Abortion

[catch22]

Fetuses (feti?) won't ever have the same status as other groups which gained the full rights of people.
They're fundamentally different in several ways....
- They're still inside & entirely dependent upon the mother.
- They don't advocate for themselves.
- They don't do activities associated with many rights, eg, voting.
Consider something like the right to marry to gay folk.
Their exercising this right places no burden upon anyone else.
But to deny an abortion does place a burden upon the mother.
So there's the issue of either balancing rights, or one's rights trumping the other's.

I have broached the subject of granting at least one right to the unborn.
It's a conditional right.
If a fetus is brought to term, it has the right to be as free of birth defects as practical.
This would mean that no one (including the mother) has the right to harm the fetus-which-will-become-a-person.
There'll be messy arguments about things like the mother's right to get drunk.

You really just made a case for a fetus, and failed to see how it's the case for a new born baby. You realize that, right? The only contrast is "inside" versus "outside" and now you must consider a third term baby versus a baby who's just been born.

Go.

 

[Revoltingest]

You really just made a case for a fetus, and failed to see how it's the case for a new born baby. You realize that, right? The only contrast is "inside" versus "outside" and now you must consider a third term baby versus a baby who's just been born.
Go.

I was only making a case for why people would see a fetus as different from a person.
And as you correctly point out, a baby is different from both a fetus & a grown person.
My argument for the right to abortion rests more than those factors.

 

[catch22]

I was only making a case for why people would see a fetus as different from a person.
And as you correctly point out, a baby is different from both a fetus & a grown person.
My argument for the right to abortion rests more than those factors.

Irrelevant. On what basis does a newly born child differ, in terms of rights, from one in the womb a week ago? A month ago? 6 months ago?

 

[Revoltingest]

Irrelevant. On what basis does a newly born child differ, in terms of rights, from one in the womb a week ago? A month ago? 6 months ago?

I say it's relevant.
Consider:
- We all agree that an unfertilized egg has no rights of a person.
- We also agree that a recently born infant does have all the rights
(We'll ignore age limited things like voting & marriage).
In the continuum between these extremes, there'll be a point where a person begins to exist.
How is that point determined?
It all depends upon society's definition, which will be a consensus (albeit an uneasy one) based upon the frequency & political strength of various opinions.
(Religion doesn't rule because there is no agreed upon true religion.)
Relevance is determined by the players in determining this consensus.

 

[Cephus]

You really just made a case for a fetus, and failed to see how it's the case for a new born baby. You realize that, right? The only contrast is "inside" versus "outside" and now you must consider a third term baby versus a baby who's just been born.

Go.

What difference does it make? We make those kind of determinations all the time. Someone who is 17 years and 364 days old is a minor. One more day and they are an adult.

 

[Marisa]

Thank you for that non-reply. This concept of what types of cells constitute life has been covered here in this thread, you apparently haven't bothered to read the whole thing. But consider the human skin cell.

I have bent over backward to make sure that everyone on every side of this issue understands that I respect those who disagree with me. Thank you for showing that you can't return that simple level of respect. I look forward to not speaking with you in the future.

 

[Marisa]

Irrelevant. On what basis does a newly born child differ, in terms of rights, from one in the womb a week ago? A month ago? 6 months ago?

It doesn't require another human's organs (the uterus is an organ) to live.

 

[JoStories]

Thanks for your many thoughtful comments. I apologize for being away on a missions trip overseas and then I came home to have to travel to a funeral.

Choice is reliant on consent as mentioned, however, when one has, say, cancer (my aunt just died of it--it was her funeral) it was a choice to treat or not to treat the cancer, and using natural/alternative methods or chemo or a combination, etc. That choice has always remained (illegal or legal abortions are done in many places) but I would question the morality (and self-honesty) of certain choices.

Thanks.

That seems fair, as long as you would respect another's right to not question the morality of such a scenario, whether it be to treat cancer with alternative methods or to have an abortion.

 

[McBell]

You really just made a case for a fetus, and failed to see how it's the case for a new born baby. You realize that, right? The only contrast is "inside" versus "outside" and now you must consider a third term baby versus a baby who's just been born.

