How so ? Abortion is not only birth control, but it is the ultimate birth control. By what definition is it not birth control ? It’s a lousy ‘primary’ birth control, granted, but it’s still birth control.
Exactly. Nearly 100% effective. Hence the need for abortion to be available should the oh-so effective BC fail.
God, I can’t believe I’m arguing semantics with chimps. The idiocy in this thread is making my blood pressure rise. I gotta bow out.
Badtz,
Come up with a legit point, and you’ll be argued with legitimately. Until then, semantics are all you can understand, chimp.
—WHERE did I claim that this was irrelevant? The humanity of the unborn is a critical issue in this discussion, as my fellow pro-lifers and I repeatedly attest.—
JThunder
When you agreed that the whole “its a baby. It’s NOT a baby” diatribe is pointless avoidance of the issues. The “humanity” of the unborn is the exact same sort of issue (they could have it in one sense and have it not be relevant, or not have it in another sense and still it be wrong to kill them): you are letting the term do your argument for you. Obviously, the term’s meaning is contested. At this point, you should be fine making your argument from base facts, not relying upon the use of special question-begging terminology.
—The woman is refusing the use of her uterus, just as she can refuse the use of her kidney or bone marrow or blood to anyone.—
The examples are simply not the same. The only way to make them be the same would be for someone to ALREADY be using her kidney or marrow or blood: and for her to kill this person in order to get it back.
—The fact that technology at this point entails the death of the fetus when it’s removed, doesn’t change the fact that the woman still has the right to choose how her body is used.—
Where does this “right” come from? Why is it superior to the right to life of some other being that needs to be killed in order for the woman to again be free to offer or retract her body’s use.
Let’s say that a woman has offered to donate a portion of her liver. The peson getting it has had their old, crippled liver removed for the proceedure, and it has been destroyed. The woman has had a portion of her liver removed already, and they’re getting ready to put it in the other guy when, all of a sudden, the woman decides she wants it back. Is that her right, now that she’s agreed to the proceedure, and it already proceeded past the point where the man will die if it is not completed?
You might say that normally the woman would NOT have agreed to the proceedure: that its more like she wakes up to find it at the stage I describe. But that’s not what you are arguing: you’re saying that she can change her mind at any time even after already deciding to become pregnant.
The fact that you can imagine “technology” one day being able to house a safely expunged fetus is utterly beside the point: that’s not the situation we face now.
—She no longer wishes to nourish a fetus, she no longer has to.—
But the only way to stop the process is to kill it. She can’t even just “stop nourishing it” and let it die. She has to have someone go inside her and tear it apart to remove it.
—I fail to see what that has to do with her right to dictate how her body is used.—
States are constantly putting restrictions on how our bodies are used. States can draft your entire body off to die, but they can’t prevent you from killing a fetus inside you for a few months?
—I’m sure the death of a child due to leukemia is not pretty either, but that doesn’t mean the child’s mother is forced to undergo bone marrow transplants against her will.—
The mother in this example doesn’t have to knife the child in the heart to avoid the having the proceedure be done to her either, so the point is irrelevant. The marrow has ALREADY been given (or, if it made sense, in the process of being given): the mother is demanding it BACK. That’s just not the same thing.
Badtz
But what is the abortion ‘debate’ other than tendentious semantics - apart from the bits that are pure casuistry?
How is a fetus different from a tumor?
Correct me if I’m wrong (and I have no doubt that I will be corrected :D), but it seems to boil down to this:
Pro-life people believe that the rights of the unborn human-like organism inside the woman’s body has rights that trump the rights of the woman. Pro-choice people believe that the woman’s rights trump the rights of the unborn human-like organism inside of her. Is that essentially it?
(It seems kind of ironic to me that while some pro-life people will state that the Constitution does not give women the “right” to have abortions, neither does it state, as far as I can tell, that anyone, fetus or not, has the right to live.)
JOhn (just trying to get down to the essentials).
I think my objections boil down to this:
You cannot have two entities with equal rights in the same body at the same time. One of them will always have veto power over the other. I see no reason to give a fetus, a non sentient entity, veto power over a womans body.
Apologies for the snotty tone. Again, as I said earlier, I don’t pretend to be an expert, any more than I could expertly answer how to stop theft across the nation if there were suddenly no infrastructure to do so. That’s not the same as saying it’s unreasonable to envision a ban working.
FWIW, I would think a ban would start by taking the legal access to abortions away–no clinics or doctors, at least none in the open. IMO, that would reduce a substantial portion of the abortions. I believe police could also investigate and shut down “back alley” clinics.
I dunno. I do not expect that the ban would prevent all abortions, much as I don’t believe banning heroin means no one is using it. Law enforcement and communities would find the most efficacious ways of dealing with the ban, as they typically do.
