Fine. I was objecting to the characterization. Not the right to get rid of them.
I’m going to say no, but that’s strictly my opinion. I don’t think anyone is anything when they’re dead. They’re just dead. Potential for life isn’t a guarantee of life. I know a lot of people say that if the pregnancy were allowed to follow its normal course the fetus would become a child, but we don’t know that, do we? I know it’s sad, but from what I understand we have a very high infant mortality rate here in the United States. Nobody even knows if the fetus will develop correctly. So it’s really an invalid argument to say that if the potential for personhood is there it must be a person.
I think the fact that there is no consensus on this question means that the government should not regulate it and it should be left up to individual conscience.
Aborted board participation. Changed his mind. Chose not to continue with something he had started.
Pro-choice people want to restrict the freedom of others, specifically in terms of the life of the fetus. They want to remove the rights of a person that has comitted no crimes to live, on the sole say-so of one other person. In order to ake the case for doing that it is absolutely incumbent on them to prove the lack of pershood of the fetus.
Each side can bring up the horrible potentialities of what may occur should this decision be made wrong. Each side can point to a worse wrong in their beliefs, and say “your approach is worse; you must be the one to convince me”. And each, from their point of view, is absolutely correct. So let’s see where each side demanding proof from the other before they provide theirs get us, shall we? Or perhaps we might simply set out our cases now. After all, I would have thought that both sides could agree this is a contentious enough issue not to get bogged down in “No, he has to go first!”
I would say no. While in that state, that living being is not a person; simply a body of meat, albeit a body of meat that looks a lot like us.
How irresponsible.
There is no “other” till the anti-choice side proves the fetus is an “other”. Then you have a whole new debate. Till then the fetus has no rights, it has no personhood. There is only the woman and her right to control what happens to her own body. Just because someone else might think the fetus should count as a person is not sufficient to trump another person who does not think so.
And while I realize the following was done in Canada I think it is still relevant to show that the notion of the fetus not being a person is not some far lefty weird notion.
In the Canadian Supreme Court case Tremblay v. Daigle the court said the fetus was not a “person” under Quebec law.
In the end all you have are beliefs over this and in the US we do not let one sides beliefs restrict another side without very good and compelling reasons to do so. As such, it is 100% the job of the anti-choice movement to make the case that a fetus is a person. Not a belief…prove it.
You would maintain that others have the right to take of the body, to cause pain and discomfort and curtail the freedom of another.
What is your blood type? I know someone that needs a kidney.
Or would you rather agree that all have the right to defend themselves, even if it means the death of another?
Peace
rwj
And just because you might think a fetus should not count as a person is not sufficient to trump another person’s life. There is no “other” until the pro-choice side proves the fetus is not an “other”. And yet it is apparently perfectly satisfactory that the pro-choice side advocate abortion, without the need to prove their belief until the pro-life side pops up with some evidence.
Prove that the default should lie on the pro-choice side. You seem to have no argument that does not apply equally as well to the pro-life side.
I’m actually pro-choise myself. And I believe in the US you also do not let one person kill another without very good and compelling reasons to do so. As such, 100% the job, pro-choice movement, yadda yadda. The onus of evidence is equally upon either side.
Not at all, as I am not pro-life. And this is actually a good comparative situation - a person in favour of one should, I think, be in favour of the other.
I suspect the definition of “defend” would require some careful attention, but yes, I believe that.
Actually I am pro-life. It is just that I am also pro-inalienable equal right of liberty; and pro-forgiveness of sins. Alas, pursuit of liberty must sometimes trump life.
“Defend”, like all Words, is corrupt and can mean different things. If someone breaks into your house, I will not question whether you “needed” to “defend” yourself by fatally shooting one that threatened liberty.
Let there be no mistake. Those that would condemn the sin of abortion as crime are tyrants and reveal the mark of the beast.
Peace
rwj
FAir enough.
Well, therein I think we disagree; i’d say the potential differences in meaning of defence mean that it is only right to question such an occurrence.
I don’t think there’s many that condemn it as crime, it generally being legal even if that’s not everyone’s cup of tea. Just generally condemned as a sin.
You may disagree that Words are corrupt, but that does not make them True. That you would even suggest that we might differ on the definition of ‘defense’ proves Words cannot be trusted to exactly convey the spirit.
Do not fool yourself. There are many that would take the name of god in vain to overturn Roe vs. Wade and (falsely) deny liberty to women; impose ‘church’ over state; tyranny over liberty. The Words Bush, McCain and Palin come to my mind.
Peace
rwj
Guess we do have to do the negative proof fallacy.
You CANNOT prove a negative in this case. It is a logical impossibility. Just like saying you cannot prove God does not exist therefore God does exist is a fallacy so too is trying to say you cannot prove the fetus is not a person therefore it is a person is a fallacy.
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE! As a logical construct you cannot do it. Period.
You keep saying the pro-choice people are depriving another of their life. But there is NO PROOF OF “OTHER”! Get it? There is nothing, not anything, that suggests a blastocyst is a person deserving of protection because it is alive and has rights.
To be sure a pregnancy exists on a continuum and somewhere along that line the fetus does become an “other”…a person. Granted it is vague exactly when the line is crossed but at the least I think you could say viability outside the womb is a bright line. I suspect it happens even before that as well but certainly not in the first trimester.
As such, to restrict the freedoms of half the population it is absolutely the job of the anti-choice movement to show the blastocyst/fetus is a person and as such deserving of rights and protections. As noted the Canadian Supreme Court rejected that notion that a fetus = a person but perhaps someone will prove it in the future. Till then hands off women’s reproductive rights.
Suction Aspiration
Menstrual Extraction
Dilation and Curettage
Dilatation and Evacuation
Saline Abortion
Prostaglandin Abortion
RU486
But I can’t justify Hysterotomy
Why? We routinely restrict the rights of other persons to live. And yes, we do this for people who have committed no crimes.
The debate is in that sentence. You see a “child”. I see a blastocyst
You are obviously a young man with no children. Otherwise, you would NEVER have the gall to say that. Pathetic. Grow up.
But is he a person at that moment? Once having had consciousness isn’t the trigger for most people, I’d speculate. Most people would agree that in the tragic circumstance of someone who is permanently flatlined, that person is already gone. We would take him off of life support–to keep his heart pumping is pointless, he’s already dead. The fact that he was once a “person” wouldn’t change that–he is not now.
But in a circumstance where mental function will exist at some point in the future, though it does not now, it’s a different thing. For those who believe the temporary guy has rights, then by definition you do not require mental activity of any kind for rights to exist. You likely don’t assign these rights if the mental functions once existed, but never will again. The only thing that protects this gentleman, is that we know he will at some point in the future have mental activity, consciousness, etc. So will a fetus.
No, what I’m suggesting is that a definition of personhood needn’t include the mental development a fetus may not have gone through yet. If it does, I’d ask people if this hypothetical guy has rights, deserves protection. If he does, on what basis? He has less mental function than some fetuses who get aborted. Obviously I’m not asking this of the “a woman’s body gives her the right to expel anyone or thing regardless of its nature” camp. I’d have different questions for them.
Do you think the temporarily flatlined guy has any rights? Not sure from your answer.