When does a human become a human? (Abortion)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-02-2017, 07:05 AM
RE: When does a human become a human? (Abortion)
(21-02-2017 06:54 AM)Heath_Tierney Wrote:  
(21-02-2017 06:40 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Do you think a woman should have a right to opt for an abortion at any time in the pregnancy, for whatever reasons, and not just extreme circumstances?
Yes, a woman should have that right. I, personally, may find it something more than distasteful but the fact is that it's not my decision to make, nor is it yours or any government agency's.

It is as much my decision, as well as the governments to make, as it to prohibit infanticide. Society decides whats rights you have, not you, nor your body. And currently the laws in most countries have decided to make it illegal for you to abort an 8 month old fetus, for any other reason, but extreme circumstance.

Just because a baby hasn't exited your vagina, doesn't mean it doesn't have a right to life. And luckily most jurisdictions agree. If your the sort of woman who would abort an 8 month old fetus, just because you changed your mind, you should be deemed as a sociopath, not much different than woman who would commit infanticide.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2017, 07:23 AM (This post was last modified: 21-02-2017 07:26 AM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: When does a human become a human? (Abortion)
(21-02-2017 06:45 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(21-02-2017 05:28 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Why we think fetuses should have a right that adults do not have is *baffling* to me.

I can help you with that. People who want to give unborn humans the right to life, do it for the same reason you want to give 1-second-old newborns the right to life.

That said, I'm prochoice, and I don't even really have a problem with infanticide, but I'm not *baffled* at why some people are prolife.

I did not "give 1-second-old newborns the right to life". Did you not read what I wrote?

Nothing changes, in terms of rights, between fertilization and death of old age.

If you are physically attached to, and dependent upon the body of another person for your continued survival, then the person to whom you are attached has a right at any point to decide they do not wish to have their body used in that way.

I am baffled that people think fetuses get some additional right that you or I would not possess, in an identical (legally speaking) situation.

(ETA: As Tomasia pointed out, we still do grant additional rights at the late-gestation phase... but I can't see a legal justification for it, and it's certainly not absolute, if the doctors decide that the mother's health or life is endangered.)

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2017, 07:26 AM
RE: When does a human become a human? (Abortion)
(21-02-2017 07:05 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  It is as much my decision, as well as the governments to make, as it to prohibit infanticide. Society decides whats rights you have, not you, nor your body. And currently the laws in most countries have decided to make it illegal for you to abort an 8 month old fetus, for any other reason, but extreme circumstance.
Straw man. An infant and a fetus are not the same thing.

(21-02-2017 07:05 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Just because a baby hasn't exited your vagina, doesn't mean it doesn't have a right to life. And luckily most jurisdictions agree. If your the sort of woman who would abort an 8 month old fetus, just because you changed your mind, you should be deemed as a sociopath, not much different than woman who would commit infanticide.
Again, a baby and a fetus are not the same thing.

I wasn't going to get into this but for your sake I will tell you this story:

Three days ago a baby was born to friend's of my SO. The parents knew that the child had some sort of abnormality but the doctors couldn't be sure exactly what it was. They knew there were issues with the fetus' brain but, given the state of current technology, couldn't be specific about what the issue was. The couple (posting on Facebook) asked friends and family to "pray for the health and well-being of our little one."

Among other problems, the baby was born without a thing in her brain called the corpus callosum. It's a cluster of nerve fibres that attach the two hemispheres of the brain.

Only being three days old, it's impossible to tell how the baby will grow and function but at this point there's every possibility that the child may be in essentially a vegetative state, trapped in a repository of pain, for however long she lives.

Seems all that praying didn't do much good.

Now the poor infant will experience nothing but pain for her life (which will likely be short) and the parents will be agonized for the rest of their days.

Here in Canada the couple had the choice to avail themselves of a legal, safe abortion. They chose not to, and put their faith in their God, and that was their choice to make; I support their right to make that choice.

