Men's Abortion Rights.

[Southwind17]

I can see the cutting of the umbilical cord as a logical (as distinct from moral) threshold for the right to life. But depending on how you define "self-sustainment", you could be arguing that a child would have to be several years old before it can be deemed a separate and distinct human life.

I mean not reliant on the mother per se - which essentially means some time before birth (with intervention). I realise that's somewhat ambiguous (I don't know how early a motherless foetus is capable of developing into a baby with external intervention - possibly the full term for all I know - but I'm talking 'natural' development, however that can be defined). Not easy is it!

 

[PhantomWolf]

Agreed. Works both ways too until about the 1980s it was legal to smoke tobacco on public transport including planes and in many public spaces and now it isn't.

This is a non-equivalent argument. Second hand smoke from smokers causes cancer in those that choose not to smoke themselves, but have to be confined in public spaces, such as public transport, with those that do. Thus smoking in public is actually hurting other members of society. Terminating your pregnancy doesn't cause another person to have their terminated.

At best there is the argument for the fetus being alive and harm is done to it, however this is a very hard place to define "alive" as for much of the gestation the fetus would die without the mother as an incubator, so is that really a human life?

I think it is human rights which is ethics and morality but not simply religion (IE arising from unproven belief in a deity--which becomes the mechanism by which those who argue it is religiously inspired then argue to dismantle it)

This really makes little sense, you might have missed a word or two? However, where do you think Human Rights come from? Or Ethics and Morality for that matter...

For example, I am not religious but I would have a very hard time with the conclusion that someone unrelated to me should have the freedom to terminate/kill/whatever-you-call-it a foetus/baby/whatever at any point up until it draws breath one or whatever. So some time before that it is not OK and I don't really know when. Absolutist arguments do not seem any less silly whether they are pro or anti.

Personally I'd put it at the point at which the fetus can live without the mother being an incubator for it.

But this is beside the point you asked by what means should unrelated members of society express and enact restrictions and this seems rather uncomplicated to me.

Less what means should they express, and more by what right do they think they have to create law for it.

Aside from that and where abortion is fully legal and so on, I think I can agree with the view that the views of biological putative fathers should have no legal force in the matter

The father's views and rights is an entire other kettle of fish that I'd rather not get into and derail this thread with.

 

[Francesca R]

I can see the cutting of the umbilical cord as a logical (as distinct from moral) threshold for the right to life.

Sometimes this snaps during delivery, sometimes it may not be completely cut on the first attempt, some recommendations involve leaving it intact a few minutes etc.

Absolute definitions don't work all that well

 

[Francesca R]

This is a non-equivalent argument.

It is an example of society increasing regulation on others behaviour. I never said it was equivalent to anything. I will not be pursuing it further though.

This really makes little sense, you might have missed a word or two?

No I don't think so. I also reject that ethics come from religion BTW.

Personally I'd put it at the point at which the fetus can live without the mother being an incubator for it.

I think that can be shown to be 20 weeks or less in some examples. Anyway this is not really relevant and medical viability is certainly not an absolute point in time.

Less what means should they express, and more by what right do they think they have to create law for it.

Already covered by me (well more by Arcade22)

The father's views and rights is an entire other kettle of fish that I'd rather not get into and derail this thread with.

It is covered by your opening post so not a derail in any sense. You do not have to address it of course.

 

[Ziggurat]

Only when it's born, or at least capable of supporting itself (I'm sure there's a medical term!). If the prospect of a particular pregnant woman dying means that her unborn foetus/baby would inevitably also die, that can hardly be construed as a separate and distinct human life. Only when it is capable of self-sustainment can it be deemed a separate and distinct human life. Maybe that should be the threshold for termination, at least for convenience?!?

The term usually used to describe this is viable. It doesn't really satisfy hard core abortion advocates or opponents, although it does have popular appeal for people in the middle of the debate as a practical compromise. As a matter of principle, it's not really an ideal solution, because when a fetus becomes viable outside the mother is very dependent upon medical technology. Premature births can already survive much earlier today than even 50 years ago, and it's reasonable to expect that future advances will push it even earlier still.

 

[Belz...]

What's not to understand? An unborn child is nurtured and incubated inside of a woman. However, it is not a part of her body. It is a separate and distinct human life.

