Planned Parenthood takes its show on the road

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is not necessarily so. You are assuming things.

I'm assuming what you told us: that the fetus hasn't reached viability - IOW, that there's been a medical determination that the fetus would not be able to survive outside the womb - at 9 months gestation. This does not reflect normal fetal development.

Then what is your criteria?

The pregnant person retains their right to bodily security at all times... IOW they never give up the right to end their pregnancy. The line of viability - wherever it happens to be for that particular fetus and pregnancy, taking into account the medical interventions available - would only matter in terms of the decision of whether the pregnancy should be ended by inducing a live birth instead of by abortion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I did in another post to you. See post 213. Of course there is always a more detailed discussion needed.

Right: you gave the rapey position that consent, once given, can't be revoked and that consent for one thing should be inferred to be consent for what you consider to be the next logical step.

"She agreed to sex, so she consented to pregnancy and can't change her mind now. I have every right to deny her bodily autonomy!"

"She agreed to come upstairs, so she consented to sex and can't change her mind now. I have every right to deny her bodily autonomy!"

 

[ChristineM]

I am not religious and I think religious arguments are ridiculous. I am arguing that the unborn have a fundamental right to life. If you want to discuss this then ok. If you are just going to tell me I a want to take away women's rights and that is the reason I am prolife then I am not interested.

Legally this is tricky. And yes, woman's right are bring taken away but you arw not interested so fine

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am not religious and I think religious arguments are ridiculous. I am arguing that the unborn have a fundamental right to life. If you want to discuss this then ok. If you are just going to tell me I a want to take away women's rights and that is the reason I am prolife then I am not interested.

Do you want them to have a fundamental right to life like what you or I have? Then that right is subject to the right to bodily security.

Do you want fetuses to have a right to life that even supersedes the right to bodily autonomy of the pregnant person? Then justify your position.

 

[Mister Emu]

Yes, an acorn becomes something entirely different -- anatomically and physiologically.

Ontologically?

Interesting, so taking this comparison directly, a person is an entirely different thing than the fetus I would suggest it shares an ontological identity with, if I were to dump a chemical that only affected fetuses during a specific developmental timeframe, well before you would declare this new thing comes into being, say that prevents the development of one leg. Should the person, who is not identifiable with the fetus, be able to claim compensatory damages? To be consistent, I didn't harm the person, that's a different thing than the fetus? Or no? Sometimes a fetus is identifiable with the person it "becomes"?

You see @9-10ths_Penguin, I do believe that fetuses deserve rights well and above the simple right to not be murdered by its mother. Your tunnel vision with regards to abortion aside, fetuses currently have many protections in the law rightfully based on their value and status as a full human being. Including standing to bring suit, or have suit brought on their behalf, against someone that harmed them through negligence or maliciousness.

Please lift with your legs as you move those goalposts. I wouldn't want you to pull something.

Back's just fine. It turns out "the difference is in the stage of biological development", "the difference is that one is more biologically developed" and "differences attributable to development" share the exact same coordinates, weirdly like they are the same thing.

Thanks for your concern though.

 

[fantome profane]

Yes, an acorn becomes something entirely different -- anatomically and physiologically.

Ontologically?

Dendrologically.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

What fundamental features confer a right-to-life on "the unborn?"

They are human life that did not consent to being created. Personhood is just a definition that I can claim is as defined at conception. Done, fetuses are people with rights. The problem is that does not address the issue if they should be killed or let left alone.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

He would be ignoring thousands of cases of viable babies being born at less than nine months.

Not if you left it up to the doctor to decide. This is what we are talking about right?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

We determine morality so we can behave morally.

Of course. I was saying we need to discuss how to act morally to animals.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

They are human life that did not consent to being created.

Is there any human life that did consent to being created?

Personhood is just a definition that I can claim is as defined at conception. Done, fetuses are people with rights.

We can make any sort of arbitrary claims. It's as easy to make the claim that personhood should begin at birth... or to claim the Biblical position (i.e. that males achieve personhood 30 days after birth and females never do).

What makes your arbitrary claim so special that anyone else should think it carries more weight than any other?

The problem is that does not address the issue if they should be killed or let left alone.

That's right. Because the right to bodily security and autonomy trumps the right to life.

No person is entitled to use another person's body, so even if you were to establish that fetuses and embryos are "persons," you still haven't justified an anti-choice position.