Abortion

[DrWho]

Perhaps an impossibility if the woman hasn't got the money and the Father has disappeared. Before you can pass judgment on the woman you would have to be intimately familiar with her situation--much like soldiers who have to make decisions that civilians can't understand because they aren't familiar with the intimate details of the situation. As much as we may dislike the actions of some women, we have to give women as a group the right to own their bodies.

It is still not her body. It just isn't. It is it's own body. A completely different person.

If you want to argue that she has the right to determine the life or death of another person's body then we can listen to that. Oddly enough by law she does not even have the right to determine that her own body will die.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Are you really arguing that an unborn baby does not belong in it's mothers body and that it is using her body against her will.

Rape would be one good example. If the woman cannot or does not desire to carry and birth the baby then the fetus is using her body against her will.

I would argue that a fetus' (a living human) rights to it's own body (specifically the right to have it's body stay alive) clearly supersedes the mothers right to control her own body, except when it is the life of her body in question.

I'll entertain your argument once draconian laws are passed and enforced against men who father children and refuse to play an equal part in rasing them. Until then, it's just men coercing women. If the fetus' welfare supercedes the woman's right to control her own body, then that same fetus owns the Father's right to choose as well and the Father must be required to give equally to the child in time, care, money, and support. No more of this one-sided business based on a fluke of biology. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

It is unfortunate that the life and self-determination of the mother is so entwined in the life and self-determination of the baby. But putting aside the entanglement it really just comes down to weighing one life against one persons choice. The only thing left to be determined is exactly when is it a person.

Yes, it is unfortunate. So how about we decide that when the baby can live outside the Mother's body that it becomes a person? Got a better suggestion? Bear in mind that the Father will be required to be there to provide support all along if we are going to deny the woman the "convenience" of owning her body, then it's only fair to deny the man as well.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

It is still not her body. It just isn't. It is it's own body. A completely different person.

If you want to argue that she has the right to determine the life or death of another person's body then we can listen to that. Oddly enough by law she does not even have the right to determine that her own body will die.

This is semantics only. If the baby cannot live outside the host, then the host is in control. Your argument won't hold up because the fetus is not a whole person, it is a partial person relying on someone else for food, oxygen, protection, warmth, and a place to live rent free. As soon as the fetus is a whole person, then it should have whole person legal rights.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

This is semantics only. If the baby cannot live outside the host, then the host is in control. Your argument won't hold up because the fetus is not a whole person, it is a partial person relying on someone else for food, oxygen, protection, warmth, and a place to live rent free. As soon as the fetus is a whole person, then it should have whole person legal rights.

You're the one playing semantics. What is a "whole person"? I'm fairly certain a newborn infant relies on someone else for survival as well. Are babies not humans?

 

[Coyote]

In other words, the baby poses an inconvience.

Rape is an inconvenience?

Only a man would think that.

 

[Coyote]

Are you really arguing that an unborn baby does not belong in it's mothers body and that it is using her body against her will.

If she did not want it, then yes - it is.

I would argue that a fetus' (a living human) rights to it's own body (specifically the right to have it's body stay alive) clearly supersedes the mothers right to control her own body, except when it is the life of her body in question.

I disagree. Where in our legal system does one human being have the right to another human being's body against that person's will - even if it may damage that body's health, welfare or take it's life?

What if the following situation occured: A person was dying of end stage kidney failure. You have two healthy kidneys and are a perfect match, and can afford to give one. If you don't, the person will die. Can you be forced to do this?

It is unfortunate that the life and self-determination of the mother is so entwined in the life and self-determination of the baby. But putting aside the entanglement it really just comes down to weighing one life against one persons choice. The only thing left to be determined is exactly when is it a person.

No, not against a person's "choice" but against a person's fundamental right to control what happens or doesn't happen to her own body.

 

[DrWho]

Rape would be one good example. If the woman cannot or does not desire to carry and birth the baby then the fetus is using her body against her will.

The baby would be just as much of a victim as the woman is. It is not right to punish the victim. It is against her will in this instance but to say that the baby is "using" the mother is just misleading and inflammatory.

