Is it okay to prevent her from terminating a rapist’s baby after it has been born? To me, the critical issue is not whether she was impregnated through rape, but at what point in the child development the termination is to take place.
QUOTE]
I am not for infanticide, but it’s not the same thing as abortion. As long as the fetus is in a womans womb, it’s more or less part of her body, and I don’t think it’s for the government to tell her what to do with it. The rape point is just to point out how onerous being pregnant is.
Begging the question. One of the key issues is the status of the fetus.
Why not? The government already tells her when she can legally consume alcohol, and limits her access/use of many other substances. She also can’t negotiate sex for cash. It’s her body, but the government already tells her what she can and cannot do with it.
And again, the issue isn’t just about her rights, but whether there is another party that has rights that need to be considered.
Actually, that’s not the point that Thee Erin is making. She is stating that the actual pregnant woman is the only one who can make the decision in her specific case, and nobody can make any moral judgments on general cases.
‘I am not for infanticide, but it’s not the same thing as abortion.’
Do you agree that a fetus resides inside another person’s body and an infant does not? If so, then they are two different situations. I thought that was obvious.
'Why not? The government already tells her when she can legally consume alcohol, and limits her access/use of many other substances. She also can’t negotiate sex for cash. It’s her body, but the government already tells her what she can and cannot do with it."
So if I don’t have a problem with the drinking age I can’t have a problem with making abortion illegal? Why?
I don’t have a religious, or philosophical framework that I am making this judgement on, I just wouldn’t let anyone keep me from getting an abortion if I wanted one, and I don’t feel bad/unethical about this position.
If the standpoint is, “It’s my body, I will do with it as I want,” then you should also have a problem with the drinking age (and legal rights to selling your body for money, using chemicals the government thinks are bad for you, etc).
If you have a problem with the abortion issue, but not the government telling you what other things you can do, then I’d be interested in hearing the basis for your point of view.
I don’t understand the problem here. I don’t want the government to tell me I can’t have an abortion, full stop. Why do I need a ‘basis’ for this?
If I support some restrictions, ie the drinking age, does that mean I have support all restrictions? Does it imply I’d be OK with forced sterilization? That seems to be the logic being used.
Drinking age <> abortion restriction. They are different things. I find abortion restrictions considerably more onerous and I am against them.
The ‘basis’ for your opinion is the ‘why do you have that opinion’? I’m trying to find out your reasons behind the opinion.
If a person (not you, someone else) were to say, “I don’t like anti-abortion laws because I don’t want the government to tell me what I can and what I can’t do with my body,” then another person might assume that they also don’t like being told what other things they can and can’t do with their body, such as take drugs, commit suicide, sell body for money, drink before a certain age, etc.
If your reason for not liking anti-abortion laws is something other than not liking the government telling you what to do, then I’m interesting in hearing your reasons for feeling that way.
I’m trying to have an open conversation during which I can learn something new.
I doubt anyone would think say that abortion restriction is less onerous than drinking age restrictions, but that’s not the point. The point is that they are both restrictions as to what you can do with your body. If you are against one and not the other, I’m curious as to why you’re against the one.
Why is the relative onerousness not the point? You seem be saying that if I accept any restrictions ever, I have to support them all. Why?
Cecil said that it may be a burden on a women to carry a rapists baby but the baby is one of us so she should be forced to. He’s valuing the babys right to life higher than the womans right to freedom. I value the woman’s right’s more highly.
Maybe it’d be helpful if we turned this around, why should I find it acceptable to make woman criminals for getting abortions? I don’t see any basis for that.
In fact, I specifically said the opposite of what you’re saying I said.
I’m not even talking about you, here. You’re talking about you. Where I talk about you is here:
And in that case, I’m not telling you anything, I’m asking you a question.
Perhaps you don’t understand my point in asking these questions.
I’m trying to have an open conversation during which I can learn something new.
I’m trying to find out your reasons for not wanting the government to tell you whether or not you can have an abortion. If (and I understand they’re not, but if) the reason is, “I don’t like being told what to do,” then it would make sense that you wouldn’t like the government telling you to or not to do a bunch of other things. But you’re OK with the government telling you to do or not to do other things, so I figure your reason has to be something other than just not liking being told what to do.
So, in the interests of expanding my knowledge and my horizon, I’m trying to find out what your reason is. So I can learn and understand, not so that I can repress you.
To be fair, I will answer your turnabout question:
Because people (people not you) view the fetus as a living being, and they feel that killing that living being is akin to murder.
Out of curiosity, what side of this line do you think I stand on? Do you think I’m a “pro-life” or a “pro-choice” person? I don’t think I’ve ever said how I feel about it in these threads, I’ve just tried to ask questions and state fact. However, I’ve noticed that most people who post emotionally on this topic absolutely misunderstand Cecil, what he’s trying to say, and what his standpoint on the topic is, so I am guessing that people might also misunderstand my standpoint.
