Well, had she been honest about that stage of fetal development and spoken rapturously about viewing the tail and the paddle-shaped lower limb bud on ultrasound, it would have had less impact.
I don’t see how that applies to the question. A fetus isn’t intentionally doing anything, and its your own body that is creating it and sustaining it, not some artificial third-party effect imposed on you from outside.
Well, it isn’t exactly separate and it sin’t exactly an outgrowth. It’s both. Why must it be either one or the other? Reality doesn’t work that way. Is Tiger Woods black or asian? Are identical twins one individual or two? How about conjoined twins? How about conjoined twins but only one twin has a functioning brain? How about a guy with a lump that started to grow into a twin but never quite made it, and now there are teeth and bits of organ there but nothing else? How about a person who is a chimera of two genetically different embryos that fused? When does a person die? When does a person start to live? When does a child become and adult? Why is the sky blue?
And did that embryo really start growing there without her permission? Did she consent for the genetic material to be injected into her that started the embryo growing? It could be argued that consenting to intercourse implies consent for that embryo to take up residence. Or not. But that embryo wasn’t waving a gun when it implanted in her uterus.
The reality is that there isn’t a magic lightning bolt that annoints a human being with human rights…not conception, not viability, not birth, not self-awareness, not turning 18 or 21. We human beings give each other human rights because that’s the kind of society we’d rather live in. It is a political and social decision that can be informed by science but isn’t dictated by science. A woman has a right to an abortion because we DECIDE she has a right to an abortion, because we’d rather live that way. A fetus has a right to life when we DECIDE she has a right to life. There are no magic lightning bolts and no bright lines, only people muddling along as best they can. What bad or good effects will ensue if we allow or prohibit abortion in certain circumstances? What will happen if we change those circumstances? What are the consequences of our decisions? Are we prepared to live with the results? Are we willing to accept manifestly unjust consequences in some cases as a result of our insisting on an absolute standard? Can we look ourselves in the face the next day?
YT,
Don’t mind the idiots. All the best to you and your baby.
Some of the “idiots” have valid concerns. Don’t be a jerk.
[Moderator Hat ON]
New Iskander, don’t call people idiots. Andros, don’t call people a jerk. This is Great Debates, not the Pit.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
Sorry
You’d be more convincing, New Iskander, if you could scrape together an argument to support your opinion.
It’s OK to disconnect you from his circulatory system. If that causes your death, that’s an unfortunate side effect. And if the state of medical science is such that there’s no way to disconnect you without causing your death, IMO it doesn’t matter whether he puts you out of your misery with a gunshot to the head before he pulls the plug, since you’re dying either way.
My understanding is that those cute little exploitees were conceived in test tubes and then adopted. They weren’t removed from one womb and implanted in another.
Of course, I believe what I posted…I did not say it was morally different from other forms of birth control…there are certain risks with having an abortion…hemorrhage…retention of placental or fetal tissue…infection…which could lead to sterility, anesthetic reaction and even death…far more riskier than using pills, injection, condoms, diaphragms and the like…thusly to subject oneself to an abortion and the risks thereof just because the pt. is too lazy or forgetful to use birth contol listed above is not justified in my opinion…but I would not at any time deny the individual.the opportunity to have a pregnancy termination…thats why Education is so important.
The law gives you that right. The law does not even make the distinction whether your liberty is threatened out of need or out of greed.
The law expects you to pursue that right only as a last resort. That right and your choice to pursue it are reserved for you and you alone.
You would make exception to that right. You would extend rights to a fetus that you would not extend to your neighbors; not even those in equally desperate or dying need.
The way to minimize the excesses of abortion is to offer better choices. Who would choose to abort later if there were better alternatives earlier? Unfortunately, the anti-choice zealots have succeeded in denying these choices for too many.
That is the reality, interpret it as you will. That is also your choice.
Peace
Only through Liberty
rwjefferson
Newsflash: my neighbors don’t naturally grow out of my body as part of the operation of my own body. I hardly see how it’s the same situation. I can’t be arrested for the neglect of my neighbors’ needs, unlike how I can with my children.
Sure, but that has nothing to do with the question of whether killing someone just because they depend upon you NOT crushing their skull by vaccuuming out their brains is okay.
Are you going to answer my questions now?
The answer is 42.
Ask her, she is the only one that knows. If I consent to donate blood to you, I still have the right to change my mind…even if it means your death.
Is you stepping out your door consent for your neighbors take of your body? I say no to both.
The self evident Truth is that God and Nature gives us our unalienable rights. Man can only take these unalienable rights. As shown by history, that cost is dear. It is one we all pay.
Self evident truths and unalienable rights are only denied by tyrants; only recognized by patriots.
