RadicalModerate wrote:But considering the fact that the baby is either LIVING or DIEING, and the woman is just basically undergoing a (possibly very painful) medical procedure, it seems like it is more of a "when is the fetus a baby" issue than a supposed "women's rights" issue.
This is why it's a women's rights issue. Because the question is "do whatever rights this fetus has trump the rights of the woman who is carrying it?" - women's rights are right there on one end of the scale. You could say that it's also an issue of "fetus' rights", but that doesn't make it not a women's rights issue.RadicalModerate wrote:However, if we collectively decided that a fetus should be considered a baby, and therefore that abortion is murder, I don't think that we would all be questioning whether a woman's right to not have to undergo those things should trump a baby's right to life.
We wouldn't require someone to go through all of that to save the life of another adult, who is definitely a person - why would we require it to save the life of something that may or may not be a person?
RadicalModerate wrote:However, if we collectively decided that a fetus should be considered a baby, and therefore that abortion is murder
Inny Binny wrote:If a baby is determined to be living, then its right to life trumps that of the woman's right to choose an easier life (excepting serious cases of health, but that's not so much about right of choice). If it isn't living, it doesn't have human rights.
Wnderer wrote:Sure government can't make you under go a medical procedure to give someone a kidney. But once given, you can't take it back.
Aic wrote:We wouldn't require someone to go through all of that to save the life of another adult, who is definitely a person - why would we require it to save the life of something that may or may not be a person?
I certainly would require someone to go through all of that to save my life when he/she is the one who put me in such a situation (like being stuck in a woman's uterus), in first place. [Obvious exceptions here.]
Would you permit me to involuntarily harvest a kidney from someone who had damaged my kidneys?
TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:Sure, but pregnancy is an ongoing process. Giving someone a month worth of parasitic life support does not entitle them to the next eight.
Izawwlgood wrote:Yes. A woman's right to choose supersedes any time line or benchmark of life. How are you still not getting that from the numerous times it's been stated on these boards?
Wnderer wrote:TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:Sure, but pregnancy is an ongoing process. Giving someone a month worth of parasitic life support does not entitle them to the next eight.
What does? When is this contract signed? When she took her panties off in the back seat of the car? after she peed on a stick? after shes finds out the kid will be blind? or after she finds out the sex of the kid? (Forget it. We got three boys already) Are you arguing that abortion should be on going decision through out the pregnancy?
WibblyWobbly wrote:Analogies fucking suck, and a lot of these suck more than most. "Well, it's clearly like a man who's teaching a stock broker to fish, but his fishing net is actually made out of Gary Busey, so the stock broker says 'That's not cricket!'"
Wnderer wrote:Izawwlgood wrote:Yes. A woman's right to choose supersedes any time line or benchmark of life. How are you still not getting that from the numerous times it's been stated on these boards?
That is not an argument. You make a statement as if it is a fact and appeal to the authority of the 'boards'. If you have worked out such a convincing argument it should not be difficult to restate it here.
Again, is there parental responsibility inherent in sexual activity?
greengiant wrote: I'm pro-choice, but I still see that there's room for people to be pro-life.
greengiant wrote:SB discussion on whether a foetus should be considered a person
Izawwlgood wrote:But in any case, no matter what your benchmark is (and I hate benchmarks), you need to be willing to state, up front, that there's a certain point where you're willing to say "After this, a woman has no right to choose". If you're willing to say that, I don't think, frankly, I want to continue discussing the topic with you, because we fundamentally disagree.
Izawwlgood wrote:, but ultimately, a woman's right to bodily autonomy trumps a fetuses right to anything. Period.
lati0s wrote: what if there was a woman for whom it was known that if she had an abortion that a billion people would spontaneously combust, would you really still say that it should still be the womans right to do that.
Izawwlgood wrote:And as for this hypothetical people exploding if woman has an abortion, all I can say is 'Seriously?'. If you can't have a debate without the decency to consider your position in the real world, then I'm not sure we can have one.
TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:That's not what was said, though. As you quoted, Izawwlgood only unconditionally elevated bodily autonomy over the rights of the fetus. That does not include the consideration of a billion combusting innocents.
No, I don't think there is no obligation other than if the participants are trying to avoid an abortion (and that is an obligation to each other, nothing more). Also, an abortion is not such a trivial thing that it would somehow be incentivized by making them allowed in all circumstances.morriswalters wrote:I would ask some questions. What is the responsibility of a women and a man to prevent the the question from having to be asked? It is obvious that it is possible to to not become pregnant in the first place. Is there no moral obligation on their part? By allowing an abortion under these circumstances do we create moral hazard? Do we encourage people to be careless? Before you reply let me make clear that my idea is to examine the various reasons why abortions occur one at a time, rather then to try and find a one size fits all idea.
greengiant wrote:Is it riskier for the mother to have the foetus extracted alive rather than dead? I ask out of genuine curiosity about whether it would be preferable to extract a living viable foetus rather than abort it.
Qaanol wrote:What would be gained or lost by society if the legal right to life were moved to begin with the third trimester of pregnancy? What would be gained or lost by society if it were moved to begin at the first birthday?
greengiant wrote:I also agree that any specific limit would be somewhat arbitrary, but I don't think that's as good an argument.
morriswalters wrote:What is the responsibility of a women and a man to prevent the the question from having to be asked? It is obvious that it is possible to to not become pregnant in the first place.
podbaydoor wrote:Given that historically, women have been given very little bodily autonomy - considered outright property of their husbands and offspring (baby factories and bread makers) - I can't feel too bad about giving more bodily autonomy to us.
Users browsing this forum: MobTeeseboose and 4 guests