Murder is a legally defined term so actually yes, it does.
But how do you know the potential for future life? Or even for birth defects? Amniocentesis isn’t performed til around the 14th or 15th week of pregnancy; are you saying that women who have a high risk of passing along genetic deformities to their children should still go through with this procedure? Just because there is a possible future to be had does not infer quality of life. Would you force a child to be born with birth defects?
Well, for starters, you need to stop looking at it as “a mother’s whim.” She isn’t a mother yet (as far as you know). Pregnancy doesn’t make her a mother. Sometimes even giving birth doesn’t make you a mother. And you need to stop calling the decision to abort a “whim.” It isn’t.
As to the rest:
There is no possible way of knowing whether or not an embryo at one day or even month is viable, so calling it “stealing a future life” really is semantically null. I’m not sure why abortion should NOT still be an option until viability is established.
There’s the argument that:
Because if it comes to term, it will still be my child. At that point, it becomes my responsibility to care for it, or make sure it is cared for as well as I would do so myself. Whether it’s in my body or not, it’s my choice if I wish to take on that responsibility or not. If not, I should be able to terminate that pregnancy.
Is your conjoined twin brain-dead? If so, then I would say you may have an argument to discontinue your life support of him.
No. I’m sorry, I haven’t. I didn’t say that I should be able to decide to abort after the procedure. I said IF I agree to the procedure, then I should be able to make sure the child goes to a good home. I also said that once the procedure is agreed to, you give up the right to abort. I do believe I should still have the option of abortion, however. If I don’t want to bring another person into this world, I shouldn’t be forced to.
Now that’s just silly. I don’t care if every court on Earth, every politician and philosopher and religious leader get together and claim a rock is a person; it’s still not a person.
Also, I’d point out that before the invention of laws and legal definitions, people still killed each other. If Cro-Magnon A stabbed Cro-Magnon B in the back so he could steal his stuff, do you really think that wasn’t murder ?
No one knows that if I kill someone tomorrow that person wouldn’t have died of a heart attack a split second later anyways. That’s why it’s called potential life.
It isn’t a whim when it is a decision made due to bodily autonomy. When it is a decision made for any other reason it is.
I agree, you should be able to terminate that pregnancy, what happens to the fetus after that is absolutely no concern of yours. Most especially since the state has a legitimate interest in the health of pre-natal life post-viability, and the state would do well to protect pre-natal life from people who feel they should be able to destroy life simply because they don’t think it will live a happy life.
The fact that you employed the “still be my child” argument shows the extreme problems with your stance. You have a right to bodily autonomy, there is no right to feticide that I’ve ever seen, legislatively or judicially.
A mother of a BORN CHILD has to make the choice as to whether or not she will care for a child, if she decides she doesn’t want to have to make childcare decisions (including screening adoptive parents) no one would support said mother’s decision to murder the child simply because she doesn’t want the responsibility.
If you don’t want ANY responsibility for the life, there are legal ways to shed yourself of said responsibility. You basically seem to be saying we should err on your right to kill a fetus, eventhough letting the fetus live outside your body WOULD NOT AFFECT YOU AT ALL, aside from perhaps emotionally. Should we allow women to kill children because they affect them negatively?
And I should have the right to kill him out of hand? Even if he is brain dead? Here in the modern world we don’t just kill brain dead people without there being some sort of process, medically and legally. Furthermore we certainly wouldn’t kill a braindead person when there was an excellent medical chance his brain would you know, grow into a healthy human brain. A brain dead person is different from a fetus because a brain dead person doesn’t have a reasonable chance of coming back or developing a functioning human brain.
Yep, I agree. That’s why you get the choice of having sex or not having sex.
And, since you have bodily autonomy you also have the right to not be forced to be pregnant if you don’t want to be so. There’s certainly no legal or judicial principle that says you have the right to end life simply because you dont’ think there should be more people in the world. Malthusian principles don’t rule our country, and it would be a dystopian tragedy of unprecedented proportions if they did.
Pro-choicers aren’t talking about bodily autonomy these days, they’re talking about playing god, and you don’t get to do that.
I think that was homicide.
Murder is a crime, and the definition of murder is a legal definition, not a philosophical one. Murder is a criminal homicide (as of right now), and since we’re talking about a criminal act by the very nature of the word there has to be some LAW involved, some legal determination and definition. But since murder is legally defineable, if a law was passed that made destroying a rock a murder, then it would be murder.
It’d also be a stupid law. But murder is a legal definition, and thus it is defined by the laws, not by anything else.
“Always”? I don’t think the definition of personhood has been expanded since the 19th century. I don’t recall any serious campaigns to expand it any time recently - certainly not campaigns based on DNA or future potential, rather than actual sentience.
In fact, the ideas I’ve heard floated around–like granting personhood to intelligent animals, aliens, or robots–have always been based on sentience. The argument is that if it thinks like a person, maybe it is a person.
