late term abortions

[ichneumon]

when you respond to this, please answer these questions - i will not respond if you do not:

1)do you support early abortions?
2)do you vote?

also, i just asked a professional parasitologist: a fetus is not a parasite. it contributes genetic continuity, which out weighs the harm it might cause the mother. parasitologists get to decide this, just as astronomers get to decide what constitutes a planet. if you use that term, i will not reply. i can't STAND people who pervert science for political reasons.

1)a fetus gradually develops into a potential child. there is no magic point. in reality, a newborn is not sentient, but it is a human being. fetus is the term for a not-yet born baby after 60days. when you remove a fetus from the womb at 60days, it is not a child. at some point around 20wks, this changes.[edited for clarity]

2)a 9mon old baby is not different, as a baby, in or out of the womb. it's the same baby. a 7mon old premature birth is a child. it can survive (with medical help) and develop into a sentient being.

3)i'm assuming all of this for a modern socialistic democracy that gives free healthcare, sex eduction, free contraception, free day after and anonymous early term abortions.

4)pregnancy is a gradual process. a person is aware of it, as it occurs. the person knows that the fetus is gradually turning into a child. almost all people refer to fetuses, of any age, as "babies".

5)a mother's right to life supersedes her unborn baby's right to life. if the pregnancy or birth will result in her death or a serious risk of death, abortion should occur immediately, regardless of the term.

6)a nonviable or serious deformed baby can be aborted at any stage. if the baby is not able to live, it should be terminated ASAP.

conclusion: viability is a reasonable cut off point for abortions. if you have the choice between an early delivery that would result in a viable child, and an abortion, choosing abortion is not acceptable. the person in question has had months to think about this, and must, at some point, make a decision to be responsible. a child that can live outside the womb is a dependent human being. socially, we cannot allow dependent humans to die. it is unthinkable.

i do not consider this misogynistic or reactionary. frankly, i don't understand what "reactionary" means or how it applies to the postmodern world. as for misogyny - is nature misogynistic? god? whoever or whatever it was that decided that females would have babies? i don't care if it's albinos, uplifted chimpanzees or semi-sentient exowombs that are having babies. hopefully, we will have exowombs soon and all this will be moot.

[KC]

1)a fetus gradually develops into a child. there is no magic point. in reality, a newborn is not sentient, but it is a human being.

A fetus becomes a newborn only when it comes out of the womb. So sooner, no later.


2)a 9mon old baby is not different, as a baby, in or out of the womb.

It most certainly is different in so many ways that are obvious that I'm not even going to bother explaining them to you.



4)pregnancy is a gradual process. a person is aware of it, as it occurs. the person knows that the fetus is gradually turning into a child. almost all people refer to fetuses, of any age, as "babies".

NO. A fetus doesn't "gradually turn into a child". A fetus becomes a newborn only through exiting the womb. This isn't a "gradual process".


5)a mother's right to life supersedes her unborn baby's right to life. if the pregnancy or birth will result in her death or a serious risk of death, abortion should occur immediately, regardless of the term.

And a mother's right to her body supersedes her unborn baby's right to the mother's body.



6)a nonviable or serious deformed baby can be aborted at any stage. if the baby is not able to live, it should be terminated ASAP.


What about a seriously deformed baby that could live? Would you support aborting it "at any stage" then? Also, you do realize that in many cases it's very difficult to tell whether or not the baby will be "able to live", so what do you propose happens then?



conclusion: viability is a reasonable cut off point for abortions. if you have the choice between an early delivery that would result in a viable child, and an abortion, choosing abortion is not acceptable.

You're invading on the mother's right to her own fucking body. You're basically saying that if the fetus can live through birth and as a newborn then the mother has absolutely no choice in the matter and must go through birth. That's completely depriving the right of the mother to her own body and is probably one of the most absurd things I've ever heard.


the person in question has had months to think about this, and must, at some point, make a decision to be responsible.

So after a certain point the mother gives up her right to her own body, apparently to you, for no reason? The decision to "be responsible" isn't made before birth, it isn't made during birth and it isn't even made after birth. At any point she can legally choose to "not be responsible" and have an abortion or give the kid up for adoption. Nobody "has to" be responsible for something they don't want to be responsible for.


a child that can live outside the womb is a dependent human being.

No child lives inside the womb. Only fetuses occupy the womb.


socially, we cannot allow dependent humans to die. it is unthinkable.


We most certainly can if it impedes on the right of someone else to their own body. In fact, we allow people to die all the time; for example, say a child is sick and needs a kidney, but the mother is the only match they can find. Is the mother forced to give up her kidney or can she choose not to give it and have her child die? This case alone represents the fact that the right of someone to their own body is far more important than saving the life of another that would include impeding on those rights.



i do not consider this misogynistic or reactionary.

Well, it is. You must be either incredibly dense or incredibly stupid, but you're also incredibly misogynistic.


as for misogyny - is nature misogynistic? god? whoever or whatever it was that decided that females would have babies?