Make no mistake; we have only won battles in our fight for independence. Even now, tyrants strive to impose their will…even if it is by taking one right at a time.
Peace
Only through Liberty
rwjefferson
I answered yours, and asked one in return.
Are you going to answer my question?
The mother’s body is a life support system. The embryo cannot live if life support is removed. We allocate the right to remove children from life support to the parents. Why is this different?
I have yet to hear of an abortion where the fetus is removed alive and then allowed to die. That’s not what an abortion does. You cannot simply change the active action of abortion into the passive withdrawal of life support. You can’t shoot the violinsist in the head, either. In addition, the removal of life support from a premature infant cannot be done merely by the whim of the parents. If the premature infant is perfectly healthy and will continue to grow and develop, the parents can’t just choose to remove life support. Finally, a pregnant woman is not a mere bystander to the situation. She was unavoidedly involved in the creation of the infant. Your argument was just as wrong in 1971 as it is now.
I tried, but I admit it is also hard to see.
I understand that you would make exception to that right as it applies to the unborn. I would not. I understand that you do not see the inequality in the exception. I do.
Your question is not valid. They are not being killed for the reason you state. They are being killed because they are taking of someone else’s body without consent. They are being killed as a last resort. It is a last resort because the woman was denied better choices by anti-choice tyrants.
The woman has the right to the safest and earliest termination available. Give her that right. Give her that choice. Give it to her as soon as possible and there will be no more need for killing.
Unfortunately, I hardly expect you to see the difference between murdered, killed and died.
Peace
Only through Liberty
rwjefferson
The reason for this is biological, of course. The active action of abortion is as close to the passive withdrawal of life support as we can get using today’s medical science.
But that clearly wasn’t her intent. She took an action that had a known risk of pregnancy (an undesirable consequence), that risk was realized, and now she’s taking action to deal with it. It’s as if you walked through an alley where you knew someone might be waiting to grab you and attach Apos to your circulatory system - the fact that you could’ve chosen a different route doesn’t mean you’re not justified in disconnecting him, even if it causes his death.
Exactly. Removal of life support is only “passive” in that it doesn’t require a whole lot of effort. But someone needs to remove the ventilator tubing and IVs and feeding tube and remove the infant from the isolette. Abortion removes the placenta - a vent and feeding tube in one - from the embryo and removes the embryo from the uterus. The fact that the process of doing so involves blood and bodily fluids that some find distasteful is the unfortunate messiness of physical bodies.
Cite? That goes exactly against what I was personally told in February by a panel of neonatologists, a social worker and a medical ethicist. An infant on life support (defined as a ventilator, intravenous nutrition or a feeding tube or any of the above) can be removed from life support at the parents’ request. Any medical procedure, including the administration of lifesaving antibiotics, blood or food, may be refused by the parent. Period. It was not up to the doctors, the hospital or anyone else to determine when “too sick” was. It was our decision at all times. This may not be in the hospital brochure, but it is the hospital policy as told to the parents.
Which changes what, precisely? When a woman doesn’t need to abort an unborn child and can simply have it healthly removed without risk to the unborn child, then abortion will hopefully be a thing of the past. Until then, however, it’s not.
Once again, your, or should I say Judith Jarvis Thomson’s, analogy is inapplicable to abortion. First, your view would allow me not just to detach Apos, but you get to actively strangle him too. Second, as far as I know, having Apos attached to me is not a natural and forseeable consequence of walking down alleys. Third, the analogy may fit for abortions that are the result of rape, but have little to no application to the vast majority of abortions that occur. Fourth, the analogy ignores the responsibility to the actor. Had I attached Apos myself, or with the help of another, then it might be applicable. But that’s not the case. Finally, an unborn child is not some stranger, it was created by direct action of the mother. While it would make a somewhat interesting science fiction story, that argument is a very poor analogy for abortion.
Referring to the termination of an fetus as “unfortunate messiness of physical bodies” does nothing to change the fact, rather than the simple removal of the fetus, abortion ends it’s life. Once again, it’s not passive, it’s active.
CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT PREVENTION AND TREATMENT. The implementing regulations for the Act require states to prohibit the removal of life support from disabled children, with three exceptions: (1) when the infant is chronically and irreversibly comatose, (2) when the provision of such treatment would merely prolong dying, not be effective in ameliorating or correcting all of the infant’s life-threatening conditions, or otherwise futile in terms of the survival of the infant, or (3) when the provision of such treatment would be virtually futile in terms of the survival of the infant, and the treatment itself under such circumstances would be inhumane.
I’m not sure where your experts hail from, or what they are doing as a matter of course, but federal regulations, and most state laws, do not allow the removal of life support from premature infants, even with parental consent.