Abortion

[Aupmanyav]

I'm assuming because there is a taboo on pre-marital sex? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

No, you are correct.

Agreed that the Hindu definition is a bit different but regarding the woman who was raped, I find that her being denied is reprehensible. Who in the world would want to carry a fetus to term if the fetus was conceived via rape. I certainly would not.

That is right and I am not in favor of the verdict, but then there is perhaps a law regarding this - that is why the court decision. I think such a law has been kept for the safety of the woman's life.

If there is no life before conception there can be no conception.

Yes, as I posted earlier, 'like any other living cell but it is not human (adds: yet).' It is only half the part.

 

[McBell]

.Yes, as I posted earlier, 'like any other living cell but it is not human (adds: yet).' It is only half the part.

Um...
Not human?
What pray tell is it before it becomes human?

 

[Aupmanyav]

It is a living cell, like an ameba or a virus. Same with the ovum. When they merge, they become human.

 

[Nietzsche]

Um...
Not human?
What pray tell is it before it becomes human?

If I were to take off one of your fingers, is that human as well? Because your finger is far, far more developed than a fetus is before a certain point.

 

[JRMcC]

Without the umbilical cord and the mother's symbiotic relationship, the fetus cannot survive. Therein lies the difference.

I guess this is futile at this point, but I don't see why this means the baby is not alive. If you give birth to the baby and then leave it on the floor, the baby cannot survive either. I'm not so much making an assertion when "life" begins as I am questioning the at birth idea. You've told me many times what your position is, but I won't really understand unless you go into what makes life life, and why is it valuable. You don't have to answer this though, the conversation hasn't really been going anywhere.

 

[JRMcC]

I'm happy to take responsibility if I'm not clear. But we're going to limit this conversation to the subject of elective, early term abortions. The key thing you're missing is that once born the birth mother is no longer required. Any human, of any relation or no relation, can deliver care.

Yeah, you can see my post #105. I just don't see why that makes the baby "alive" or "not alive." Seems to me that it would be gradual process of becoming alive.
We need a broader discussion about life, what it is and its value. I might start a thread sometime in the near future.

 

[Marisa]

Yeah, you can see my post #105. I just don't see why that makes the baby "alive" or "not alive." Seems to me that it would be gradual process of becoming alive.
We need a broader discussion about life, what it is and its value. I might start a thread sometime in the near future.

That conversation is why this one is where it is. It's not a question that can be answered to everyone's satisfaction. Erring on the side of that which is not in question therefore becomes the best option, and allows for all to have opinions and none to have jurisdiction over another's moral agency or bodily autonomy.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Yeah, you can see my post #105. I just don't see why that makes the baby "alive" or "not alive." Seems to me that it would be gradual process of becoming alive.
We need a broader discussion about life, what it is and its value. I might start a thread sometime in the near future.

Whether it's "alive" or "not alive" there is another human beings body being used for it's gestation.

Hypothetical scenario: Let's say you hit somebody with a car. Not their fault they were hit...you put them there. The only way they can survive is for constant use of your liver/pancreas/kidney/pick-an-organ 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

The moral argument is the same - it's your responsibility to keep them alive. They didn't have a choice. You made this happen. Now you must put aside any "inconvenience" this may have on your health, time, finances, bodily security, etc...and take responsibility for your actions and keep them alive.

As has been stated before when it concerns the abortion debate, corpses have more bodily security than pregnant women do. Whatever the person requested while alive what is to happen to their bodies after death MUST be respected. We can't even take a single hair off their head if they request us not to. But pregnant women are shamed, coerced, intimidated if they dare wish not to gestate for 9 months...which affects every system in their bodies that carries distinct health risks only to them. Pre-eclampsia, placenta previa, gestational diabetes are a few of the very distinct health risks a pregnant woman must face that no other person has to.

Again, it's easy to champion the rights of a fetus when the person gestating is not considered all that important.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Again, it's easy to champion the rights of a fetus when the person gestating is not considered all that important.

I personally think the well-being of the mother is prioritized over the well-being of the baby. I don't mean that the baby is not important and should be given no or stripped out of their rights, I only make the priority.

 

[JRMcC]

Again, it's easy to champion the rights of a fetus when the person gestating is not considered all that important

We tend to value small children more than adults in western society. Maybe we shouldn't.

 

[Marisa]

Whether it's "alive" or "not alive" there is another human beings body being used for it's gestation.

Hypothetical scenario: Let's say you hit somebody with a car. Not their fault they were hit...you put them there. The only way they can survive is for constant use of your liver/pancreas/kidney/pick-an-organ 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

The moral argument is the same - it's your responsibility to keep them alive. They didn't have a choice. You made this happen. Now you must put aside any "inconvenience" this may have on your health, time, finances, bodily security, etc...and take responsibility for your actions and keep them alive.

As has been stated before when it concerns the abortion debate, corpses have more bodily security than pregnant women do. Whatever the person requested while alive what is to happen to their bodies after death MUST be respected. We can't even take a single hair off their head if they request us not to. But pregnant women are shamed, coerced, intimidated if they dare wish not to gestate for 9 months...which affects every system in their bodies that carries distinct health risks only to them. Pre-eclampsia, placenta previa, gestational diabetes are a few of the very distinct health risks a pregnant woman must face that no other person has to.

Again, it's easy to champion the rights of a fetus when the person gestating is not considered all that important.