I'll entertain your argument once draconian laws are passed and enforced against men who father children and refuse to play an equal part in rasing them. Until then, it's just men coercing women. If the fetus' welfare supercedes the woman's right to control her own body, then that same fetus owns the Father's right to choose as well and the Father must be required to give equally to the child in time, care, money, and support. No more of this one-sided business based on a fluke of biology. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

We are talking about the morality and ethics of killing a person. The morals and ethics of who should care for that person is irrelevant to the question of whether or not that person should be killed. After all we would not advocate killing a newborn just because it's father deserted it and it's mother did not want it. The main thrust of the issue is whether or not it is a person.

But I agree the needs of the baby outweigh both the mother's and the father's rights to determine their lifestyle choices. Parents must provide some reasonable care for their children. More on that later.

Yes, it is unfortunate. So how about we decide that when the baby can live outside the Mother's body that it becomes a person? Got a better suggestion? Bear in mind that the Father will be required to be there to provide support all along if we are going to deny the woman the "convenience" of owning her body, then it's only fair to deny the man as well.

How about we decide it is a person when it is actually a person using the best information we have and then whether we like the results or not we do what is right by all the persons who live in our society.

Mother's and father's must provide reasonable care for their children. If the mother decides to give the baby up for adoption then she can. If the father decides to give the baby up for adoption then he can. See everyone is teated fairly and the same.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

You're the one playing semantics. What is a "whole person"? I'm fairly certain a newborn infant relies on someone else for survival as well. Are babies not humans?

Babies can live without their MOTHER, that's the point. Viability, at the point where anyone can care for the baby. If the baby will die without the biological Mother's body then it is not a whole person.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

The baby would be just as much of a victim as the woman is. It is not right to punish the victim. It is against her will in this instance but to say that the baby is "using" the mother is just misleading and inflammatory.

In rape there are two victims, should one of the victims be required by law to be victimized for at least 9 more months to produce a baby that no one wants? If you have a cancer growing in your body it is using you, you didn't put it there and you shouldn't have to have it there if you don't want it. The woman didn't want the baby, she was raped by a man who will never care for the child or the woman he raped, why would you continue to make her the victim? How can she be expected to love her rape-baby any more than you can be expected to love your cancer?

We are talking about the morality and ethics of killing a person. The morals and ethics of who should care for that person is irrelevant to the question of whether or not that person should be killed. After all we would not advocate killing a newborn just because it's father deserted it and it's mother did not want it. The main thrust of the issue is whether or not it is a person.

I don't think you can discuss murder without discussing the motive. Even in court the motive is taken into account when someone commits murder. Women are put in an intolerable situation and it's no surprise that a man doesn't want to talk about it. Just shove all the responsibilities off on those heartless b****es who murder their babies. Oh yeah, I'm buying that. Let's look at the bolded sentence above. You are okay with the Father deserting the baby, but you are dead set against the Mother doing the same thing. Do I see a double standard here? The fact that a man can bail out without actually killing the fetus is a fluke of nature, but his responsibilty should be exactly the same as the Mother's, shouldn't it? Legally it should be the same, but men will never go for that because it would mean that the fetus would own them too, and you have made it very clear in this post that you are not in favor of being owned in the way that you are demanding women be owned. How about this: if a man fathers a baby and refuses to shoulder his responsibilty, then the government goes after him (paternity check to verify) and he's thrown in jail for two years with no chance of parole and the government pays the woman a living wage and all her medical care till the baby is adopted. (I have a private bet with myself as to your response to this which I will share with you after you say your piece.)

But I agree the needs of the baby outweigh both the mother's and the father's rights to determine their lifestyle choices. Parents must provide some reasonable care for their children. More on that later.

Under current law no one is required to provide reasonable care for their children--not really. If they were there would be no street kids, or abused children, or murdered children, or kids beaten or starved. Until the laws are changed to truly protect women and children, till this culture actually bellies up to the bar and begins to value women and children with more than empty rhetoric, provides income to support Mothers, medical care, and equal paternal involvement we will not see an end to abortions. Like I said before, we are working on the wrong end of the problem.

How about we decide it is a person when it is actually a person using the best information we have and then whether we like the results or not we do what is right by all the persons who live in our society.

I'm good with that. It will require some definitions though.

Mother's and father's must provide reasonable care for their children. If the mother decides to give the baby up for adoption then she can. If the father decides to give the baby up for adoption then he can. See everyone is teated fairly and the same.

Not quite yet, Mother and Father don't want the baby and the Father does nothing for the Mother--like support her and pay her medical bills for a year. What then, the laws don't require men to do what they should, if the Father bails, can the Mother get an abortion? Or does she have to work while pregnant and pay all the expenses and give up a year of her life?

 

[palerider]

It IS a man vs woman issue if it is a Congress of men who decide for women and require them to obey by force of law. I wish all the Pale Riders of the world research what happened in Romania under Ceausescu when he decreed a mandatory death sentence for any woman who had an abortion.

So if it is a man vs woman issue, why is the child the one who ends up dead? This is a woman vs child issue and any attempt to spin it in another way is simply dishonest.

There is an underlying idea in all of these anti-abortion arguments that women abort babies like clipping their fingernails. I am a woman, I know a lot of women who have had abortions and NOT ONE ever did it casually, not one ever did it without intense soul-searching, and I never met one who didn't pay a high emotional price for the decision.

Most killers don't do it casually and most pay a high emotional price for their crimes unless they are sociopaths. Does that mean that we shoud not punish them for the fact that they have killed? Does the fact that they suffer make it OK to kill?

I hesitate to say it like this, but this is a ****ty world for women trying to raise children by themselves. Much of this is due to the Fathers not doing their part to support their children, but part of it is the prevailing idea that raising children isn't really important so it isn't granted any monetary value in this culture. Single Moms are required to work and pay for child care when in fact child care should be a full-time paid position if we want to have decent children. As a culture we can't have it both ways, either children are valuable and raising them is worth support from the culture at large or they are easily replaced and therefore expendable before and after birth--think about all the children living precariously in poor areas in this country, if they are expendable why aren't fetuses expendable too?

You clearly are angry at men who neglect their responsibilities so why is it that you transfer your rage to the child? Is it that you feel powerless against men and believe that someone must be punished and if it cant' be the man, then you are willing to see the child sacrificed? Maybe especially if it is a male child?

 

[palerider]

Rape is an inconvenience?

Only a man would think that.

Rape is a terrible crime and someone shoud be punished. The child, however is not the one who should forfiet his life.

 

[palerider]

Babies can live without their MOTHER, that's the point. Viability, at the point where anyone can care for the baby. If the baby will die without the biological Mother's body then it is not a whole person.

Is dependence a valid reason to kill?

If you have a cancer growing in your body it is using you, you didn't put it there and you shouldn't have to have it there if you don't want it.

If you believe that abortion is murder, and murder is, by definition, one human being killing another human being, how is it that you compare a living human being to a cancer? As I pointed out quite a while back mare, your philosophy is very conflicted and it comes out in your arguments. You aren't being honest with yourself so it is impossible for you to argue your position rationally. Read back through your posts mare, the only true thing in them is that you are very angry with men and you can't bring yourself to simply make that statement as it would then be clear that you are willing to sacrifice children to your anger at us.

 

[Coyote]

Rape is a terrible crime and someone shoud be punished. The child, however is not the one who should forfiet his life.

What's annoying about you PaleRider is that I find myself respecting - though disagreeing - with your opinion.

I don't suppose you could find it in yourself to somehow throw in some gratuituous statement about how a woman should hold an asprin between her legs just to fullfil the stereotype?

 

[Coyote]

It comes down to one thing: who has primary rights to a person's body.

 

[palerider]

It comes down to one thing: who has primary rights to a person's body.

That goes exactly both ways coyote. You concede that an unborn is a human being and freely admit that you can't put your finger on the whole "personhood" argument decicevely enough to argue life and death to your own satisfaction, much less someone elses. This being the case, who has primary rights over the unborn's body? Since it is a human being, it's right to live is equal to it's mother's right to live and the only thing that can tip the ballance is if it represents a "GENUINE" threat to its mother's life or long term health and a 12 in 100,000 chance does not represent a real and present threat in any court of law. Human rights are human rights. The very term implies that they apply to all human beings and if any group is excluded, then a terrible violation is being carried out.

What's annoying about you PaleRider is that I find myself respecting - though disagreeing - with your opinion.

It is hard to disrespect the truth if you have scruples coyote. It is very easy to disagree with it, and rail against it, especially when it is in direct opposition to what you want. Truth is truth though and while you recognize it and respect it, you don't like that you recognize and respect it. This discussion would be much easier for you if you had no integrity or principles. Of course, you would not be worthy of respect without them, but that is another discussion.