God doesn't exist. Nothing "decided" that females should have babies. That's ridiculous.

[ichneumon]

Zampano: ignore, did not answer questions

[Qwerty Dvorak]

ichneuemon, I am of the belief that as a male I should have no say in the issue of abortion, so I am not going to give any opinion either way.

However, I must point out a flaw in your logic, in that you support early abortions but not late abortions, while adamantly maintaining that childbirth is a gradual and continuous process, with no one turning point. How, then, do you justifiably differentiate early from late abortions?

Furthermore, I vehemently disagree with this statement:

the person in question has had months to think about this, and must, at some point, make a decision to be responsible.
Now to be honest your entire thread was rather inconsistent and hard to understand, but I understand this particular statement to mean that, if a pregnancy has been allowed to reach a late stage, then the woman must have had months to think it over. This is by no means necessarily the case. Any doctor will tell you that it is quite common for a woman to be several months pregnant before any symptoms present themselves. Sickness and other such symptoms are present to an extremely varying degree in different instances, with some women experiencing little to no sickness during pregnancy. Also, a women can be pregnant two or three (sometimes even four) months and still have her period (well she bleeds anyway, not sure if you could call it a period).

Again I have no opinion either way on this, just pointing out some falsehoods in your argument--I don't know about you, but I can't STAND people who pervert science for political reasons ;)

Oh, and:

1)do you support early abortions? see above
2)do you vote? too young, but will when I am of age

[ichneumon]

Now to be honest your entire thread was rather inconsistent and hard to understand, but I understand this particular statement to mean that, if a pregnancy has been allowed to reach a late stage, then the woman must have had months to think it over. This is by no means necessarily the case. Any doctor will tell you that it is quite common for a woman to be several months pregnant before any symptoms present themselves. Sickness and other such symptoms are present to an extremely varying degree in different instances, with some women experiencing little to no sickness during pregnancy. Also, a women can be pregnant two or three (sometimes even four) months and still have her period (well she bleeds anyway, not sure if you could call it a period).

this is in fact true. several months is not 5 months. a woman SHOULD be aware, due to education and medical care, of her pregnancy at that point. if she is not, due to mental problems or some extreme circumstance, then a court should decide if she is capable of making rational decision. unfortunately, this doesn't work. i'd let her have the abortion - for instance, a mentally challenged teen-ager living in poverty. this is an evil of capitalism and poverty, the woman has been seriously oppressed. this does NOT fit in with my point about living in a healthy, modern, 1st socialist democracy.


However, I must point out a flaw in your logic, in that you support early abortions but not late abortions, while adamantly maintaining that childbirth is a gradual and continuous process, with no one turning point. How, then, do you justifiably differentiate early from late abortions?

viability of the fetus. i'm arguing that a viable fetus should not be aborted. in the case of potential birth defects, i'd err on the side of the mother - she can abort at any point if there is a possibility of severe deformity that would lead to nonviability.

[pusher robot]

Reposted from the other thread, since nobody responded:

[W]hat do you say to the following proposition: that aborting a fetus past the point of viability is suspect, because (a) the fetus is human, and (b) the dependency of the fetus that you find illegitimate exists ONLY because of the action or inaction of the mother. Essentially, the dependency was created by the host without the consent of the dependent.

As an anology, you'd agree that shooting a person who is about to stab you is perfectly justified, wouldn't you? What if the person is stabbing you only because you FIRST put a gun to his head? Isn't his death now more YOUR fault than his?

You could also imagine some scenario where I, against your will, remove your lungs and hook your blood supply to mine, making you totally dependent on me to live without your consent to do so. Am I still morally justified in turning off your blood supply?

[pusher robot]

An additional point is one concerning the subject of consent. Has not the mother, by not availing of all the contraceptive and early-term abortion possibilities, manifested an implied consent to the dependent?

In law, if someone occupies your land for a long enough period of time and you do nothing to prevent or contest it, they can acquire title through adverse possession (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession). Why shouldn't a similar concept be applied?

[StartToday]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 12:12 pm
1)do you support early abortions?
2)do you vote?

1)a fetus gradually develops into a potential child. there is no magic point. in reality, a newborn is not sentient, but it is a human being.
I do support early abortions, but not late term.

I don't vote yet, I'm 17.

A newborn is sentient. Here's the definition:

Sentience is the capacity for basic consciousness — the ability to feel or perceive, not necessarily including the faculty of self-awareness.

I don't support late term because the fetus (and yes, it's a fetus, not a baby) has a fully developed nervous system and almost fully developed brain. In other words, it is sentient.

[ichneumon]

my bad, i should have said "self-aware". cats are sentient.

thought: if you deliver a 7mon fetus, it becomes a living human being, a child. if you abort a 7mon fetus, it becomes a dead human being, a murdered child. i don't see any logical way around that.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

A fetus becomes a newborn only when it comes out of the womb.