Are you just referring to people in this thread, or are these arguments being made somewhere else? Maybe I’m just sheltered, but outside of this thread, I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone defend abortion rights on any grounds other than bodily autonomy.
Did you miss the post of Maureen’s to which I was referring? She’s saying she should be able to kill something simply because she doesn’t want more people in the world.
That isn’t a matter of bodily autonomy. And even if it is, decisions of bodily autonomy don’t always get to result in killing just because that’s the outcome you want.
Let’s go back to the case of the famous violinist.
The basic story is, you’ve been kidnapped and hooked up to a famous violinist. Some crazy medical procedure has been done where you are medically attached to this violinist and your body provides him with some function he needs to live.
The original argument is basically a pro-abortion explanation as to why bodily autonomy makes sense. And why one should have a right to bodily autonomy.
Let’s expand the case a bit because it’s a convenient one to work with.
Let’s say you’ve been attached to this famous violinist. Once attached, you’ve decided you do not wish to be attached anymore. That should be your right, you have the right to bodily autonomy. However, let’s say the procedure that has hooked you up can only be undone in two ways. One way kills the violinist, the other does not. Why should you be able to choose the one that kills the violinist?
So if the addition of another member to the family will cause it’s financial ruin, or even starvation, avoiding having another mouth to feed is a “whim” ? Do you think WWII was a “tiff”, then ?
So, if a fetus has a genetic defect that will condemn it to a year or so of life and a slow, agonizing death, your answer is “Let the kid scream !” ?
That’s what I think. When in doubt, it’s best to simply not bring another person into the world.
No, and irrelevant since a fetus is not a child.
Because when someone is brain dead, a magic sign does not appear over his head saying “BRAIN DEAD ! !”. It needs to be confirmed for a number of obvious reasons.
Why not ? Until the brain grows back, nobody’s home, and the original person is dead. You’ll just end up with an infant stuck in an adult body; at the very best he’ll be short quite a few years of the normal lifespan, being “born” into an already old body. It would be fairer to kill the breathing corpse first.
Ah, the classic “Keep your legs closed, bitch !” argument.
I’ve never heard that. The only people who want to play God are people like you, who seem to think women are property.
Since it’s a mindless thing, why not ? She should be allowed to kill it for any reason or no reason; morally, it’s no different than swatting a fly; they are alive too, and probably smarter than an early term fetus.
Since that has no relevence to abortion, it’s either a strawman or a hijack.
Nope. Sorry, but no. We’re talking about apples and oranges. Someone who has definitively lived has a life. Something such as a zygote or embryo that cannot survive without direct support from another living thing is not technically “alive.”
In your opinion. Obviously there are many people who disagree. When it affects you personally, you have the right to make that judgement call. So long as it does not affect you personally, you don’t. Only the person in that position knows what her reasons are, and your insistence on calling it a whim is presumptuous to say the least.
We’re both speaking English, but you keep completely missing my point. For the last time: I. Never said. If I can’t find a good home, terminate the pregnancy. I think that there should be three options. Have a baby, terminate the pregnancy, or give the child up to this machine. If taking option three, termination is no longer an option. HOWEVER. The mother should have the option of interviewing couples, just as pregnant women do now when giving their children up for adoption.
You don’t know that. How do you know this person isn’t going to come find me in 18 years? Most adopted people who KNOW they are adopted want to get in touch with their birth parents. This is not always the good happy thing people like to paint it. And frankly, I should not be forced to produce just because you find the alternative “icky.” Again. Whether it’s in my body or not, it’s still a part of me.
And you know, without a doubt, that no matter what that embryo WILL become a thinking person? Fascinating. Not even modern science can predict that, but you, Martin Hyde, can? How? IIRC, you insisted Terri Schiavo was aware, as well. I’d say your opinion as it applies to clinical brain death isn’t supported by fact.
No, sorry, we’ve left the 18th century. Having sex is no longer equal to having a baby. Quite aside from being a moral judgement, it has no bearing on this discussion.
What, exactly, do you call this metaphorical machine we’re discussing?
Yes, but she’s saying it in this thread. I have never heard anyone propose such a thing in real life, which is why I’d like to know whether, in your statement “Pro-choicers aren’t talking about bodily autonomy these days”, you’re referring to any pro-choicers other than the ones on the SDMB, or any days other than the ones this thread has been open.
I agree that you shouldn’t.
There is still a bodily autonomy argument in there, though. Remember, the violinist analogy presumes that the violinist is a person with his own rights, and proceeds from there to explain why my rights still take precedence over his. But in reality, there is no such presumption about fetuses. Someone who believes the fetus (or, more likely, an embryo at the earliest stages) is no more than a part of the mother’s body could argue that she has the right to decide what happens to it once it’s removed, just like she’d have the right to decide what happened to a kidney stone or a tooth that was removed - it belonged to her when it was inside her body, and just because she pays someone else to take it out doesn’t mean it isn’t still hers to dispose of as she wishes.
