Why is the mom’s right greater than the child’s?
It definitely would be, if it didn’t involve murdering another human being.
My view is that every individual has the right to expel anyone or anything from inside their bodies. This right trumps the rights of any individuals that are inside their bodies.
So his mom puts the kid inside her, without asking him, and then decides, “Nah, I’ll just poison the little bugger to death”…
I’m failing to see the philosophical basis behind your argument, but just to test it: A woman invites a man to have sex with her. Mid-sex, she decides, “Nah, I want you out of me”, and gives him 5 seconds to draw out. If he does not meet that deadline, does she have the right to kill him? If he can’t meet the deadline because she has him in a death grip between her legs, does she still have the right to kill him?
If he won’t get out, then she has the right to expel him by force. I don’t know about the deadline, but if he doesn’t get out of her promptly then she absolutely has the right to expel him by force.
I’ll note that, in your hypothetical instance, “expel by force” is not the same as “kill”.
Because they hate women, and wish to oppress and torment them. Forbidding abortion is just a useful club for them to beat on women with.
They don’t care at all about the “unborn”; their behavior simply does not fit their claimed motivation. They show no concern at all for the health of the fetus, and none for the baby they’ve forced to be born. Nor do they care if the fetus is doomed to die, or already dead, so long as they can force the woman to birth it. Nor in places where they can get away with it have they hesitated to condemn women to a slow death by forbidding them an abortion to save their life. Nor have they showed any great interest in actually doing anything that reduces the number of abortions; only in making them less safe and more degrading.
The so-called anti-abortion movement is a hate movement directed at women, nothing more. A more successful, gender targeted equivalent of the KKK.
(post shortened)
You’re welcome. It’s not as if the OP’s question hasn’t been discussed before. The answer is still the same. Because many people, including conservatives, consider abortion to be murder.
This is an apt analogy. A forced continuation of pregnancy is equivalent to rape. Once she removes her consent to the act, she has the right to remove anything from within her body with the least amount of harm done possible, without causing harm to herself. If the man refuses to get out, she can indeed push him, beat him etc. Since the fetus has no means of getting out, she can have it removed. If it is indeed viable, then the least harmful method of removal is delivery. If it is not, any method is equally harmful so she has the right to choose whichever is safest for her.
Agreed.
To add: the intent of abortion is no more killing than the intent of stopping intercourse is sexual frustration in the man. The intent is to withdraw the consent for her body to be used. The fact that goals for the other party are not met is not her responsibility.
Racepug-
I’m giving you a warning for your behavior in this thread. On the SDMB it is against the rules to insult another poster or call another poster a liar. Please don’t do so in the future. If you do, you’ll find warnings stacking up and eventually your posting privileges may be revoked. No one wants that.
I gather most Conservatives would say that abortion is immoral on the grounds that the procedure kills a person, that person being the fetus. I know non-religious Conservatives who oppose abortion for that reason. They are against killing people and consider a developing fetus to be a person. It’s that simple. Really a reasonable argument. Frankly, I don’t think arguing that a fetus is not a person is a clever angle. It’s true, a seed is not a free, an egg is not a chicken, but there’s no way to pick a point in time where you say, “Right there, that’s enough cell division … it’s now a Human Being.”
Legally? Really, I’ve had it explained to me by pro-life Conservatives that abortion is analogous to slavery in that slavery was once perfectly legal in this country, and the government fully supported the system that allowed one person to own another, and force them to work, deprive them of education, dignity and freedom and treat them like an animal … worse than you’d treat a dog in some cases. That was then, this is now. Many pro-life Conservatives believe eventually, American society will undergo a “sea change” of sorts, and, like abolitionists of the past, pro-life supporters will prevail in the courts and in the hearts and minds of most Americans. I doubt it.
I won’t argue when or whether a fetus is a person. I will concede it’s a little Human. It’s obvious that killing doesn’t equal murder. The government executes some criminals … that’s not murder, legally. The government excuses killing in self-defense, or in times of war, if you’re a soldier and the chain of command tells you to kill. Religious folks should probably consider that the Old Testament edict, “Thou shall not kill” arguably could be translated “Thou shall not murder”. If a Conservative is against all killing of unborn children, then shouldn’t they be opposed to any killing? It comes down to matters of necessity. It’s deemed necessary to kill some criminals. I’m against the death penalty, so I disagree that there’s ever any reason to execute a criminal, but most Conservatives I know are supporters of the death penalty. It appears it’s OK to kill criminals, but not fetuses. That’s a distinction, to me, not important because of legalities (which is really the crux here … it’s a political issue, not a moral one), but of degree. IMO, murder isn’t the issue, but rather relative needs. Society excuses execution because it needs to punish, and to establish deterrence. Society allows self-defense killing because it needs to take sides against aggression. Society absolves soldiers of guilt because it needs to protect itself from conquest and it’s assets and territory from usurpation.
