Abortion

[Ceinwyn]

This is kind of getting silly, in my opinion (take it as it's worth).

But...

As a woman, I have the right to do what I want with my body. If I want to have a lot of kids, that's my right. If I want to have no children at all, that's my right too.

That's all.

 

[Q-Source]

From this one must conclude either a) Yahzi is a woman, or b) Q-source does think Yahzi understands.

I reject both options.

Oh no!, Yahzi. I am sorry.

I was pissed off with Thanz's and TexasBEAST's comments. They keep on referring to Abortion as a "killing babies" practice . It is a pejorative name that makes women look like cold-hearted killers. I just cannot stand that.

For the argument's sake, we are considering that the fetus is a person and Thanz does not accept that even if it is so, a woman would still have the right to protect her privacy. He thinks that those reasons I gave are not that real. Well, maybe from his POV they are not, but I see them as real threats.

Anyway, apologies again. At this moment, I consider that your arguments for Abortion are quite consistent and objective. I am learning a lot from you.

Q-S

 

[Peter Soderqvist]

Regarding my mocked anthropomorphism!

These are the consequences when we consider a prenatal entity have a genuine personality! I am from Sweden, and I cannot understand why abortion is something to fuss about, because abortion is free here, and even the Christian party (KDS) admits abortion as morally accepted. It is only some minor sects because of their religious beliefs who are against it!

 

[Thanz]

Let's try this one more time. No where in the Constitution will you find a law or principle allowing you to take my property simply because you need it to live. The principle that your need trumps my property rights does not exist in American law or morality.

The U.S. Constitution is irrelevant to this debate. However, if you want to go the legal route, let's see where that goes. If the fetus is a person with rights, including the right to life, then killing it is homicide. The question is not whether the fetus has a right to the mothers organs, the question is whether the mother is justified in killing it. I say that the law requires some sort of real threat to the life or health of the person before the homicide is justified. In a normal, healthy pregnancy, that threat is not present.

Further, there are laws that allow a person to take your property simply because they need it. Ever hear of child support? What is child support based on? THE NEEDS OF THE CHILD. It is exactly the same after birth as before under my assumption - the only difference is how the child's needs are satisfied. Before birth, there is only one way to satisfy the child's needs. After birth, there are more options. But if the parents refuse to provide the necessities of life to the child, they will be criminally charged. So, there is quite a bit of law that says another is entitled to your property based solely on need. And look - it is directly on point (parents and children) and not some made up analogy (alien immigrant trespassers).

The only way you justify your position is by the culpability of the parents. If I can't change your position on abortion, can I at least get you to understand that it does not depend on the status of the fetus, but rather, on the actions of the parents?

No, it doesn't depend on the culpability of the parents. You are trying to excuse them from responsibility, based on some rather spurious arguments. I am saying that your arguments do not excuse them from the fact that the fetus is a person with rights, not an alien invader. The law does not allow you to abandon the children you create - I am simply extending that principle back in time.

Even if you conceded that the fetus was only a potential person, you could still advance the argument that the parent's actions rendered them culpable. Your entire argument depends on sex necessarily compelling one to accept pregnancy. The fetus as a person is unimportant, to both of our arguments.

You are not understanding my arguments, it seems. I am not arguing against abortion, per se. I am arguing that the status of the fetus as a "person" or not is the central question in the abortion debate. The parents actions make them responsible, regardless. Whether or not the fetus is a person, the pregnancy must be addressed in some fashion. The status of the fetus is of critical importance in defining what those responsibities are.

Either you don't understand what "undue burden" means or you don't value sex the same as the rest of the human race.

Why don't you address the rest of my arguments instead of making these cute quips?

And I wouldn't have that kid, if it weren't for you interfering.

Wrong. You (as a man) do not have a choice. The choice is the mother's. So, you do have the kid. Why don't you try addressing the rest of the paragraph now?

When people have children because they chose to have the child, that does imply choice, acceptance, and commitment. To freely enter into a contract is binding. The difference in our positions is simply this: you consider sex to be a binding contract for pregnancy and I do not.

But you do, from the man's perspective. You have admitted that men should not be able to weasel out of paying child support. The man does not get an abortion vote.

My position is this: By engaging in vaginal intercourse, you accept the risks and responsibilities of pregnancy should it occur. You can reduce those risks by using various form of birth control. If you want to be 100% assured of no pregnancy, you can engage in sexual activities other than vaginal intercourse.

The question is, why do you? It can't be simply because it is a physical consequence of the act, because there are any number of physical consequences you reject. So why?

What are these physical consequences that you say I reject? What are you talking about?