Just like one becomes an adult on the night one turns 18. :rolleyes:

:lol:

[StartToday]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 03:00 pm

A fetus becomes a newborn only when it comes out of the womb.

Just like one becomes an adult on the night one turns 18. :rolleyes:

:lol:
Don't you people use dictionaries? Or the define function on Google? Definition of fetus is:

An unborn baby from the eighth week after fertilization until birth.

The weeks vary, however, between 7, 8, 9, and 10. Adulthood isn't judged the same because there are several factors to take into consideration. Being a legal adult doesn't mean you have the maturity expected of an adult, for example.

But calling an unborn baby a fetus implies that it is still in the gestational peroid. So the only way it can not be defined as a fetus is if it is born. However, that is the only difference between a newborn and a late-term fetus: location. They are both almost identical in terms of development; they are both sentient.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

An additional point is one concerning the subject of consent. Has not the mother, by not availing of all the contraceptive and early-term abortion possibilities, manifested an implied consent to the dependent?
The problem is that the mother may have availed of the use of contraceptives, and that she may not have been aware of the situation early enough to avail of an early-term abortion.



In law, if someone occupies your land for a long enough period of time and you do nothing to prevent or contest it, they can acquire title through adverse possession. Why shouldn't a similar concept be applied?
To apply the principle of adverse possession to a foetus in a womb would imply that the foetus is completely independent of the host, and of course legally entitled to hold enter into a contract (in this case, a property lease). Also, adverse possession only applies to property that is being possessed in outright defiance of its legal owner. Of course it is perfectly legal for a baby to enter a womb. Thus it cannot claim adverse possession on the womb, because it has not violated the law in entering the womb and, from the outset, is not breaking the law by remaining in the womb. However once the mother finds out about the baby, or decides she does not want it, she can take action and terminate it straight away. The time gap between the baby losing consent for being in the womb and the baby actually being removed from the womb would not, in the vast majority of cases, be sufficient for the baby to claim adverse possession.

However that argument is really unnecessary. Point is, you are assuming the baby to be an independent entity in the first place, and no one independent entity can lay claim to another's internal organs.

Obviously I have only argued against what I believe your post to have meant, you really should be more specific in the future.

[Oedipus Complex]

[W]hat do you say to the following proposition: that aborting a fetus past the point of viability is suspect, because (a) the fetus is human, and (b) the dependency of the fetus that you find illegitimate exists ONLY because of the action or inaction of the mother. Essentially, the dependency was created by the host without the consent of the dependent.

However this action that has created this dependency is still taking place inside the body of the one who allowed the fetus to occur. If you create something that is inherently inside your own body, I have no qualms about terminating it from there.


As an anology, you'd agree that shooting a person who is about to stab you is perfectly justified, wouldn't you? What if the person is stabbing you only because you FIRST put a gun to his head? Isn't his death now more YOUR fault than his?

The person to whom you stuck a gun to in order to allow the situation to be created is outside your own autonomous control (your body), therefore the death is your fault. However a fetus which was first created by you still remains a part of you and within your own control. It may not seem "fair" to the fetus but one must not allow the control of one's own body to be prohibited form making their own decisions about it.


You could also imagine some scenario where I, against your will, remove your lungs and hook your blood supply to mine, making you totally dependent on me to live without your consent to do so. Am I still morally justified in turning off your blood supply?

Same as above.

[ichneumon]

ahem, late term abortions . . . viability of the fetus . . . capitalism property rights arguments, please start your own thread.

[KC]

ichneumon respond to my post or just shut up.

[Jazzratt]

And now, a short presentation, starring ichneumon as himself (a ****):

Fallacious arguments on the internet make you look like an utter spacker!


Zampano: ignore, did not answer questions
Oooh, ichneumon has started with a blinder, the ubiquitous Wall of ignorance. His reasons for using it could be one of many, but I think it's because he's too chickenshit to answer criticisms. What are you scared of, isn't your post-modernism immune to such lowly things as "logic" and "a reasoned argument".


thought: if you deliver a 7mon fetus, it becomes a living human being, a child. if you abort a 7mon fetus, it becomes a dead human being, a murdered child. i don't see any logical way around that.
Jesus knucklefucking christ! Someone's a bit heavy handed with their loaded language. The phrase "dead human being" is comparatively light when compared to the exercise in hyperbole that is "a murdered child". But why use this language in the first place, well I suspect it's because ichneumon is making an appeal to emotion. Make mine a double! Two fucking fallacies! At the rate your going ichneumon were I playing drink-a-long-a-fallacy I'd be having my fucking stomach pumped by the time this thread was concluded.


ahem, late term abortions . . . viability of the fetus . . . [b]capitalism property rights arguments, please start your own thread.[b]
I have added some emphasis. I think this is some kind of bizarre the company you keep red herring, as well as outright lying. No one here has made any kind of capitalist "property rights" argument, so ichneumon is clutching at strawmen as he realises he's fucked as far as this argument is concerned.

