A Compromise on Abortion

[emacknight]

Okay, so as it stands, we have a difference in beliefs. When I choose to say something becomes alive, human, or person, is different that what you believe. Do you have the right to impose your belief on me? Again, these are not medical or scientific facts that we’re debating. It is a definition based on morals and values, and what ever else you use to arrive at your conclusions.

There are lots of people with lots of wrong beliefs, and they will never be changed. I think your beliefs are as stupid and ignorant as you think mine are.

When dealing with a system of beliefs, one could argue that the 80 years someone is on Earth is pale in comparison to the eternity they will burn in hell-fire, and it becomes their duty to force beliefs on a sinner to make sure they go to heaven. At what point are you forcing your opinion on me, and is that right?

If you want to point to slavery as a failed system of beliefs, how is the mother not a slave?

And as an aside, a mother has the right to decide drastic medical procedures on her newborn such as open-heart surgery that could have an extremely high fatality rate. Should she have the right to decide such things?

[JThunder]

*Originally posted by E-Sabbath *
**Suicide is every persons final choice. Without choice, you can not control your body. **

So becuase suicide is a person’s final choice, abortion should be justified? Talk about a giant logical leap!

Look, nobody denies that people have certain bodily rights. The existence of these rights does not guarantee any right to abortion.

**
Look up a bit to where I said “An it harm non other.” Please, I don’t ignore what you say, why would you not return the favor?**

Remember, I was responding to your specific statement that

The right to control your own body is the most basic and fundamental human right. If you can not control your own body, you are without freedom. That makes it the singular right without which no other rights can exist. (Emphasis added.)

You (incorrectly) claimed that it is the most basic and fundamental human right. Now you say that bodily rights are only valid if they will not cause harm to another. You can’t have it both ways, kid.

Moreover, if you truly admit that bodily rights are not valid justification for harming another, then this actually undermines the pro-choice position, since it is entirely subsumed by the status of the fetus. If the fetus is not a living human being, then no appeal to bodily rights is necessary. Conversely, if the fetus is a living human, then no appeal to bodily rights is sufficient. The whole question of “the right to control one’s body” is a huge and complete red herring.

[E-Sabbath]

No, I restated by example that there are many rights that can be claimed as the most basic and fundamental human right. Control of one’s body is one, and I can even make an argument for it.

I’m sorry, but you just said it’s incorrect? Cite, please.

And, of course, the control of the body one is speaking of is the mother’s body. The fetus, of course, has the right to resist being removed.

The Fetus has every right to control its own body, but no right to control the mother’s body.

As far as suicide, I was simply stating in advance that yes, that moral argument, as to control of the body, does lead to suicide as a moral choice.

You know, you’re hopping all around with these arguments. You might do better if you focused.

If the right to control your own body is absolute, except where it interferes with other people’s control of their own bodies… then the ability to remove sections of your own body, parasites from your own body, and other parts attached at your own will.

As I said, let’s use Rosie Greer’s head. You wake up with his head attached to your shoulder. If you remove it, he will die. What right does he have to be there?

[JThunder]

*Originally posted by E-Sabbath *
**No, I restated by example that there are many rights that can be claimed as the most basic and fundamental human right. **

No, that is backpedalling and blatant double-talk. If one right is limited by another, then it can not be considered “the most basic and fundamental human right.”

You obviously want it both ways. You are forced to admit that the right to bodily control is limited – yet you also want to claim that this right is supreme and fundamental. Exactly which stance you take is purely a matter of the shifting wind. Talking out of both sides of your mouth may be convenient for you, but it is intellecutally dishonest. It does not constitute reasoned argumentation.

**
Control of one’s body is one, and I can even make an argument for it. **

Yeah, right. We’ve all seen your “attempts” to argue this way.

**
As I said, let’s use Rosie Greer’s head. You wake up with his head attached to your shoulder. If you remove it, he will die. What right does he have to be there?**

First of all, at best, this would merely demonstrate that humans have some bodily rights. It would not demonstrate these rights to be “the most basic and fundamental,” so this doesn’t help your case at all.

Second, merely posing a question does not constitute a complete argument. You have posed a question, but you have yet to demonstrate any logical conclusions which can be drawn. I, for one, would argue that this situation is unjust, but that killing Rosie Greer would be an even greater injustice.

And third, your hypothetical situation closely parallels the “famous violinist” argument of Judith Jarvis Thompson, the fallacies of which are discussed in great detail here.

[E-Sabbath]

It also does not demonstrate the right to life to be basic and fundamental.

Why do you say it is? The state can take it away. I can take it away. If you intend to rob my house, I certainly can take your life away. So my right to defend myself and my property superceeds the right to life.