Go.

ouch.
Seems you should have paid better attention to what he actually said.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I have no interest in your tradition, "laws" of nature is a different conversation, and I couldn't care less how your religious practices are fairing in the modern world. I don't mean that as an insult, despite that I'm sure you'll take it as such. But this is your problem. Not everyone shares your religious beliefs, nor cares to be constrained by them. We all deserve the basic respect of being allowed to make our own choices based on OUR values, not yours.

You are correct, except in society where one's individual choices harm another. I cannot choose to kill another without consequences in society. If abortion is killing in that sense, there would be consequences and it should be illegal unless the life of the mother is in jeopardy.

 

[Marisa]

You are correct, except in society where one's individual choices harm another. I cannot choose to kill another without consequences in society. If abortion is killing in that sense, there would be consequences and it should be illegal unless the life of the mother is in jeopardy.

Please refer yourself to the concept of bodily autonomy we've been over already. NO ONE has the right to force another human being to donate any organ or bodily fluid to further their own life. This is NOT killing. Period.

 

[OurCreed]

Mr Tyson's observation is irrelevant to the issue.

It's the knowledge and control that makes artificial abortion an issue. Lots of people die as children, that doesn't mean you can kill them if you change your mind about parenthood.
My opinion has nothing to do with religion and just what is best for the human family. Why religious people who believe that abortion sends the babies soul straight to Heaven, but still oppose abortion, is beyond me.

Tom

"Why religious people who believe that abortion sends the babies soul straight to Heaven, but still oppose abortion, is beyond me."

Because it would be a sin in regards to the one who decided to get the abortion, even if the soul of the 'to be child' were to go to heaven.

 

[idea]

It doesn't require another human's organs (the uterus is an organ) to live.

So I suppose someone who depends on a heart transplant, or other transplant - who requires another human's organ to live, must also not be considered fully human?

 

[idea]

Please refer yourself to the concept of bodily autonomy we've been over already. NO ONE has the right to force another human being to donate any organ or bodily fluid to further their own life. This is NOT killing. Period.

To stop a beating heart is murder.

 

[columbus]

"Why religious people who believe that abortion sends the babies soul straight to Heaven, but still oppose abortion, is beyond me."

Because it would be a sin in regards to the one who decided to get the abortion, even if the soul of the 'to be child' were to go to heaven.

I understand that people believe this, but it is still irrational.
As a non-theist I believe that this life is all we get. So killing a human being is destroying whatever life that they might have had. And that isn't even my main reason for opposing elective abortion.

On the other hand, most abrahamic religionists believe that each human being is eternal and death is a transition. So whether a fetus dies of natural causes or artificial ones, the result is the same. That is usually referred to as Heaven. And that happens with no risk of a less happy ending to their particular story, because they die utterly innocent.

So while I realise that abortion is sometimes considered a sin I see no rational explanation for the assertion. Since the Bible is extremely unclear on the subject I assume it was made up later.

Tom

 

[Marisa]

So I suppose someone who depends on a heart transplant, or other transplant - who requires another human's organ to live, must also not be considered fully human?

Way to totally miss the point. Do you understand the purpose of a donor registry? Do you know how many people waiting on organ transplants die each year because they cannot force anyone else to give up their organs? I never said that those people, nor that a fetus or embryo or zygote or blastocyst isn't human. Someone else may have, but it wasn't me.

 

[viole]

To stop a beating heart is murder.

So, you have nothing against the day after pill. A couple of duplicating cells do not have a heart.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

You really just made a case for a fetus, and failed to see how it's the case for a new born baby. You realize that, right? The only contrast is "inside" versus "outside" and now you must consider a third term baby versus a baby who's just been born.

Go.

I have a question. Why did everybody told me I will be a mom when I was pregnant of my first to-be child? Nobody ever told me that I was already a mom.

This bias between the born and the unborn seems implicit in our culture. Even my husband got gratulation cards with the text "today you are a father" when our first kid was born.

Ciao

- viole

 

[leibowde84]

Your word salad isn't amusing. Nor would I employ terms like ROTFLMAO when talking about life and death issues! Please, Jesus, never let this man be a legislator or judge, for he has neither mercy nor wisdom.

Do you understand the distinction though?

 

[columbus]

To stop a beating heart is murder.

That is not true. Sometimes it is an accident, sometimes it is self-defense.
When God does it it's the natural order of things.
Tom