Well, I’m calling abortion “killing”. Not “murder”, but “killing” … allowed by Society for similar reasons to the acceptance of execution, warfare, and acts of self defense. Basically, Society needs to allow women to kill their own unborn offspring because that is preferable to the alternative, which is, unwanted children … unwanted children that the mother can’t care for and won’t carry to term, and that Society would rather not raise as wards of the State. It’s not politically useful to admit that abortion is about the lesser of two evils. That’s why all the shuffling around about cell division and embryonic development, and whether a human fetus is, in fact, a Human. We should cut through all the smoke and mirrors and just admit, Society has chosen the mother as arbiter of her own body, and has declared the fetus is expendable, since the alternative is unacceptable. And rightly so … it’s simply a justifiable killing, and excising the political hay, it should be recognized as such.
Similarly, euthanasia should be accepted in some cases, depending on circumstances, as justifiable killing.
According to anti-abortion fanatic Randy Alcorn “It is reasonable to expect a person to live with a temporary inconvenience if the only alternative is the death of another person.”
Interesting. Does “temporary inconvenience” include having a stranger stay in your house instead of dying in the street? Taking your kidney if not getting a kidney will cause their death? Supporting a stranger if they are dying of starvation and you have money?
The mind boggles.
Definitely. If you took a stranger into your house, and provided for him for a couple of months, with the iron-clad guarantee that in 9 months he will leave your house, and you know, without a doubt, that if you kick him out he will die, then you have an obligation to suffer the “temporary inconvenience” for the next 7 months.
I disagree. Abortion is no more killing a person than backing out of an organ donation agreement is killing a person. The goal of abortion is to remove the fetus from the woman and to stop her support of it. The fetus dying is incidental, not the goal.
Not legally. A live organ donor can back out at any point without facing criminal consequences. We don’t even mandate organ donation from dead bodies.
The “temporary inconvenience” includes a non-trivial risk of death and permanent injuries.
Curious, how do arrive at the determination that the stranger’s life is worth more than my comfort, security, and peace of mind, especially if he sneaked in when I was opening the doors to let in the fresh air? “It’s my fault, I shouldn’t crave fresh air”. How about the fact that he hid from me, taking my food secretively, for two or three months, and when I noticed him making me sick, uncomfortable, and unable to earn a living, someone told me I must not only keep this squatter for nearly a year, but keep and support him for 18 years unless I can convince someone else to take him?
This analogy is typically ridiculous. I admit the Pro-life position that abortion is the killing of a developing person is accurate. I admit Conservatives that would promote limiting abortions have a reasonable argument. I happen to think they’re wrong, but I’ll discuss it. Comparing a fetus to an adult stranger in some surreal room-mate scenario is probably not the best argument for the Pro-life side to adopt.
Yep, lel. This is so true.
If you have a tactical goal of destroying a building used for weapon manufacture, and blow it up with a missile, the occupants would disagree that their deaths were incidental.
From law.com
“Murder: the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority. In those clear circumstances, this is first degree murder. By statute, many states consider a killing in which there is torture, movement of the person before the killing (kidnapping) or the death of a police officer or prison guard, or it was as an incident to another crime (as during a hold-up or rape), to be first degree murder, with or without premeditation and with malice presumed. Second degree murder is such a killing without premeditation, as in the heat of passion or in a sudden quarrel or fight. Malice in second degree murder may be implied from a death due to the reckless lack of concern for the life of others (such as firing a gun into a crowd or bashing someone with any deadly weapon). Depending on the circumstances and state laws, murder in the first or second degree may be chargeable to a person who did not actually kill, but was involved in a crime with a partner who actually did the killing or someone died as the result of the crime.”
I’d say an abortion, by any realistic definition is a killing. The question seems to be, is it the killing of a person, or the killing of cells that are not defined as a person? I’m defining it as the killing of a developing person, who is a Human being, but I stipulate that Society allows for certain killings because the the alternative is unacceptable.
I think “he sneaked in” is a bit disingenuous. How about "he walked in when I threw the doors open and put a sign out “Do come in and stay”?
The analogy, if you look upthread, came from the pro-abortion side.