Abortion

[Marisa]

I disagree with this view.
Abortion is killing.
I'd say it's killing a fetus, which is a potential human being.
(Some say it's killing a baby, but this is to lose the distinction between a fetus & a baby.)
I favor abortion rights for the reason that one shouldn't be forced to live as biological host for another.
IMO, the person owning the body has the control, & the fetus (being dependent) has no right to be born.
People who believe otherwise may certainly accept their perceived obligation to carry a fetus to term,
but they shouldn't impose this upon others.

Why might my perspective be useful?
Abortion rights depend less upon the definition of when life begins....a tricky thing.

That's why I put "killing" in quotes. There has to be a point at which we begin. The need to have ownership of one's body has always been with us, to the point that some herbs with abortifacient properties have gone extinct (silphium, for example). The question that needs to be asked is "how do we do the most good". We do this by honoring an individual's autonomy, and making sure that whatever procedures are sought by the individual, that the most control in favor of that person's life is had. And this is achieved by regulation. Criminalizing abortion will not stop abortion. It will just create more criminals.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's why I put "killing" in quotes. There has to be a point at which we begin. The need to have ownership of one's body has always been with us, to the point that some herbs with abortifacient properties have gone extinct (silphium, for example). The question that needs to be asked is "how do we do the most good". We do this by honoring an individual's autonomy, and making sure that whatever procedures are sought by the individual, that the most control in favor of that person's life is had. And this is achieved by regulation. Criminalizing abortion will not stop abortion. It will just create more criminals.

I favor achieving it by less regulation....& less criminalization of behavior.

 

[Marisa]

I favor achieving it by less regulation....& less criminalization of behavior.

Oh buddy, when you're talking medical procedures you want regulation. Otherwise you get Gosnell Clinics.

ETA: I have to admit, I find this "all regulation bad" thing . . . odd.

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh buddy, when you're talking medical procedures you want regulation. Otherwise you get Gosnell Clinics.
ETA: I have to admit, I find this "all regulation bad" thing . . . odd.

I'm in favor of regulation.....but we have too much of the wrong kind.
What I was getting at though was that prohibiting abortions & abortion clinics is regulation we can do without.

I don't recall seeing anyone (even Libertarians) saying "all regulation is bad".
This strikes me as a myth.
Everyone I know wants some regulation.

 

[Marisa]

I'm in favor of regulation.....but we have too much of the wrong kind.
What I was getting at though was that prohibiting abortions & abortion clinics is regulation we can do without.

Aha! Clearly, I misunderstood.

I don't recall seeing anyone (even Libertarians) saying "all regulation is bad".
This strikes me as a myth.
Everyone I know wants some regulation.

This is true. I was drawing a caricature. All parties favor the regulations they'd like to see put in place, and decry regulations they are against as "all regulation bad".

 

[Revoltingest]

This is true. I was drawing a caricature. All parties favor the regulations they'd like to see put in place, and decry regulations they are against as "all regulation bad".

Both Dems & Pubs increase regulation every year.
A problem with this is that the total volume of regulation becomes an issue over & above the cost-v-benefit of each individual regulation. This is particularly dealing with all the local, state & federal regulations (which sometimes conflict without resolution by the courts). I wager that we could do more with less.

Edit:
Dang....I could'a worded that better.
Distracted I be.

 

[Marisa]

Both Dems & Pubs increase regulation every year.
A problem with this is that the total volume of regulation becomes an issue over & above the cost-v-benefit of each individual regulation. This is particularly dealing with all the local, state & federal regulations (which sometimes conflict without resolution by the courts). I wager that we could do more with less.

At the risk of derailing this conversation permanently, which might not be a bad thing, you can't break regulation assessment down to a cost vs. benefit analysis that easily. If you do, we're not going to get renewable forms of energy, because our "system" is so dependent on non-renewable as to make the cost of converting seem prohibitive. At least, that's what big oil keeps telling me.

I think there is value in what you say nonetheless. Even knowing that we will still squabble over what constitutes "benefit".