1. All moral obligations are voluntary. Yes, in fact, they are. That is, in fact, pretty much the definition of a moral obligation, a duty taken out of free will and choice. Otherwise, it’s not a moral issue, is it?

Although it should not be ignored that pregnancy and childbirth entail certain emotional, physical, and financial sacrifices on the part of the pregnant woman, these sacrifices are also endemic of parenthood in general (which ordinarily lasts much longer than nine months). And these sacrifices do not justify the execution of troublesome infants and younger children whose existence entails a natural claim to certain financial and bodily goods that are under the ownership of their parents. If the unborn entity is fully human, as Thomson is willing to grant, why should the unborn’s natural prima facie claim to her parents’ goods differ before birth from what it will be after departing her mother’s womb?

This is actually quite strong. But it does beg the question. What if the woman disclaims all interest in parenthood? Can she get rid of the child? Certainly! She can put it up for adoption. At that point, the child has no prima facie claim to the mother whatsoever. So, if a mother can reject the emotional, physical, and financial sacrifices of parenthood at any one time, why not before birth?

3. Yes, it is killing the fetus. But the fetus has no personhood. So what?

4. All it claims here is that murdering a born child is against the law. But apparently, abortion, especially before the quickening, seems to be historically quite acceptable.

5. Macho? A woman asserting power over her own body is macho? This presupposes the personhood of the fetus.

[E-Sabbath]

I’m still waiting for an answer to my questions, sugar-pie. You can keep blowing off questions all you want, but I’m going to wait here till you answer. Do you really think you’re convincing anyone by tapdancing like that?

[Blalron]

And third, your hypothetical situation closely parallels the “famous violinist” argument of Judith Jarvis Thompson, the fallacies of which are discussed in great detail here. **

I’ll address some of that link:

the person who withdraws [or withholds] his assistance is not completely responsible for the dependency on him of the person who is about to die, while the mother is completely responsible for the dependency of her fetus on her. When one is completely responsible for dependence, refusal to continue to aid is indeed killing.”

Even if the person IS completely responsible for the condition of another, I still don’t think the law compells him to give up his bodily fluids or organs to keep the victim alive.

Unless you can show me a case where someone stabbed another in the kidney and is then obligated to give up his own kidney to make up for the offense, which I don’t believe is ever the case.

[Palo_Verde]

Let me throw out a total hypothetical question here. It’s a little weird, but serious, and I would appreciate a thoughtful answer.

What if a woman is in the position of caring for an infant or child and she doesn’t have the option of giving it to someone else to care for.

For example, a survivor of a boating accident finds herself alone in a life boat with just a 2 year old child. She knows that if she doesn’t take care of this child, it will die. She doesn’t like children and wishes to give away this responsibility. Even though the experience is temporary, for that time the child is totally dependant on her. Does she have the moral right to kill the child?

Or how about this one, a woman lives in a very isolated region with no neighbors anywhere near. She gives birth to a baby (her husband recently died). She doesn’t want the baby and has no desire to be a mother. Would it be ethical for her to kill the child?

I guess my point is this: the argument I’m hearing now has to do with the fact that the pregnant woman has no options (excet abortion) if she doesn’t want to care for the baby. It’s moral to have an abortion (whether or not the baby is a ‘person’ or ‘human’ or whatever), because the woman can’t give it to someone else to care for during the pregnancy. So if a woman were in a similar situation with a born child (not being able to give it to someone else to care for), would she be justified in killing it? Why or why not?

[E-Sabbath]

Well, then we get into the touchy subject of mercy killing.

For example, if the mother starves herself, the baby will live longer… then die.

If the mother kills the baby, she will live longer, and maybe survive.

But just because she doesn’t want it? Well. It’s done. I can’t remember the name of the practice, I’m afraid, but I seem to recall that, even until the 17th century, stories of leaving unwanted babies in rocks and in baskets on the river.

But is it moral? I don’t know. Personally, I’d rather die, myself, but I’m not in her position.

From the point of view I’m arguing… yes. They’re obligations, certainly, but voluntary ones. Of course, a responsible woman would fufil said obligation until such time as she could transfer it.

Which makes it different from a fetus how? Besides the fact that it can not be transfered, besides the ease of removal?

Very good question. I assume we’re sidestepping the personhood and quickening issues?

I’d have to say it’s the gross physical changes that pregnancy commits in a woman. Something often overlooked. Okay, so you’re going to go through this experience. Your hormones will fluctuate. Your weight will expand. You will no longer know your own body, you will not be able to control your digestive system or know your own will anymore. It’s not inconvience, it’s a drastic change in your very self.

I envy women who have the courage to be pregnant, but I would not force it on them, any more than I would drugs.