Once again, you ignore people who don't care and don't use birth control at all. While my arguments do not depend on parental culpability, yours do. Why do you keep failing to address this?

 

[Thanz]

I was pissed off with Thanz's and TexasBEAST's comments. They keep on referring to Abortion as a "killing babies" practice . It is a pejorative name that makes women look like cold-hearted killers. I just cannot stand that.

I use this language on purpose to try to force you to see the reality of the assumption we are arguing under. The assumption is that the fetus is the same as the baby - it is a person with human rights, just like the rest of us. The use of the word "fetus" insulates you from that reality (in the assumption). If the fetus is a person, you are killing the baby. Same as if you tossed it into the river.

For the argument's sake, we are considering that the fetus is a person and Thanz does not accept that even if it is so, a woman would still have the right to protect her privacy. He thinks that those reasons I gave are not that real. Well, maybe from his POV they are not, but I see them as real threats.

Threats enough to kill the baby? Would they be sufficient reasons to throw the baby in the river? If not, why do you accept them for the baby before birth? A newborn baby is just as dependent on you for its everyday needs as it was before it was born. It cannot feed or clothe itself. You and the father are responsible for those needs.

If the fetus is a person, you can't draw a line at birth and make different rules. You seem to want to do this.

It seems that you cannot get your brain fully engaged in the assumption, because of your firm belief that the fetus is NOT a person with rights.

 

[Darat]

...snip....

If the fetus is a person, you can't draw a line at birth and make different rules. You seem to want to do this.

It seems that you cannot get your brain fully engaged in the assumption, because of your firm belief that the fetus is NOT a person with rights.

Why not we do it all the time about othe kinds of murder. We say killing someone is "illegal". Then we make exceptions. Don't see why we can't do the same based on an "in and out" of womb difference.

 

[Akots]

Re: The sperm descend upon his host!

TO AKOTS



Soderqvist1: "Offer"?
The supposed "mother" has never admitted her organs to be used by this tumor!
This is high-handed using of another person's organs without permission to do so in the first place! These invading genes carries out the instruction to build a body on private grounds, and by stealing food to do so, an abortion as a woman's self-defense under these conditions are therefore justified, because a sperm is only welcome as a temporary guest as long as he behave properly!

Did you even read a single word of my post?



To say a fetus invades a body is like saying a burn victim invades a hospital or an ambulance. If you had a parasitic fetus growing in your lung or something, maybe then you have a case... otherwise, the mother's body nurtures the fetus to the point of infancy. It's not like some spider is laying eggs in your eyes while you sleep.

Can we please settle wether or not the fetus is a cancerous growth? I posit that it demeans the human race, which is to demean one's self. It's starting to annoy me.

 

[Thanz]

Why not we do it all the time about othe kinds of murder. We say killing someone is "illegal". Then we make exceptions. Don't see why we can't do the same based on an "in and out" of womb difference.

I didn't say we couldn't make exceptions. In fact, I said that if the life of the woman was seriously threatened, then abortion would be justified. Just like if your life was seriously threatened you could kill in self defense.

But, if you kill someone for emotional or economic reasons, they don't call that "justification" they call it "motive". I am simply applying the same logic to the baby before birth as after.

If you want to make an exception to the rule that it is wrong to kill someone based on an "in and out" of womb difference, the burden is on you to justify it. On what grounds do you justify it?

 

[Q-Source]

Threats enough to kill the baby?

YES!

How many times do you want me to say it?

Would they be sufficient reasons to throw the baby in the river?

Lets say that Mike Tyson looks very angry and is right in front of my house. He is a threat to me.

You find difficult to understand that:

1. If he stays outside my house, I cannot kill him in self defense, even if I am scared and I want to kill him. I have to respect his right for life (a new born baby, a person outside my body).

The best I can do is to call the Police and ask them to take him out of my sight.

In this scenario, you are right, if I cannot prove that he is a real threat, I cannot kill him.

2. But... if he enters into my house, without invitation, then I have the right to kill him immediately and claim that it was in self- defense (a fetus, a person inside my body).

Tyson (fetus/person) will have to die. I am not responsible at all.

It seems that you cannot get your brain fully engaged in the assumption, because of your firm belief that the fetus is NOT a person with rights.

O.K., the fetus is a person with rights . But there is a HUGE difference depending on where he is (inside or outside the mother's body) in the moment that a woman decides whether or not to trigger the gun.

Q

 

[Thanz]

Lets say that Mike Tyson looks very angry and is right in front of my house. He is a threat to me.