I have already asked that we stick to the subject, which is elective early term abortion. Please do not paint rosey pictures as it only serves to obfuscate the facts. The question of whether not any person of any stage of development has the right to conscript another human being in furtherance of their own life has been answered in our society: we do not force people to donate blood or body parts, and even where the deceased are concerned prior consent is required before organ harvesting can take place. To suggest that a fetus has the right to conscript another human being because of its location or developmental stage is to grant it special rights that no one else has, and constitutes special pleading.

ETA: I think we agree on this issue.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

We tend to value small children more than adults in western society. Maybe we shouldn't.

Yeah that's a straw man.

We tend not to value female sexual autonomy at all. Women who make their own decisions on what goes in or out of their reproductive systems are shamed for being sluts, teases, or prudes.

Tell me, how much does a female have a say as to what can be present inside her reproductive system? To what extent? And if she doesn't at a certain point, who gets that authority on this planet?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I have already asked that we stick to the subject, which is elective early term abortion. Please do not paint rosey pictures as it only serves to obfuscate the facts. The question of whether not any person of any stage of development has the right to conscript another human being in furtherance of their own life has been answered in our society: we do not force people to donate blood or body parts, and even where the deceased are concerned prior consent is required before organ harvesting can take place. To suggest that a fetus has the right to conscript another human being because of its location or developmental stage is to grant it special rights that no one else has, and constitutes special pleading.

ETA: I think we agree on this issue.

LOL I was just gonna say that.

 

[JRMcC]

Tell me, how much does a female have a say as to what can be present inside her reproductive system?

A lot? I don't really know what you're asking. Have you been following my discussion with some other people here by any chance? The discussion is about what makes a baby alive, not what should and shouldn't be inside someone.

Edit: Sorry I thought about what I said and I wasn't clear enough. If, in theory, we agree that a fetus say 1 month before birth is alive, then there is a conflict between the woman's right to control what's inside her body and the baby's right to live. So I'm saying normally in our society we would take the small child's well-being into consideration before the adult's. But you seem to be challenging that value we normally have.

 

[Marisa]

A lot? I don't really know what you're asking. Have you been following my discussion with some other people here by any chance? The discussion is about what makes a baby alive, not what should and shouldn't be inside someone.

Edit: Sorry I thought about what I said and I wasn't clear enough. If, in theory, we agree that a fetus say 1 month before birth is alive, then there is a conflict between the woman's right to control what's inside her body and the baby's right to live. So I'm saying normally in our society we would take the small child's well-being into consideration before the adult's. But you seem to be challenging that value we normally have.

What you were asked is how much right to her own body do you think a woman has. This issue goes much deeper than the abortion conversation, but that's the one we're having here. On paper, I have the right to decide what happens to my body. All women have the right to obtain an elective early term abortion if they choose, but in many states they don't have access to a facility that provides them because the states have effectively legislated the closing of their doors (see: Texas).

The discussion is NOT about what makes a baby alive, that's what you want it be. The discussion is about whether or not anyone has the right to force another person to give up their body in furtherance of another's continued life. I've repeatedly suggested you consider the subject of bodily autonomy and where our society stands on that issue.

 

[JRMcC]

The discussion is NOT about what makes a baby alive

I don't know why not. If a baby is alive, and someone consciously allows it to die, then someone is in legal trouble.

The discussion is about whether or not anyone has the right to force another person to give up their body in furtherance of another's continued life

I guess, but I think the dynamic changes a little bit when it's a mother and child relationship. Call me old fashioned.

I've repeatedly suggested you consider the subject of bodily autonomy and where our society stands on that issue.

I don't know what the heck bodily autonomy is. Everyone is supposed to have autonomy period, as long as what they do with that autonomy doesn't hurt another person. Bodily autonomy... Ok I should be able to do bath salts. Anyway I don't think life begins at conception. And I would agree that republicans who are against birth control are trampling on people's rights. Does that please you?

 

[McBell]

If I were to take off one of your fingers, is that human as well? Because your finger is far, far more developed than a fetus is before a certain point.

Are you saying that if you cut off my finger it is not longer a human finger?

I can not imagine why so many people think such a thing.
So once my finger has been cut off, what kind of finger is it if it is no longer human?

 

[McBell]

If I were to take off one of your fingers, is that human as well? Because your finger is far, far more developed than a fetus is before a certain point.

Interestingly enough, you did not answer the question:

What pray tell is it before it becomes human?​

 

[Nietzsche]

Are you saying that if you cut off my finger it is not longer a human finger?

I can not imagine why so many people think such a thing.
So once my finger has been cut off, what kind of finger is it if it is no longer human?

Interestingly enough, you did not answer the question:

What pray tell is it before it becomes human?​

Being human is not just one thing or another. It's a collection of requirements. Your finger is indeed a human finger. But it is only part of you, and when removed from the whole it is not granted person hood. A fetus is a human fetus. But it's so utterly dependent on the mother that it is no more than a piece of her.

 

[McBell]

If, in theory, we agree that a fetus say 1 month before birth is alive, then there is a conflict between the woman's right to control what's inside her body and the baby's right to live.

Um...
Zygotes are alive.
Embryos are alive.
the Fetus is alive.

Hells bells people, the sperm and egg are alive.

Has anyone in this thread even implied that they were not alive at some point?


Who says a FETUS has any rights at all?
Is the goal post moving intentional or un-intentional?

So I'm saying normally in our society we would take the small child's well-being into consideration before the adult's. But you seem to be challenging that value we normally have.

Now you move the goal posts once more....