Clarifying a Pro-choice argument

[catsix]

TQMshirt said:
Catsix.

Re-read your post with the following revisions:

Instead of ‘uterus’ read ‘life-support’

Instead of ‘fetus’ read ‘coma patient’

Instead of ‘woman’ read ‘hospital’

The argument is precisely the same and gets us nowhere.

It most certainly is not precisely the same. If you substitute ‘life-support’ ‘coma patient’ and ‘hospital’ you’re not requiring someone to devote her body, her health, her hormones, her nutrition, and everything else, 24/7 to the survival of another party. A woman is in no way analogous to an ICU, and her uterus is not a ‘life support machine’. To suggest that they’re the same is to suggest that a woman is not a person in her own right, but simply an inanimate object designed for the purpose of fetus hosting.

I don’t think those analogies are going to advance your cause.

Beeblebrox said:
The premise is the question asked in the OP. The embryo/fetus isn’t “overuling” anymore than a severely retarded five year old child or a deep coma patient; both of whom can’t make decisions, contemplate medical issues, invest money and time, etc. Both of whom are wholly dependent on others for their very survival. However, the coma patient and the retarded child are not euthanized because they are a burden to others. The OP asks why, logically, do the unborn differ? It is not a question of comparative sentience - It is a question of any sentience whatsoever.

The retarded child and the coma patient also occupy only their own bodies and are not inside the uterus of a woman 24/7 requiring her physical resources at all times and causing health problems to her. If my grandfather is in a coma, it is emotionally draining and financially expensive to keep him on life support. However, I don’t risk things like pre-ecclampsia, diabetes, and toxemia. He remains in a hospital, and my health is not inextricably linked to his. He doesn’t cause things to happen to my body against my will by being in the ICU in a coma, but a fetus inside my uterus WOULD cause things to happen to my body that I do not want to happen.

There’s a world of differnce there.

Lissla Lissar said:
Amazingly enough, pregnancy is a possible consequence of male/female sexual intercourse. It seems to me using that kind of language vilifies and scapegoats the fetus and removes the responsibility of choice from the woman. She (and he) chose to have sex. It makes women sound kind of dumb to assume that most of them didn’t know they might get pregnant… or aren’t mature enough to deal with the consequences of their actions.

And amazingly enough, there exist women who use birth control correctly and consistently, who do not wish to ever have children, who have been flatly denied elective sterilization as an option, and who (grab your chair) flatly refuse to be celibate through all of their childbearing years.

Your attitude of condescension toward people like me will not warm me to your position about the risk of pregnancy that is inherent in sex. I know it’s there, and I do everything I can to make it as miniscule as humanly possible, but you’re ready to brand me an irresponsible uncaring selfish immature dolt if my best efforts at birth control fail? Give me a break.

I have considered the risks involved, and one of the things that I considered was that birth control could fail. I also considered what I would do in such an event as it is my wish to never have any children. So perhaps you ought to quit looking down your nose and start understanding that you’re not in a position to judge - albeit in generalities - someone like me.

TQMshirt said:
This coma patient also cannot function without life support.

And what if the doctor said that the coma patient had to live inside your body causing medical risk to you, requiring you to take time off of work, causing you pain and illness on a daily basis, and eventually resulting in a hospital stay for you while the coma patient was extracted from your body?

There’s the crux of why you can’t compare a coma patient to a fetus. What they require is just too different to make a suitable anaolgy.

[Dangerosa]

Its a beautiful June day and you and your neighbor are mowing the lawn. Your neighbor has a heart attack. You run over and begin giving CPR. You yell for help. No help arrives - no one else is home. As long as you breathe for him, and help his heart pump, he lives. If you stop, have you committed murder?

[armedmonkey]

Whack-a-Mole, perhaps I was being to stringent in my definition of brain death. I think I’ll take your interpretation and combine it with the baby-with-only-a-brain-stem example put forth by Gaudere to counter-counter argue against the counter argument in the OP if it ever comes up. This thread (well some of it anyway) is why I debate here - new ideas and advancing my own edification.