 

[Revoltingest]

At the risk of derailing this conversation permanently, which might not be a bad thing, you can't break regulation assessment down to a cost vs. benefit analysis that easily. If you do, we're not going to get renewable forms of energy, because our "system" is so dependent on non-renewable as to make the cost of converting seem prohibitive. At least, that's what big oil keeps telling me.
I think there is value in what you say nonetheless. Even knowing that we will still squabble over what constitutes "benefit".

Renewable energy is a good example.
With cost-benefit analysis, we'd be pushing conservation more than alcohol in gas.
But we have regulations in place which actually discourage capital investment in conservation.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Breath means the ability to independently be able to exchange CO2 and O2 without the need of another person. And I will address the other in a while on my laptop and not this iPad.

Oxidation...can

Breath means the ability to independently be able to exchange CO2 and O2 without the need of another person. And I will address the other in a while on my laptop and not this iPad.

That seems to be a rather arbitrary definition! Why, undefended..of another person? Where does this come from? Biologicaly

 

[BilliardsBall]

For you. This is not a universal truth.


Show me a soul or stop stating it as fact.


I sincerely doubt that this is being debated among reputable scientists. But even if that's true, I have little doubt that "traditional" science, otherwise known as science will prevail.


For the umpteenth time, no one is asking you to restrain your conviction. We are asking you to present an argument which doesn't rely on "why don't you believe me?" and "childbirth is so special". Make factual statements and back them up with evidence. That's how you get people to believe you.


Horse pucky. Abortion is not "killing". It is exercising one's right to determine when one's organs shall be utilized in furtherance the life of another.


Because it deprives another person of their life. Not a fetus, dependent upon the organs of another human being for continued development, but a person. You think you're arguing on behalf of a "person" who can't speak for themselves but here's the basic problem you face and thus far in this conversation have been unwilling to recognize: successful conception does not equate to live birth. Period.


I have my doubts about that because there is much of what I said you refused to address. But you're welcome.

I guess I could say "I believe people have souls" but most people believe that; the overwhelming number of persons now or who ever lived, and in every culture, always. I can't always remember to be politically correct. I also think most people believe infants and adults have souls, but that the argument is over when the fetus becomes a living soul.

I also don't understand your rules regarding facts. Which facts prove that female bodily autonomy trumps, well, anything, such as the male partner's desire to see their child brought to term? What facts do we use other than appeals to emotion to "prove" bodily autonomy is a thing? It sounds like a metaphysical concept to me, the more so because the facts on autonomy include:

* I depend on other life forms to exist, even to consuming them

* Every secular/skeptic's argument I've heard against murder and etc. is based on the good of the greater society/the most members of the society - yet a woman can reduce her and her child to just her...?

* Etc.

I think if I ask you to give some facts to prove that bodily autonomy is a human right or a human necessity, you will eventually appeal to emotion... you don't have to give me such facts, and I do think bodily autonomy is real, if up to a different point than you. However, I think a level playing field should be the rule here. Please be consistent.

 

[Marisa]

I guess I could say "I believe people have souls" but most people believe that; the overwhelming number of persons now or who ever lived, and in every culture, always. I can't always remember to be politically correct. I also think most people believe infants and adults have souls, but that the argument is over when the fetus becomes a living soul.

Doubtful. Cultures throughout time have been concerned with whether or not there is anything after death. You arbitrarily define what survives death as a "soul" because that's what your particular myth teaches. Yet even your myth is incomplete as you argue among yourselves whether all animal have souls, or just the human animal. Native American myths for one, believe that all animals are connected and that no member of the animal kingdom is superior to any other (created in a deities image).

I also don't understand your rules regarding facts.

That is painfully evident. Facts are those annoying things that come with evidence. We know evolution is true because we have fossils. If you are going to prove that souls are a thing, you'll need to pony one up. Do that, and you will have convinced me.

Which facts prove that female bodily autonomy trumps, well, anything,

Can I own you?

such as the male partner's desire to see their child brought to term?