And now, a personal message for ichneumon:
I don't see the point in you being alive not only is it a detriment to class war but it's useful for anti-materialist mumbo-jumbo like religion. You are always ready to criticise industrial processes but never offer solutions and will always leap in to an argument with the most post-modern shite you can think of. As this is the case I think you should spend the rest of your free time sunbathing on train tracks, ***** slapping bears, trying to fly unaided off of cliffs and juggling chainsaws. You're a twat and no one here likes you so fuck off

[ichneumon]

Oooh, ichneumon has started with a blinder, the ubiquitous Wall of ignorance. His reasons for using it could be one of many, but I think it's because he's too chickenshit to answer criticisms. What are you scared of, isn't your post-modernism immune to such lowly things as "logic" and "a reasoned argument".

i'm assuming he doesn't vote - that makes him responsible for the erosion of abortion rights. unless he does something *else* that is positive, which he could just say, he's part of the problem.


Jesus knucklefucking christ! Someone's a bit heavy handed with their loaded language. The phrase "dead human being" is comparatively light when compared to the exercise in hyperbole that is "a murdered child". But why use this language in the first place, well I suspect it's because ichneumon is making an appeal to emotion. Make mine a double! Two fucking fallacies! At the rate your going ichneumon were I playing drink-a-long-a-fallacy I'd be having my fucking stomach pumped by the time this thread was concluded.

that was emotional. sorry if it upset your delicate sensibilities. i wanted a response. the murdered child bit was too much, i admit. should i remove that? anyway, it is still a logical proposition.


I have added some emphasis. I think this is some kind of bizarre [b]the company you keep red herring, as well as outright lying. No one here has made any kind of capitalist "property rights" argument, so ichneumon is clutching at strawmen as he realises he's fucked as far as this argument is concerned.

i was talking about pusher-robot's second point, which seemed a total non-sequitir (i know, pot, kettle, right?)


And now, a personal message for ichneumon:
I don't see the point in you being alive not only is it a detriment to class war but it's useful for anti-materialist mumbo-jumbo like religion. You are always ready to criticise industrial processes but never offer solutions and will always leap in to an argument with the most post-modern shite you can think of. As this is the case I think you should spend the rest of your free time sunbathing on train tracks, ***** slapping bears, trying to fly unaided off of cliffs and juggling chainsaws. You're a twat and no one here likes you so fuck off

am i here to be liked? i do actually win quite a few debates. by my count, i'm winning this one.

btw, if your mother had washed your mouth out with soap more often, you might even be a tolerable human being.

[RevMARKSman]

btw, if your mother had washed your mouth out with soap more often, you might even be a tolerable human being.

I find him incredibly tolerable.

You, however:

What is this feeling so sudden and new
I felt the moment I laid eyes on you?

My pulse is rushing,
My head is reeling,
My face is flushing,
What is this feeling?
Fervid as a flame,
Does it have a name?
Yea-ah!: Loathing
Unadulterated loathing
For your face, your voice, your clothing
Let's just say - I loathe it all
Ev'ry little trait, however small
Makes my very flesh begin to crawl
With simple utter loathing
There's a strange exhilaration
In such total detestation
It's so pure, so strong!
Though I do admit it came on fast
Still I do believe that it can last
And I will be loathing
Loathing you
My whole life long!


am i here to be liked? i do actually win quite a few debates. by my count, i'm winning this one

By your count? I'd say that not only are you losing, it's why you are restricted.


i'm assuming he doesn't vote - that makes him responsible for the erosion of abortion rights. unless he does something *else* that is positive, which he could just say, he's part of the problem.

To quote you: Dualistic nonsense. Some people regardless of what position they might have are not part of the solution or the problem.

[ichneumon]

Anyone who defends capitalism or otherwise opposes worker liberation is automatically restricted. Anyone who opposes the rights of any other oppressed group is similarly restricted. This includes so-called "pro-lifers" or anyone else who opposes the right to abortion on demand.

i support abortion on demand 100% up to a point - what about anyone else who agreed with me on this? do they get restricted? i loathe prolifers. another example of mindless autocannibalism that makes the far left so ineffectual. anyway, since i usually do my best to follow the forum guidelines, won't ***** about it. i do expect some form of communication the censors.

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 11:58 am

Anyone who defends capitalism or otherwise opposes worker liberation is automatically restricted. Anyone who opposes the rights of any other oppressed group is similarly restricted. This includes so-called "pro-lifers" or anyone else who opposes the right to abortion on demand.

i support abortion on demand 100% up to a point - what about anyone else who agreed with me on this? do they get restricted? i loathe prolifers. another example of mindless autocannibalism that makes the far left so ineffectual. anyway, since i usually do my best to follow the forum guidelines, won't ***** about it. i do expect some form of communication the censors.
The guidelines say "abortion on demand" not "abortion on demand up to a point". You have to be unconditional about it. Hell, some people even say "I support abortion on demand but only in cases where the mother's life is in danger or she has been raped."