I wouldn’t have posted, but this intrigued me:

*Originally posted by catsix *
**The retarded child and the coma patient also occupy only their own bodies and are not inside the uterus of a woman 24/7 requiring her physical resources at all times and causing health problems to her. <snip> , but a fetus inside my uterus WOULD cause things to happen to my body that I do not want to happen. **

Are you implying that abortion on demand should be extended to the end of the third trimester because the baby, though obviously possessing alpha wave brain patterns, is still physically dependent on the mother? Do the rights of the mother to avoid discomfort supercede the rights of the prenatal solely because it is still inside the uterus? In your view, is there any point in fetal development after which a woman is obligated to bring a child to term, assuming her life is not threatened by doing so?

[TQMshirt]

**It most certainly is not precisely the same. If you substitute ‘life-support’ ‘coma patient’ and ‘hospital’ you’re not requiring someone to devote her body, her health, her hormones, her nutrition, and everything else, 24/7 to the survival of another party. A woman is in no way analogous to an ICU, and her uterus is not a ‘life support machine’. To suggest that they’re the same is to suggest that a woman is not a person in her own right, but simply an inanimate object designed for the purpose of fetus hosting.

And what if the doctor said that the coma patient had to live inside your body causing medical risk to you, requiring you to take time off of work, causing you pain and illness on a daily basis, and eventually resulting in a hospital stay for you while the coma patient was extracted from your body?

There’s the crux of why you can’t compare a coma patient to a fetus. What they require is just too different to make a suitable anaolgy.

**

All you have shown is that * there exist* differences. Of course there do. You also can’t get cable in the womb.
What you have not shown is why these differences render the life of the fetus as less real than the life of the coma patient.

[epolo]

*Originally posted by TQMshirt *
***All you have shown is that * there exist differences. Of course there do. You also can’t get cable in the womb.
What you have not shown is why these differences render the life of the fetus as less real than the life of the coma patient. **

Okay, take a look at my last post. I pointed out some specific differences that I think are relevant.
The OP asks how being pro-choice and pro-caring-for-people-in-a-coma can be morally consistant. I think that has been conclusively answered. YMMV

I also asked a question (sort of) about how the act of terminating a pregnancy relates to “killing”. I still think we need to address this before we can use terms like “murder”.

[Borodog]

Just to throw in my 2 cents worth . . .

TQMshirt seems to be arguing from the wrong end of the stick. He makes frequent use of two arguments: 1) it is the will of the majority that makes the laws in this here democracy, and 2) that it is somehow the burden of those who wish abortion to be legal to somehow “prove” that it is not “murder” and that it is “ethical.”

First, the Constitution was expressly written to limit the powers of government, not the individual. The structure of our government (undermined though it has been by certain amendments, such as the 16th and 17th) was chosen to avoid the tyranny of the majority; i.e. the majority forcing their will on the minority. It boils down to protecting the rights of each individual to have and pursue life, liberty, and property. So forget that “majority rule” bunk; that’s not what it’s about (much as the left and right would like you to forget, each for their own reasons).

Second, it does not fall on those who wish to keep a practice legal to show why it should be legal. “Legal” is the natural state of EVERYTHING. It should fall on those who wish to have something made illegal to demonstrate why it should be illegal. I don’t need to prove that abortion is not murder. You need to prove that it is. Since you cannot objectively do it (which you have already admitted), you have no logical reason to demand that a law be passed outlawing it, other than that you don’t like it.

[HerMajestyLorna]

I would like to make a point on the whole “abortion is murder?” idea. I think that, firstly, as fluiddruid has said, murder is a subjective term.

So, murder (killing another person, not as an act of war, not done by the government) is illegal for everyone basically because it involves danger to each and every one of us, and we as a people believe no one individual has the power to inflict that danger upon anyone else.