You find difficult to understand that:

1. If he stays outside my house, I cannot kill him in self defense, even if I am scared and I want to kill him. I have to respect his right for life (a new born baby, a person outside my body).

The best I can do is to call the Police and ask them to take him out of my sight.

In this scenario, you are right, if I cannot prove that he is a real threat, I cannot kill him.

2. But... if he enters into my house, without invitation, then I have the right to kill him immediately and claim that it was in self- defense (a fetus, a person inside my body).

Tyson (fetus/person) will have to die. I am not responsible at all.

Let's go with this example. The scenario you describe, however, is not accurate. It is not Mike entering your house without invitation. It is you seeing Mike walk down the street, and yelling from your window "hey mike - come here!". The chances are slim that Mike tyson will actually go to your house. But, he might. And you can't just shoot him when he walks in the door.

Further, even if mike tyson, looking mad, came into your house you DO NOT have the right to shoot him dead. He would have to do something more threatening than that.

O.K., the fetus is a person with rights . But there is a HUGE difference depending on where he is (inside or outside the mother's body) in the moment that a woman decides whether or not to trigger the gun.

Why is there a HUGE difference? what is that HUGE difference? Remember the baby in the jungle? The baby relies on you for all of its needs both before and after birth. Why are you justified in killing it before, but not after? Simply because of the way in which it relies on you?

What is the compelling reason? It can't be emotional - the emotional reasons you describe have to do with caring for an unwanted child (not pregnancy itself). The same with the economic reasons you put forth. The only difference is the physical. The physical risks of a normal, healthy pregnancy is not enough to justify the killing of another person.

If you want to cling to the before/after birth dividing line, you need to come up with some reason for it. Simply asserting it does not make it so.

 

[Yahzi]

AKots

(Though i find the term "designed" a touch inappropriate, it's what springs to mind.)

Because it is a weak argument. Men are "designed" to rape women, kill other men, and commit other acts of violence. That's what upper body strength and testosterone is all about. Yet neither of us thinks that matters for a discussion on morality, do we?

Nor should the fact that women are "designed" to have children matter. Except in carrying out the will of the designer; which is, as I have said, a religious position.

what if you offer somebody a life-support system,

This is the entire issue. You maintain that having sex is a de facto offer. I maintain that an offer requires intention, and having sex without the intention of having children is both reasonable and morally defensible.

Perhaps the ultimate difficulty is that you feel a human life is too high a cost to preserve our rights to have sex without reproducing. The problem with this position is that it is inconsistent; there are a number of other areas in which the excersize of your rights also incurs the death of a person, and in those instances you don't care. You seem to feel that the voluntary act of producing food does NOT entitle those who need it to take it for free (I say this because at no point have you endorsed communism). You seem to endorse private property rights as understood by ordinary US law. Only in the case of sex do you feel that the voluntary physical act automatically must include the intention of sharing your property.

I maintain that it is morally and reasonably possible to have sex without extending an invitation to other persons to sieze your property. If those persons do, then recovering your property (even if it costs the other his life) is simply the excersize of your rights.

I maintain that private property rights trump other people's needs. You do too - except in this one case.

Q-Source

They keep on referring to Abortion as a "killing babies" practice

It is killing babies. The fact that you cannot emotionally accept the truth of your position is as damaging to your case as TexasBeast's need to dismiss pregnancy as a crimp in style.

Of course, if you reject the notion that fetuses are persons, then it isn't. But - for purposes of this discussion we have agreed that they are. If you cannot support abortion even if the fetus is a person, then you should not concede that point for argument's sake. I, however, have no problem with killing people I've never met to defend my property rights. I must admit, however, that this is easy for me only because the person in question does not suffer, has no consciousness, no history, no friends or relatives, no debts, promises, obligations, or ties to the world of any kind. I would still do it, though, even if it weren't easy, because ultimately I defend property rights as necessary to human well-being.

Thanz

The question is not whether the fetus has a right to the mothers organs, the question is whether the mother is justified in killing it.

The act of killing it is the denial of access to the organs. If you could extract the fetus and allow it to surivive, then it would be a different issue. But you can't, so it isn't.

I say that the law requires some sort of real threat to the life or health of the person before the homicide is justified. In a normal, healthy pregnancy, that threat is not present

Your failure to understand the nature of pregnancy does severe damage to your case. For your information, ALL pregnancys carry an implicit death threat, because there is always a chance that something will go wrong.

So, there is quite a bit of law that says another is entitled to your property based solely on need.

Wrong. The law is based on assumption of an obligation - having children is an assumption of an obligation that the law will force you to oblige. If it were based solely on need, then the law could take YOUR money to support MY children.

