Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "...except in the case of rape or incest."
JustinC
Member (Idle past 4843 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 3 of 301 (294617)
03-12-2006 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by crashfrog
02-23-2006 2:00 PM


quote:
Rape, of course, I understand. Allowing for exceptions in the case of women who were involuntarily impregnated could be argued as the lesser of two tragedies. That I understand. But incest?
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by crashfrog, posted 02-23-2006 2:00 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by nwr, posted 03-12-2006 6:19 PM JustinC has not replied

JustinC
Member (Idle past 4843 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 10 of 301 (295232)
03-14-2006 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Phat
03-14-2006 11:32 AM


Re: thoughts on another controversial topic
quote:
From what I've heard lately, the big argument these days is on the acceptance of partial-birth abortions---where the babies skull is crushed on its way out of the womb. I would not support the Mothers right to commit infanticide. Then again, maybe I've only heard one side of the issue......
"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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Phat, posted 03-14-2006 11:32 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by crashfrog, posted 03-14-2006 1:07 PM JustinC has replied

JustinC
Member (Idle past 4843 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 25 of 301 (295279)
03-14-2006 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by crashfrog
03-14-2006 1:07 PM


Re: thoughts on another controversial topic
quote:
That's an interesting question, but even if a fetus gains all human rights at the moment of conception, I'm not familiar with any concept of human rights that mandates that any human being has a right to divert sustenance from the body and organs of another human being.
Over 50,000 people are sitting on the transplant lists, waiting for kidneys. And just about everybody has a spare one that they can live without. What's the difference between a putative right of a fetus to take residency in a woman's uterus and a dialysis patient's putative right to go around harvesting kidneys against the will of their donors?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by crashfrog, posted 03-14-2006 1:07 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Tal, posted 03-14-2006 3:36 PM JustinC has not replied
 Message 32 by crashfrog, posted 03-14-2006 4:19 PM JustinC has replied

JustinC
Member (Idle past 4843 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 198 of 301 (296118)
03-16-2006 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by crashfrog
03-14-2006 4:19 PM


Re: thoughts on another controversial topic
double
This message has been edited by JustinC, 03-16-2006 11:01 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by crashfrog, posted 03-14-2006 4:19 PM crashfrog has not replied

JustinC
Member (Idle past 4843 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 199 of 301 (296119)
03-16-2006 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by crashfrog
03-14-2006 4:19 PM


Re: thoughts on another controversial topic
Wow, this topic really blew up. Sorry for the late reply, I was stressing over a presentation for the last couple of days.
quote:
I'm not unsympathetic to that point of view, but where is that point where it has those rights?
And, indeed, yes, she has certain responsibilities. Food, clothing, shelter if she has them to give.
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:
But you can't, for instance, legally compel a parent to give up a kidney for their own child. They have every right to sit there and watch their child die rather than risk their own life on the operating table. It's hard to imagine who could make such a choice but there's no legal reason they couldn't.
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:
We're talking about newborns? Yes, I agree. Care of a newborn can be transferred to another person so fatal abandonment is hardly necessary. Care of a fetus cannot.
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:
The fact that the fetus cannot survive outside of the uterus of its mother is unfortunate for the fetus but it's irrelevant to the fact that no person can compel you to make space for them inside your body, or collect parts of your body for their own health or nourishment.
Again, viable fetus's can be transferred to others for care.
quote:
Sovereignty of the body is absolute.
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:
I don't see it that way. And I don't see what being a stranger has to do with it. For that matter - a fetus is a stranger to you; its connection to you is merely genetic. You've never spoken to it, never made any arrangements or deals with it. It's as unknown to you as any other person you've never met.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by crashfrog, posted 03-14-2006 4:19 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by crashfrog, posted 03-17-2006 12:29 AM JustinC has replied

JustinC
Member (Idle past 4843 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 211 of 301 (296326)
03-17-2006 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by crashfrog
03-17-2006 12:29 AM


Re: thoughts on another controversial topic
quote:
Body autonomy.
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 don't know. I'm not comfortable restricting late-term abortions because that doesn't give a woman much time to:
1) suspect pregnancy after a missed period
2) obtain and perform a test for pregnancy
3) locate an abortion provider, possibly in another state
4) save money for procedure, lodging, travel
5) arrange work schedule to permit several days' absence
6) travel to provider, submit to tests, be counseled, have abortion
I mean it's not like you miss a period and you're in there the next day, having the abortion. Not to mention that there are a whole lot of organizations whose stated purpose is to delay your abortion by whatever means necessary until it's no longer legal for you to have one.
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:
I don't believe a mother-child relationship exists between a woman and an unwanted pregnancy. It's more of a relationship of antagonist-defender.
So exactly analogous to a woman and tapeworm?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by crashfrog, posted 03-17-2006 12:29 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by crashfrog, posted 03-17-2006 7:16 PM JustinC has replied
 Message 218 by EZscience, posted 03-18-2006 8:30 AM JustinC has not replied

JustinC
Member (Idle past 4843 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 221 of 301 (296509)
03-18-2006 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by crashfrog
03-17-2006 7:16 PM


Re: thoughts on another controversial topic
quote:
Well, clearly they don't. You mentioned taxation, that's one instance; another instance is the joint property I own with my wife. We could even be in a situation where ownership of that property could be disputed. I can buy and sell property, and the government can even seize it against my will via eminent domain.
That isn't true with our bodies. It's illegal for me to sell my organs and absolutely no one else but me can have a claim of ownership over my body. (That's called "slavery" and its illegal.)
One's body is a unique possession, and as such owning it confers unique privileges. One of those is the absolute right to determine who gets to use it or take residence in it.
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:
The week or two before labor actually occurs? Or before it could reasonably be expected to occur on its own? Or before the earliest it could be artifically induced?
For the sake of argument, the point when the fetus is indentical to healthy newborn.
quote:
"Exactly analogous?" What does that even mean?
Sorry for the vagueness. What I meant is does the mother have no more responsibilites towards the fetus than she does towards the tapeworm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by crashfrog, posted 03-17-2006 7:16 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by crashfrog, posted 03-18-2006 6:21 PM JustinC has replied

JustinC
Member (Idle past 4843 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 292 of 301 (296984)
03-21-2006 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by crashfrog
03-18-2006 6:21 PM


Re: thoughts on another controversial topic
quote:
Well, I think she does have certain responsibilities. It's just that none of those responsibilities mandate that she maintain an antagonistic fetus inside of her uterus.
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:
Healthy newborns have inflated, functional lungs, an operating digestive track, and the capacity to render food into a usable form (rather than relying on the mother's digestive tract as an energy source.) No fetus shares these characteristics.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by crashfrog, posted 03-18-2006 6:21 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by crashfrog, posted 03-21-2006 9:46 AM JustinC has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024