The reason abortion is legal is that my right to have an abortion does not infringe upon anyone else’s rights. By “anyone else” I mean any other sentient, living, human. So, let’s say abortion is legal (as it is). You don’t believe in abortion? Super. Then you don’t ever have to have one. You believe in abortion? Then you can make your decision and, without taking away anyone else’s rights, you can abort the embryo/fetus.

Having abortion be legal does not hurt anyone else in society (as legal murder obviously would). I realize that this argument is one which requires a definition of what type of human being has rights, and I believe that a fetus’ rights do not take precedence over those of the mother (as other posters have discussed).

So, as I am trying to say, prolifers don’t lose any of their personal rights by having abortion be legal. They can still live however they choose to. It is prochoicers who would lose the rights if abortion was made illegal.

[catsix]

*Originally posted by Beeblebrox *
I wouldn’t have posted, but this intrigued me:

Are you implying that abortion on demand should be extended to the end of the third trimester because the baby, though obviously possessing alpha wave brain patterns, is still physically dependent on the mother? Do the rights of the mother to avoid discomfort supercede the rights of the prenatal solely because it is still inside the uterus? In your view, is there any point in fetal development after which a woman is obligated to bring a child to term, assuming her life is not threatened by doing so? **

Maybe you should’ve paid a little more attention to my earlier posts when I described what I viewed as the distinction between ‘fetus’ and ‘human being’.

That destinction lies in the capability to continue to survive outside the uterus, which happens sometime around the sixth month of pregnancy.

At such point that an organism can breathe, eat and excrete, its survival no longer depends on an umbilical cord, and I’d be opposed to aborting at that point unless it was a last resort to save the life of the pregnant woman.

I seem to remember saying something about ‘If you removed it intact, would it keep living?’ Did you miss that part, or just choose to ignore it so you could make a dramatic statement about my position on abortion? I find it absolutely horrible that you’d call me on the carpet and claim I imply that I’m in favor of abortion all the way up until the point where actual birth occurs. Next time, don’t put words in my mouth. They’re leaving me with a really bad taste.

[armedmonkey]

Your Majesty, though I agree with Roe vs. Wade, it is the extreme oversimplicity and naivety of the type of arguments contained within your post that cause me to have severe reservations about the term “pro-choice”. Allow me to explain.

*Originally posted by HerMajestyLorna *
The reason abortion is legal is that my right to have an abortion does not infringe upon anyone else’s rights. By “anyone else” I mean any other sentient, living, human. So, let’s say abortion is legal (as it is). You don’t believe in abortion? Super. Then you don’t ever have to have one. You believe in abortion? Then you can make your decision and, without taking away anyone else’s rights, you can abort the embryo/fetus.

First the oversimplicity: If we decide that a child is sentient at the end of the second trimester (which is largely what Roe v Wade did), then aborting a child in the third trimester would infringe upon a sentient human being’s rights and could be considered infanticide. At which point a child becomes sentient is the crux of the issue here. We know more now about fetal development than we did when Roe v Wade was decided. The issue of when sentience begins should continue to be debated as new facts emerge.

There has to be a line drawn somewhere as to when the mass of tissue becomes a sentient human. This is obviously difficult, since a fertilized egg is no more sentient than a paramecium, a child is not signifigantly physiologically different one day before birth from one day after, and the brain does not even reach its full development until after puberty. Since we believe that killing born children would be killing the sentient, the point of sentience must begin sometime when the child is in the womb.

I believe the best place to draw this line is at the emergence of alpha waves near the end of the second trimester - which dovetails nicely with Roe v Wade, even though the Supreme knew next to nothing about alpha waves at the time. However, this cutoff line is debateable and the issue is far more complicated than whether the baby is inside the uterus or not.

Now the naivity: Ethics and morals are always being debated, as they should be. They change from time to time and from culture to culture. There was a time when slaves were not considered sentient. (Don’t like slavery? - don’t own one). The practice was legal because it did not infringe on another “sentients” rights. There are regions in the world today where the barbaric practice of female circumcision is still practiced. The young girls are not considered truly sentient, the practice is legal (or at least tolerated), and it does not infringe on “anyone” else’s rights (Don’t like clitorectomies? Don’t force your child to have one).