The law does not allow you to abandon the children you create

Because you chose to create them. Your argument does hinge on the culpability of the parents.

The parents actions make them responsible, regardless

Why?

By engaging in vaginal intercourse, you accept the risks and responsibilities of pregnancy should it occur.

But we don't want to accept the responsibility of pregnancy. Why should we have to? Just because some other person - whom we've never met - might die? Why should we care? It is not a violation of the golden rule. I am never going to be a fetus, I am never going to know a fetus, so I can't complain about you treat fetuses. (Unless it degrades your interactions with other human beings, but we already know such collateral harm does not occur)

What are these physical consequences that you say I reject?

Death is the physical consequence of life. Broken legs are the physical consequence of skiing. You reject the skiing argument because no has to die to fix my leg, but his is just another way of saying you support our property rights untill death is involved. Yet you aren't demonstrating against immigration laws that kill people, the crab-fishing industry, or stores that let food sit on their shelves while people are starving in other countries.

Once again, you ignore people who don't care and don't use birth control at all.

No, I addressed them. I said that mere lack of intention was sufficient to preserve your rights.

While my arguments do not depend on parental culpability, yours do.

Are you so committed to winning that you cannot learn? I have clearly shown that your central thesis is that pregnancy is a morally inescapable result of sex. The fetus' status as a person is irrelevant, because you do not feel that people who need should be allowed to take from you without asking. Or do you? If you embrace communism, now is the time to say so.

Akots

To say a fetus invades a body is like saying a burn victim invades a hospital or an ambulance.

Absolutely incorrect analogy.

 

[Thanz]

Thanz

The act of killing it is the denial of access to the organs. If you could extract the fetus and allow it to surivive, then it would be a different issue. But you can't, so it isn't.

I assume, then, that you would be against abortions after the point of viability.

Your failure to understand the nature of pregnancy does severe damage to your case. For your information, ALL pregnancys carry an implicit death threat, because there is always a chance that something will go wrong.

You make it sound so grave. "Implicit death threat". For your information, I do understand that there is always the chance that something may go wrong. However, in the vast majority of normal, healthy pregnancies, nothing does go wrong. It is how we survive as a species. The normal risks of pregnancy do not outweigh the certain death of an abortion.

Wrong. The law is based on assumption of an obligation - having children is an assumption of an obligation that the law will force you to oblige. If it were based solely on need, then the law could take YOUR money to support MY children.

"having children is an assumption of an obligation that the law will force you to oblige." Exactly. So, when you, the father, do not intend to have children but father them anyway, you are subject to certain responsiblities. Just as I would impose on parents if the fetus is given status as a person. Just the same as the obligation to a baby once it is born.

The obligation is based on the needs of the child. Upon whom should this obligation fall? Upon those that created the child (regardless of their intentions) because the child exists due to their actions.

Because you chose to create them. Your argument does hinge on the culpability of the parents.

You keep ignoring the point, Yahzi. You, as father, are responsible for the child regardless of your intentions, choices or desires. The mother is just as responsible. The law is clear on this point. What I am saying, and you are rejecting, is that this responsibility, that you must accept after birth, naturally extends back before birth once we make the fetus a "person" with the same rights as the baby after birth.

Me: The parents actions make them responsible, regardless

Yahzi: Why?

I have already explained this. The whole quote is this:

The parents actions make them responsible, regardless. Whether or not the fetus is a person, the pregnancy must be addressed in some fashion. The status of the fetus is of critical importance in defining what those responsibities are.

The pregnancy must be addressed. By whom? The parents. Why? Because they are the one who will be responsible for the child they have created.

But we don't want to accept the responsibility of pregnancy. Why should we have to? Just because some other person - whom we've never met - might die? Why should we care? It is not a violation of the golden rule. I am never going to be a fetus, I am never going to know a fetus, so I can't complain about you treat fetuses. (Unless it degrades your interactions with other human beings, but we already know such collateral harm does not occur)

You are seperating the fetus from the person in this paragraph. Why? So that you can say "I am never going to be a fetus" rather than "I am never going to be a person"? The whole point of the assumption is that the fetus IS a person just like the rest of us. So it does violate the golden rule, unless you want someone whom you don't know to kill you.

Whether you want to accept the responsibility of pregnancy is irrelevant. I don't want to have to pay my mortgage. That doesn't mean I don't have to. And you will have to accept the responsibilities of pregnancy if you get someone pregnant who wants to keep the baby. Regardless of what you want.

Death is the physical consequence of life. Broken legs are the physical consequence of skiing. You reject the skiing argument because no has to die to fix my leg, but his is just another way of saying you support our property rights untill death is involved. Yet you aren't demonstrating against immigration laws that kill people, the crab-fishing industry, or stores that let food sit on their shelves while people are starving in other countries.

