I fully support the rights of individuals to remove unwanted brain-dead persons from their uteri.
Yeah, cause you… eh, nevermind.
[quote=“Cheesesteak, post:274, topic:612125”]
How does this logic work? You protect someone who has no future, because they have a past and don’t protect someone who actually has a future because they have no past. From a public policy standpoint, I’m not sure why basing protection on a person’s past is more sensible than basing it on their future prospects.
.[/QUOTE
Because again the fetus only has a future IF the actual human being,in which the fetus may or may not continue to reside, wants that fetus to have a future.
If that actual human being is taken out of the equation, and public policy decides to override the actual with the potential, then an actual human being THE WOMAN, is nothing more than an incubator. The past of the fetus, and the future of the fetus continues to be within the womb, until the fetus becomes an actual human being. Now go make a big fight over what stage that the fetus becomes an actual human being, and quit with this brain dead analogy.
Call me crazy, but the fetus is an actual human being in actuality.
I fail to see a likely conflict between the two concepts. So it’s a human being. And then…?
A woman is an actual human being who can reason, decide, and feel pain. And if a woman is forced to use her uterus as an incubator, it is very possible she will suffer. Would you want someone else to determine what you can and cannot do with your own penis?
Your argument that a fetus is an actual human being (as if equal to the woman), does not take into account that a fetus does not reason, decide or feel pain. Its value to you is in it’s future potential.
You are disregarding the woman’s right to decide if she wants to invest her uterus in the development of a fully fledged human being, when the right to decide that should be her’s alone.
If past experience is any guide, his response will be to demand you explain why he can’t go around raping people with his penis.
I’m thinking more “she can reason and decide not to have sex.”
And if she does and gets pregnant, well, she’ll just have to deal with the consequences. Just like he will when he gets caught raping people with his penis.
Say, she reasons and decides not to have sex, and he rapes her with his penis, ands she gets pregnant?
What if she reasons and decides to have sex, but the protection against pregnancy is not 100% effective, and she gets pregnant?
Or if she plans a pregnancy, and then becomes physically ill, requiring drugs and treatments that can be damaging to fetal development, so decides to end her pregnancy with abortion?
Dealing with the consequences, as you have put it, can also be to choose abortion.
The consequence for getting caught for raping people with your penis is punishment.
Does the consequence for having an unwanted pregnancy, by your definition, include the punishment of having to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term?
Then neither is conception. Thats the point where a sperm and an egg become something more
Do you think government pre-dates marriage?
Is an 8 month fetus any less conscious than a newborn baby?
Except in the case of rape you did more than leave your door unlocked, you invite them in and expelling them from your house would kill them.
“in this case, abortion if the only thing you knew about abortion was that you could either be the aborted, in which case you would die, or the one who aborts, in which case you would live and someone else would die.”
And anti-abortionists like to engage in semantics. If genetic composition is dispositive then you are heading towards “every sperm is sacred”
Have you read Political Liberalism - John Rawls - Google Books?
Rawls would pretty clearly support a woman’s right to choose during the first trimester when a woman’s rights and autonomy prevail and would subordinate a woman’s autonomy at some later point when the respect for lie and society’s interest in the child becomes great enough and to overcome a woman’s rights.
Not a perfect analogy but when I drive, I take a chance that I will get into a car accident, I am no more consenting to that accident than a woman who uses birth control consents to pregnancy. There was no intent to consent to a pregnancy even if pregnancy was one of the forseeable results of sex.
Of course there’s a “lets do it my way” on the pro-choice side just like there is on the anti-abortion side. An anti-abortionist might just as easily say that when we can’t resolve it to everyone’s satisfaction then we should do whatever preserves people’s right to life or in the alternative, do whatever our democratically elected government legislates.
And an abortion has a very negative effect on the fetus.
You seem to be assuming that a fetus is not.
Yes of course the woman’s rights must be considered in any analysis but they are not the ONLY thing we might want to consider. See, Roe v Wade.
Well, that’s why they draw THEIR arbitrary line at conception rather than ejaculation or ovulation.
So can we give men the right to veto an abortion if they take custody of the child?
Even in the 8th month?