Abortion has only been legal for a few decades. It’s current legality no more bolsters its morality than the legality of slavery did. It is fully possible that we may change our position years from now, and view current practices as barbaric. It is naive to think we are at the height of morality.

Abortion is a very complicated and volatile issue, the ramifications of which can not be dismissed with catch phrases. The more intelligent among us realize this and can view it from many angles - affording it the gravity and thought it deserves.

In closing, I would like to ask you the same question I asked catsix: In your view, is there any point during fetal development after which the mother would be obligated to bring the child to term, provided doing so would not threaten the life of the mother?

[TQMshirt]

**First, the Constitution was expressly written to limit the powers of government, not the individual. The structure of our government (undermined though it has been by certain amendments, such as the 16th and 17th) was chosen to avoid the tyranny of the majority; i.e. the majority forcing their will on the minority. It boils down to protecting the rights of each individual to have and pursue life, liberty, and property. So forget that “majority rule” bunk; that’s not what it’s about (much as the left and right would like you to forget, each for their own reasons).

**

Good. So now what right does the majority have to create a law that says one cannot smoke, buy, or sell weed? That one cannot have slots in their backyard? That one cannot kill puppies for sport? That one cannot murder gays with abandon?

It is impossible to avoid the reality that many laws are the result of the ethics of the majority. Should the constitution protect us from the occasional abuse of that? Sure. But that has nothing to do with the fact that every citizen has the right to add their moral conscience into a debate over the legality of an act.

If for example, someone feels (for whatever reason) that killing puppies for sport is wrong then they have the right to try and create a consensus and thus through majority rule create a law to ban it. I can theoretically disagree with the basis of the law, but it is false to call the law an abuse of the system.

**Second, it does not fall on those who wish to keep a practice legal to show why it should be legal. “Legal” is the natural state of EVERYTHING. It should fall on those who wish to have something made illegal to demonstrate why it should be illegal. I don’t need to prove that abortion is not murder. You need to prove that it is. Since you cannot objectively do it (which you have already admitted), you have no logical reason to demand that a law be passed outlawing it, other than that you don’t like it.

**

Murder is illegal. The problem we face with abortion is that in many ways it resembles murder. It is not some random vague act. Moreover, while there may be no objective standard, we can certainly see if there is a hypocritical standard by comparing it to a seemingly similar circumstance (e.g. coma).

You can make the same argument about me killing a coma patient – you need to demonstrate why it ought to be illegal – and don’t respond “because it is murder” because you are then assuming your own conclusion. I am not saying that it is not murder but only that we can see why this situation should give us pause and first require an analysis of whether it is or is not murder (or killing as another poster put it).

My point about the murder issue was a bit more subtle than you understood. When people responded to the OP with societal reasons for legal abortion I pointed out that these were not relevant. The OP was proposing that abortion might be a form of murder based on the comparative analysis with coma. Thus to skip responding to the murder issue and jump to societal issues is not relevant. In the hierarchy of argument one needs to first address the murder issue before the societal – and to be perfectly frank, if it is not murder then who even needs societal justification? That is the point I was making.

[armedmonkey]

catsix, it was not my intention to put words into your mouth, but rather to clarify your position. Perhaps, I read too much into your comments containing the phrases as “inside the uterus of a woman 24/7 requiring her physical resources at all times and causing health problems to her.” and "but a fetus inside my uterus WOULD cause things to happen to my body that I do not want to happen. "

The fact is, I have known people (an ex-girlfriend comes to mind) that hold the view that life does not begin until birth and abortion on demand should be available up until that point. The phrases quoted above sounded a great deal like her reasoning. I apologize if you took offense.

[catsix]

Well you completely mischaracterized my position and pretty much said I was in favor of killing people that can breathe, eat, and excrete.

Yes, a fetus is attached to a human female 24/7 for 9 months. But after 6 months it is possible to sever the connection and the fetus remains alive outside the body - thus it’s a baby.

