PJM/ On Liberty and Abortion

[RansomthePasserby]

Best I can tell, pro-choice advocates acknowledge that the unborn is a human being (basic biology) but they deny that an unborn human is a PERSON. Its not so much a biological position as a legal position. So the unborn human does not have the rights of personhood even though it is a human being.

Huh, kinda like slaves in the South. Interesting.

[GhostofSparta]

They eating fetuses now?....times must be tough.

Wouldn't be the first time the idea came up.

[mardi gras skin]

Huh, kinda like slaves in the South. Interesting.

Biologically, the fetus in question is a human being in the first stage of development. I'm surprised to hear people in this thread deny that or muddy the language.

Questions about the rights of the fetus, the rights of the parents, and societies responsibility in determining the rights of this group of human beings are better reserved for a conversation about personhood.

I'm familiar....my question is why stop when they take a breath?

"Exposure", throwing out an unwanted infant, was a perfectly legal thing to do in Europe 2000 years ago. They did this for about the same reasons we abort infants today. Too many mouths to feed, physical deformities or health problems, unclear or undesirable paternity, or just basic choice. In most cultures it was the father rather than the mother who had the right to get rid of the infant but it's really not much different than "mother's right to chose" in our culture. They understood the infant to be human, of course, (they didn't think it was a frog) but the infant didn't have the legal right to life...or any legal rights. It wasn't a person.

All societies determine which subsets of human beings have the rights of personhood and which don't. Unless they decide that all human beings have basic rights associated with personhood. I don't think one culture's choice to throw away infants is any more horrific than another culture choosing to throw away fetuses.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Don't people who kill pregnant women typically get charged with two counts of murder?

Yes, and that right there tells the story IMO.

Seriously, I cannot believe how little attention this statement got, for me this shows what is really going on and the hypocrisy in the law, because it basically comes down to "if you wanted the baby and someone kills you or it then it's murder, but if you didn't want the baby then it wasn't really a baby and it's not murder to have an abortion."

While my wife was pregnant her doctors never once referred to either of our children as a fetus, from the time they were lima beans they always talked about the baby same with the ultra-sounds. We can spend all of our time talking about fetus/human, but in the end it's a distinction that's as irrelevant as fighting over whether we are homo sapiens or humans or people.

[alexey]

Slaughtering is a bit of work,but tasty rewards.

They eating fetuses now?....times must be tough.

add

interesting you consider killing animals murder,but not unborn humans....kinda flies in the face of the standard definition.

Huh? I am talking about ending a life of something that feels pain and has fear of death.

[twist]

I'm an "unborn baby is a person from conception" guy.

As a result, I am against abortion but not for religious reasons (even though I am a Christian).

My principles mandate that all individuals have very clear rights up until their rights intrude upon the rights of another individual.

I do not believe that the act of carrying a child (a result of a conscious act 99.99% of the time, rape and incest only result in a pregnancy less than one percent of all pregnancies) is an infringement on the mother's rights as an individual.

Therefore, I cannot ever agree with abortion, except in the very few instances where the unborn's life is a danger to the Mother. In that scenario, I can reluctantly provide for ending the baby's life.

So you don't think that the government regulating what goes on inside of someone’s body, essentially requisitioning the free use of someone’s uterus for someone else’s benefit is an infringement on them?

My position is that human or no, a child doesn’t have a right to use the mothers body (internal organs in this case) without continued consent.

[twa]

Huh? I am talking about ending a life of something that feels pain and has fear of death.

interesting so fearing death and feeling pain is a determinate of life?

http://articles.cnn.com/2006-01-27/health/rare.conditions_1_roberto-salazar-tongue-autonomic-nervous-system?_s=PM:HEALTH

World without pain is hell, parent says

When you first meet 4-year-old Roberto Salazar, you can't help but notice his unwavering smile and constant laughter. By all accounts, he's a very happy boy.

It is only when he rams his head violently into walls or plays a little too roughly with a schoolmate, all the while smiling, that you are reminded that he suffers from an incredibly rare genetic disorder.

Roberto is one of 17 people in the United States with "congenital insensitivity to pain with anhidrosis," referred to as CIPA by the few people who know about it.