If the parents chose differently and decided to terminate the pregnancy to avoid the infant living her short life in agony, and avoiding the decades - a lifetime - of agony for the parents and the family (to say nothing of the extreme expense in caring for such a child), would that, in your opinion, make them sociopaths?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2017, 07:41 AM
RE: When does a human become a human? (Abortion)
(21-02-2017 07:26 AM)Heath_Tierney Wrote:  If the parents chose differently and decided to terminate the pregnancy to avoid the infant living her short life in agony, and avoiding the decades - a lifetime - of agony for the parents and the family (to say nothing of the extreme expense in caring for such a child), would that, in your opinion, make them sociopaths?

I would see them not much different than if, they didn't find out until the infant was born, and choose to euthanize him at 1 month, because of the life time of agony he/she would face.

Would I see them as sociopaths, in any of these scenarios? Probably not, anymore so than I wouldn't see a husband who might have assisted his wife's suicide, because she had considerable physical agony, as a sociopath.

The same thing applies if we're not talking about extreme circumstances, which the laws make exceptions for, such as a mother who aborts her 8 months old because she had a last minute change of mind, and does not want to be inconvenienced by having a kid. Such a mother would be inseparable from a a woman who committed infanticide, would be as much of a sociopath as woman who choose to kill her kids quietly and peacefully, because of how inconvenient they've become.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2017, 07:51 AM
RE: When does a human become a human? (Abortion)
(21-02-2017 07:23 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  If you are physically attached to, and dependent upon the body of another person for your continued survival, then the person to whom you are attached has a right at any point to decide they do not wish to have their body used in that way.

I am baffled that people think fetuses get some additional right that you or I would not possess, in an identical (legally speaking) situation.

The body is just our personal resources used to sustain the life the fetus. It's hard to conceive of many comparable situations, applied to a non-fetus. Yet we're mandated by laws to use a variety of our own personal resources to sustains the life of others. "I have right to choose how and whom to spend my money, why should I have to pay for other peoples, food, health insurance, foster care, etc...."

I don't see how that's much different then "i have the right to choose what I do with my body". If we recognize both of them as personal resources here that other's are dependent on.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2017, 07:52 AM
RE: When does a human become a human? (Abortion)
Well, there you have it: you want the same set of rules for someone who feels they're inconvenienced, and someone who knows that their child may be destined to live her short life in agony and terror, all overseen by some government bureaucrat.

I would prefer - and thankfully I live in a country that also prefers - that the people involved have the right to make their own choice without government interference.

Most of this is moot anyway: late-term abortions are extremely rare. In Canada, only 0.4% of abortions take place after 20 weeks gestation, and the vast majority of those are due to complications such as fetal abnormalities such as the one described above. The myth of a woman changing her mind and having an abortion late in her pregnancy because she finds children inconvenient is just that: a myth.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Heath_Tierney's post
21-02-2017, 08:21 AM
RE: When does a human become a human? (Abortion)
(21-02-2017 07:51 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(21-02-2017 07:23 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  If you are physically attached to, and dependent upon the body of another person for your continued survival, then the person to whom you are attached has a right at any point to decide they do not wish to have their body used in that way.

I am baffled that people think fetuses get some additional right that you or I would not possess, in an identical (legally speaking) situation.

The body is just our personal resources used to sustain the life the fetus. It's hard to conceive of many comparable situations, applied to a non-fetus. Yet we're mandated by laws to use a variety of our own personal resources to sustains the life of others. "I have right to choose how and whom to spend my money, why should I have to pay for other peoples, food, health insurance, foster care, etc...."

I don't see how that's much different then "i have the right to choose what I do with my body". If we recognize both of them as personal resources here that other's are dependent on.

This does not in any way equate to, or even parallel, what I said.

Personal resources and your physical body are not the same thing.

You may not use my body to sustain another body. Not yours, not anyone else's.

I may not use your body to sustain my own.

Not without ongoing permission to do so.

I gave the (actually) parallel example of two people in adjacent hospital beds, one hooked to the other in order to keep the other alive. If you think that the other person's "right to life" exceeds the right of the person to whom they are attached to have the choice of whether or not to continue endangering themselves (however slight the risk may be) on behalf of the other, I'd love to hear that argument.