[KC]

ich respond to my post.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 03:20 pm
i'm assuming he doesn't vote - that makes him responsible for the erosion of abortion rights. unless he does something *else* that is positive, which he could just say, he's part of the problem.
Voting changes nothing, you're clearly delusional - the bourgeoisie do pretty much what they want, regardless.

No, he's not "part of the problem" because he's not actively anti-choice like you.


that was emotional. sorry if it upset your delicate sensibilities. i wanted a response. the murdered child bit was too much, i admit. should i remove that? anyway, it is still a logical proposition.
On what grounds dfo you declare it "logical"?


i was talking about pusher-robot's second point, which seemed a total non-sequitir (i know, pot, kettle, right?)
Yes, and thanks for doing my work for me with the pot & kettle thing.


am i here to be liked?
No, this doesn't stop people disliking you.

i do actually win quite a few debates. by my count, i'm winning this one.
No, you're really not you're just ploughing on with fallacious statement after fallacious statement occasionally using rickety psuedo-defences for your unashamed sexism.


btw, if your mother had washed your mouth out with soap more often, you might even be a tolerable human being.
Ah, so it's permissible (even desirable) for a mother to abuse her child but aborting a foetus is out of the question, I see.
Hypocrisy much?

[Hegemonicretribution]

I support elements of the unwanted intimacy argument...

As far as I can see there is no more debate here than the same concerning an animal right's protester with a stomach worm. Whilst both protester and worm may have a "right to life" there is no explicit obligation for the continuation of life support for the worm to the detriment of the person's health.

The same applies to any given foetus: It may have a right to life, but not at the expence of the mother. Do you have an obligation to risk/impare your physical condition in order to save someone in need of an organ donation? I am sure both would claim a right to life...but don't tell me that should mean an organ donation in every case.

Just an observation (granted this may be presumprious, but it has been a while since I have been about), why is it that capitalists think that we should have the right to private property, own "commodities" such as land and water, have the right to purchase labour etc....but not have a right to their own bodies?

Pregnancy is not always wanted...accidents happen....abortions for all as long as the mother considers it a favourable course of action.

[LSD]

also, i just asked a professional parasitologist: a fetus is not a parasite.

Well, "Parasite" is a loaded term anyway, and since it's completely irrelevent to this question, I couldn't really care less.

But fine, sure, foetuses aren't parasites.

Again though, it's not the "parasitism" of a foetus which makes it not deserving of human societal rights. You are absolutely correct, "parasite" may not apply to foetuses and, even if it did, it's not nescessarily a prejoritive appelation.

Indeed, many members of society are arguably parasites, and far more are, in some way, or another dependent on others for their survival.

But that's the inate nature of an interdependent society, it has absolutely nothing to do with the relevent issue of when human societal membership begins.

After all, an unfertilized egg, by any reasonably definition, is just as alive as a fertilized one. It is also a "potential life". Given the right circumstances, it too will become a human child and eventually a human societal actor.

I will accept that, statistically speaking, a randomly selected fertalized egg has a higher chance of becoming a baby than a randomly selected unfertalized one. But the difference is not nearly as great as you seem to be contending.

Even more importantly, however, despite your bizarre idealist assertions to the contrary, there is nothing "especially" or "distinctly" "alive" about the latter as compared to the former.

"Life" is a rather vague term to begin with and when it comes to the "begining" or "demarkation line" of life, there's really very little constructive to be said.

That's why, again, no "moral" or political system can rely upon "life" as any kind of significant attribute. "Life" is merely a state of organization/biology, it has no "spiritual" or "metaphysical" significance.

Now, that said, living humans make up the entirety of human society, so insofar as that society is concerned, living humans matter a great deal; but only because of their status as particpatory social actors.

A "living" organism that does not meet that critera -- like a cow, e. coli bacterium, or human foetus -- cannot be afforded "rights". To do so would undermine the entire foundation of organized civilized society.

That's why the "animal rights movement" is romantic nonsense and the anti-abortion movement is oppresive sexism.


in reality, a newborn is not sentient, but it is a human being.

As if being "human" had anything to do with civil rights.

Look, there's a biological definition of "humanity" and then there's a political one, you're trying to pretend that those two are one in the same.

Well, they aren't.

Yes, a foetus has human DNA, but then so does every other cell in your body.

Tell me, if women have a "noble" duty to protect a zygote, do they have that same "duty" to their unfertalized eggs? After all, genetically and organically speaking, they are virtually identical.