As for the statements that pertain to me, it is true that as long as it’s in there, it’s causing physical changes to my body. I also think that if it’s in there and it can’t live outside of there, I have the right to remove it by chemical or surgical means. After it can live outside of the uterus, I’d only be able to remove it 1) intact and alive or 2) if not removing it would mean my immediate death. Personally I’d opt for removal immediately upon finding out it existed. I can’t imagine what reason exists to wait six months until its viable outside the uterus to decide its unwanted, but at that point, the situation changes from non-viable to viable… and the option to terminate should be quite heavily restricted although not entirely illegal because there are extreme cases.

Clearer?

[HerMajestyLorna]

*Originally posted by Beeblebrox *
**Your Majesty, though I agree with Roe vs. Wade, it is the extreme oversimplicity and naivety of the type of arguments contained within your post that cause me to have severe reservations about the term “pro-choice”. Allow me to explain. First the oversimplicity: If we decide that a child is sentient at the end of the second trimester (which is largely what Roe v Wade did), then aborting a child in the third trimester would infringe upon a sentient human being’s rights and could be considered infanticide. At which point a child becomes sentient is the crux of the issue here. We know more now about fetal development than we did when Roe v Wade was decided. The issue of when sentience begins should continue to be debated as new facts emerge.

There has to be a line drawn somewhere as to when the mass of tissue becomes a sentient human. This is obviously difficult, since a fertilized egg is no more sentient than a paramecium, a child is not signifigantly physiologically different one day before birth from one day after, and the brain does not even reach its full development until after puberty. Since we believe that killing born children would be killing the sentient, the point of sentience must begin sometime when the child is in the womb.

I believe the best place to draw this line is at the emergence of alpha waves near the end of the second trimester - which dovetails nicely with Roe v Wade, even though the Supreme knew next to nothing about alpha waves at the time. However, this cutoff line is debateable and the issue is far more complicated than whether the baby is inside the uterus or not.

Now the naivity: Ethics and morals are always being debated, as they should be. They change from time to time and from culture to culture. There was a time when slaves were not considered sentient. (Don’t like slavery? - don’t own one). The practice was legal because it did not infringe on another “sentients” rights. There are regions in the world today where the barbaric practice of female circumcision is still practiced. The young girls are not considered truly sentient, the practice is legal (or at least tolerated), and it does not infringe on “anyone” else’s rights (Don’t like clitorectomies? Don’t force your child to have one).

Abortion has only been legal for a few decades. It’s current legality no more bolsters its morality than the legality of slavery did. It is fully possible that we may change our position years from now, and view current practices as barbaric. It is naive to think we are at the height of morality.

Abortion is a very complicated and volatile issue, the ramifications of which can not be dismissed with catch phrases. The more intelligent among us realize this and can view it from many angles - affording it the gravity and thought it deserves.

In closing, I would like to ask you the same question I asked catsix: In your view, is there any point during fetal development after which the mother **

I agree with what you are saying about the oversimplicity of what I wrote. I understand that it is a simplistic way of putting it, but I chose to do so for a few reasons. But I don’t see it as naive in the way you say–with examples like slavery and clitorectomies. I think there is a diffference between abortion and slavery, as well as between abortion and clitorectomy. The difference laying in the sentience of the human being involved.

Which brings me to my next point. As I know I did not make clear in my first post, I do think there is a “point during fetal development after which the mother would be obligated to bring the child to term, provided doing so would not threaten the life of the mother.” This point is for me, as it is I believe for many of us, quite fuzzy. But, I think around the time when a child could survive alone, or about six months, the child becomes not just a part of the body, but a being in and of itself. So, I’m sorry if it seemed like I was for the option of abortion up until birth, because I am not. I simply did not clarify the point at which I believe an abortion is the wrong choice.

The only point I was out to make was that I believe if a woman chooses to have an abortion while the baby is still a dependent part of her body, and that I do not see how this harms anyone else.