Some folks think of taxes (used to pay for welfare (or war, you choose) in much the same way.
And yet it is.
[quote=“florez, post:283, topic:612125”]
Its not, its mostly makeweight.
Well, the “invite” part may be questionable, but… so?
I daresay that a standard does exist for one’s home in that the homeowner can expel whomever they wish. If the response is to create rarefied hypotheticals like “what if you kidnapped them into your house and then wanted to kick them out during a blizzard…”, that’s fine. Maybe a case can be made that home-expulsion does not apply in these extremely rare and heavily-contrived situations, though it clearly would in the vast vast vast majority of trespassing cases that police get called in to resolve every day.
However, the stakes in a bodily expulsion are surely much higher (your body is, essentially, your “home” reduced to bare essentials, and it’s a home that you cannot leave for your entire life, etc.), and accordingly the rarefied hypothetical is going to have to be a lot better. Maybe… you “invited” the fetus in, expelling it would kill it, and its destiny is to save all mankind from the computerized intelligence known as Skynet!
Clearly, this would not apply to the vast vast vast majority of abortion cases where a woman just doesn’t want to continue a pregnancy.
I shall explain where I am coming from on this penis reference, and Damuri Ajashi- feel free to correct my logic any time.
It is just that I would like OMG to understand that my uterus is possibly as important to me as his penis might be to him. I believe that it belongs to me, and I would like to continue ownership of this important piece of my own body. It seems IMO, someone taking away control of my reproduction is equivalent to cutting off a man’s penis.
Would OMG bring into this a rapists misuse of his penis, in comparison to a woman’s choice to abort an unwanted pregnancy? Maybe he would, although it seems like a red herring to me.
What does the ability to reason, decide and feel pain have to do with being a human? Not only are these completely arbitrary distinctions, but applying these distinctions would exclude significant portions of the born population, as not everyone who is born can reason, decide and feel pain. For example, newborns cannot reason; therefore, by your criteria, newborns aren’t human beings. Individuals who are incapacitated for whatever reason cannot make decisions; therefore, by your criteria, those individuals aren’t human beings. Individuals who have been administered anesthesia cannot feel pain; therefore, by your criteria, these individuals aren’t human beings. Of course, there is a very good chance you wouldn’t agree with any of the above even though your criteria dictates that all of these should be true, which means more than anything that even you (and most pro-choicers) realize how ridiculous the way you are trying to define who is and isn’t a human being is.
Ignoring the ridiculous incubator remark, what if she wouldn’t suffer in any discernible way?
Society already determines this is multiple facets (see: Bryan’s quip).
How about not? One’s value is based on what one currently is.
A woman only has the “right to choose” so long as it does not infringe upon the life of a human being. That is, the former is contingent on the latter being false. You cannot, as you’ve done on multiple occassions, assume the latter is false for the purposes of the first being true. If the latter is false, you have to explain why it’s false.
That’s what I said. It, however, does not say what you said I said, which was that “the veil doesn’t ask you to put yourself into that shoes of the aborted and the shoes of the aborter”. It asks what policy you would choose if you knew that you could end up either as the aborted (you die) or the aborter (someone else dies).
There are no semantics here, as I don’t need them.
…By the way, sperm are haploid sex cells, though that will probably mean little to most here.
One, fix your link, though I see it’s to John Rawls’ “Political Liberalism”. I’ve read it, so no need to go there. Two, read the intro to the expanded edition of “Political Liberalism”.
I’ve seen this analogy used many times and its always misapplied. When you drive, you do not consent to being in an accident, but you do accept responsibility for any negative consequences that might result as it relates to a third party. You cannot, for example, hit someone-- either a pedestrian or another driver-- and drive off because “you did not consent to being in an accident”, especially if that person is injured. You’ll be held to some kind of standard in which you have to return the person you hit to normal. Even if you’re worse off because of the accident and seek “to be made whole again”, you cannot do it to the detriment of the third party who was only involved in the accident because of your actions (i.e., they did nothing wrong).
Even if you’re a male?
Yup 
You’re assuming some kind of unfettered right to control your body in the way you see fit. A right, mind you, which doesn’t exist, as I can name tens or hundreds of restrictions dictating what you can do to and with your body.