How is any of this relevant? You cannot compare the intentional killing of another person with the people starving in Africa, or whatever the plight of the crab fisherman may be.

The fact is, the law says that your property rights can be infringed in order to provide for the essential needs of your biological offspring. All I am saying is, if we grant the fetus the status of person with the same rights before birth as after, that this principle of property rights infringment to provide the necessities of life extends into the time before birth. You have no more right to kill the fetus to protect your property rights as you do to kill the 2 month old baby to protect your property rights.

No, I addressed them. I said that mere lack of intention was sufficient to preserve your rights.

Then you should be able to not pay child support, either. The principle is the same.

Are you so committed to winning that you cannot learn? I have clearly shown that your central thesis is that pregnancy is a morally inescapable result of sex. The fetus' status as a person is irrelevant, because you do not feel that people who need should be allowed to take from you without asking. Or do you? If you embrace communism, now is the time to say so.

Are you so committed to winning that you cannot see what is plain in front of your face? The responsibilities of parenthood are well established. Both parents, regardless of their original intentions, are responsible for the care of the child once it is born. I don't think that you seriously dispute this. Both parents are obligated, both morally and legally, to care for the needs of the child.

The question that the abortion debate asks is if those same responsibilities extend to the fetus prior to the birth of the child. What I have been arguing is that if the fetus is the same as the baby in terms of personhood and rights, then those same responsibilities of the parents that extend to the baby must also extend to the fetus. I have seen no argument from you as to why this wouldn't be so.

That is why personhood status is relevant. If the fetus is NOT a person, then there is no reason to extend those same responsibilities of the parents to it, as it has no rights.

When I look at it this way, I realize that I think I may be saying that the rights of the child places responsibilities on the parents. Therefore, it is critical to determine when the fetus has those rights, to see when the parents have the responsibilities. Hmm...

 

[Peter Soderqvist]

A malignant tumor versus a benign tumor

TO AKOTS

You wrote on page 6, 03-12-2003 01:54 PM: Did you even read a single word of my post?

Soderqvist1: Yes!

To say a fetus invades a body is like saying a burn victim invades a hospital or an ambulance.

Soderqvist1: your analogy is too gross in order to have merit!
Rather in general a healthy sperm invade the ovum, but a victim is seldom an invader, because they are in general welcome to our hospital according to our culture! If Mike Tyson is an intruder in the house or a temporary guest, or a lodger for nine month, or if the sperm analogously is a welcome invader or not, is up to the host to judge, not you, because you have no jurisdiction there!

If you had a parasitic fetus growing in your lung or something, maybe then you have a case...

Soderqvist1: I cannot be pregnant because I am a male!

otherwise, the mother's body nurtures the fetus to the point of infancy. It's not like some spider is laying eggs in your eyes while you sleep.

Soderqvist1: If the fetus is parasitic or not cannot be decided objectively, because these questions stems from sentimental values and can thus only be solved arbitrarily, but the host's decision is the only one with merit anyway!

Can we please settle whether or not the fetus is a cancerous growth? I posit that it demeans the human race, which is to demean one's self. It's starting to annoy me.

Soderqvist1: The fetus is not a cancerous growth but a cell-aggregate!
Hence, if the cell-aggregate is an parasitic intruder or lodger under 9 month is only decidable by the host's judgment, and the woman in question is even free to use whatever label she prefers; tumor, cell-aggregate, or my child!

 

[Yahzi]

[B}Thanz[/B]

The normal risks of pregnancy do not outweigh the certain death of an abortion.

But it does for every entity except fetuses! Consider this: a person is dying in a hospital, and the only thing that can save them is a temporary medical operation on another person. The operation has a very tiny risk of death. Can the government compel you to undergo that tiny risk solely because this random person is dying?

You will answer no, because you have no obligation to that person. This makes my point: your argument does NOT revolve around the rights of the fetus, it depends on the OBLIGATION created by sex.

Do you understand this? Your rejection of communism makes it clear that you don't think persons have a right to your internal organs merely because they are dying; your argument is that fetuses have a right created by the parent's voluntary action.

My argument is simply that having sex (as opposed to giving birth) does not obligate me to providing for children, and I am allowed to use various methods to exclude myself from their demands.

You keep ignoring the point, Yahzi. You, as father, are responsible for the child regardless of your intentions, choices or desires

No, you keep ignoring the point. Why are we responsible for a fetus? I can tell you why we are responsible for babies - it is because the act of carrying through with a pregnancy and giving birth to a child are all voluntary acts that signify a willingness to accept the obligation of children.