Both are potential human societal actors and both are genetically distinct; should every period be a "tragedy" then? Should a "noble" woman save her flushed eggs, perhaps in cryogenic storage so that their "chance to live" is not wasted? :lol:

There is nothing "special" about a foetus. One day it may become a baby, but until it is born it is nothing but a collection of cells inside a uterus. It's genetically unique, yes, but so's a cancer cell. Strangely, though, no one's suggesting that chemotherapy is murder... :rolleyes:

Look, the "begining of human life" stretches back millions of years, there is no special "demakation" where "life begins" and any attempt to "find" such a "line" is idealist nonsense.

There is however a very concrete begining of social participation, and that comes, rather intuitively, when one enters society. Upon that point one becomes a de facto societal actor and, even more important, a realised potential rational moral agent.

As such, one is entitled to all the basic social protections in preparation for full social rights.

A feotus, however, is nothing more than a parasitic collection of cells developing towards social potentiality. And the social status of "potential potentials" is far to indirect for them to be comsidered a protected class of "creature".


almost all people refer to fetuses, of any age, as "babies".

So? People refer to lots of things by lots of names, some people call their pets their "babies" or their "kids". I suppose that means that guinea pigs should have civil rights?

And I know, I know, foetuses are "human"... but I'm still waiting for some evidence that that matters.

Again, "human life" is a nebulous and, ultimately, meaningless term.

An egg is just as "alive" as a zygote. Sure, alone, it won't turn into a baby; but neither will a foetus.

Both require very specific circumstances to actualize their potential. I suppose that, if you define your terms very carefuly, you could qualify one as slightly "more" "potential" than that other, but this kind of semantic quibbling is completely irrelevent to practical issues of societal rights.

Societal members enjoy societal rights, no one else. Period.


if you have the choice between an early delivery that would result in a viable child, and an abortion, choosing abortion is not acceptable.

...to you. And, accordingly, you have every right not to have an abortion (late term or otherwise) if you don't want to.

What you don't have the right to do, however, is to force or coerce anyone else into abiding your personal subjective morality. Not unless you can rationaly prove that it is more than just subjective ethics driving you.

Not unless you can show that it is a justifiable use of societal forcer,


the person in question has had months to think about this, and must, at some point, make a decision to be responsible

Maybe, maybe not. Maybe they didn't know, maybe they were on drugs, maybe they just didn't think it through.

Besides, there's no "statute of limitations" on changing one's mind, not when it comes to issues of personal sovereignty. Your argument is akin to that of those rapists who asert that because their victim "lead them on", they cannot be held responsible for their actions.

It doesn't matter if a woman thinks she wants to give birth right up until one day before delivery, she still has the right to say no.

And you can disagree or mourn that decision all you want, but you have no right to forcibly stop her from excercizing her fundamental freedoms.


i support abortion on demand 100% up to a point

I don't think you're quite understanding the meaning of the phrase "on demand".

[OneBrickOneVoice]

1)do you support early abortions?
2)do you vote?

1) yes I support all abortions. Abortion is a womyn's right. One which was fought hard to gain, despite it being a fundamental right of the womyn to control her body. A fetus is cell tissue. Womyn are abused, raped, and etc... abortion is a womyn's right to decide her future

[pusher robot]

It seems to me that there are really two important questions that determine how a person comes down on this issue:

First, does an unborn child become a human person at some point before passing through the mothers vagina? I tend to think yes, right around the point of viability outside the womb.

Second, if yes to the first question, exactly what rights does this human have? I'm not too sure, but if it has any at all, then surely the right not to be killed unjustifiably would have to be one of them.

In fact, it seems to me that the answer to the first question is dispositive. If you accept that the unborn is an individual human person, none of the other justifications offered really hold much water. It simply isn't the case that any bodily imposition whatsoever can morally justify homicide.

[KC]

It seems to me that there are really two important questions that determine how a person comes down on this issue:

First, does an unborn child become a human person at some point before passing through the mothers vagina? I tend to think yes, right around the point of viability outside the womb.

Second, if yes to the first question, exactly what rights does this human have? I'm not too sure, but if it has any at all, then surely the right not to be killed unjustifiably would have to be one of them.

In fact, it seems to me that the answer to the first question is dispositive. If you accept that the unborn is an individual human person, none of the other justifications offered really hold much water. It simply isn't the case that any bodily imposition whatsoever can morally justify homicide.


I think you missed the entire crux of the issue. The thing is that by saying that a woman can't choose what to do with her body, you are impeding on her right to control over her own body. The "rights" of the fetus are completely irrelevant, as you can't impede on the right of the mother to her own body. The argument is similar to a child that need's their mother's kidney; one can't force the mother to give the child a kidney any more than one can force the mother to have the fetus use her own body.