I view the fetus as human and abortion at late stages pretty much like murder as well. I still don’t think it should be illegal. Why should the fetus’s rights be more important than the mothers? Nobody has made this case afaict.
I don’t really assume you are pro life or otherwise. I don’t know you. BTW, I am dealing hypothetically when I argue from the position of a pregnant rape victim. I am not referring to me personally in any of this.
I’m not sure if we ever got this answered:
True or false - to support some legal restrictions on personal behaviour is to endorse all restriction. (EX. to support the drinking age implies support for anti abortion laws.) I say false. What do you think?
Finally, I don’t know if I am coming across as belligerent here. I’m basically cool with things. After the Obama election, pro lifers have a long road ahead.
Being told you have to maintain a pregnancy is a particularly intrusive thing. More so than you have to drive the speed limit, not drink til your 21, whatever. I am not sure I can articulate the reason why this is different. It seems obvious to me. (Ever see a pregnant woman?) I can’t think of anything analagously burdensome.
Maybe think about what being pregnant entails, it inhibits your ability to work, if you like to drink that’ll mess up the kid, it was formerly a leading cause of death in women, etc. Seems like people are asking alot when they ask a woman to maintain a pregnancy, don’t you agree? Too much in my opinion.
I’m not arguing my point here, but you’re asking for someone to make a case. Why is a fetus’ life worth less than the mother’s life? If a fetus past a certain stage is considered life (be it brain waves, hands grasping, viability, or whatever other measuring stick you use) and therefore murder, then that life has rights equal to the mother’s rights.
In your own words, “Why is the relative onerousness not the point?” If relative onerousness is the point, then taking someone’s life away is far more onerous than asking someone to carry that life to term.
Certainly not, otherwise people can propose silly laws.
I know I still don’t feel like my question was answered - what is your reason/basis/whatever for feeling that it’s OK for the government to tell you that you can’t drink until you’re (18/21), but it’s not OK for the government to tell you that you can’t have an abortion?
But when we talk about abortion rights, we aren’t just talking about abortion rights for one type of woman or another. Most people want to talk about blanket rights.
For a person to be in a position to consider having an abortion, a person would have to have gone through another process first: getting pregnant.
For rape victims, a wholly different argument can be made for their rights - they didn’t choose to get that way.
For a person who engaged in unprotected sexual activity and got pregnant - well, they kind of made their own bed, and the arguments you can make for a rape-victim’s rights won’t hold water in this situation.
It’s difficult to have a conversation about a person’s rights when there’s so many circumstances to consider.
How about asking the woman to not get pregnant in the first place, if she doesn’t want to carry the child to term and then raise it?
Again using your quote, “Why is the relative onerousness not the point?” The onerousness of having to carry a baby to term doesn’t compare to the onerousness of losing one’s life. You’re talking about impinging upon a soon-to-be-baby’s right to life, because you don’t want a few months of what you consider hardship. (I’m not talking to “you,” specifically, just using the word so I can type conversationally)
Again, when we talk about rape victims, it’s a wholly different story. I’m willing to bet that more than 50% of the women getting abortions weren’t rape victims.
We are talking about two different things here. I meant being pregnant is onerouse compared to not drinking til you are 18. That was your original question no? Why is abortion more a problem than these other things? That’s was my answer, cause being pregnant is vastly worse imo.
I don’t dispute that figure. I assume the vast majority aren’t rape victims.
I’m not arguing my point here, but you’re asking for someone to make a case. Why is a fetus’ life worth less than the mother’s life? If a fetus past a certain stage is considered life (be it brain waves, hands grasping, viability, or whatever other measuring stick you use) and therefore murder, then that life has rights equal to the mother’s rights.
[QUOTE]
I believe in the right to life. For that reason I don’t believe in infanticide.
I don’t feel it supercedes the right to personal autonomy of pregnant woman has though.
Try this thought experiment, say a pregnant woman took up sky diving and somehow the baby died, would you say she should be jailed for child endangerment? I say no. She’s a free human being still and can do what free citizens are allowed to do. I value freedom very highly.
I’m not trying to be sarcastic or insulting, I just want to make sure we’re talking about the same thing. What you’re saying, basically, is:
[ul]
[li]Infanticide = murder. It is taking away a child’s right to their life life.[/li][li]Telling a woman she can’t have an abortion is taking away the right to a person’s own body.[/li][li]Telling a person who is too young that she can’t drink until she’s 21 is taking away the right to a person’s own body.[/li][/ul]
What matters is the value that you place on each of those rights (life, body, body). You think that a woman’s right to abort is more important than a child’s right to drink, and is also more important than a infant’s right to live. So if we were to number them in order of importance, they would go something like:
Valuation of Rights
[ol]
[li]Woman’s right to abort[/li][li]Infant’s right to live[/li][li]Child’s right to drink[/li][li]Adult’s right to use any illicit substance in their own house[/li][/ol]
Feel free and rearrange those in the order that you feel they’re important. Again, just trying to make sure we’re on the same page.