Having sex does not imply the above. You keep saying that it must, but you won't tell me why it must.

The whole point of the assumption is that the fetus IS a person just like the rest of us.

I was trying to point out that the Golden Rule allows us to kill people, under appropriate situations. If you concede that point, then I'll drop this not particularly clear argument.

What I have been arguing is that if the fetus is the same as the baby in terms of personhood and rights,

What you refuse to acknowledge is that a baby is the result of intentional choice, and a fetus is not. That is how they are different, regardless of their status as persons.

Having sex does not necessarily signal a desire to have children. Having babies does - particularly since you could have chosen to not have children by choosing an abortion. Yes, you could also have chosen not to have sex, but if you think having an abortion is an equal burden to not having sex, you don't understand people very well.

I assume, then, that you would be against abortions after the point of viability.

Actually, I'm not, but that is an extension of the argument that we don't need to delve into at this time. I probably wouldn't complain too much if you banned abortions after the 8th month; but then again, what if the child is deformed or the mother's life is endangered? I'd rather not have to make these decisions at all, so I'd be happy to leave them up to the people involved.

I want to make as few decisions for other people as I can get away with.

 

[Akots]

Re: A malignant tumor versus a benign tumor

Originally posted by Peter Soderqvist
Soderqvist1: your analogy is too gross in order to have merit!
Rather in general a healthy sperm invade the ovum, but a victim is seldom an invader, because they are in general welcome to our hospital according to our culture! If Mike Tyson is an intruder in the house or a temporary guest, or a lodger for nine month, or if the sperm analogously is a welcome invader or not, is up to the host to judge, not you, because you have no jurisdiction there!

If I rent an apartment to someone for a year, I cannot kick them out unless there are extenuating cirucumstances recognized by the law.

By having sex, you agree to the possability of producing a child. It's a done deal; your genetic signature on the contract of procreation. The ONLY way to avoid having a child is to avoid having sex, and avoid artificial insemination.

Soderqvist1: I cannot be pregnant because I am a male!

And you aren't concerned about the concept of a woman with a fetus growing out of her lung? I was emphasizing that an unnatural or dangerous birth is not a moral dilemma... the child MUST be removed to save the mother; any decision that may endanger either life is a medical dilemma.

Soderqvist1: If the fetus is parasitic or not cannot be decided objectively, because these questions stems from sentimental values and can thus only be solved arbitrarily, but the host's decision is the only one with merit anyway!

Utterly outrageous. If a fetus is as much a person as anyone, my feelings are irellevant. The hosts feelings are then also irellevant, as far as execution is concerned.

Soderqvist1: The fetus is not a cancerous growth but a cell-aggregate!
Hence, if the cell-aggregate is an parasitic intruder or lodger under 9 month is only decidable by the host's judgment, and the woman in question is even free to use whatever label she prefers; tumor, cell-aggregate, or my child!

But it is not parasitic. It's not stealing the mother's womb at all. It's doing nothing you didn't agree to, by having sex.

I'd appreciate it if I didn't have to point this out again.

 

[Akots]

Thanz

But it does for every entity except fetuses! Consider this: a person is dying in a hospital, and the only thing that can save them is a temporary medical operation on another person. The operation has a very tiny risk of death. Can the government compel you to undergo that tiny risk solely because this random person is dying?

Police officers, firefighters and soldiers all put themselves at risk to save others. These are government positions. If we had no police or fire fighters, the government would have to do something about it, possibly by offering greater benefits, or even drafting people. Civilization requires these positions for the greater safety; Firefighters save more lives than they themselves suffer deaths.

You will answer no, because you have no obligation to that person. This makes my point: your argument does NOT revolve around the rights of the fetus, it depends on the OBLIGATION created by sex.

You will see that I, in fact, answered yes. A little uncharacteristic of me, given the scenario, but there it is... if the need is great, a sacrifice must be made.

Do you understand this? Your rejection of communism makes it clear that you don't think persons have a right to your internal organs merely because they are dying; your argument is that fetuses have a right created by the parent's voluntary action.

Hm... not aimed at me, i believe.

My argument is simply that having sex (as opposed to giving birth) does not obligate me to providing for children, and I am allowed to use various methods to exclude myself from their demands.

Sex without procreation is a luxury. Regardless of wether sex "strengthen bonds" in a way that cannot be duplicated otherwise, luxuries can be done without.

No, you keep ignoring the point. Why are we responsible for a fetus? I can tell you why we are responsible for babies - it is because the act of carrying through with a pregnancy and giving birth to a child are all voluntary acts that signify a willingness to accept the obligation of children.