So, yes, I think there is a point where the rights of the baby equal the rights of the mother, and I believe that point comes at some point before birth. As you said, this is the crux of the issue, but I don’t feel I have anywhere near enough knowledge of fetal development ot know whne this point occurs. So, I’ll base it, in my own opinion, on the six month, alpha-wave producing period.

[beagledave]

Pro life folks are often asked about what role the law should play in this debate. (Who, if anybody should be “punished” …and to what extent).

For the self identified pro choice folks here who have declared “sentience” or “alpha wave presence” or (pick your line of demarcation) as a crieteria for assigning “rights”, what role does the law play in YOUR scenario?

Is your line just a personal preference on your part, or is it a line that you would be willing to “impose” on others? If it’s just a personal opinion, not something that should be public policy, then what’s the point of this discussion vis a vis public policy?

If it’s a line you would be willing to “impose” on others…doesn’t that make the “don’t impose YOUR morals on me” often used by some pro choice folks rather pointless?

[catsix]

This is why I think that these situations are best handled on a case by case basis involving doctors and a patient.

[Borodog]

*Originally posted by TQMshirt *
Good. So now what right does the majority have to create a law that says one cannot smoke, buy, or sell weed? That one cannot have slots in their backyard? That one cannot kill puppies for sport? That one cannot murder gays with abandon?

Well the first two are easy. The majority has no right to create laws banning smoking, growing, buying, selling marijuana. Read the Constitution, the 10th Amendment (yes, the one that’s entirely ignored by our government). Nor do they have he right to prevent me from having slot machines in the back yard. Of course, that’s just the Constitution, mind you, which has literally nothing to do with modern America.

The third question is actually the most interesting. Can the majority pass laws to prevent you from killing puppies for sport? If they’re not your puppies, certainly. If you obtained them under false pretenses, sure. But they eat dog all over the world, and killing all sorts of animals for sport is legal in the US. So I have to conclude that if you wanted to shoot wild dogs for sport, away from human inhabitants, sick as that might be in my personal opinion, I can’t stop you.

It’s the fourth question where you jump of the deep end. Of course you cannot “murder gays with abandon.” That is depriving an individual of life without due process of Constituational law. It is explicitly forbidden by the text of the Constitution. Please.

It is impossible to avoid the reality that many laws are the result of the ethics of the majority. Should the constitution protect us from the occasional abuse of that? Sure. But that has nothing to do with the fact that every citizen has the right to add their moral conscience into a debate over the legality of an act.

Wrong. The Constitution is based neither on ethics nor morality. In reality the Constitution is based on much the same principles as physics and cosmology (stay with me here a minute). Much like physics, the Constitution assumes there is no preferred reference frame. Much as in cosmology, the Constitution recognizes that human rights are homogeneous and isotropic. What this boils down to is that no individual’s rights are more important than any other. Given this and the fundamental rights of life, liberty, property, you can derive a set of morals and ethics, not vice versa (I don’t want to die; I’m no different than anyone else, therefore I shalt not kill).

Thus legislating by morals is silly at the very least, giving us laws about how we can cut or grow our hair (Taliban or some small towns in America, you find the difference; I can’t) and downright frightening in the worst case (e.g. “The Drug War”).

Hence murder is not illegal in the US because it is immoral, nor is theft or fraud. They are illegal because they deprive individuals of life, liberty, or property. Letting morals dictate laws is not how the game is played, much as the left and the right think that it is. Even the odious “morality” laws that we have must attempt to have some justification other than pure morals today. In the old days you could get away with outlawing homosexuality and sodomy and blacks drinking out of your lilly white water fountains, and all sorts of things based purely on “morality.” Not so nowadays; you have to sweeten the oppressor with a spoonful of bullshit. Hence they ban “drugs” because of their supposed “negative impact on society” (there’s the Drug War calling the kettle black if I ever heard it).

If for example, someone feels (for whatever reason) that killing puppies for sport is wrong then they have the right to try and create a consensus and thus through majority rule create a law to ban it. I can theoretically disagree with the basis of the law, but it is false to call the law an abuse of the system.

