So if you decide your Mom no longer deserves to live, you ought to be allowed to kill her? Society would have no legitimate role in the decision? Remember the inheritance tax changes in the US on 31 December!
You may be right. So might those who disagree with you. Lots of good arguments on both sides. We ought to be very careful.
Again, ‘we’ who? I’ll have abortions if I like, you refrain if you like. There is no ‘we’ here, it’s not a joint decision. And every time you appeal to ‘we’, what you’re actually saying is “We” (that would be the royal “We”, as voiced by You) would like to decide for Me.
No.
Is it right to kill those who are mindless? Who decides who is mindless? May I decide you are mindless and kill you? After all, many here seem to think it is a private decision.
So (arguably) killing people is a private decision? May I kill a fetus because it has Down’s Syndrome? Because it is a girl? Because tests shows it will develop CF? Because he is of unpure blood racially?
That’s up to YOU to decide. The rest of us have no legal way of knowing. If YOU think it’s okay to kill YOUR fetus growing in YOUR body, go right a head. I personally think it’s deplorable, but I respect your right to do it.
You can kill it because it’s inside your body. I promise you this isn’t difficult to understand.
If you have power of attorney over me, then yes, you may make the decision to kill me should I become brain dead.
Or do you think someone else should make that decision for you?
You may be right. Or you may be killing a person who cannot defend himself. I suppose you ought to be very careful.
Do you really think it is moral to have an abortion to ensure you do not have a daughter? But it is bedtime here and so I shall wait until morning to read your reply.
Some would say The State ought to make that decision. Some would say The State ought to prevent anyone from deciding such a thing. Others would say some people may and some people may make such a decision under some limited situations.
Which do you think is the best model?
Neither do I - in this universe. I suspect in a universe where the fetus was sentient there would be a lot more effort in having facilities to extract it without killing it.
We can expel trespassers, but we aren’t allowed to kill them unless we feel our lives are at risk. Them smoking in the house does not count.
I’m not a vegetarian, but if I could chat with cows, pigs and chickens I might become one. I feel our rights come from our being sentient, and making a non-sentient being sentient totally changes the rules.
Oops, guess I’ll just have to make another. Or did you mean the mother? I notice you used “himself” so obviously her life doesn’t matter.
It goes against my personal morals, which is why I wouldn’t do it. I don’t have to like it to respect that it’s your right to decide.
Do you think it’s moral for a man to demand his wife give birth until she bares him a son? To rape her every 9 months until he has an heir? To neglect the daughters he didn’t want?
I think the person with power of attorney should make the decision, and the state should stay out of it, considering they have no legal way of knowing a person’s medical condition.
Do you think we should do away with power of attorney? Leave it all to the state to decide? If the state is going to decide one way or another, who is going to pay for the treatment?
The point here is that being sentient has nothing to do with abortion, except that the undeniably sentient person involved should have a say. The rest of us shouldn’t.
A sentient person should have the right to decide medical procedures for themselves. It is neither right to deny a woman an abortion, nor right to force her to have one. Both involve someone else making medical decisions for her, concerning a medical condition we have no legal way of knowing that she has.
I hope you are a vegetarian, because I know someone from PETA who thinks cows are sentient, and wants to throw you in jail for eating a hamburger. He may be right or he may be wrong, but we don’t know for sure so we should be very careful.
You ask about you killing a fetus. Given all the discussion about how the right to abortion comes from the rights of the woman carrying the fetus, I can only assume you are or plan to be carrying one - so I advise you to contact the National Enquirer immediately.
I understand you are very concerned. Many people with more knowledge of biology than you are not so concerned. It is a private moral argument, so maybe government should butt out, especially considering many opposed to choice are Creationists, and many use religious justification neglecting that God personally said abortion was okay.
I think I’ve said I agree about a zillion times. Some anti-choice people try to imply sentience to the fetus, something that is clearly not there. They are cute, they are fully developed, they move, they like Mozart. The best response to this version of the pathetic fallacy is not to say that aborting a fetus you could chat with is fine, but by pointing out that you can’t chat with a fetus because it is about as responsive as a person whose higher brain lobes have turned to water. Let’s not move the goalposts to a place where anti-choice people have more support.
Another comparison I thought of: Eating sushi does not mean I consented to have worms in my body, even though I know there’s a possibility of it every time I sit down to eat sushi.
How about we deliberate from the first moment that humankind is capable of deliberating all the way through to 1973. Is that enough time to be careful?
This is really, truly, awesome. I really have to remember this one.
Because of my religious upbringing I find sushi disgusting. So if you engage in such morally repugnant behavior you should suffer through the consequences. I also think that’s it’s wrong for restaurants to be taught about food safety. Any federal funding should have the condition that it not include money for thermometers or sanitizer.
It’s my understanding that the number of abortions per year in the U.S. is comparable to the extermination rate of undesirables by Nazi Germany, and has been for some time.
So what are the “Very Bad Things” the U.S. should be concerned about, Paul? I assume if Very Bad Things would result, they would have happened by now.
Paul, this is the reason many women get upset at mostly-male governments legislating against abortion, and I suspect it’s possibly, or at least partially, why DerTrihs sees this as an men-hate-women thing: if it’s so damn hard for you to understand that the fact that the fetus is INSIDE YOUR BODY and surviving off your organs makes it different from your aging mother or a criminal with Down’s Syndrome or whatever the hell your other analogies were, then perhaps you (and mostly-male governments) shouldn’t be making that decision on our behalf.
My stance is this: a fetus is **not **a person - it is, in the strictest sense, a parasite. Abortion is therefore not murder. It is a decision that is strictly, 100% up to the person who is involved (the pregnant woman) and no one else’s. I have no problem with people being pro-life (they have made that decision for themselves) but I have a giant honking problem with people who are anti-choice (they have made that decision on behalf of others).