One can make the case that if the sick (attached) person has over the several months of attachment recovered, not yet fully but enough that they can be detached on their own with a fair chance of survival, then we could restrict a last-minute "mind change" after all those months of attached recovery, but it would be a weak argument legally speaking.

But again, as keeps being pointed out, it's unheard of for abortions to happen in the very late term except for reasons of medical emergency, so that scenario is not only a strawman, it is an attempt to imply that women (or their doctors) would really be aborting in the final month, if only we didn't restrict them... "those filthy sluts!" ... "those godless, murdering sciencey-doctors!"

It's horseshit. What it's really about is trying to move the goalposts from "fully up to the medical ethics of the doctors and the rights and needs of their patient" to "we should intervene through the government (which we vehemently declare is far too powerful in every other respect) in order to enforce our particular social/religious view".

I simply don't argue with the regulation of late-term abortion because it's not really an issue in the first place, outside the minds of Pro-Life fanatics.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
21-02-2017, 09:22 AM
RE: When does a human become a human? (Abortion)
(21-02-2017 08:21 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  his does not in any way equate to, or even parallel, what I said.

I think it’s adequate analogy from the legal prescriptive. If you were to separate the crowds that believe a women has the right to decide to choose whatever she wants with her body in regards to a fetus, and those that place limitations on this.

Those that place limitations on this, would be those that at least at some point see the body as a resource for a fetus, and that the fetus has some autonomous rights of it’s own, and not merely at the whims of his carriers choice, just because it’s her body.

Secondly the difference between this and your analogy, the women took on these responsibilities when she choose to conceive, and carry the fetus for how ever long she did.
I mean we hold men financially responsible for a child, at the moment of conception. Since his semen impregnated the woman, regardless if it was an accident, a one night stand, a broken condom, etc.. he financially responsible for the life of the child.

So yes a women does have a responsibility, and obligation both morally and legally to the fetus inside of her. She has the moral responsibility to insure she takes the proper precautions, avoids alcohol, drugs, to take the appropriate care for it etc….

Quote:But again, as keeps being pointed out, it's unheard of for abortions to happen in the very late term except for reasons of medical emergency, so that scenario is not only a strawman, it is an attempt to imply that women (or their doctors) would really be aborting in the final month, if only we didn't restrict them... "those filthy sluts!" ... "those godless, murdering sciencey-doctors!

I don’t think most people would go around murdering each other if we didn’t have laws that made it illegal. The laws just establish the parameters, even if scenarios in which they are violated are bound to be rare. In a scenario like this, brings to law an ethical stance.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2017, 09:29 AM (This post was last modified: 21-02-2017 09:37 AM by SYZ.)
RE: When does a human become a human? (Abortion)
Where I live in Victoria (state in Australia) abortion is legal on demand up to 24 weeks, and legal beyond 24 weeks up to birth, if two doctors agree that it is appropriate based on the woman's current and future physical, psychological and social circumstances. [Abortion Law Reform Act 2008 Vic ]

(21-02-2017 09:22 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  So yes a women does have a responsibility, and obligation both morally and legally to the fetus inside of her. She has the moral responsibility to insure she takes the proper precautions, avoids alcohol, drugs, to take the appropriate care for it etc….

There is no legal impediment in Victoria to a pregnant woman smoking tobacco, or consuming alcohol and/or illicit drugs. Those activities cannot be used in a court of law if the foetus or the full-term baby is affected negatively either physically or mentally. In the past, biological fathers have attempted to mount a civil case of neglect or abuse against the mothers of babies so affected, but all have failed.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes SYZ's post
21-02-2017, 10:57 AM
RE: When does a human become a human? (Abortion)
(21-02-2017 09:22 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(21-02-2017 08:21 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  his does not in any way equate to, or even parallel, what I said.

I think it’s adequate analogy from the legal prescriptive. If you were to separate the crowds that believe a women has the right to decide to choose whatever she wants with her body in regards to a fetus, and those that place limitations on this.