Are you arguing what the law presently is or what one should be allowed to do to and with their body? If it’s the former, then your argument is nothing more than agreeing with what the law is because it’s the law, in which case you would have to agree with the law if it changed and abortion became illegal, as a woman having an abortion would constitute a “misuse” of her body or whatever you’re using. However, I have a sneaky suspicion that you would not argue this even if abortion became illegal, meaning you’re arguing the second. That is, your argument is about what one should be allowed to do to and with their body.
Since the second is what you’re seemingly arguing, that is where the whole raping thing would come into play. If you can argue that you should be allowed to do to and with your body to the detriment of another, then why can’t this argument be applied universally to even those things you find morally unacceptable? It should be; unless, of course, you’re assuming that the unborn do not have some right to not be acted against or are fundametally different from everyone else. And given the above quoted stuff about the unborn not being human beings because they can’t reason, can’t decide and can’t feel pain I surmise that this is what you’re trying to do.
So, no. No red herring necessary there.
I’m okay with a woman having the right to rape someone who is in her uterus.
“In her uterus” being, as has always been the case, the critical element.
No. You are trying to get me to make your argument for you, but I do remember that it was you who asked “What makes a recovered consciousness inherently more valuable, more worthy of protection, than a new consciousness?” I dunno if it was someone else who brought up the coma patient before you, but all I did was answer your question. And my response deals in real world likelihoods, not “what if this or what if that”.
That is your opinion, but it is not a fact.
Probably.
Any fetus in my womb was not invited in.
How could there be when there is no “lets”? Pro-choice people believe that everyone should have their own choice, without any input from anyone else unless invited to do so. And, a lot of the pro-choice stance is “quit trying to push your beliefs off on me”
Pro-choice is preserving people’s right to life, because a fetus isn’t a person.
Again, a fetus is not a actual living breathing human.
I’d think it would be obvious that I am doing more than assuming - I do not consider a fetus, particularly a first trimester one, to be a human.
Nope. There is still that little problem of women having to be the one to go thru the pregnancy and childbirth.
OMG
I was distinguishing between a woman and a fetus, and not the anesthetized or incapacitated individual, but you knew that.
I do not agree that a fetus is equal to a woman.
To think that forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy would NOT cause her to suffer? FORCED?
The incubator remark is right on because it suggests how little you value the woman in this process.
Are you against abortion in cases of rape? Are you crying that the harm against women from rape is equal to aborting a fetus- by comparing rape, a crime of domination and humiliation against a woman- to the act of having an abortion?
I see anti choice taking away my right to control my uterus, as equal to a crazy group demanding forced castrations on men. If you are not against abortion in the case of rape, I would find that similar to your not being against your forced anal rape prior to your forced castration.
A woman’s right to choose “as long as it does not infringe upon the life of a human being?” A woman can infringe by ingesting dangerous drugs and alcohol on a daily basis during pregnancy, and doing everything harmful and damaging to a developing fetus. But she is cool, because she did not abort? You would deny this option and argue any nonsense to do it.
I made a mistake in my comparison which I plan to correct here.
In my opinion anti abortion people are comparable to a theoretical (imagine if you will OMG), group of pro castration activist PCA who are bent on taking away a man’s ability to control his reproduction through castration.
Yes, I know it is extreme and outlandish but no more so than many of OMGs scenarios.
OMG would be castrated, if PCA gets their way and managed to take full control of his reproduction by the drastic means of castration.
A woman would loose her right to control her reproduction if anti choice activists get their way.
A woman’s uterus is possibly as important to her as a man’s penis is to him.
In the case of rape, and in OMG’s case anal rape,and if PCA had their way, he would also be castrated.
Here I will correct my earlier post.
If OMG is against abortion ("not "against was the mistake I correct), in the case of rape, and the theoretical situation is still in place with the PCA activists in comparison, it would follow that OMG could suffer the indignity of anal rape and castration. Just as a woman could be raped and if anti choice activists have their way also suffer the indignity of choosing abortion. Both OMG and a woman could loose control of their reproduction.
