Thanz said:
I'll say it once again, Thanz. Even if the fetus is a person with rights, my right for life is more important than his. I can kill in self- defense if I feel that he is a threat. Just simple as that.
Remember, the fetus being a person is just an assumption. I think that you want us to accept all your arguments as assumptions in order to win the debate. It is not the case. Let's discuss what happens if the fetus is not a person and has no rights too. Would you accept Abortion?
Q-S
Umm...
You need to read my arguments about why I consider that a fetus threatens his mother's life.
About your previous post. I am not doing the homework for you, Akots. I am going to give you a hint, though. Most of the criminals come from dysfuctional families.
Q-S
You need to read my arguments about why I consider that a fetus threatens his mother's life.
About your previous post. I am not doing the homework for you, Akots. I am going to give you a hint, though. Most of the criminals come from dysfuctional families.
Q-S
Thanz
Fuzzy Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2002
- Messages
- 3,895
Q-Source said:
I agree that if the woman's life is actually threatened, then an abortion may be justified even if the fetus is a person. In a normal pregnancy, however, there is no real threat to the life of the mother such that the fetus right to life is trumped. I am arguing that if the fetus is a person, then the mother's pricacy rights alone will not be enough to make an abortion justified.
Even in regular self-defense murder cases, the threat to your life has to be a real threat. I can't just shoot mike tyson for walking down the street towards me.
I think that you misunderstand my position.
My position is simply that the personhood status of the fetus (whether or not the fetus is a person and has human rights) is what drives the entire abortion debate. My position is that IF one believes that the fetus is a person (with rights) one must also believe that abortion is not justifed on privacy grounds alone. This is the point I have been trying to make here, in furtherance of my point that it is all about the "personhood" of the fetus.
If we go the other way, and assume that the fetus is not a person and has no rights, then the woman's right to privacy trumps the fetus and abortion is justified. To me, this is the easier point to make (especially on this board) and thus have not focussed on it.
So, to recap, my position is as follows:
1. If the fetus is a person with rights, abortion is not justifed on privacy grounds alone.
2. If the fetus is not a person with rights, abortion is justified on privacy grounds alone.
3. Tough question: when does the fetus become a person with rights? Is it at conception, development of brain activity, viability or birth?
I think that it is possible for us to agree on points 1 and 2, and then debate the question in number 3, which in my view, is what it is all about.
You mean these?
That last one is the only one that mentioned it up to that point... and it doesn't explain how every possible abortion is an act of self defence.
Plesae bear with me and explain how an abortion is an act of self defence... none of your previous answers (that i can find) justify the means set forth; i.e., killing a human being.
That last one is the only one that mentioned it up to that point... and it doesn't explain how every possible abortion is an act of self defence.
Plesae bear with me and explain how an abortion is an act of self defence... none of your previous answers (that i can find) justify the means set forth; i.e., killing a human being.
Thanz said:
Makes me feel bad for being off topic...
I've mentioned before that the issue here is not about brain activity, biological growth, or feotal maturity; it's about when a human soul is created.
If brain activity alone does not make a person a person, such that they cannot be morally killed, then brain activity, and therefore conciousness is not the deciding factor. Trying to define the properties of a soul is putting the cart before the horse... a soul is a property of a human being. Specificaly, that property that makes it immoral to kill the human.
Whatever that is.
Texas-Beast
You've made the unusual choice of actually reading the thread from the beginning. I commend you, although I'd like to think that you recognize that some of your comments have already been addressed.
What you are in effect doing is rewarding men for rape, by allowing them to reproduce. There is a principle that the criminal should never be allowed to profit from the crime, and you are ignoring it.
And again, who is ma'am? You seem to be addressing this comment to me. Are you under the mistaken impression that I am a woman? No... that couldn't be... surely you wouldn't make the mistake of basing your comments on no other fact than that I am a woman?
You will find few women who will stop in the middle of a debate on abortion to complain about men trying to not have sex or the unfairness of abortion to men.
Apparently you have not read, or more accurately, commented on the later half of the debate. Let me try to summarize:
The fact that a person's life is in danger does not invalidate your property rights. Just because Bob will die if he doesn't borrow your internal organs for nine months does not allow Bob to legally compel you to share. Thus, we see that the fetus' right to life is not our problem; in that, while we must protect it's existance, we need not provide it with anything particular. The Constitution doesn't say "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Thus we have no legal framework with which to compel any random person to share his internal organs with some other random person.