It’s not a complete list, feel free to add to it. We could very well add driving without a seatbelt, riding a bike without a helmet, and other things that are illegal that (arguably) only affect yourself, and no one else. The question that seems to be on people’s minds is whether or not a woman’s right to abort only affects herself.
You said baby, and ask about child endangerment. I don’t think abortion is considered child endangerment by the law, but IANAL (any here know?).
If a pregnant person went sky diving (or any dangerous recreation) and an infant aborted, should there be any criminal charges brought against her? How far along was she, 3 days before birth? One might ask why she was skydiving. 1 month pregnant? It could be argued she didn’t know she was pregnant.
Absolutely. But why should the use of this onerous comparison stop with just those two things?
An infant’s right to live (or rather, at what point it’s “alive”) is the point of the article that spawned a multitude of threads. The fact that this thread is one of those spawn seems to indicate that we should use the comparison here as well.
So how do we compare an infant’s right to live against a pregnant woman’s right to her body? Which one is worth more?
Some people are going to say it depends on what stage the infant is in - if it’s just a few cells, if it’s got a beating heart, brainwaves, is viable, etc. That will matter to them. Most of those people who stop and think about how far along the infant is are on your side - they agree that you have a right to your own body. The only people who aren’t on your side of that line are the people who say that conception is the time after which you should not abort (or more, those who say that you should not participate in sexual activity for any reason other than to procreate).
Everyone else agrees with you - it’s to what extent they agree with you that we’re talking about. If someone says that anything past the first trimester should be illegal, well at least they met you 1/3 of the way Celebrate that and work from that point.
For you, being pregnant seems like a burden, and for others it seems like a blessing. The two have overlap somewhere.
I think the list is mostly correct. I think this is where I differ - ‘Infant’s right to live’. I am talking about fetus’s - something that lives only because it has another person keeping it alive. I don’t think they have rights - I think they are part of the womans body basically, as long as they are in her womb.
A fetus lives at the sufferance of it’s mother. If the mother goes on a diet, so does the fetus/baby. Mother falls down the stairs, so does baby.
The point of the Skydiving hypothetical is to show what assuming a fetus has rights independant of it’s mother entails.
I don’t say the womans decision to abort affects only herself, but since she’s the one actually pregnant, afaic it’s her call. I could, theoretically, save someones life by donating my kidney, but I think it’s totally my call not the governments.
They are two different situations, but how different they are is a point of contention.
“I just wouldn’t let anyone keep me from committing infanticide if I wanted to, andI don’t feel bad/unethical about this position.”
That is effectively what you have said. Do you see how horrible that sounds when phrased that way? I realize you make a distinction between a late term fetus and a just-delivered infant. I agree there is a physical distinction between the two cases, but I am not convinced there is a moral distinction.
I’m not ready to go that far. But if I were, the justification I would use is that late-term abortions (say after 30 weeks) are equivalent to infanticide because of the level of brain development of the fetus. Therefore, on moral grounds, a late-term fetus is a human being, and deserves the rights granted to human beings.
I realize you rank woman’s rights to her body over fetus’s right to live, whatever the moral status of the fetus. I suppose that makes comparison to post-birth infanticide a little specious because post-birth infanticide does not have the same conflict of rights with the woman’s autonomy.
In my mind, infant’s right to life trumps woman’s right to autonomy.
Why should the mother’s rights be more important than the fetus’s? If the fetus is a unique human being and killing it is murder, I think murder trumps autonomy. YMMV.
I value freedom highly. I value life highly as well. I’m having a hard time seeing how any late-term pregnant woman would voluntarily take up skydiving. If she’s gone that far with the pregnancy, it suggests she wants the baby, so I can’t see her taking up something so incredibly risky. There are plenty of things that come with the warning “pregnant women should not do this”, because doing them is risky. For the sake of argument, if we make late-term abortions illegal, then yes, I would also prosecute this, probably under reckless endangerment or perhaps negligence.
Currently the law is based upon “viability”, i.e. the ability to survive outside the womb using current premature birth techniques. The further along the fetus is, the better the viability. A 38 week baby is practically full term, a 25 week baby is at the limits (IIRC). Of course, each case is unique. One baby may have enough lung development at 26 weeks, another may need a couple more weeks. But it is very difficult to write laws based upon “look at each baby and decide the viability in that specific case”. Anyway, after about 30 weeks, there is the option of premature delivery. Then the fetus is no longer in the woman’s womb and her autonomy is restored. But that creates other complications, notably either inducing labor or having a C-section.
True. To me, pregnancy is such a unique condition that comparisons aren’t necessarily valid.
That was pretty much the effect I was going for. I’m happy to see you agree that the progress of the pregnancy has no relation to the decision to abort.
Celebrate that and work from that point.