---------- Post added July-16th-2011 at 12:38 PM ----------

My position is that human or no, a child doesn’t have a right to use the mothers body (internal organs in this case) without continued consent.

Fine.....my position is no licensed medical personnel should end the life in another's body.

[alexey]

interesting so fearing death and feeling pain is a determinate of life?

http://articles.cnn.com/2006-01-27/health/rare.conditions_1_roberto-salazar-tongue-autonomic-nervous-system?_s=PM:HEALTH

World without pain is hell, parent says

When you first meet 4-year-old Roberto Salazar, you can't help but notice his unwavering smile and constant laughter. By all accounts, he's a very happy boy.

It is only when he rams his head violently into walls or plays a little too roughly with a schoolmate, all the while smiling, that you are reminded that he suffers from an incredibly rare genetic disorder.

Roberto is one of 17 people in the United States with "congenital insensitivity to pain with anhidrosis," referred to as CIPA by the few people who know about it.

editing

[twa]

Are you on drugs?

depends....according to public school teachers yes

Go hug a cow....cause I'm coming

[alexey]

depends....according to public school teachers yes

Go hug a cow....cause I'm coming

Sorry about that post i got a little frustrated with your approach.

interesting so fearing death and feeling pain is a determinate of life?

http://articles.cnn.com/2006-01-27/health/rare.conditions_1_roberto-salazar-tongue-autonomic-nervous-system?_s=PM:HEALTH

World without pain is hell, parent says

When you first meet 4-year-old Roberto Salazar, you can't help but notice his unwavering smile and constant laughter. By all accounts, he's a very happy boy.

It is only when he rams his head violently into walls or plays a little too roughly with a schoolmate, all the while smiling, that you are reminded that he suffers from an incredibly rare genetic disorder.

Roberto is one of 17 people in the United States with "congenital insensitivity to pain with anhidrosis," referred to as CIPA by the few people who know about it.

I am not sure why you quoted my post before responding to the oversimplified silly point of your own making.

Let me give you a basic framework for internalizing my points. We are dealing with a VERY complicated issue that has a multitude of sides. Every point that I make is an attempt to highlight a very small subset of ideas that I think ought to be taken into consideration.

Example:

alexey - how about the XYZ aspect of the problem?

twa - it is rediculous to think that we should find the ultimate answer to the problem based on XYZ!!!

Let me give you a quick and incomplete list of aspects that I think should be taken into consideration, in no particular order:

Morality

Sentience

Ability to feel and understand pain

Viability

Possibility of becoming living a fulfilling life

Cost

DNA information (e.g. with technology improvements we could end up calling an "individual" any unque combination of human DNA)

Legal and societal repercussions

Scientific knowledge

There are tons of other considerations, of course. Answering this problem is impossible without taking ALL of these into consideration. Please stop trying to sillify my points on individual aspects.

[twa]

KISS...embrace it

and quit trying to impose your morality

but since I'm bored....ya want a point by point rebuttal?(pretty sure I've hit on most all those aspects in between my snark)

[twist]

Fine.....my position is no licensed medical personnel should end the life in another's body.

So you want to leave it to the unlicensed and drugs to accomplish a woman’s control over her own body rather than her and her doctor making medical decisions?

Distinctions without differences, you still want to requisition uteruses for government purposes.

[alexey]

KISS...embrace it

and quit trying to impose your morality

but since I'm bored....ya want a point by point rebuttal?(pretty sure I've hit on most all those aspects in between my snark)

Rebuttal to what? I have not made a rebuttable point. Your rebuttals so far have focused on the point that you think i made... while I merely highlighted some questionable aspects of your position.

[twa]

Why unlicensed drugs?....I'm fine with birth control,morning after pill and ru486 ect

I'm even open to medical intervention to save life

It wasn't the govt that put the uterus in play :beatdeadhorse:

[twist]

Why unlicensed drugs?....I'm fine with birth control,morning after pill and ru486 ect

I'm even open to medical intervention to save life

The unlicenced (those operateing without licence) and drugs (those that would cause a misscarriage).

It wasn't the govt that put the uterus in play :beatdeadhorse:

Sex makes someones uterus a public entity?