I think i'm getting the hang of your reasoning here... A baby is a fetus that was cared for, and that survived due to a loving, healthy relationship; while an aborted fetus was simply not in the position of having a pair of mature, prepared parents. Whereas a fetus, prolonged without caring and prepared paretns is nothing but a burden. Do you think of the fetus as just another stage of life, where social and economic evolution determine wether it advances to infancy? (not being sarcastic here at all... I'm trying to get a feel for your argument)

Having sex does not imply the above. You keep saying that it must, but you won't tell me why it must.

There ar etwo kinds of impregnation in thw world.
a) natural sex
b) artificial insemination

These two functions are the only methods of producing a child, apart from future advances in cloning.

Seems to me you want to eat your cake, and have it too... is the idea of abstinance really that abhorrent to you?

I was trying to point out that the Golden Rule allows us to kill people, under appropriate situations. If you concede that point, then I'll drop this not particularly clear argument.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you?
Blessed is he who preferreth his brother above himself?

Are we thinking of the same Goldden Rule here?

What you refuse to acknowledge is that a baby is the result of intentional choice, and a fetus is not. That is how they are different, regardless of their status as persons.

Then you say it is wrong to kill a sucesfully generated infant, as opposed to saying it is wrong to kill a person.

Having sex does not necessarily signal a desire to have children. Having babies does - particularly since you could have chosen to not have children by choosing an abortion. Yes, you could also have chosen not to have sex, but if you think having an abortion is an equal burden to not having sex, you don't understand people very well.

A child is not a side-effect of sex... it is the singular, entire purpose of sex.

You don't understand sex very well.

Actually, I'm not, but that is an extension of the argument that we don't need to delve into at this time. I probably wouldn't complain too much if you banned abortions after the 8th month; but then again, what if the child is deformed or the mother's life is endangered? I'd rather not have to make these decisions at all, so I'd be happy to leave them up to the people involved.

I can understand that an abortion might seem more reasonable if the baby is destined to grow up malformed or parentless.

But please realize that your argument of using abortion as birth control is essential saying "No other solution exists to prevent this suffering before it happens, so we must simply kill those who suffer, to eliminate the suffering."

I want to make as few decisions for other people as I can get away with.

I can respect that. Heck, I can even admire that. But some decisions are made by society, for the benefit of society.

I don't know what abetter solution woudl be to unwanted children, but I refuse to believe that abortion is the only/best solution.

 

[Q-Source]

Let's go with this example. The scenario you describe, however, is not accurate. It is not Mike entering your house without invitation. It is you seeing Mike walk down the street, and yelling from your window "hey mike - come here!". The chances are slim that Mike tyson will actually go to your house. But, he might. And you can't just shoot him when he walks in the door.

No, you cannot say that I consciously asked him to come to my house.

Let's say that I am just responsible for his anger, I called him a "coward" [I had sex and knew that I could get pregnant].

So, Mike may or may not come to my house and take revenge.

If he decides to get into my house, I know that his presence may cause suffering to me (including my death). Why wouldn't I have the right to kill him in self-defence?

I didn't invite him, I don't want him around and he is really a threat to me.

If he stays outside the door, there is no way that I can shoot him, no matter what.

Further, even if mike tyson, looking mad, came into your house you DO NOT have the right to shoot him dead. He would have to do something more threatening than that.

But, who determines when a threat is real or fictitious?

The only circumstance that determines if I shoot him dead is whether or not he invades my house under those circumstances.

Why is there a HUGE difference? what is that HUGE difference? Remember the baby in the jungle? The baby relies on you for all of its needs both before and after birth. Why are you justified in killing it before, but not after? Simply because of the way in which it relies on you?

Because a baby in the jungle is not invading a woman's private property rights. Once, he is outside the womb, a woman cannot kill him and claim that her private rights trumped his right to life.

Being a person does not make you infallible and does not give you special rights over the others.


Q-S

 

[Akots]

No, you cannot say that I consciously asked him to come to my house.

Are you saying someone can become pregnant without sex or artificial insemination?

Let's say that I am just responsible for his anger, I called him a "coward" [I had sex and knew that I could get pregnant].

So, Mike may or may not come to my house and take revenge.

If he decides to get into my house, I know that his presence may cause suffering to me (including my death). Why wouldn't I have the right to kill him in self-defence?

This is my first time trying to point out a logical fallacy, so plesae excuse me (if someone else could help me out here, i'd really appreciate it!) What do you call it when someone says that an action under certain cirumstances can be used as a sample for the same actions under all circumstances? Surely not everyone who crosses your home is Mike Tyson. Not every impregnation is lethal, or even dangerous.