Thus, your argument for abortion hinges on the idea that a woman choosing to have sex is making a choice to become pregnant, despite any amount of birth control. But this destroys the notion of due diligence; it renders the concept of "accident" incoherent. If a woman does everthing reasonable to prevent pregnancy, then how is the occurence of pregnancy not an accident? And why should a woman be morally or legally bound to surrender her rights for an accident? She made it clear she did not wish to invite a stranger into her body; the fact that one got there is no more relevant than you coming home and finding a bum in your house who says, "but the door was unlocked, so I assumed that meant I could help myself to your property."
Requiring men and women to abstain from sex altogether is an undue burden, and thus the government cannot impose that as the only way to negate the risks of sex.
You at least are consistent at opposing abortions in the case of rape and incest; but this just means that you agree with the Catholic Church that the nine-year old Nicaraguan girl should carry her child to term. This is a result so violently savage to the rigths of children as to render your entire position absurd. The notion that the State should continue to punish the victims of rape should make it clear to you just how unfair this property siezure is. And of course, once you cave on the rape thing (once you concede that pregnancy should be a choice, not a biological imposition), then your entire case against abortion collapses.
Akots
I think it's safe to say that it seems likely that unwanted children are more of a problem for society than wanted ones.
Thanz
You have failed to show how a fetus has a particular right to the mother's body simply because it is a person. Instead, your position requires that the mother be a particular person; that is, one who chose to engage in sex. You assert that pregnancy is a condition one is not allowed to refuse, that it is impossible to establish due diligence in avoiding pregnancy (save for abstinence, which is an undue burden), and therefore the fetus gains a special right to invade another person's property because of negligence.
Your argument does not hinge on the fetus being a person: it hinges on the mother surrendering rights because she chose to engage in sex. The death of a person is a perfectly acceptable outcome of me excersizing my rights. (I think this is what Q-source means when she calls abortion "self-defense") You agree to this in cases of self-defense, immigration, even extreme poverty. You only disagree in the case of abortion because you think the woman chose to surrender her right of privacy by choosing to have sex.
You've made the unusual choice of actually reading the thread from the beginning. I commend you, although I'd like to think that you recognize that some of your comments have already been addressed.
No, actually, there are standards of practice that largely control this. I don't know who sets them or where they come from, but if you violate them your insurance company will have you shot (well, the doctors act like that is true).
Who is this person you are referring to, and why are you dragging them into this debate? If you aren't going to quote them, please don't refer to their comments.
You may not be intentionaly, but don't you see how establishing the rights of the fetus trump the rights of mother provides men with a way to obtain children without women's consent? All they have to do is impregnate them. This is is exactly how men have excersized control over the means of production for the last 3 million years: by violence.
What you are in effect doing is rewarding men for rape, by allowing them to reproduce. There is a principle that the criminal should never be allowed to profit from the crime, and you are ignoring it.
And again, who is ma'am? You seem to be addressing this comment to me. Are you under the mistaken impression that I am a woman? No... that couldn't be... surely you wouldn't make the mistake of basing your comments on no other fact than that I am a woman?
You will find few women who will stop in the middle of a debate on abortion to complain about men trying to not have sex or the unfairness of abortion to men.
Sentences like this destroy the illusion that you are impartial. Pregnancy is a potentially life-threatening situation: more women die from being pregnant than from having abortions. Dismissing nine months of physical burden, 18 years of committment, and a possible death threat as a "crimp in her style" shows a need to downplay the effects of pregnancy, which itself shows that you understand there is something wrong with your position. Yes, you made it clear that you understood pregnancy was a difficult situation; and then you wiped it all away with this single, perjorative sentence.
Apparently you have not read, or more accurately, commented on the later half of the debate. Let me try to summarize:
The fact that a person's life is in danger does not invalidate your property rights. Just because Bob will die if he doesn't borrow your internal organs for nine months does not allow Bob to legally compel you to share. Thus, we see that the fetus' right to life is not our problem; in that, while we must protect it's existance, we need not provide it with anything particular. The Constitution doesn't say "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Thus we have no legal framework with which to compel any random person to share his internal organs with some other random person.
Thus, your argument for abortion hinges on the idea that a woman choosing to have sex is making a choice to become pregnant, despite any amount of birth control. But this destroys the notion of due diligence; it renders the concept of "accident" incoherent. If a woman does everthing reasonable to prevent pregnancy, then how is the occurence of pregnancy not an accident? And why should a woman be morally or legally bound to surrender her rights for an accident? She made it clear she did not wish to invite a stranger into her body; the fact that one got there is no more relevant than you coming home and finding a bum in your house who says, "but the door was unlocked, so I assumed that meant I could help myself to your property."