Well I wouldn't call it separate. It's literally directly connected to and dependant on it. That's why viability is my cut-off point.

I'll give you distinct, however.

But I think I understand your point about DNA. However it's not entirely correct. Your reproductive cells don't have the same DNA as the rest of your body, but they are still you.

 

[Belz...]

With respect Belz this is all just playing around with words: "a human", "human life", "human cell", "an actual human", albeit with the word "human" omnipresent. That doesn't validate the concept of "human life" though as you see it. And even if it did, what's the significance of a living cell, for example, that happens to be "human", over and above any other living cell?

Well, it's not just any old cell, is it? Especially since it becomes more than one rather quickly.

And it's not semantics. "A human" and "human life" aren't the same thing. I consider every point after conception to be "human life", but only after viability does it become "a human" in my opinion. I'd think that would be a very important difference.

 

[Darat]

A cell. The religious argument is that a cell has a soul. Given that we all kill millions of our cells every day as a matter of course, that argument is specious.



Then that cell divides and becomes 2, 4, 8, 16, 32 cells and so forth. At what point in that trajectory does it become a person?



Nobody can reliably define that.



Most jurisdictions that allow abortions use viability as a threshold. To me, that seems a best compromise (or least worst) for setting a term limit in a legal sense. Of course, viability is becoming earlier and earlier as medical technology advances.



The bottom line here is that there is no easy way around the issue of defining "personhood". Legally it is fraught with difficulty. Add to that the problem that the laws lag almost a generation behind the current facts on the ground just compounds the matter at hand.



Women (and their babies) have died because of this ineffectual legal futtering around.



As a man, and a father, I have absolutely no right to dictate anything to any woman. Period.

It's a tad more nuanced even for the RCC, so much so we even have a word for it ensoulment and theologians have been "discussing" it pretty much for all of recorded history.

Most religions have historically picked an arbitrary point, but seem to usual pick around quickening.

Although some ancients decided it was at the moment of conception I'd say it's really only very recently become the claim of many Christians.

 

[abaddon]

What's not to understand? An unborn child is nurtured and incubated inside of a woman. However, it is not a part of her body. It is a separate and distinct human life.

And only an idiot would call it a disease or a virus.

Super. Just invent an argument that nobody made out of whole cloth. Then pretend you are "winning"......something.

 

[Southwind17]

Well, it's not just any old cell, is it? Especially since it becomes more than one rather quickly.

This is the case with any cell - "human" or otherwise.

And it's not semantics. "A human" and "human life" aren't the same thing. I consider every point after conception to be "human life", but only after viability does it become "a human" in my opinion. I'd think that would be a very important difference.

Fine - you might consider it to be "human life", but you haven't explained what that means, other than saying what it isn't, namely "human". What, exactly, do you mean by "human life", if not simply a bunch of human cells that, before a certain point in time, bear no resemblance, either functionally or physically, to a fully-formed human being?

 

[Arcade22]

An unborn child is nurtured and incubated inside of a woman. However, it is not a part of her body. It is a separate and distinct human life.

It's called a fetus, not an "unborn child". That's just emotional Christian ********.

 

[Arcade22]

So.. I'm mostly just going to point out that being part of a society doesn't actually create a right for members of that Society to tell others in the Society how they are to use and what they can and can't do with their own bodies.

You may argue that but in actual practice people do take this right upon themselves.

You are merely making the assumption that it does without explaining why it should be that way. The fact is that we are getting away from the position that Society has that right in many things that involve our personal use of out bodies because it's seen as wrong.

I'm not saying it's "right", rather I'm saying they claim that right for themselves. All societies do to one extent or another. One of major drawbacks of living in any society is that the line between "private" and "public" isn't neither clear nor is it unchanging.

As society must renew its population in order to sustain itself, this necessarily means that sexual relationships, procreation, child rearing and such is something that society would concern itself with to one extent or another.

 

[Belz...]

This is the case with any cell - "human" or otherwise.

Absolutely not. A skin cell will not grow into a full human, nor will a fish zygote. Human zygotes grow into humans.

Fine - you might consider it to be "human life", but you haven't explained what that means, other than saying what it isn't, namely "human".