We, being the uneducated rubes that we are, are of course free to try to gets any silly laws we like passed. It is the responsibility of the elected legislators and the judicial branch, however, to recognize and through out laws that do not cut the Constitutional Mustard. However, this rarely happens nowadays.

**Murder is illegal. The problem we face with abortion is that in many ways it resembles murder. It is not some random vague act. Moreover, while there may be no objective standard, we can certainly see if there is a hypocritical standard by comparing it to a seemingly similar circumstance (e.g. coma). **

In many ways you and I resemble squirrells. However, this does not make us squirrells. Do you see the point? And it does not matter that abortion is not some “random vague act.” The point is that you have yet to demonstrate that it is murder. Again, the point is that illegal is not the default state, legal is. And if there is no objective standard, you have no hope of having a Constitutional leg to stand on for banning it. And before you can legitimately compare something to a “seemingly similar circumstance,” you must show that it actually IS similar, not just “seemingly” similar, otherwise your comparison is at least pointless, and likely misleading. Showing this similarity has not been done. And you run into the same problem, since there is obviously no objective standard for a comparison between the two. Hence the use of the coma analogy is nil in persuading someone who does not recognize it as analogous.

You can make the same argument about me killing a coma patient – you need to demonstrate why it ought to be illegal – and don’t respond “because it is murder” because you are then assuming your own conclusion. I am not saying that it is not murder but only that we can see why this situation should give us pause and first require an analysis of whether it is or is not murder (or killing as another poster put it).

Given that I’m going to substitute brain death for coma . . .

In fact, I think you’re right. One does need to demonstrate why it ought to be illegal. Luckily, in most instances this is obvious. If the family wants the patient kept alive, and provide the resources to do so, you would be infringing on their rights by terminating the victim. If the patient has previosuly asked to be removed from lifesupport, or granted the decision to a relative, their rights are not infringed by removing them from the machinery. If they have previously asked to be kept alive, but not provided the resources necessary to do so, they had no right in the first place. I would argue that in the absense of a clear statement of life support by an interested party such as a relative or the patient themselves, hospitals are under no obligation to keep the brain dead “alive.” The patient is already dead. Hence it is not murder, hence it should not be illegal.

**My point about the murder issue was a bit more subtle than you understood. **

Wow. That insult is so smooth you almost don’t know it’s there!

**When people responded to the OP with societal reasons for legal abortion I pointed out that these were not relevant. **

I actually agree with many of your points; I don’t think most of the reasons posted for why abortion should remain legal are irrelevant. I just also think that your stance that the default should be illegal, and that it is the task of the other side to show why abortion is not murder is ludicrous. As I said, it is your task to show that it is, which you have not done.

**The OP was proposing that abortion might be a form of murder based on the comparative analysis with coma. **

A flawed comparison, as I have shown.

Thus to skip responding to the murder issue and jump to societal issues is not relevant.

Agreed.

**In the hierarchy of argument one needs to first address the murder issue before the societal – and to be perfectly frank, if it is not murder then who even needs societal justification? That is the point I was making. **

Agreed. No societal justifications are needed.

[Borodog]

Bah on lack of editing. oppressor=oppression, through=throw, irrelevant=relevant.

Forgive lack of spelling and overuse of “hence.”

[Whack-a-Mole]

*Originally posted by beagledave *
**For the self identified pro choice folks here who have declared “sentience” or “alpha wave presence” or (pick your line of demarcation) as a crieteria for assigning “rights”, what role does the law play in YOUR scenario?

Is your line just a personal preference on your part, or is it a line that you would be willing to “impose” on others? If it’s just a personal opinion, not something that should be public policy, then what’s the point of this discussion vis a vis public policy?

