|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: "...except in the case of rape or incest." | |||||||||||||||||||||||
JustinC Member (Idle past 4843 days) Posts: 624 From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: |
quote:I don't even understand this much. According to most anti-abortionists, "Abortion is murder." So what does it matter how a human being came about, rape or voluntary sex? A person comes into existence at conception, according to them, so isn't it still murder? Why punish this person for the sins of the father?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JustinC Member (Idle past 4843 days) Posts: 624 From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: |
quote:"Partial Birth Abortion" isn't a medical term and isn't rigorously defined by those who use it. They define it as "any procedure where living fetal tissue passes through the birth canal, with a very narrow exception to save a woman's life." What is living fetal tissue? The procedure they diagram is Dilation and Extraction (D&X). This is when forceps are used to pull the fetus's head out of the cervix. Then a hole is poked in the back of it and a vaccuum is used to suck out the brains. It sounds horrible, but it must be recognized that this is only used in the third trimester and only in cases when the mother's life is in danger or when the baby has severe abnormalities. The discrepency between the terminology pro-lifer's use, i.e., partial-birth abortion instead of D&X, is because they want to obfuscate the issue. They want to show you D&X and then have you outlaw what they call "partial birth abortion." Once this is done, the bill can be used to outlaw other procedures like Dilation and Extraction (D&E), a procedure used mainly in the second trimester when the fetus isn't viable. I don't see why the method used would matter. Either the fetus has the rights of a human or it doesn't. When does it get this right? That is the question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JustinC Member (Idle past 4843 days) Posts: 624 From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: |
quote:I think the fact that the mother carried the fetus up to the point where it has human rights demands that she has certain responsibilities towards its well being. This isn't a stranger after all, and terming it that way it kindof miseleading. This is where your analogy breaks down imo. By bringing the fetus to the point where it has human rights gives you certain responsibilities towards that person. Does a person have the right to demand that you feed them and take care of them? What right does a person have to demand that you divert resources and time for its well being? None, in most cases. But if it is your newborn baby, you do have a responsibility towards its future well being. You can't just throw it in the garbage. Do you disagree with this? So just as a stranger doesn't have the right to demand that you divert your time and resources for his/her future well being, but your newborn baby does, a stranger doesn't have the right to demand to use your organs, but a baby (i.e, fetus with human rights) does.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JustinC Member (Idle past 4843 days) Posts: 624 From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: |
double
This message has been edited by JustinC, 03-16-2006 11:01 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JustinC Member (Idle past 4843 days) Posts: 624 From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: |
Wow, this topic really blew up. Sorry for the late reply, I was stressing over a presentation for the last couple of days.
quote:Why does she even has this responsibility? Why does she have to give up her resources for the well being of this child? And if she does, why doesn't she need to give up some of her resources (through the placenta) in the couple of months before the baby is born? What's the significant difference?
quote:Is the only issue, for you then, that the mother has a small chance of dying while carrying the baby and delivering it? Do you feel abortion should be legal up until the couple of days before labor? I'm not setting you up for any arguments, just trying to flush out your position.
quote:The care of a viable fetus can certainly be transferred to other people. Does the mother have the right to abort it then? because it may be safer for her to have an abortion than to have a C-section or give birth? quote:Again, viable fetus's can be transferred to others for care. quote:Up until the days before labor? The mother has no responsibility for the well being of this child since her body trumps all? Again, I don't know your position, these are innocent questions.
quote:Stranger may be a bad word to use. By stranger I don't mean someone you never met before. I'm just trying to say that the obligations and relationship between a mother and child or father and child is different than that between you and some random person you meet who is not your child. [EDIT] For butchering the English language This message has been edited by JustinC, 03-16-2006 11:21 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JustinC Member (Idle past 4843 days) Posts: 624 From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: |
quote:Don't people have basic autonomy over other resources also, (with the exception of government taxation). What right does a newborn have to demand that you use some of your resources to take care of it? quote:I'm not talking about late-term abortions in general. I'm talking about the week or two before labor; surely the woman knows she is pregnant by this point and have ample time to get an abortion. The reason I'm pushing for this extreme case is because I'm trying to test how far you'll stress your notion of body autonomy. According to your logic, it seems perfectly permissible to kill this fetus, which for all intensive purposes is the same as a newborn baby. If you agree that abortion should be allowed in cases such as these, do you also agree that this results in the killing of a baby?
quote:So exactly analogous to a woman and tapeworm?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JustinC Member (Idle past 4843 days) Posts: 624 From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: |
quote:I guess this is the crux of the argument here. I think in the case of late term abortions one shouldn't have complete body autonomy. I see no special or significant change in the fetus resulting from giving birth, so I don't see why it is such a heinous crime to kill a newborn when its outside of the womb and not a heinous crime to kill it when its inside the womb. Just as a mother has certain responsibilities for the well being of the child outside the womb she should have certain responsibilities when its inside the womb.
quote:For the sake of argument, the point when the fetus is indentical to healthy newborn. quote:Sorry for the vagueness. What I meant is does the mother have no more responsibilites towards the fetus than she does towards the tapeworm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JustinC Member (Idle past 4843 days) Posts: 624 From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: |
quote:Why not? Why should body autonomy trump all? And I'm not even sure it does looking back at history. Governments have forced their citizens to use there bodies as killing machines in times of war (the draft). They made them risk their bodies' well being for the sake of others. Couldn't this be another such exception?
quote:I think those are tenuous differences. Late-term fetuses have the ability to have functional lungs and an operating digestive track, they are just not in a conducive environment for those. If you agree that it is a tragedy for a newborn to die, do you agree that it is a tragedy if it dies inside the womb? And if you agree this is the case, can you blame others for trying to save the lives of those that are still in the womb? Or aren't they alive because they don't have functional lungs and digestive tracks?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024