I didn't invite him, I don't want him around and he is really a threat to me.

Clearly, as wit ha dangerous abortion, extreme measures must be taken to ensure your safety. But the idea that all people are as dangerous as Tyson...?

If he stays outside the door, there is no way that I can shoot him, no matter what.

But, who determines when a threat is real or fictitious?

The only circumstance that determines if I shoot him dead is whether or not he invades my house under those circumstances.

Because a baby in the jungle is not invading a woman's private property rights. Once, he is outside the womb, a woman cannot kill him and claim that her private rights trumped his right to life.

A baby is not invading a woman's private property rights. And yet somehow fetuses are guilty until proven innocent?

Being a person does not make you infallible and does not give you special rights over the others.
Q-S

And yet an abortion is just that, if the baby is a person.

 

[Yahzi]

Akots

Police officers, firefighters and soldiers all put themselves at risk to save others

This is different. I actually agree that we should tax the community at large to feed poor. I also agree that society has the right to draft people (i.e.e compel them to risk their lives) for the preservation of society. So why don't I think these two principles apply to abortion?

1. Taxing the community to support the needy is one thing: we all benefit from the communal good, so we should all contribute to it. I don't object to the government taking a portion of all of our incomes.

But to apply your principle of "need trumps property rights" would be like the government holding a lottery, and whosever name comes up is assigned a needy person to care for out of their own pocket.

My way preserves property rights: the money I give up is actually less than what I receive in social benefits. Your way accomplishes the same thing - feeding the needy - but in an entirely different way, whereby personal need (instead of collective well-being) trumps property rights. I agree that my property rights must be trumped by social considerations; I disagree that they need to be trumped by personal considerations.

Arguably, if I do not release my property to defend society, I'll lose all my property when society is destroyed. But this argument does not support your principle.

In other words: we feed the hungry not because they are hungry, but because not doing so has negative consequences for society. What are the negative consequences (for society) of abortion?

I think you want to argue that we feed the hungry because they are hungry - what I referred to as the communistic principle. I reject this principle for two reasons: 1) it doesn't work, and 2) it is not a necessary consequent of my moral philosophy (which is merely the Golden Rule).

2. We aren't at risk of disappearing due to lack of babies. If we were, then, as a society, we could draft women into bearing children, just as we draft men into military service. But we aren't, so we can't.

Sex without procreation is a luxury. Regardless of wether sex "strengthen bonds" in a way that cannot be duplicated otherwise, luxuries can be done without

From what we know about biology, this does not appear to be true. There is reason to believe that sex serves a social function that is at least as necessary as its procreative function.

Secondly, who are you to be dispensing with my luxuries? Eating meat is a luxury. Shall we all be forced to vegatarianism to support the burgeoning global population? We live a society practically defined by its luxuries. And that is normally considered a good thing, isn't it?

Even if I agreed sex without procreation is a luxury, I just don't think that the needs of some person who I have no obligation to trump my rights to that luxury. Much like the fact that I eat two sandwiches for lunch, even though there are starving people in Africa right now.

Do you think of the fetus as just another stage of life, where social and economic evolution determine wether it advances to infancy?

What I actually think is that a fetus is a potential person. At conception, its percentage of personhood is so small I care about it as much as I care about cockroaches (which isn't very much!). At birth, I'm up to 50-75% of a person. I'm not actually intellectually concerned about children until they reach the age of reason; I am emotionally bonded to them based on biological cues towards babies. I, like most people, have very little emotional attachment to those odd shapes exhibited during the first trimester or two. Emotionally, I might be more concerned if I actually thought fetuses were persons; but logically, I would hold the same views. Just as I emotionally am dissatisfied with immigration laws because they wind up killing some people, while intellectualy I realize they are necessary.

However, for terms of this argument, I am treating the fetus like a person. I can find no compelling interest of the State or third parties in protecting the rights of this person, and hence I cannot find any compelling reason for the State to intefere with the rights of the mother. I also think mothers should have the absolute right to abandon their children at any time: I do not think anyone is well served by forcing a parent to raise a child. It would be nice if society could pick up the slack and raise the kid in a viable home; but if that is not possible, I suspect society is rendered less harm by the destruction of the child than by the abuse of the child at the hands of unwilling parents (and subsequent release of the adult monster on society).

Not specifically on topic, but might be helpful to understanding my position: I do not object to killing per se, I object to suffering.

 

[Yahzi]

Akots

A baby is not invading a woman's private property rights

Explain, please.