that my comments have initiated this firestorm of controversy, yet her assertion that one should be free to, arbitrarily, euthanize an infant up to, I think she said I year-and-a half, of age, merited nary a peep. That’s just interesting to me.

I don't believe I'm familiar with that thread. Regardless, infants are proto-persons, but unlike foetuses their welfare is not intrinsically dependent on that of another.
　

First of all; again, as you well know, the word; ‘fetus’ does not refer to a single frame of gestation, but, rather; virtually all of it, from 11-43 weeks. So; depending on what point you want to drop in on, we’re talking about radically different things. You simply cannot equivocate a 12-week-old fetus, and a 40-week-old fetus. There is a radical difference.

Alright, so which are you talking about?


Second; a corpse represents a former human being. A human being that once was. It is still, biologically human, but it is not a human being. It is mostly inert biomatter. It is waste. It is not only incapable of manifesting consciousness, it will never be able to manifest consciousness.

Why? Because the soul's escaped? :rolleyes:

Depending on the circumstances of the death and the treatment of the body afterwards and to what degree such things can be arranged, I see no reason why sufficiently advanced medicine should not be able to revive what most would call a corpse, provided of course there is enough left to do so.


Third; civil rights should not be contingent on social interaction. No matter how far removed you become from the human species, I am never allowed to arbitrarily kill you, to murder you.

Not sure why you're worried about that, considering social interaction isn't limited to adult humans.
　　

Again; the hypothetical stated that said individual has no surviving friends, relatives, or acquantances, who can recall his existence.

Yes yes yes, it's an idealised hypothetical and can thus be arbitrary. My point.


Of course. I never suggested otherwise. I thought it was implicit.

I'd say those things are part of what would make the hermit a human person, yes?


Oh, marvelous. You hit all the bases on that one. How disappointingly predictable. Not all human beings are social. In truth; there are probably, at least, several hundred people who, roughly, fit the perameters of my hypothetical, more likely; thousands, albeit, mostly in rural areas. It was simply a device to prove a point. The point was that I should never consider myself entitled to, arbitrarily, deprive any human being of their life, regardless of how much suffering I cause, if any, even if no-one suffers one iota from this action. This is what I was trying (Unsuccessfully.) to make you understand.

You also never answered precisely why this hypothetical hermit was being killed. You have to understand that my standard position is that killing people needs a damn good justification if it cannot be avoided altogether.
　

Nope. It’s a zero-sum game. I’m no more human than you, a newborn baby is no less human than I, etc.

I don't play zero-sum games, not in ethics anyway. They don't reflect reality.

[NGNM85]

I'm not seeing the relevance as I've made no claims of civility.

I didn’t suggest that you had. However; it’s a little hypocritical to criticize my conduct when I have displayed far more patience, and civility.

Moreover; and I know this a total lost cause, but I think, perhaps, it might be better if we kept things like name-calling, ad hominem attacks, and cursing at eachother, to a minimum. It's not pursuasive, or impressive. Fuck; I mean, we are adults, here. Or, rather, some of us are.


Christ, you do love to bleat on about bourgeois legal crap. Yes British women get a better deal than their American counterparts, I do not contest that so you need not lecture me. I'd rather you call me a shithead and then move on to the point.

Again; you cannot be said to be responding to a comment that I made, and completely disavow the substance of said comment.


The issue is the circumstances of the woman involved. Fuck.

The human beings involved.
　

Not your uterus? Not your decision, as far as I'm concerned.

Again; there’s no precedent for this, whatsoever. Which isn’t to say there has to be, of course, the was virtually no precedent for anything like civil rights in the Middle Ages, etc., etc., but this is different, because it’s preposterous. Judges, lawyers, doctors, politicians, etc. routinely make decisions that impact a great many people, oftentimes people whose experiences, and existence is markedly different from their own. Also; this train of thought naturally, inexorably leads to an infinitely compartmentalized judiciary. Beyond the fact that it’s a patently goofy idea, I don’t fathom how you would resolve the overlapping jurisdiction; what do you do with individuals which fall into several categories? It’s preposterous.


I'd be interested to hear more of these "numerous occasions" you mention.

Again; children, mental patients, hospital patients, persons living in the various strata of the correctional system, persons under quarantine, etc., etc.


Not relevant to terminating a pregnancy, which has vastly different consequences to allowing someone to play the role of Typhoid Mary, which unlike abortion can result in the deaths of multiple uninvolved third parties.