Requiring men and women to abstain from sex altogether is an undue burden, and thus the government cannot impose that as the only way to negate the risks of sex.
You at least are consistent at opposing abortions in the case of rape and incest; but this just means that you agree with the Catholic Church that the nine-year old Nicaraguan girl should carry her child to term. This is a result so violently savage to the rigths of children as to render your entire position absurd. The notion that the State should continue to punish the victims of rape should make it clear to you just how unfair this property siezure is. And of course, once you cave on the rape thing (once you concede that pregnancy should be a choice, not a biological imposition), then your entire case against abortion collapses.
Akots
No. Excersing your rights does not morally inculpate you.
There was a marked drop in the crime rate exactly 18 years after Roe Vs. Wade. Not enough evidence to make a definitive call, but then, this is the sort of thing that's going to take a lot of evidence, and we haven't been looking for it very hard.
I think it's safe to say that it seems likely that unwanted children are more of a problem for society than wanted ones.
Thanz
Um. No. My entire argument here has been that this is not true.
You have failed to show how a fetus has a particular right to the mother's body simply because it is a person. Instead, your position requires that the mother be a particular person; that is, one who chose to engage in sex. You assert that pregnancy is a condition one is not allowed to refuse, that it is impossible to establish due diligence in avoiding pregnancy (save for abstinence, which is an undue burden), and therefore the fetus gains a special right to invade another person's property because of negligence.
Your argument does not hinge on the fetus being a person: it hinges on the mother surrendering rights because she chose to engage in sex. The death of a person is a perfectly acceptable outcome of me excersizing my rights. (I think this is what Q-source means when she calls abortion "self-defense") You agree to this in cases of self-defense, immigration, even extreme poverty. You only disagree in the case of abortion because you think the woman chose to surrender her right of privacy by choosing to have sex.
Thanz
Fuzzy Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2002
- Messages
- 3,895
Yahzi said:
You must protect its existence, but not provide anything in particular? The fetus can only continue to exist in the uterus. It only does exist because of your actions. There are not random persons in pregnancy, there are the parents and the fetus, the DIRECT RESULT of the parents actions. It isn't some refugee from a foreign land. It is more like someone you kidnapped.
Let's try this one more time. The fetus, as a person, has a right to life. The only way for the fetus to survive is in the uterus. The only reason that the fetus is in the uterus is due to the actions of the parents. Whether they used birth control or not is irrelevant. (I note that you have again ignored the question of what to do when the parents simply don't care and don't use birth control).
Once pregnancy happens, then no, you are not allowed to refuse it. To use one of your other analogies, is the skier allowed to "refuse" the broken leg? No - it is laready broken. What we are debating is what to do about it. A broken leg can be fixed without killing anybody.
The fetus does not invade anyone else's body - it is specially invited in and placed there by the parents. You keep saying that abstinence is an "undue burden". Why? What I am saying is that if one is going to engage incertain behaviours, one has to be willing to accept the outcome of that behaviour. If one does not want to be pregnant, there are several ways that pregnancy can be prevented. Everyone knows that they are not 100% effective, but in combination (pill+condom) they can be pretty darn close.
All I am asking is for people to assess the risks of their behaviour and live up to them. For responsible people, that may mean the 1/100 chance that a pregnancy will result. If not being pregnant is more important to you than the 1/100 chance of being pregnant, then do something else. How is that an "undue burden"?
Asking people to take responsibility for their own actions is an "undue burden"?
This is absurd. "The death of a person is a perfectly acceptable outcome of me exercising my rights"
Okay, let's take that to a logical conclusion. The rights you are talking about are property rights. You like to talk about invading your home. Well, once that baby is born, you are going to have to support it for the the next 18 years. Your hard earned money, out of your pocket, to support some intruder that you didn't want. Some immigrant can't come up to you and ask for that support, so why this kid? You didn't want the kid - you made that clear when you wore a condom. Now he is going to be picking your pocket every month. I guess you are justified in just throwing the kid in the river, because the death of a person is a perfectly acceptable outcome of you exercising your rights.
You made me go and search my quotes...
O.K. this is what I said and it also summarises my position:
1) even if the fetus is a person, he has no rights while he is inside my body.
2) even if he is a person and has rights, his right to life does not trump my right to refuse his developing inside my womb.
3) And finally, his developing inside my body represents a threat to my physical condition (my life) and he also represents a threat to my emotional and economical stability.