I asked you this before several pages back and you flat ignored it. Which part of a man's body does a fetus require in order to continue developing?

What facts do we use other than appeals to emotion to "prove" bodily autonomy is a thing?

Again, can I own you?

It sounds like a metaphysical concept to me,

CAN I OWN YOU?

the more so because the facts on autonomy include:

* I depend on other life forms to exist, even to consuming them

No you don't. We have synthetic foods.

* Every secular/skeptic's argument I've heard against murder and etc. is based on the good of the greater society/the most members of the society - yet a woman can reduce her and her child to just her...?

What part of "it requires the organs of it's host to continue to develop to a point where it no longer requires a host organism to survive" is confusing?

I think if I ask you to give some facts to prove that bodily autonomy is a human right or a human necessity, you will eventually appeal to emotion

Nope.

... you don't have to give me such facts, and I do think bodily autonomy is real, if up to a different point than you. However, I think a level playing field should be the rule here. Please be consistent.

Please. I've been nothing but consistent. I've addressed each of your points with FACTS that you've either ignored (only to repeat the same questions over and over and over) while you've repeatedly asked "why won't you believe me" or "do you think I would lie" or "isn't childbirth so special".

 

[McBell]

I think if I ask you to give some facts to prove that bodily autonomy is a human right or a human necessity, you will eventually appeal to emotion... you don't have to give me such facts, and I do think bodily autonomy is real, if up to a different point than you. However, I think a level playing field should be the rule here. Please be consistent.

Please be so kind as to present a situation where you would be required by law to give up your bodily autonomy.
Since you cannot, why do you think that pregnant women should be made an exception?

If you are going to claim emotion in the above, you will need to specify what part and what emotion.
Good luck.

 

[JoStories]

Oxidation...can

That seems to be a rather arbitrary definition! Why, undefended..of another person? Where does this come from? Biologicaly

Oxidation does not occur in a fetus. And I did not use the word undefended. If you are asking where respiration comes from, I can recommend several very good phsyiology texts that will answer this for you.

 

[JoStories]

I guess I could say "I believe people have souls" but most people believe that; the overwhelming number of persons now or who ever lived, and in every culture, always. I can't always remember to be politically correct. I also think most people believe infants and adults have souls, but that the argument is over when the fetus becomes a living soul.

I also don't understand your rules regarding facts. Which facts prove that female bodily autonomy trumps, well, anything, such as the male partner's desire to see their child brought to term? What facts do we use other than appeals to emotion to "prove" bodily autonomy is a thing? It sounds like a metaphysical concept to me, the more so because the facts on autonomy include:

* I depend on other life forms to exist, even to consuming them

* Every secular/skeptic's argument I've heard against murder and etc. is based on the good of the greater society/the most members of the society - yet a woman can reduce her and her child to just her...?

* Etc.

I think if I ask you to give some facts to prove that bodily autonomy is a human right or a human necessity, you will eventually appeal to emotion... you don't have to give me such facts, and I do think bodily autonomy is real, if up to a different point than you. However, I think a level playing field should be the rule here. Please be consistent.

Marisa is always consistent. And bodily autonomy may be emotionally influenced when people threaten the issue of one's body but in essence, it is a human right that you have no say in my body anymore than I have a right to yours. It would be like a husband telling his wife that she must have breast enhancement because he likes bigger breasts. Or the wife telling the husband she does not like his testicles so he has to have them removed. I;m going to assume you would prefer not to lose your cahones?

 

[SomeRandom]

I guess I could say "I believe people have souls" but most people believe that; the overwhelming number of persons now or who ever lived, and in every culture, always. I can't always remember to be politically correct. I also think most people believe infants and adults have souls, but that the argument is over when the fetus becomes a living soul.

People believe all sorts of things. That doesn't make it fact. In terms of spirituality (ie the concept of a soul) facts aren't what's relied on, it's usually either down to faith or philosophical pondering.