Yes, of course. However; as I was saying, even if this deadly pathogen was only transmissible to a single person, I submit that we should quarantine, and test the possible carrier, merely on the suspicion that he, or she, is carrying said pathogen, and, moreover; that we would be perfectly ethically justified in doing so.


I don't believe I'm familiar with that thread. Regardless, infants are proto-persons, but unlike foetuses their welfare is not intrinsically dependent on that of another.

There’s no reason why you should. It’s archived. I’m just interested in the marked difference between the treatment of, what is described by devotees as; ‘post-natal abortion’, which, I submit, is fucking insane, and more inflammatory than anything I’ve ever said, and my suggestion that, perhaps, the, very modest, term limits on abortion make sense. I just think that’s interesting, and I think it represents an excellent example of the underlying pathology rampant on this forum, and, by extension, the Radical Left. However; all of this is, really, immaterial.

Yes, I agree that infants are ‘proto-persons’, I actually use the same phrase, myself. However; again, this does not change the fact that, however horribly wrong the Singer disciples are in their conclusions they extrapolate from this fact, they are totally correct in that said infants have less identity, and awareness than your average housepet.

More to the point; at this stage in the pregnancy, the parent is mostly functioning as an auxiliary life support unit. If removed; the fetus has something like a 95% chance of survival, and is about as independent as any newborn could, honestly, be expected to be. The risks to the mother, by simply removing it, are even slimmer. So; this ‘dependency’ is greatly exaggerated.
　

Alright, so which are you talking about?

I am talking about, roughly, the time frame established by Western jurists; between 24-28 weeks, roughly. I’m, personally, inclined, toward a more liberal interpretation, closer to 28. However; this decision should be informed by persons with far greater medical knowledge than I, and I would defer to their expertise.


Why? Because the soul's escaped?

Please.


Depending on the circumstances of the death and the treatment of the body afterwards and to what degree such things can be arranged, I see no reason why sufficiently advanced medicine should not be able to revive what most would call a corpse, provided of course there is enough left to do so.

That’s immaterial. If such a technology existed; the person would be formerly dead. That doesn’t mean they were any less dead. I really don’t think you honestly believe that this question is, presently, beyond medical science, just as I’m sure you don’t believe any number of the other unscientific, and, transparently anti-scientific statements made, in the course of this conversation.


Not sure why you're worried about that, considering social interaction isn't limited to adult humans.

Of course not; but you kept countering my hypothetical by saying, y’know, ‘He’d have some surviving family, friends, something.’ which does not, necessarily, have to be the case, and, more importantly, as I was saying, does not matter. Even if killing you harms no-one, yourself included, I am still not entitled to, arbitrarily, deprive you of your civil rights.
　　

Yes yes yes, it's an idealised hypothetical and can thus be arbitrary. My point.

‘Can be’, not ‘is.’ Also; again, there are, quite likely, several thousand individuals who more-or-less fit the parameters.


I'd say those things are part of what would make the hermit a human person, yes?

Of course. Again; I never suggested otherwise.


You also never answered precisely why this hypothetical hermit was being killed.

It doesn’t matter, only that it is not, in any sense of the term; 'necessary.' No tragedy is averted, no-ones’ suffering is, significantly, eased. Pick a motive; power, pleasure, profit,...boredom.


You have to understand that my standard position is that killing people needs a damn good justification if it cannot be avoided altogether.

That’s the crux of my argument. I see no reason why it’s unreasonable that one should be prevented from, arbitrarily, killing what is, biologically speaking, a human being, a baby, especially seeing as it can be removed, without any significant harm, to either party, and when the parent has already consented to an invasive surgical procedure, in the first place.
　

I don't play zero-sum games, not in ethics anyway. They don't reflect reality.

I wasn’t making an ethical statement, I was making a biological statement. You can be human, or not, you cannot be; 'semi-human.'

[~Spectre]

An acorn will become a tree one day, therefore, since with a little effort of planting and watering it could be a tree- anyone who throws away an acorn deserves to be hit with the same fine as those who cut down trees.

