Abortion? The final conclusions?

[Jocko]

...can exist outside of the host's womb without HER specific care, then it is deserving of 'individual rights'.

Until that point, the fetus is nothing more than a parasite existing off of a willing and able host.

Why some would give or want to endow 'individual' status upon something that isn't is beyond me...

So what precisely is the practical difference between a second-trimester fetus and a social leech who refuses to contribute to the society which supports him? Both will die without the "host," as you so curiously put it.

 

[Upchurch]

I voted, but I never feel comfortable voicing my opinion on this topic. I just don't feel qualified because I know I will never likely be placed in the position where I have to make that decision for myself. This is one topic where I don't believe that "all men* are created equal".




* so to speak

 

[Marc L]

Yet, out of one side of their mouths they may claim that the world already has too many people. Yet at the same time, are so bent against abortion.

Actually, from what I know of those people who believe the world is over-populated, they are not anti-abortion. Generally (at least those from the uber-religious sector), people who are anti-abortion are not really concerned about over-population. What with Jesus coming back soon and all, it's not much of a worry.

Marc

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

I think abortion should be allowed up to the end of the 72nd trimester.

 

[KingMerv00]

Wow...a lot of "always allow's". Even the day of birth? Little much for me.

Edit: Not at all what I expected from the JREFers.

 

[King of the Americas]

Jocko,

A parasite relies on a 'specific' host for ALL of its life functions.

Once the fetus is no longer dependent on the host or mother, and can exist outside the womb without HER specific care, THEN it is deserving of indvidual rights.

Someone hooked up to a ventilator is still independent BECAUSE they aren't reliant on a 'specific host' for ALL of their life functions. Any doctor can run a vent, and any social worker could sign a check.

However, I detect within your response your desire to bring my social status into this debate...

Why?

 

[Sally]

San Francisco femanists screamed bloody "double-murder" at Scott Peterson. I think by the third trimester we are dealing with a child inside mommy's tummy.

Leaving your geographical bias out of the discussion for the moment I think your response does bring up an interesting point.

I am pro-choice. I believe fully in the right to choose but on the same hand I would fully enforce the pursuit of a double murder charge (or something to the effect) on someone taking the life of a pregnant woman and embryo. That is about someone else choosing to forcefully terminate a pregnancy and a whole different can of worms..

 

[AWPrime]

Jocko,
A parasite relies on a 'specific' host for ALL of its life functions.

Once the fetus is no longer dependent on the host or mother, and can exist outside the womb without HER specific care, THEN it is deserving of indvidual rights.

Would any parasite gain more rights when they are removed?

 

[bob_kark]

I am pro-choice. I believe fully in the right to choose but on the same hand I would fully enforce the pursuit of a double murder charge (or something to the effect) on someone taking the life of a pregnant woman and embryo. That is about someone else choosing to forcefully terminate a pregnancy and a whole different can of worms..

The problem is that by declaring it a double murder, you're declaring the embryo to be a human life. If you declare the embryo to be a human life then abortion would be considered murder as well.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I am pro-choice. I believe fully in the right to choose but on the same hand I would fully enforce the pursuit of a double murder charge (or something to the effect) on someone taking the life of a pregnant woman and embryo.

Why do you hate men?

DR

 

[Iamme]

San Francisco femanists screamed bloody "double-murder" at Scott Peterson. I think by the third trimester we are dealing with a child inside mommy's tummy.

Your REASON for it being a double murder is not the same as mine though. In the case of a mother who had plans to carry a baby to term, and this can be proven by interviews with parents, friends, co-workers, etc.,...I would say that the death of such a fetus would then be murder because the fetus WOULD have been born (most likely, according to mortality statistics).

Contrarily, if it were proved that the mother soon planned to abort the fetus, even if it was a 3rd term baby, and expressed no plans to carrying it to term for even adoption, I'd say then you could not attach the term 'murder' to it, if the mother could have legally and most likely would have aborted the baby.

 

[steverino]

Your REASON for it being a double murder is not the same as mine though. In the case of a mother who had plans to carry a baby to term, and this can be proven by interviews with parents, friends, co-workers, etc.,...I would say that the death of such a fetus would then be murder because the fetus WOULD have been born (most likely, according to mortality statistics).

Contrarily, if it were proved that the mother soon planned to abort the fetus, even if it was a 3rd term baby, and expressed no plans to carrying it to term for even adoption, I'd say then you could not attach the term 'murder' to it, if the mother could have legally and most likely would have aborted the baby.

First of all, I am delighted that this is being hashed over a bit on this forum. I have really been wrestling with the abortion issue for years. The youngest of five, I think I would have been aborted if it were legal in 1959, and I guess I am glad I was born. But if I were king, I wouldn't make it illegal because then poor folks would find ways to terminate pregnancy while the middle class would have the means to travel to Boston or Canada.

The fallacy of your position, IAMME, in my opinion, is that you say the fetus magically becomes a baby, a human, a life, once the mother decides she will give birth. If the mother says, "You know what, I can't go through with this pregnancy. I will abort," that fetus (or baby) is the same mind and body. Its viability as a life has not been altered simply by the mother's decision.

By the same token, let's say a woman finds out she is pregnant and decides on Monday she will abort the fetus on Friday. Then she gets murdered on Thursday. Is it a single murder because her wish was to abort anyway?