[Mujer Libre]

Placing the focus on "when the foetus becomes a person" is a smokescreening tactic of the anti-choice brigade, taking the focus away from the woman whose bodily autonomy they want to remove, and placing it on this ephemeral notion of 'personhood.' They want us to think about the foetus as if it floats in space, rather than as something within the body of a woman who is definitely, uncontroversially a person and who therefore should have the right to control what goes on in her body.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 15, 2007 01:30 am
Second, if yes to the first question, exactly what rights does this human have? I'm not too sure, but if it has any at all, then surely the right not to be killed unjustifiably would have to be one of them.

I have already resonded in general, but here is a flaw even with the specifics of this argument; "killed" implies forcibly ended another life...removal of life support is not quite the same. OK I concede the point that you are refering to cases where survival independent of the mother is possible; but does this then mean that a mother no longer wishing to continue pregnancy at this point should be forced into early birth (risking unborn and mother), or are you suggesting that the pregnancy should be carried through to the end?

If you suggest forced early labour then...well there is probably little hope for reasoned debate. If on the other hand (and I assume this is the case), you support carrying to term any foetus that would likely have survived independent of the mother (at the point of the mother's decision to abort) then I have to ask you; what constitutes a significant survival chance? 90% 1%?

The problem is that whilst we may ourselves contemplate the point at which a collection of cells becomes a life based on a variety of factors, we cannot generate absolute or objective conclusion upon which we can act. All we can do then is deal with the situation as best as possible, and with the mothers interests accessible by all this is where the prime concern should lie.

The main point however is this : A mother does not have an obligation to endanger herself for the sake of a foetus anymore than a person on the street has to donate organs, or allow tape worms to live inside of them. A foetus can have a right to life or whatever; in fact this can apply from the point of conception or at the point of popping out of the vagina...it doesn't matter. The right to life of a foetus does not supercede the right to life of the mother (childbirth is still risky). In fact it would not matter if it did, or indeed if the right to life was equal in both cases...the mother does not have an obligation to support a foetus.

Pusher Robot:

To put this one more way seeing as how the same arguments have been illustrated by a whole host of members to no avail: Imagaine that there is a child somewhere, starving and in need of water. Would you consider their right to life on par with your own? Now consider the proposition, "Financially support this child or they will die" Do you have an obligation to assume financial responsibility in this case? If you sacrifice personal advantage you could indeed save the life of this child and if you do great, but at no point should you be forced to take on this responsibility. What about next time, and the next needy infant? Same obligation occurs here as it does in the case of foetus, in fact it could be argued far more as the children in question would already be mostly developed and most certainly living.

[pusher robot]

You are disregarding my point about consent and lack of consent.

The fetus, if it is a person, did not consent to being made a dependent of the mother. The mother, through her lack of action, manifested consent to allow the dependency. Do you disagree? Or is the concept of consent meaningless to you?


Imagaine that there is a child somewhere, starving and in need of water.

Okay.


Would you consider their right to life on par with your own?

Naturally.


Now consider the proposition, "Financially support this child or they will die" Do you have an obligation to assume financial responsibility in this case?

No, because I did not cause the need for financial support. Unlike a pregnancy, it is not my responsibility because it is not caused by my actions.

But let's suppose the counterexample. Suppose I lock a child in a room and refuse to provide him food or water. Do you, by your own arguments, accept the premise that I have no responsibility to that child whatsoever?

[KC]

The mother, through her lack of action, manifested consent to allow the dependency. Do you disagree?

So because she got pregnant she gives up the right to control over her own body? That's just fucking ridiculous.


Suppose I lock a child in a room and refuse to provide him food or water. Do you, by your own arguments, accept the premise that I have no responsibility to that child whatsoever?

This is a fallacious analogy because of the fact that the circumstances are completely different. You could choose not to have a child dependant upon you by giving it to someone else to take care of. In fact, you're never obligated to have anyone dependant upon you if you don't wish it to be so. The same holds true for a fetus.

[pusher robot]

So because she got pregnant she gives up the right to control over her own body?

Because she got pregnant AND did nothing to stop herself from creating a human life that was dependent on her. My proposition is that SHE created the dependency, and so SHE should be responsible for it.


You could choose not to have a child dependant upon you by giving it to someone else to take care of.

Just like you could choose not to have a child dependent upon you by using contraceptives, judicious fucking, or abortion prior to the point of viability.


In fact, you're never obligated to have anyone dependant upon you if you don't wish it to be so.


I'm curious whether you really think that's so. Consider the following scenario, which happens frequently in real life:

Bob and Alice decide to fuck. As a result of said fucking, Alice becomes pregnant. Bob emphatically does not want children and pleads with Alice to abort, but she doesn't. Since Alice has absolute say over abortion, there's nothing Bob can do about it. Nine months later, Alice gives birth to a child. Bob is of course obligated to pay child support. He can't "give it to someone else" because he does not have custody.

Do you think this is wrong? Is this a violation of Bob's rights, since he apparently is obligated to have a child dependent on him despite his express wishes that it were not so?