[~Spectre]

That’s the crux of my argument. I see no reason why it’s unreasonable that one should be prevented from, arbitrarily, killing what is, biologically speaking, a human being, a baby, especially seeing as it can be removed, without any significant harm, to either party, and when the parent has already consented to an invasive surgical procedure, in the first place. [/COLOR]
[FONT=MS Gothic]　
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][/FONT/COLOR]


Of course you see no reason, but others might observe that late term abortions are mostly for health reasons anyway, and that all attempts at criminalizing abortion are just ways of, in practice, oppressing women.

We've already seen this in the South, where women with miscarriages have faced prosecution.

Others of course might observe that consenting to Y =/= consenting to X.

[Lynx]

Should we assume that doctors are always willing to carry out late term abortions?

[Tim Cornelis]

Yes, you are a sexist (according to my standards but also this board) no I'm not going to debate science if your goal is to restrict universal free unrestricted access to abortion for women. if I would I would wonder what makes the "life" of a fetus, according to your "science" about as "alive" as a plant, more sacred than say a carrot, or even better a teratoom (yes you can Google that), just that a fetus grows in a uterus? sexist...

So you have no problem with an abortion in the ninth month?

[Sasha]

So you have no problem with an abortion in the ninth month?

Personally? Sure. But I also believe I should have no say in it what so ever and I think legislating is a lot more wrong.
Good sexual education, access to free contraception and free, universal access to abortion will make late term abortion outside of medical emergency all but obsolete, but even those one in a million cases that will remain i rather have medical late term abortions than throw yourself of the stairs abortions.
Criminalising abortion is as effective and morally acceptable as criminalising sex

[NGNM85]

Personally? Sure.

Ok. So; after all the kicking, and screaming, we're, actually, pretty much on the same page, on that one.


But I also believe I should have no say in it what so ever and I think legislating is a lot more wrong.

This doesn't make any sense to me. We create rules, and guidelines for everything. If we bother to create laws governing parking spaces, or the disposal of household trash, I see no reason why we should not lay down ground rules, in this case, especially seeing as there could, potentially, be human lives at stake.

Also; this is hardly without prcedent, I mean, even beyond the fact that, as far as I know, every country that has legalized abortion, has also imposed similar conditions.There are all sorts of medical guidelines; governing when operations should be performed, who is eligible for a transplant, etc., etc. There's no difference.

Finally; those who insist that this decision can only be made by potential parents, alone, beyond the logistical complications that creates, face the inconvenient reality that the public, including women, including, even women who identify as Pro-Choice, seem to see this as acceptable, or, at the very least, they don't seem to perceive it as a gross violation of their civil rights. Again; I'm only peripherally aware of the Pro-Choice movement, also; again, in Massachusetts, the Pro-Life movement just isn't that strong, but, as far as I know the time perameters established in Roe just aren't a major priority, but, rather, all of these obscene state laws.


Good sexual education, access to free contraception and free, universal access to abortion...

Those are all excellent ideas. I couldn't agree more.


will make late term abortion outside of medical emergency all but obsolete,

That's a reasonable expectation. However; again, the likelihood of such an event is, not necessarily relevent. Like I said; (Not to, necessarily, imply any equivalency, mind.) there's no reason to believe that homicide would ever become so rare, that we wouldn't bother to discourage, or condemn it. If anything; human history suggests that, as human civilization progresses, that we become more sensitive to these sorts of things.


but even those one in a million cases that will remain i rather have medical late term abortions than throw yourself of the stairs abortions.

I really don't see any reason why this should occur, again, presupposing comprehensive sex-ed., and free access to contraception, and abortion, (Within the aforementioned perameters, naturally.) especially seeing as the fetus, at this point, can simply be removed, fairly easily, without any serious risk to either party. I'm not a doctor, but I can't see any rational argument against such a procedure.


Criminalising abortion is as effective and morally acceptable as criminalising sex

First; no-one has suggested criminalizing abortion, and, second; this is a false equivalency.

[Liberty]

Life begins at conception.

[cynicles]

Life begins at conception.
Wrong! Life begins in the ovaries and testicles! Anytime you have your period or masturbate you're a murderer!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Life begins at conception.

That's meaningless (my own body destroys living things all the time, without me telling it to do so), unless you think manslaughter/murder charges are appropriate to bring up against women who have had miscarriages?

[NGNM85]

Life begins at conception.

An embryo is alive, but it does not posess the sufficient conditions of a human being, namely; it does not posess the capacity to manifest consciousness. (Or; 'proto-consciousness', if you like.) Therefore; it is a potential human being, which is another way of saying it isn't a human being.