Which facts prove that female bodily autonomy trumps, well, anything,

The fact that raping a woman is against the law? The fact that a person cannot legally own another person regardless of sex? The fact that a person does not have to donate organs before and (depending on the country) even after death? Most laws state that they need specific permission from that person (before they die, obviously.) You literally are not allowed to force someone (male or female) to give up even an ounce of blood to help save the life of another person. Because a person regardless of sex OWNS their own body and everything about it.

such as the male partner's desire to see their child brought to term?

As soon as we come up with a method to surgically implant a fetus from the woman who does not wish to bring it to term into said male partner's body, then they can have an equal say. Now of course a couple or two persons in a sexual relationship of some kind (however casual) can discuss the matter between themselves. But the woman is the one with the fetus inside her body, therefore ultimately the call is hers to make. Because hey bodily autonomy is a thing.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Oxidation does not occur in a fetus. And I did not use the word undefended. If you are asking where respiration comes from, I can recommend several very good phsyiology texts that will answer this for you.

Perhaps you should educate yourself on what 'oxidation' is? Basic metabolic activity requires oxidation and absolutely DOES occur in a fetus.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Oxidation does not occur in a fetus. And I did not use the word undefended. If you are asking where respiration comes from, I can recommend several very good phsyiology texts that will answer this for you.

I would love to see you so called references on physiology explaining the definition of 'breath.' Please be advised my first masters was in Ecology, Evolution, and Organismal Biology.

 

[JoStories]

I would love to see you so called references on physiology explaining the definition of 'breath.' Please be advised my first masters was in Ecology, Evolution, and Organismal Biology.

You're right and I very much apologize. Of course I know that as I, too, have a masters in nursing as an APRN....ie: FNP. Must have been having a bad day and again, mea culpa on that.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Doubtful. Cultures throughout time have been concerned with whether or not there is anything after death. You arbitrarily define what survives death as a "soul" because that's what your particular myth teaches. Yet even your myth is incomplete as you argue among yourselves whether all animal have souls, or just the human animal. Native American myths for one, believe that all animals are connected and that no member of the animal kingdom is superior to any other (created in a deities image).


That is painfully evident. Facts are those annoying things that come with evidence. We know evolution is true because we have fossils. If you are going to prove that souls are a thing, you'll need to pony one up. Do that, and you will have convinced me.


Can I own you?


I asked you this before several pages back and you flat ignored it. Which part of a man's body does a fetus require in order to continue developing?


Again, can I own you?


CAN I OWN YOU?


No you don't. We have synthetic foods.


What part of "it requires the organs of it's host to continue to develop to a point where it no longer requires a host organism to survive" is confusing?


Nope.


Please. I've been nothing but consistent. I've addressed each of your points with FACTS that you've either ignored (only to repeat the same questions over and over and over) while you've repeatedly asked "why won't you believe me" or "do you think I would lie" or "isn't childbirth so special".

Sorry, are you saying you eat no plant or animal matter at all, only synthetic products?

Sorry also if I missed your earlier post. A man's body is not required for a fetus to develop. A man's body is only required for two things: conception, without which there is no fetus, and child rearing, without which a man is a deadbeat, a baby daddy or a sperm donor and not a real father.

No, you cannot and should not own me. However, if we were in the covenant of marriage we would each belong to the other. And our society cannot have it both ways--if a father has to contribute support to his baby, he should have more of a say in whether his baby lives. That's how I'd see it to make it consistent and logical.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Please be so kind as to present a situation where you would be required by law to give up your bodily autonomy.
Since you cannot, why do you think that pregnant women should be made an exception?

If you are going to claim emotion in the above, you will need to specify what part and what emotion.
Good luck.

There are examples in law, eg a person's living will declaration being overturned in a court and they are forced to remain living in a coma. But bodily autonomy may sound good, but is actually pulling people out of interdependence to pure independence, not always (not usually!) a good thing.

A one-year-old is dependent on its parents or guardians and will not survive without them. To abandon a one-year-old is to kill them.