Correction: they are not a human, because I define a human as a person, and as I've stated, that comes at viability.

I believe I have stated what I consider to be human life. In the post you quoted, in fact.

 

[rockysmith76]

So a relatively simple question with what is probably a nor so simple answer.

If you are a man and disagree with Abortion, can you express what you think gives you the right to dictate how a woman who is unrelated to you, and not in a relationship with you, should have to deal with her own body?

And so as not to be totally sexist, if any of our woman posters disagree with abortion, free feel to come to the table and express why you think you have the right to dictate other women's action with their own bodies too.

Its not that basic a thing. Yes, ultimately it's the Woman's choice, but also her responsibility. One edge of the sword is that if she chooses to end that new life she is responsible for creating that is on her, and if bringing a new life into the world isn't something she's ready for, then imo, it's her responsibility to not put herself in a position where she might. Both Caveats apply here.

 

[psionl0]

I mean not reliant on the mother per se - which essentially means some time before birth (with intervention). I realise that's somewhat ambiguous (I don't know how early a motherless foetus is capable of developing into a baby with external intervention - possibly the full term for all I know - but I'm talking 'natural' development, however that can be defined). Not easy is it!

For me the difference in DNA is sufficient to establish that there are two different human entities - regardless of the state of development of the unborn child. But you are right. You can make this so complicated that even you don't know what you are talking about.

Of course, none of this has anything to do with the child's right to life (if any) nor if anybody has the right to interfere with a woman's decision to terminate a pregnancy or carry it to completion.

 

[psionl0]

It's called a fetus, not an "unborn child". That's just emotional Christian ********.

Which of the terms such as "zygote", "embryo" or "fetus" we use depend on the length of incubation. I use "unborn child" if in the context of what I am saying, the length of incubation is irrelevant.

 

[Southwind17]

For me the difference in DNA is sufficient to establish that there are two different human entities - regardless of the state of development of the unborn child.

That's a very 'scientific' viewpoint - arguably not very helpful, though, in the context of the topic.

You can make this so complicated that even you don't know what you are talking about.

I assume you mean 'one' rather than 'you' (i.e. me), but I suppose I could make it so complicated that even I could become confused, although I believe I'd still know what I'm talking about!

Of course, none of this has anything to do with the child's right to life (if any) nor if anybody has the right to interfere with a woman's decision to terminate a pregnancy or carry it to completion.

Oh I think it does, in the case of right to life. Whether or not the entity forming in the womb can be considered to be part of or separate from the mother is arguably fundamental to the debate, at least for some.

 

[Southwind17]

Which of the terms such as "zygote", "embryo" or "fetus" we use depend on the length of incubation. I use "unborn child" if in the context of what I am saying, the length of incubation is irrelevant.

I think you mean the stage of incubation rather than length per se. Length is, of course, irrelevant, but stage of development is the key issue.

 

[psionl0]

Oh I think it does, in the case of right to life. Whether or not the entity forming in the womb can be considered to be part of or separate from the mother is arguably fundamental to the debate, at least for some.

If your definition is "not reliant on the mother per se" then I don't see how.

I think you mean the stage of incubation rather than length per se. Length is, of course, irrelevant, but stage of development is the key issue.

Correction accepted.

 

[PhantomWolf]

It is an example of society increasing regulation on others behaviour. I never said it was equivalent to anything. I will not be pursuing it further though.

There is a difference between the calling of regulating behavior that can be harmful to you, and demanding the regulating of behaviour that has zero harmful effect on yourself.

I think that can be shown to be 20 weeks or less in some examples. Anyway this is not really relevant and medical viability is certainly not an absolute point in time.

Which to me is why is should be left to the Doctors to make the call. If they believe that the fetus would be viable and there is no excessive risk to the mother, then any termination at that point should be an induced birth or c-section. If the fetus isn't viable then the doctors always need the option to abort when when there is risk to the mother to continue the pregnancy.

Already covered by me (well more by Arcade22)

And already responded to by me, that's what started this conversation, merely pointing back to what has already been rejected only leads us in circles.

It is covered by your opening post so not a derail in any sense. You do not have to address it of course.

It was covered in being specifically excluded from the conversation.