If it’s a line you would be willing to “impose” on others…doesn’t that make the “don’t impose YOUR morals on me” often used by some pro choice folks rather pointless? **

I think this is a bit disingenuous. Certainly where the line is drawn is somewhat arbitrary. For die-hard pro-life fanatics life may occur the moment the man ejaculates. For die hard pro-choice fanatics some might argue the woman has the right to abort till she actually gives birth (take those for the sake of argument and illustration…I haven’t met anyone quite that extreme yet). For most, however, those two extremes just don’t sit well and aren’t practical. A compromise somwhere in the middle must be sought. So, people argue and push and pull this way and that and a line is drawn…be it alpha wave presence, first trimester, second trimester or whatever. Few people will fall directly on where that line is drawn and be content with it. To greater or lesser degrees people will be on one side of the fence or the other and argue the stupidity of that line. In the end, however, the line must be drawn somewhere. While that may constitute ‘imposing’ on the masses it is usually through compromise that we get there even if it isn’t ideal.

[beagledave]

*Originally posted by Whack-a-Mole *
**

I think this is a bit disingenuous. Certainly where the line is drawn is somewhat arbitrary. For die-hard pro-life fanatics life may occur the moment the man ejaculates. For die hard pro-choice fanatics some might argue the woman has the right to abort till she actually gives birth (take those for the sake of argument and illustration…I haven’t met anyone quite that extreme yet).

FWI, there are several pro choice folks on this very board (AHunter among them) who hold the position that a woman can abort at ANY time that the zygote/embryo/fetus is inside and attached to the mother. I don’t think that my question is disingenuous at all. I’ve been asked several times in previous threads about possible legal recourse against either the pregnant woman or health care provider in the event of an “illegal” abortion. If a line is drawn somewhere…doesn’t that mean that the other side of the line is illegal? So, isn’t it reasonable to ask the same question then?

If instead, pro choice folks are simply stating their “own personal view of personhood”, and not wishing to “impose” that on anyone else, then in reality it seems that those folks would favor the ability of a woman to abort at, I suspose, any time? And if that is the case, then talk of the importance of sentience or alpha waves or cerebral development, just doesn’t mean much in terms of public policy.

Regarding your idea of “compromise” on the standard of fetal rights. Even if that line is arrived at democratically (and I think that is what most pro life folks are attempting to do, change legislation, public opinion or court make-ups democratically)…it’s still an “imposition” of ethics or morals on people who don’t agree with that line. Put another way, even if 70% of the folks in the U.S. wished to make access abortions even more restrictive (or totally illegal, take your pick), do you have any shred of doubt that many pro choice people would be accusing those 70% of trying to impose THEIR morals on the rest of society?

[TQMshirt]

**Well the first two are easy. The majority has no right to create laws banning smoking, growing, buying, selling marijuana. Read the Constitution, the 10th Amendment (yes, the one that’s entirely ignored by our government). Nor do they have he right to prevent me from having slot machines in the back yard. Of course, that’s just the Constitution, mind you, which has literally nothing to do with modern America.

**

I am dealing in the actual and you are dealing in the theoretical. Obviously the Supreme Court of the US agrees with my approach at the present so for the time being it seems that you approach to constitutionality is flawed.

**Wrong. The Constitution is based neither on ethics nor morality. In reality the Constitution is based on much the same principles as physics and cosmology (stay with me here a minute). Much like physics, the Constitution assumes there is no preferred reference frame. Much as in cosmology, the Constitution recognizes that human rights are homogeneous and isotropic. What this boils down to is that no individual’s rights are more important than any other. Given this and the fundamental rights of life, liberty, property, you can derive a set of morals and ethics, not vice versa (I don’t want to die; I’m no different than anyone else, therefore I shalt not kill). **

The central issue of the morality of abortion is the deprivation of life of a (according to one side of the debate) living being. Do you not realize that?

**Given that I’m going to substitute brain death for coma . . .

**

Given that doing so completely avoids the strength of my question.

Go back and address it as Ive asked it. You claim that the natural state of every act is legal and that unless we can objectively show something to be illegal that it remains legal.

Now go show me objectively why I cannot shoot a coma patient in the head. And remember that whatever definition you use to define ‘life’ for this coma patient – go and apply it to a fetus with the same criteria.