 

[Jocko]

Jocko,

A parasite relies on a 'specific' host for ALL of its life functions.

Like a welfare bum specifically relies on society's contributors, sure.

Once the fetus is no longer dependent on the host or mother, and can exist outside the womb without HER specific care, THEN it is deserving of indvidual rights.

That doesn't follow from your first statement. It's not like every fetus relies on a single woman, after all.

Someone hooked up to a ventilator is still independent BECAUSE they aren't reliant on a 'specific host' for ALL of their life functions. Any doctor can run a vent, and any social worker could sign a check.

Wrong. It takes a thousand engineers to design the ventilator. A thousand more people to build it. Several hundred to approve it. And hundreds more to sell it to the hundreds of thousands of people who can run it. That "specific host" is specifically called "the planet earth."

As to the check scenario, how many people - and how skilled must they be - to earn the money to get taxed to get deposited in a goverment account for that check to be honored? And how many people run the mainframes that allow the bank to know that the check is good, and the taxpayers of America will be correctly debited for the balance of said welfare leech's continued meaningless existence?

However, I detect within your response your desire to bring my social status into this debate...

Why?

Not at all. I detect in your response a fundamental failure to understand what a parasite is.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Well they are equal persons. That isn't the same as with a person to be and a woman.

A viable baby isn't a person until it naturally is birthed? That makes no sense. If a baby can survive outside of the womb then it's a person.

Not really, it is part of the body as long as it is in the body.

Says who?

One must also test ideas to see if they can be applied. Stating that it all depends on if they can survive outside of the womb creates a very fussy line, which is hard to apply.

It's the only reasonable line that there can be. Since killing viable babies in the womb is murder by any definition.

It also presents a problem, a baby may live outside the womb with help of technology but will be severly handicapt. Is it worth it?

Notice I said "without technology". My finger can live on off my body with technology but that doesn't mean it's any less a part of my body.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I think abortion should be allowed up to the end of the 72nd trimester.

Huh?

 

[AWPrime]

A viable baby isn't a person until it naturally is birthed? That makes no sense. If a baby can survive outside of the womb then it's a person.

It lacks the self/identity to be a person.

Says who?

Me and logic. If it is in the body then it is part of it.

It's the only reasonable line that there can be. Since killing viable babies in the womb is murder by any definition.

By that extend it is also murder when you spray pesticides against insects.

Notice I said "without technology". My finger can live on off my body with technology but that doesn't mean it's any less a part of my body.

It can also do that without technology, but without support that would be temporarly, just like with a baby.

 

[CaptainManacles]

Your REASON for it being a double murder is not the same as mine though. In the case of a mother who had plans to carry a baby to term, and this can be proven by interviews with parents, friends, co-workers, etc.,...I would say that the death of such a fetus would then be murder because the fetus WOULD have been born (most likely, according to mortality statistics).

Contrarily, if it were proved that the mother soon planned to abort the fetus, even if it was a 3rd term baby, and expressed no plans to carrying it to term for even adoption, I'd say then you could not attach the term 'murder' to it, if the mother could have legally and most likely would have aborted the baby.

So if I get kicked in the mean bean machine and can't have kids, should the person be locked up for murder?

It's an interesting moral problem, and I can't say I neccisarily disagree. Just like killing can be okay in some contexts: self defence, ect; I think that a flesh sack can be a human in some contexts and nothing in another context and sometimes a little inbetween. Certainly I can see the moral difference between a woman and a doctor coming to an agreement to terminate and some dude stabbing a pregnent woman in the stomache to kill the baby. I also think it's a little more than assault.

On the other hand, I don't know if accidently killing a fetus could be considered manslaughter, and there should probably be some differences depending on the viability of the baby.

 

[Iamme]

By the same token, let's say a woman finds out she is pregnant and decides on Monday she will abort the fetus on Friday. Then she gets murdered on Thursday. Is it a single murder because her wish was to abort anyway?

Yes.

That is how my current rationale goes, anyway. I am always open for change, however. I AM someone willing to listen to various sides to an argument.

 

[Iamme]

So if I get kicked in the mean bean machine and can't have kids, should the person be locked up for murder?

No. But the point you raise is just the very type of things that can be raised that make the abortion issue very complicated. We can go all the way back to not only saying that some FETUS will be a human life and therefore should simply be called human life....but if some guy either got kicked in the nuts or, say, even befriends Jack Knoff, thousands of times, and wastes potential life...that perhaps this too could count as being illegal. After all...isn't a fetus actually potential life, also?

All these things can really start giving one a headache when trying to reason this issue.

 

[King of the Americas]

Jocko,

We ALL rely on the rest of society to support our existance, period. Were it not for you local police, YOU would soon secum to armed bandits with bigger guns and more bullets than you have.

Your argument has NOTHING to do with what we are actually talking about. 'Society' or the 'planet Earth' is NOT 'specific'...

My argument is based on the relationship between a parasite and its host. Abortion laws should be based what is and is NOT an individual life form. A parasite, or rather a fetus 5 months old or younger possesses ZERO 'individual' characteristics. It is 'absolutely dependent' on ONE host, a specific host. To date, you can't transmit one fetus into another womb. When that technological advance happens, THEN the laws should change.

Comparing the fetus/host relationship to welfare receipants and the society that supports is an inaccurate comparison to say the least.

What criteria would you use to decide when or if a fetus can or should be aborted?