Perhapse to be fair to men we can have the government requisition their kidneys to save peoples lives if they are promiscuous or are only reproductive organs on the table?

[mardi gras skin]

There are tons of other considerations, of course. Answering this problem is impossible without taking ALL of these into consideration. Please stop trying to sillify my points on individual aspects.

Any culture that has denied a group of human beings their rights has made similar (though different) considerations. This is just our list, no better than the list any other culture considered before denying human rights.

[twa]

Sex makes someones uterus a public entity?

Perhapse to be fair to men we can have the government requisition their kidneys to save peoples lives if they are promiscuous or are only reproductive organs on the table?

Sex makes men's wallets public property...for a much longer term:silly:

perhaps they need better personal control on uterus access to keep the public out of it :pfft:

[twist]

Sex makes men's wallets public property...for a much longer term:silly:

perhaps they need better personal control on uterus access to keep the public out of it :pfft:

Taking money for the sake of the public has always been a prevue of the government.

We do not take peoples organs over for the public good even in cases of serious crimes, it would be considered cruel and unusual.

Why the exception?

[twa]

Taking money for the sake of the public has always been a prevue of the government.

We do not take peoples organs over for the public good even in cases of serious crimes, it would be considered cruel and unusual.

Why the exception?

They are not taking over organs

Regulating approved medical procedures has ALSO always been a prevue of the govt

on a side note we do harvest corneas

on a lighter note

http://www.theonion.com/articles/ailing-americans-eagerly-await-summer-organ-harves,1961/

[twist]

They are not taking over organs

Regulating approved medical procedures has ALSO always been a prevue of the govt

Again a distinction without a difference.

The only legitimate reason a state would ban abortion is because there is a public interest in unborn life. The only way to secure that interest is to requisition a uterus.

The state has not the power to bring the unborn into the world without one.

You can not say the state has a legitimate right to ban abortions without seeding that the state has the right to deem itself sovereign jurisdiction over the internal organs of all women in the united states.

[twa]

Your logic is rather faulty there....if the govt does not allow medical interference to prevent it the unborn will likely be born.

The public traditionally has a vested interest in preserving human life...tis only in this they(and some Dr's) seem to abandon it.

[twist]

Your logic is rather faulty there....if the govt does not allow medical interference to prevent it the unborn will likely be born.

Right that is the point of not allowing certain procedures. Controlling peoples uteruses in order to get the desired outcome. One can not be separated from the other.

The public traditionally has a vested interest in preserving human life...tis only in this they(and some Dr's) seem to abandon it.

The public can be said to be interested in anything. It is how they go about achieving their interests that interests us here. In this case they seek to achieve their interests by asserting controlling interests over the internal organs of women.

[twa]

that would be controlling interests of the medical profession....not the uterus

there is NO control of the uterus at all....keep thinking.

[alexey]

Any culture that has denied a group of human beings their rights has made similar (though different) considerations. This is just our list, no better than the list any other culture considered before denying human rights.

Denial of rights appears necessary... Rules have to be followed for human organizations to work, and rules necessarily deny rights.

I am also not satisfied with the status quo on the abortion issue, as well as many other issues. We can and should do better than this. I do want our list and culture to be the best that it can be.

[mardi gras skin]

Denial of rights appears necessary... Rules have to be followed for human organizations to work, and rules necessarily deny rights.

I am also not satisfied with the status quo on the abortion issue, as well as many other issues. We can and should do better than this. I do want our list and culture to be the best that it can be.

But we aren't just talking about giving up some secondary rights here. I keep looking the list over trying to give those issues proper attention but here's the block I keep running up against:

Cost: Is it ok to kill a human being who will be independently viable in a few months because of costs necessary to keep it alive?

Ability to feel and understand pain: Is it ok to kill all human beings who can not feel pain or only human beings before they're born. And if I kill them painlessly, what does it matter?

Morality: Is it ok to kill a human being who will be independently viable in a few months or should we impose a standard of morality on the mother (and culture as a whole) that values the life of human beings?

Sentience: Is it ok to kill a human being who is not sentient right now but will be in a few weeks?

And so on. Next to the active practice of taking a human life the list feels trivial but my guess is that you are approaching the issues differently. Are you crafting the questions differently in your mind?