You think it is a fantasy that a tick is different from a fetus?
Regards,
Shodan
First off, I would like to state that I do not believe that a clump of cells should be accorded the same rights as everyone else. A zygote pre-implantation or even a few weeks into implantation should not be accorded any right.
However, in the case of fully-formed fetuses, I do believe that they should be given some rights and protection. In most cases, (especially because medicine has advanced to the point where 5-6 month old fetuses or even younger can survive outside the womb) the difference between an infant and a pre-termed fetus is merely location. I just can’t appreciate the distinction: inside the womb - okay to kill, outside the womb - murder.
Not really, more accurately- that that lump of tissue will (can) actually develope into a human. That lump of tissue, as far as I know, is the only object that can do this. The tick, the seed, the flake of skin will never become a human. The uniting of the sperm and the egg is the only process that can create human life.
To compare any other process or object to this, in my eyes, is a waste of time.
She already answered that. Apparently all of the doctors that she has visited generally feel it’s not a good idea to do tubal ligations on younge women.
(Which, as I’ve already pointed out, has nothing to do with one’s opinion on the abortion question).
The question of whether the doctors should be taking this position is fodder for another thread.
Some quick googling, however found this
Also here and plenty of other places…
FTR, I’m not taking a stand on this particular philosophy…just pointing out (again) that the philosophy to not do tubals on young women has nothing to do with a pro life stance.
If there were absolutely no opposition to abortions in society, those same docs would still advise against tubals for young women, for the same reasons.
the distinction is pretty simple, really. in one case, it is part of someone else’s body, in the other case it’s not.
But it’s not that simple. Does a conjoined twin have a right to kill each other, claiming that one is a part of the other? In the same way, a fetus that can be viable outside the mother’s body should be given some form of protection.
an adult conjoined twin has the right to make decisions about his or her health.
if pregnant woman agrees to allow the viable fetus to be removed, i agree it should have rights. otherwise, i think it is up to the woman to make decisions about her health.
My great-grandmother used to say to her kids: “I brought you into this world and if you don’t shape up in a hurry I’m gonna send you back out of it”.
I think infanticide is taking it too far, and I definitely do not think parents should have the right to kill their toddlers, teenagers, or adult children, although I’ll confess to understanding the urge at times.
Ideally I think there should be a legal and symbolic ceremony in which the new mother pronounces the newborn child alive, after which point it acquires rights and legal protections, prior to which it lacks them.
Oh, for heaven’s sake, I’m not comparing a fetus to a tick (although they do both have parasitic relationships to their hosts). I’m talking about the “you knew it could happen, and chose to do X anyway, so shut up and deal with the consequences of your actions” philosophy. If having sex is giving implicit consent to carry a fetus should it implant, how is walking in the woods not consent to carry a tick should it embed? Both were forseeable consquences to freely undertaken actions, so how is consent implied in one situation but not the other?
Because ticks aren’t human, can’t develop into humans, will never develop any characteristic that would lead them to be considered human, there is no social or personal benefit that derives from hosting ticks (as there is from becoming pregnant and delivering a child), and ticks don’t fit onto the continuum from something that might have rights to someone who does to something that used to but doesn’t anymore.
It is a strained analogy at best.
Regards,
Shodan
What does whether or not something is human or has rights have to do with whether or not you gave consent to host it? You either consented, or you did not. If consent is implied by engaging in one type of behavior with a forseeable, if unlikely, consequence in one situation, why isn’t it implied in another?
BTW, when someone is considering abortion, there’s clearly no personal benefit to being pregnant or having a child).
Just continuing this hijack for a second, to add to the above comment.
What Beagledave said is true, regret rates are higher for those who are sterilised younger, however it is not the whole story. A good doctor will look at all the relevant factors, and then treat each person as an individual.
From here,
(italics mine)
and here.
Back on-topic:
Inside my body = needs my approval / willingness / permission to remain there.
Outside my body = anyone can care for it.
The killing is truly incidental. If there was a way to remove a fetus without killing it, I’d be all for it. The woman’s wishes to not host the fetus are ranked higher than a fetus’ possible future wishes, IMO.
Then again, this is just taking it to extremes. How many women wake up in the eight or ninth month and think “gee, I don’t wanna be preggers anymore, it’s a real drag. I might pop into an abortion clinic on my lunchbreak” ?
Do you think a birthed baby is part of someone else’s body while it still is connected by the umbilical cord? Do you think it’s ok to destroy that tissue on the end of the chord??? I mean, it’s still connected to the mother in the same way, it’s just not contained in the mother… but why should the matter, Ramanujan?
A ceremony? You, my friend, have got to get a grasp on the notion of “sanctity of life, of a human being”.
Let’s make sure these types of people don’t ever hold power positions… God help us all.
I take that back. I will give the benefit of my doubt to you, Ahunter. I’m sure you’re idea was not as frivolously inhumane as I thought. Carry on.
So, to gain an understanding here, do you think that if the fetus was safely extracted from the woman (and safely incubated somehow), would it still be ok to destroy it? (If the mother is taken out of the picture, how do you feel about it then?)
As long as there is a lack of consensus that human life = human being, with rights that trump those of the human being that carries it, you will be arguing to no purpose.
But don’t let me stop you.
No, I don’t. No more than it would be ok to destroy a two year old child. Sorry, I thought I made that clear.
Just curious. Was this a joke?
For the pro-choice crowd…
OK folks, what if we developed an artificial womb?
The mother could donate the egg and the father could donate the sperm. The two could unite and develope into a healthy baby in this artificial womb.
Would aborting this process be different than abortioning a baby inside the mom?