…Okay, so this is a total pet peeve here, but it’s “lose”, not “loose”. ANYWAY:
You tried to differentiate between the woman and the unborn by using criteria which would not only mean that unborn are not human beings, but also that a significant portion of the born population would not be deemed human beings as well. That is the direct implication of your rationale. Simply because you do not like the outcomes that would result from your logic does not mean you get to selectively pick and choose when, under what circumstance and to who your arguments apply and when, under what circumstance and to whom your logic they do not. It’s dishonest.
If you’re not going to admit that your criteria for being deemed a human being as a whole is absurd and would lead to some morally untenable conclusion(s), then at least have the proverbial balls to stand by it in its totality instead of trying to play the “Oh, well my logic only applies to the unborn!” card.
It’s not “right on”. It’s ridiculous. This is an offshoot of the whole “respecting women” line that pro-choicers trot out every now and then. Whether or not you value someone does not hinge on whether or not you allow them to act in a way they want. Just because someone is <X> and you don’t allow them to engage in <Y> does not mean you hate/don’t respect/don’t value <X>.
Is the focus on the individual who acts or on the individual who is acted against? It seems that you’re trying to argue from both sides as it suits you. You need to either focus on either one or the other. At any rate, you did not read what I wrote to you. As it relates to abortion, you argue that you should be allowed to do to and with your body to the detriment of another. However, you do not-- and quite probably would not-- argue the same outside of abortion. When one seeks to act against another, you do not put the focus on the one who is acting against another, but rather the one who is acted against. Why is that? Why not place the focus on the one who is acting against another? Or why not, in the case of abortion, put the focus on the one acted against?
And again I point out you’re assuming some unfettered right to control your body. A right, mind you, which does not exist.
…By the way, most pro-lifers couldn’t care less about your right to control your uterus so much as they care what you do to another.
Well, no.
To be honest, I read this quite a few times, and have no idea what you’re talking about.
…Yeah…
Whether or not your failure to understand the other side’s argument is deliberate or accidental, I don’t know. Anyway, for one, at the time a woman goes to have an abortion, she’s already reproduced. Abortion can be no more a means of “controlling one’s reproduction” as can any form of infanticide, since it occurs after the fact. Two, and probably more importantly, your contention fails to account for one major distinction. Contrary to what you hear from some pro-choicers, pro-lifers only care so much about a woman’s uterus as it relates to gestating human inside of it. You can do whatever you want to yourself; when you seek to injure or bring harm to another, then that’s a problem.
And I have no idea what the rest of what you were going on about is supposed to mean.
A large percentage of the population doesn’t think that they are. Why are you right and those folks are wrong?
No hon, it is completely “right on”, and you go on to prove it. Any time you force an <X> (woman) to carry a pregnancy because you don’t allow them to engage in <Y> (abortion), you show how little you value or respect that woman as a human being. All you care about is that she act as incubator for something that might eventually become a living human, and the really sad thing is you won’t give a shit about the baby after it is born, particularly if it’s girl. Since you are male, you just don’t get the issue, and you never will.
No individual is being acted against when an abortion is performed. Simply because you choose to believe that a fetus is a human on equal footing with an actual living and breathing person doesn’t make it a fact.
The two cannot be separated.
Again, simply because you choose to believe that a fetus is a human on equal footing with an actual living and breathing person doesn’t make it a fact. Would you consider a natural miscarriage to be “reproducing”?
No; there is no “someone” to protect.
And? By that logic you shouldn’t be allowed to use chemotherapy on a tumor because it’s become “something more”.
Yes. Before government women were simply passed from rapist to rapist as he killed the predecessor rapist.
A society that is not all about who is strongest and most murderous requires an authority to prevent such people from taking whatever they choose; a government.
They aren’t people, whether the woman haters choose to admit it or not.
They choose their “arbitrary line” where they do for the sole purpose that it gives them an excuse to persecute women. It makes no sense otherwise and contradicts how we define “person” everywhere else. It is a tailored definition designed to justify bigotry and cruelty, about as well meaning & based on reality as some hypothetical racist defining “human” as “pale skinned” in order to justify genocide.
No, since it is inside the woman.
Because one side is composed of woman hating sadists. They are “anti-abortion” as a means of hurting women because the government here won’t let them just pick up clubs and beat women for being “sluts”.