That’s not the choice we’re discussing unless, once again, we’re defining this unborn extracted thing as a child. And I understand your belief that it is one (or close enough for government work), but that doesn’t sell me on the notion.
What justifies a government deciding the end result of a pregnancy?
Would you call self defense Murder? In many abortions it is a matter of self defense. If a woman is not physicially, mentally or emotionally able to carry a child it can well be self defense. If this is not so. then War is also Murder and many so called pro life people who approve of war even if they think it just are okaying murder. We know in advance that some innocent people will die, now it is called collateral damage. If the enemy is a pregnent woman is a soldier could one shoot her?
Monavis
Pro choicer’s do not play God anymore than the so called pro life people. They(Pros) are not interested much after a child is born, I do not see any pro life people sacrificing themselves to help support a child from birth to death. If they were they would be up in arms about the born people starving to death in other countries and would gladly Tax them selves to support the born children, by either offering their womb(Women of course) to bring the zygote,fetus etc. to full term and giving a big percent of their salaries, or only buying necessities for them selves so the money could go to support the life they claim to be so eager to save. When I see them doing this I will say they are pro life otherwise they are just pro birth and would force someone else to carry a burden that they would not.
Monavis
Totally for this if the woman is willing.
Totally against it if she isn’t.
ANY PROCEDURE CARRIED OUT ON A COMPETANT PERSON WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT IS ASSAULT.
This is not about being pro-life or pro-choice, this is about standing up for a person’s right to bodily integrity. Performing any medical or surgical procedure without consent on any competant person is assault. It doesn’t matter whether the purpose of the treatment is to save their life or the life of a third party.
ANY PROCEDURE CARRIED OUT ON A COMPETANT PERSON WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT IS ASSAULT.
Whether the procedure is extracting a foetus to put it in an incubator of some kind, taking a kidney for donation or performing treatment to save the life of the person concerned.
ANY PROCEDURE CARRIED OUT ON A COMPETANT PERSON WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT IS ASSAULT.
The fact that this would be a state sponsored assault doesn’t mean that it isn’t a grevious insult to the basic human rights of the victim and a serious breach of medical ethics.
ANY PROCEDURE CARRIED OUT ON A COMPETANT PERSON WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT IS ASSAULT.
If a person has the capacity to consent, they also have the right to refuse, and that refusal must be respected.
ANY PROCEDURE CARRIED OUT ON A COMPETANT PERSON WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT IS ASSAULT.
Did I make myself clear?
jsgoddess (original post / before reading rest of thread):
As safe and as nonintrusive as a surgical abortion? Sure, I have no problems with that. The pregnant woman’s right is the right to cease being pregnant. It is not the right to insist that the embryo be killed.
And of course we would see the life-loving right-to-life conservatives applauding this development, ceasing to berate women who get pregnant and then don’t want to remain so, and putting the full weight of their pro-life compassionate conservatism behind all initiatives to have the state pay for these fetal incubators, and to feed and care for all these babies and children?
:dubious:
Well, I will if they will. You can easily tell that I am very skeptical of them, but if they truly do care that no zygote be deprived of the opportunity to be a living person, I’m willing to foot my portion of the tax bill, and we can move on to better sex educaton and birth control to stop it from resulting in a population explosion.
::back to read the rest of the thread::
I think you have missed all of the many posts I have made here advocating the right of men to opt-out of fatherhood, no questions asked, for 3 months after they find out about the fetus or child.
So the whole ‘men can’t do it’ argument is really in the wrong ballpark with me. I’d prefer that neither men nor women had parenthood forced upon them.
If you couldn’t guarantee that such a thing would never happen, I wouldn’t go for the incubator option. I don’t want kids, not now, not ever, and not showing up at my door in 20 years asking why I gave them up and wanting to start a relationship with no regard to the effect it would have upon my life.
This is actually one of the major reasons I would not ever consider adoption.
[Pedant]
Just a minor quibble here, Maureen…
Only populations evolve, Maureen. Individuals MATURE.
[/pedant]
I see several people have brought up the fact that fathers can be held financially responsible for a child despite not consenting to its being born, and so the possibility looms (for this theoretical construct, at any rate) that in lieu of abortion, the fetus or embryo would be removed and incubated, but then the mother (and father, i guess) would be held liable for the cost of incubation plus the cost of raising the child, etc.
The situation status quo by which fathers can be held financially liable for children they did not intend to see born is morally wrong and unjustifiable. It might be even-handed to impose that on women as well, but two wrongs do not make a right. Since two parents in agreement can give up their child for adoption, and a single mother can give up her child for adoption on her own, it makes no logical sense that a single pregnant woman would be held financially liable for her fetus/baby in this incubator-world we’re discussing, since if she had carried the baby to term she could then give it up for adoption with no financial penalty.