Now, I am going to explain the last one. Basically, I am referring to three kind of threats that a woman -who does not want to have a child- has to face:
Life-threating: a pregnacy during 9 months may be a threat to her life if her physical condition cannot resist it. During this period, her life is in a higher risk.
Emotional-threating: being forced to have an unwanted child may cause a lot of distress, depression and anxiety.
Economical condition threating: giving birth an unwanted child represents a commitment for at least 18 years of her life. Somebody has to pay for it.
This is subjective and some women (who didn't plan to have a baby) will decide to end their pregancies voluntarily. However, it does not mean that for those women who decide to abort this is so. Being forced to have a pregnancy cannot be compared to decide voluntarily to have the child.
Q
But, who will determine which threats are real??
You?, our Society?, the Church? the father?
From any women's POV, those reasons explained before are very real. Lets say that I am pregnant, and I don't have my boyfriend's economic and emotional support and I don't have a job.
Don't you think the pregnancy represents to me a real threat more than a happy thing in my life?
What do you think a woman in those conditions should do?
Q-S
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
Q-Source said:
... I'm writing my guess, on this here piece of paper, and sealing it in an envelope... I will open and read it, after the fire department leaves....
Thanz
Fuzzy Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2002
- Messages
- 3,895
Q-Source said:
I would expect that a doctor would determine what the level of threat is. And by threat, I mean physical threat.
I am not trying to say that having a child is easy, let alone an unplanned child. But, the demand for adoption of infants is quite high.
Economic or emotional factors would not allow you to kill the child. Could you kill a six month old, if you decided that you couldn't handle it emotionally, physically or economically? If not, why kill the child in the womb for the same reasons?
Thanz
Fuzzy Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2002
- Messages
- 3,895
Q-Source said:
Oh, come now Q-Source! I expected better from you.
You do realize that there are plenty of women who believe that the fetus is a person from conception, and as such, killing the fetus is wrong, don't you? Do these women not understand either? Are they not "real women"? Do their opinions not count?
We are debating the moral and ethical consequences if the fetus is granted the status of "person with human rights". Are you really saying that as a man I can't understand this?
I get the sense from you that you don't want to admit that killing a fetus if it is a person is wrong because you think I will then try to trap you into admitting that the fetus is a person. I don't think I could do that even if I tried. I am just trying to set the parameters for the real debate: if and when the fetus becomes a person.
DialecticMaterialist
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2003
- Messages
- 1,022
Abortion can be a woman's issue without merely being a woman's issue. I don't see why men are to be totally brushed aside during the debate. It's true that it's the woman that gets pregant and has to raise the kid. But the man usually has to pay child support too.(And I imagine this is very frustrating when the man didn't want the kid: in this case the woman gets a choice and the man does not in terms of raising the kid.)
Secondly, the issue does impact society. If women are not free that indirectly harms the freedom of men and many of their loved ones as well.
Your statement is sort of like saying that since Jim Crow laws only affected colors....whites shouldn't have gotten involved.
Secondly, the issue does impact society. If women are not free that indirectly harms the freedom of men and many of their loved ones as well.
Your statement is sort of like saying that since Jim Crow laws only affected colors....whites shouldn't have gotten involved.
Thanz
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?
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.
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.
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?
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 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?
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.
Either you don't understand what "undue burden" means or you don't value sex the same as the rest of the human race.
And I wouldn't have that kid, if it weren't for you interfering.
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.
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?
Yahzi said:
This is not an issue of some alien organism, yahzi. And except in the case of a rape victim, this was not an uninvited guest in a woman's womb. And EVEn in that event, the propertyship of your organs is, essentialy, a material convenience.
You are essentialy arguing that an inconvenient fetus may morally be aborted. Is this not the sort of moral that encourages irresponsability? And therefore, is it not harmful to the race as a whole?
There is also the issue of wether someone is "stealing" your organs. If this were really an alien organism, your body would violently reject it, and your immune system would do it's best to anhhialate all traces of it. I think we can agree that a fetus is a welcome thing in a human body. Despite what your selfish and self concious mind chooses to believe, the womb is designed to house a fetus, and a human woman is designed to accomodate for this organism. (Though i find the term "designed" a touch inappropriate, it's what springs to mind.)
You have every right to toss out a tresspasser; what if you offer somebody a life-support system, and then decide to kick them out? Legal or not, this is the path of might-makes-right. By that standard alone, it is an immoral decision.
Peter Soderqvist
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2001
- Messages
- 305
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!
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!