Then I think you don't understand how law works, or what the privacy right to bodily integrity means.

The legal question is not about what "crowds" believe, or anyone believes, on either side. It's not even about women, except that in the case of pregnancy it doesn't happen to us. It's about the fact that the government can not compromise your right to bodily integrity without Due Process, and cannot compel you to endanger your life on behalf of another.

(21-02-2017 09:22 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Those that place limitations on this, would be those that at least at some point see the body as a resource for a fetus, and that the fetus has some autonomous rights of it’s own, and not merely at the whims of his carriers choice, just because it’s her body.

Are you not reading what I write? I pointed out that the right to life that even fully grown adults possess does not exceed the right to not be compelled to subjugate one's own bodily integrity on behalf of anyone else, adult or fetus.

By you stating that the fetus has "some autonomous rights of it's [sic] own", you are making it clear that you are either ignoring the "this would not even apply in the case of a fully grown adult citizen" portion of my posts, or somehow think that a fetus possesses rights that adults do not. What the legal basis for that might be, I would not even begin to guess... and I'm pretty certain you don't either, as you seem to be talking almost entirely out of your ass.

(21-02-2017 09:22 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Secondly the difference between this and your analogy, the women took on these responsibilities when she choose to conceive, and carry the fetus for how ever long she did.

"Choose to conceive?" Wut?

That in no way changes the calculus. Even if I had caused the incident which placed the other person in the hospital, attached to me, it would not remotely make it okay to force me to keep them alive by using my body to do so.

(21-02-2017 09:22 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I mean we hold men financially responsible for a child, at the moment of conception. Since his semen impregnated the woman, regardless if it was an accident, a one night stand, a broken condom, etc.. he financially responsible for the life of the child.

We already do this. It's called child support. It highlights the difference between "resources" and one's own body.

But again, this does not have anything to do with the right to bodily integrity, or give us permission to force a person to sustain another person's life by using their body against their will.

(21-02-2017 09:22 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  So yes a women does have a responsibility, and obligation both morally and legally to the fetus inside of her. She has the moral responsibility to insure she takes the proper precautions, avoids alcohol, drugs, to take the appropriate care for it etc….

These are only true if she intends to deliver the child-- that is, once she makes the choice to allow her body to be used as an incubator for a child-on-the-way. That has to do with the "crack baby" syndrome, and it has nothing to do with whether or not she chose to have sex, legally speaking. It is disingenuous for you to pretend otherwise. Even in the most conservative areas, the courts have ruled that the protections for the fetus count under "child abuse" laws, which of course only apply to children. With the exception of a few deep-south states with strong anti-abortion agendas from their hyper-Christian congresspersons, there are few states that actually prosecute for this; courts have also overwhelmingly ruled that child endangerment laws do not apply to fetuses, with the exception of those same states. The legal arguments upon which they extend this protection to future-born fetuses is suspect, to put it mildly.


(21-02-2017 09:22 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:But again, as keeps being pointed out, it's unheard of for abortions to happen in the very late term except for reasons of medical emergency, so that scenario is not only a strawman, it is an attempt to imply that women (or their doctors) would really be aborting in the final month, if only we didn't restrict them... "those filthy sluts!" ... "those godless, murdering sciencey-doctors!

I don’t think most people would go around murdering each other if we didn’t have laws that made it illegal. The laws just establish the parameters, even if scenarios in which they are violated are bound to be rare. In a scenario like this, brings to law an ethical stance.

Nice try, especially right after you directly implied that pregnancy is a consequence of sexual activity... and unwanted motherhood, loss of control of one's own body by government fiat, etc., are the "punishments" for unchaste behavior.

You have manufactured yet another of your astounding false equivalences. Murder is not illegal because of ethics. Murder (and attempted murder, manslaughter, etc.) is illegal because it is a violation by one person, without cause, of the right to bodily integrity (safety, health, and life) of another. How rare or common murder happens to be is irrelevant to the question of why it is prohibited under law.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: