Abortion

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It comes down to whether the rights of a mother are more important than the rights of an unborn child.

They are.

If a child has sentience, and a great deal of it, it should be illegal. The fetus is not only the mothers, there is the paternal DNA in it as well. There is always a risk with sex, and that risk is conception.

As I touched on earlier in the thread, there's always a risk of getting in a collision when we drive, but this doesn't mean that we consent to being run into.

You can extend your statement and say that the rights of a child can be infringing on the rights of a mother to live her life, even after it's born. Does that mean a mother has the right to kill an infant? How do you differentiate an infant from a 34 week old fetus? Physiological dependence? Dependence remains for many years, and one can argue that the psychological to physiological neural growth throughout childhood is important as well..

After birth, the needs of the child aren't in conflict with the rights of the woman.

A parent has obligations, but they can be satisfied by others (provided they consent). Comparing this to abortion is like comparing our obligation to pay our bills with debtor's prison (which is something we as a society consider abhorrent today).

 

[Marisa]

Your arguments are flawed as usual, this is why social science isn't respected. You can't run societies based on opinions, there has to be FACT.

You stated yourself that no fact exists, so I'm a bit confused as to your objection now. I'm inclined to believe it's more to do with your dislike of me than an actual objection.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

On your last post, I'm inclined to agree. I'm sure you saw my much earlier post in which I made clear I tend to be against abortion once viability is achieved.

This has never made any sense to me: while the fetus is dependent on the woman, she's free to have it removed, but the moment it can possibly survive without her, she's obligated to it? How does that work logically?

 

[Marisa]

This has never made any sense to me: while the fetus is dependent on the woman, she's free to have it removed, but the moment it can possibly survive without her, she's obligated to it? How does that work logically?

Logically, it doesn't. It's the humanitarian coming out in me. It's a source of conflict for me as much as it is for you.

 

[Revoltingest]

They are.
As I touched on earlier in the thread, there's always a risk of getting in a collision when we drive, but this doesn't mean that we consent to being run into.
After birth, the needs of the child aren't in conflict with the rights of the woman.
A parent has obligations, but they can be satisfied by others (provided they consent). Comparing this to abortion is like comparing our obligation to pay our bills with debtor's prison (which is something we as a society consider abhorrent today).

Not to derail things, but debtor's prison is still with us.
Fines, fees, probation, and the "new debtor's prison" - Overlawyered

Back on topic, I'll add my 2 cents.....
I draw the line here:
Abortion is the mother's right so long as the fetus is still inside her.

But I recognize that my position is rather extreme, so public policy will inevitably be
a compromise which results in an earlier point after which abortion will be prohibited.
I can only hope it's some reasonable optimuim.....perhaps after 2/3 of pregnancy.
See.....I might be an extreme lunatic, but I'm not crazy.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is, and that's the point the pro choice crowd completely misses.

Since you're arguing that fetuses should have rights beyond those of an actual person, you shouldn't be arguing for when the fetus becomes alive; you should be arguing for when the fetus becomes magic.

An explanation of how this magic is removed by passing through the birth canal would be good, too.

 

[MD]

Since you're arguing that fetuses should have rights beyond those of an actual person, you shouldn't be arguing for when the fetus becomes alive; you should be arguing for when the fetus becomes magic.

An explanation of how this magic is removed by passing through the birth canal would be good, too.

I noticed you missed my earlier point on measuring sentience in a fetus. Funny how that works.

 

[MD]

This has never made any sense to me: while the fetus is dependent on the woman, she's free to have it removed, but the moment it can possibly survive without her, she's obligated to it? How does that work logically?

Well now we can see the psychopathic position of the pro choice position come to the front.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Logically, it doesn't. It's the humanitarian coming out in me. It's a source of conflict for me as much as it is for you.

How is it humanitarian?

And I'm not conflicted - I think using viability as the dividing line is based on bad reasoning.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well now we can see the psychopathic position of the pro choice position come to the front.

... and now we see the name-calling one resorts to when they don't have a reasonable argument.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I noticed you missed my earlier point on measuring sentience in a fetus. Funny how that works.

Like you missed every point in my reply to you?

 

[MD]

... and now we see the name-calling one resorts to when they don't have a reasonable argument.

I gave an argument, but you obviously ignored it. Quite frankly I find people like you rather sick and devious, when you state that a mother has no obligation to her child after birth. No wonder you advocate for the murder of them. There are physiological and evolutionary arguments for why mothers bond to their children and why parents have an obligation to them.

The world you wish to create as a liberal is rather disgusting.

 

[Marisa]

How is it humanitarian?

And I'm not conflicted - I think using viability as the dividing line is based on bad reasoning.

I meant conflicted in terms of understanding my position, nothing more.

Because viability means that the fetus stands a good chance of surviving outside the uterus. Medical intervention may be required. When this occurs because of pregnancy complications, we call the infant a "premie" once outside the uterus.

It's conflicting for me because the feminist in me agrees that there is no point at which a woman should not be allowed to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. But once viability is achieved, I do have an emotional reaction to fetus.

It seems logical that what would follow, would be me advocating for delivering the child and placing it for adoption, but I understand the ramifications of that, too. Who pays the medical costs, etc.

As I've stated numerous times in this conversation, there are no easy answers. The best we can hope for, IMO, is that we achieve a point at which we can all respect each other's perspectives as well as respecting each other's rights.

 

[Marisa]

I gave an argument, but you obviously ignored it. Quite frankly I find people like you rather sick and devious, when you state that a mother has no obligation to her child after birth. No wonder you advocate for the murder of them. There are physiological and evolutionary arguments for why mothers bond to their children and why parents have an obligation to them.

The world you wish to create as a liberal is rather disgusting.

Again, adoption. And before you dismiss me as dense, know that I'm adopted. My biological mother birthed me, and then had no further obligation to me. Once a fetus is expelled from the uterus, anyone can care for the baby. It need not be the biological mother, hence how adoption negates the point you're trying to make.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I meant conflicted in terms of understanding my position, nothing more.

Because viability means that the fetus stands a good chance of surviving outside the uterus. Medical intervention may be required. When this occurs because of pregnancy complications, we call the infant a "premie" once outside the uterus.

It's conflicting for me because the feminist in me agrees that there is no point at which a woman should not be allowed to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. But once viability is achieved, I do have an emotional reaction to fetus.

It seems logical that what would follow, would be me advocating for delivering the child and placing it for adoption, but I understand the ramifications of that, too. Who pays the medical costs, etc.

As I've stated numerous times in this conversation, there are no easy answers. The best we can hope for, IMO, is that we achieve a point at which we can all respect each other's perspectives as well as respecting each other's rights.

As I touched on earlier, bodily security here is about the right not to be pregnant. A live birth accomplishes this. If a late-term pregnant woman with a viable fetus wants to end her pregnancy, this is accomplished just as much by inducing a live birth as by abortion. The dividing line is, IMO, a medical decision that not only changes over time, but varies from woman to wonan and fetus to fetus.

Of course, this is mostly a side issue, since the vast majority of late-term abortions happen because something's gone critically wrong with the pregnancy and viability wouldn't be possible anyhow.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I gave an argument, but you obviously ignored it. Quite frankly I find people like you rather sick and devious, when you state that a mother has no obligation to her child after birth. No wonder you advocate for the murder of them. There are physiological and evolutionary arguments for why mothers bond to their children and why parents have an obligation to them.

The world you wish to create as a liberal is rather disgusting.

The world I wish to create is one where abortion is available as an option, but there are so many other good options out there for pregnant women that, of their own free will, none of them choose to abort. What's wrong with this, exactly?

I find it interesting how the liberal, pro-choice position is usually the one that's best at reducing the occasion for abortion.

Take maternity leave: how many American anti-choice activists have you ever heard advocate for Canadian-style parental leave (52 weeks off, paid by the government, and you get you old job back at the end)? I haven't heard of any.

OTOH, I've heard of plenty of women seeking abortions because there's no way they'd be able to balance work and a newborn.

 

[Marisa]

As I touched on earlier, bodily security here is about the right not to be pregnant. A live birth accomplishes this. If a late-term pregnant woman with a viable fetus wants to end her pregnancy, this is accomplished just as much by inducing a live birth as by abortion. The dividing line is, IMO, a medical decision that not only changes over time, but varies from woman to wonan and fetus to fetus.

Of course, this is mostly a side issue, since the vast majority of late-term abortions happen because something's gone critically wrong with the pregnancy and viability wouldn't be possible anyhow.

Agreed.

 

[leibowde84]

[QUOTE
="9-10ths_Penguin, post: 4261065, member: 13455"]Everybody can also be traced back to a sperm cell.

I'm an engineer. I can be traced back to a zygote. Does this mean my zygote was an engineer?

No you can't be traced back to a sperm cell. You must need remedial life science if you think that.
Tom[/QUOTE]
Can you flesh this out. We all come from a single sperm, right? Or were you just speaking to the current limits of "tracing"?

 

[Revoltingest]

As I touched on earlier, bodily security here is about the right not to be pregnant. A live birth accomplishes this. If a late-term pregnant woman with a viable fetus wants to end her pregnancy, this is accomplished just as much by inducing a live birth as by abortion. The dividing line is, IMO, a medical decision that not only changes over time, but varies from woman to wonan and fetus to fetus.

Of course, this is mostly a side issue, since the vast majority of late-term abortions happen because something's gone critically wrong with the pregnancy and viability wouldn't be possible anyhow.

That's pretty reasonable.
Are you sure you're Canuckistanian?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's pretty reasonable.
Are you sure you're Canuckistanian?

Heh... since I just advocated for year-long, job-protected paid parental leave for pregnant women and new parents, I don't think they'll be coming for my passport any time soon.