A fetus is not a potential human. Look, this isn’t that hard. You can assign whatever rights you want to the fetus, but that will not change the fact that the fetus is a human being. He ain’t a frog or an ostrich or a toaster oven. He is a member of our species. If you feel there’s justification for abortion, don’t try to build your case on the premise that this entity is not human. That’s all.
I didn’t hear JThunder say that; I heard him respond directly to the contention that a fetus is not a human being.
A fetus is or isn’t a human being. If a fetus is a human being, than your legal argument won’t be terribly strong if it depends on this being false. Try a different argument. That’s what has been said, I believe.
How is an infant different than a tumor (or a skin cell)? I can’t seem to get an answer to this question, so please help me out.
Tumors aren’t born.
Don’t like it? Well, it does suck, but since our definitions of personhood are arbitrary and vary, that’s the best we have.
Alright, non-faceciously this time: an infant has a functioning brain and has started accepting mental stimulus from the outside world. A tumor has not.
No, that’s not it.
First, pro-life people do not believe that a “human-like organism” is inside a woman’s body. They believe a human being is.
Second, they do not believe the rights of the unborn “trump”, as you put it, the rights of the woman. They believe that both the mother and the child have the right to life, and that if the life of the mother were at risk by carrying the child to term, the mother should have the right to abort the pregnancy (this is the position of the great majority of people, and organizations, who call themselves pro-life).
Because pro-life people do not consider the killing of an unborn fetus vs. the inconvenience of pregancy and childbirth to be of equal moral weight, they consider the allowing of the former to be essentailly nullifying any rights of the unborn fetus (recall, Roe v. Wade forbids the state from prohibiting or limiting an abortion at any point in its development, including the third trimester).
I think the point here is that there is no other way. There is only one person in the world who can possibly keep the child alive. Granted, if it becomes possible to keep a fetus alive in an artificial womb, then the argument becomes identical to bone marrow donation in that is the best way and the safest way but not the only way.
Consider that I suddenly become a carrier of the ebola virus. It is not going to kill me, but anyone exposed to me will certainly die (I know I am opening myself up to some cheap shots). After nine months or so my immune system will have gotten rid of all traces of it. For that time though I firmly expect my liberty to be restricted. I will probably be stuck in a bubble or something, because the temporary restriction on my liberty saves the lives of people who would die otherwise. Not only does the government have the right to this, but the responsibility.
Take the same example, but removal of a kidney is the only way to prevent me from infecting people. This is a very intrusive operation, but one that the government would have every right to perform in order to save lives.
Our contract with the government is that we give up some of our freedoms (driving on the wrong side of the road, randomly beating people) for security (not being randomly beaten).
Also, I just want to say that I do completely respect your opinion on this, **Goo]/b], not just because it is well reasoned and informed but that you maintain an open mind and haven’t resorted to personal insults like almost everyone on both sides of this argument.
Because me (hypothetically) refusing aid to the homeless is a passive action. Tearing apart a fetus is an active action. In this country one is allowed to passively harm others (i. e., by refusing to donate blood or bone marrow), but they are almost never allowed to actively harm others. Otherwise, it would not be murder for me to take someone out on my yacht and push them overboard, with the justification of “my boat, my business”.
A Master’s in … what? Certainly not Law, because you’re displaying some pretty basic ignorance and/or you are not able or willing to express your views clearly. In either case, you’ve definitely not been prepared properly for a legal career.
I have no idea what your views on the death penalty and war are, but I am responding to your earlier claim:
Simple observation of American politics shows that large segments of the population favour the death penalty and justifiable war (not necessarily the current war in Iraq, but WW2 certainly had popular support, though Vietnam did not). Both of these involve killing people. Further, Americans are not sufficiently outraged by abortion to have created a grassroots movement to ban it. My point is that if you accuse me of being a sociopath, you’d also have to accuse a large percentage of the American population. Therefore, your accusation of sociopathy loses all meaning.
Of course, I don’t expect your degree isn’t in psychology or a related field, so I’m not even sure if you know what a “sociopath” is. You’re certainly not using the word correctly.
This other comment of yours makes me doubt you’ve received any formal legal training:
When I called you on it, you modified your statement to:
The second version is accurate (referring to the SAME rights) while the first one is not (referring to just “the rights”). If you have a degree in law or related field, I would hope you be able to express such a basic fact accurately the first time.
Besides, you accuse me of bringing in a strawman argument when I refer to the death penalty and war (which do happen) and yet you imply I think illegal aliens should be killed at will (which does not happen).
There’s a certain immaturity in your writing that makes me doubt you have a degree in anything. If you do manage to get a Master’s in law (or related field), I suggest you sue your university, using your posts in this thread as evidence that you were not adequately prepared to argue legal issues in a coherent way.
Wait a minute. So you’re saying that the definition of personhood is arbitrary. I take it that you disagree with the other pro-choicers in this thread then, since they claim that personhood begins at birth.
I think robertliguori phrased it badly, myself. I have no problem defining legal personhood as starting at birth, which is hardly an arbitrary point.