[Idola Mentis]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 19, 2007 06:53 am
Do you think this is wrong? Is this a violation of Bob's rights, since he apparently is obligated to have a child dependent on him despite his express wishes that it were not so?
"Sorry, Bob. Life's not fair. But having you support a child is better than the alternative. Know what the alternative is, Bob? We force your girlfriend to have an abortion, even if we have to drag her screaming and kicking to the table. We can do that. It's been done before. Pass the laws, set up the asylums and the doctors and the wardens, and we're good to go. Just say the word, if that's what you want for the women of the world. Think it'll make you popular with the ladies?"

Apart from that, your argument betrays a somewhat narrow vision. You assume a world where it takes the resources of two core providers to raise a child. As long as our economic system is geared for two people per child minimum, child support will be necessary. If you feel Bob has had his rights stepped on, you might want to consider working for a world where child support is superfluous.

[pusher robot]

"Sorry, Bob. Life's not fair. But having you support a child is better than the alternative. Know what the alternative is, Bob? We force your girlfriend to have an abortion, even if we have to drag her screaming and kicking to the table. We can do that. It's been done before. Pass the laws, set up the asylums and the doctors and the wardens, and we're good to go. Just say the word, if that's what you want for the women of the world. Think it'll make you popular with the ladies?"


False dilemma. The only choices are mandatory child support and forced abortion?


Apart from that, your argument betrays a somewhat narrow vision. You assume a world where it takes the resources of two core providers to raise a child.


Where did I make any such assumption? Assume if you wish that Bob and Alice are both hardworking professionals and that Alice could support the child alone, but doing so would lower her quality of life.

[Idola Mentis]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 19, 2007 02:44 pm
False dilemma. The only choices are mandatory child support and forced abortion?
True dilemma - but only as long as we follow your narrow view of the options available, of not seeking other solutions, like the solution of eliminating the need for the father to pay child support.

You still assume a system of support in which the resources necessary to raise a child must be provided in a selection of ways which suit your argument. It only holds as long as we stay within your vision. Also consider that when laying down general rules and principles, we have to take a broad selection of possible situations and outcomes into account. Even if you would pull your head out of the bucket, your arguments are drawn from special cases, and thus twice removed from relevance.

[abbielives!]

1. yes, late ones to
2. no

i don't know much about your high falutin' morality but i do know i don't want to have a kid at my age and would put abortion at the top of my list of options

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 19, 2007 02:17 am
You are disregarding my point about consent and lack of consent.

The fetus, if it is a person, did not consent to being made a dependent of the mother. The mother, through her lack of action, manifested consent to allow the dependency. Do you disagree? Or is the concept of consent meaningless to you?



So the argument rests upon a social construct such as "person?" If so then you will never have anything close to objective appeal with this argument.

I am sure that the starving child did not consent to becoming dependednt upon aid. Anyway consent in this instance is not applicable; unless of course you want to establish the need for consent in order for pre-borns through to pre-teens to self determine.


No, because I did not cause the need for financial support. Unlike a pregnancy, it is not my responsibility because it is not caused by my actions.

The mother through her lack of action? All the industrialised world through its actions have created a situation in which children can starve. Through your lack of action this has come about. What about the husband's lack of action? You go on to complain about child support, and here you are dismissing the role of the father by neglecting to reference it.

It is strange that you place blame here solely upon the mothers lack actions, when this is not the nature of many unwanted pregnancies. Mistakes happen, accidents happen, manipulation (on the part of both male and female) happens. You cannot be so naive to think that people go around filling themselves up with ejaculate and then look sheepish when they find themselves pregnant...

The risk of pregnancy (over and above STDs which are not applicable withe "clean" partners) impacts upon the role of the women in society. I will not bother writing of social roles, or expectancies...but I think it is worth noting that women entertain a much bigger risk during sex than men. Abortion, in conjuction with contraception, can finally allow for at least some level of sexual re-address.


But let's suppose the counterexample. Suppose I lock a child in a room and refuse to provide him food or water. Do you, by your own arguments, accept the premise that I have no responsibility to that child whatsoever?
No, the situation is very different. Pregnancy can be an unwanted occurance, but for you to lock a child in a room and starve them it would have to be a willful act of abuse. In this case we would not be talking about a sketchy conception of a person, but an already sentient and self-supporting (in a sense) being.

In the case of pregnancy it is more like a "kid" locking themselves in your room, only it is much more intrusive than that...How about residing inside of your clothes whilst you try and wear them? Do you have an obligation to care for this child that has invaded your privacy?

I don't know if you assume some sort of special connection between mother and child, but if so it is not necessarily the case; when a pregnancy is unwanted there is not this bond, not anymore than there would concerning a father wanting to abort. Why should, in every such instance, the women be the one to bear the load? If there could ever arise an equal sharing of the responsibilities of pregnany then this would not be as discriminatory, but this is not likely to arise.

The bottom line however is this...actually I think I will withold conclusions for a few more rounds as I feel we are getting closer to the core issues here. :)