Because it possesses none of the essential characteristics by which we normally define personhood and because there ARE massively compelling reasons not to do so.
Maybe I misunderstand; are you saying those reasons are so compelling that the question should not even be examined?
My opinion is the RESULT of examination, not a preclusion of it.
As an interesting biological fact though, a liver fluke or intestinal worm will never become a human being no matter what you do to it, and mammals have no means of passing their genes to the next generation other than by incubating foeti. So merely tossing out the word “parasite” doesn’t really answer anything, does it?
My seven-year-old son lives off me and gives nothing back. I’ll just go and cut his head off now, the parasite.
What if it was a conjoined twin living off you? What if your health was compromised from a twin that was draining what you needed to survive?
It’s irrelevant what a parasite may hypothetically become. If it’s a parasite NOW, it’s a parasite and no woman is obligated to live with one in her body. If she terminates a pregnancy then the parasite never beocomes a person and there’s no victim. A potential person is an imaginary person.
No one’s saying a woman can’t choose to play host to a parasite if she wants to, though.
- That’s obviously not a literally parasitic relationship.
- Who’s saying anyone HAS to get rid of fetal “parasites?”
I agree with the OP in that there is no way to have a productive discussion or debate on this issue unless both sides accept the others’ premise as at least valid, if not true.
What if it was an elephant sitting on my garden fence? What if I had an illegal gun in my house? Could I shoot the elephant? What if, what if, what if. What if one of these things was not like the other?
And what if the vast, vast, vast majority of abortions had nothing to do with the foetus draining what the mother needed to survive - like, not to the actual point of endangering her life?
It’s exceedingly relevant what a foetus will become to the question of whether or not it is a parasite, even if it does resemble one in a few ways (you know, the way a coconut resembles a mammal, what with being hairy and giving milk).
Well, if you’re going to define “parasite” such as to include foeti and not children, obviously not. But that might look a little like begging the question. He’s dependent on me for food and shelter, though admittedly not via an umbilicus.
Who said I HAD to get rid of my seven-year-old son? No-one, least of all me. I was just assuming there was no reason I couldn’t if I wanted. You disagree?
Well, I’m willing to live with the paraphrase, “I admit, I’m very uncomfortable being on the same side of the issue as people who believe women shouldn’t be forced to carry a baby to term because it interfere’s with a woman’s overwhelming desire for her life not to suck.”
Make no mistake. Abortion makes me sick. I just believe it has to remain legal to have a consistent framework of rights.
And, as I stated previously, it wouldn’t work. Energies are better spent on making the woman’s life not to suck, if your real desire is to stop abortion, rather than just feel morally superior as it goes on.
It may well be a ‘better than a dumpster’ situation, but the point remains that you were wrong. The woman or girl can absolve herself of all responsibility by just dropping the newborn off at a hospital and not giving her name.
Why should it have to endanger their lives in order for them to have the right to get rid of it? Whether the mother is substantially harmed by it is immaterial. If she doesn’t want something in her body, she has the right to remove it.
And the vast majority of abortions also occur in the first trimester, usually well before there are any legitimate philosphical questiions about personhood.
How so? If it’s terminated before it ever becomes a person then what difference does it make? You can’t victimize a person who never existed as anything but a hypothesis.
It’s not begging the question at all. I wasn’t using the word “parasite” metaphorically but literally. A parasite is an organism which lives physically in or on a host without benefitting the host. A born child is not a parasite. Your’re just attempting to change the definition of “parasite” to serve a strawman hypothetical.
He’s not a parasite. Your definition is wrong.
Except that if a fetus = human life, then human life isn’t very valuable. A fetus is a mindless thing, not a person, and it will stay a mindless thing whether or not you call it a human, a piece of meat or a flitzgibberling.
If a mindless fetus is to be treated as a person, then it shares the moral culpability of a person. Given that a fetus is parasitic and harmful to the mother, that would make it an enemy to be destroyed, not someone deserving protection. Plus, everyone should sneer at it for lacking a work ethic.
Incorrect; they are trying to eliminate the rights of women.
And I say that the pro-choice view is the only moral view, and the pro-birth view is simply evil and/or stupid.
ALL pregnancies endanger the mother’s life.
So can a man.
Because in the given circumstances, her rights trump all others.
As for humanity, I’m pretty sure it can take it.
This is one of the very few issues that is faced exclusively by one sex. I don’t see the need to clumsily “balance” it by trying to make analogous rights for the other sex. Sure, it’s unfair. That’s sexual dimorphism for you. If you want to fix it and make sure pregnancy issues affect everybody equally, you’ll have to go back in time some 1.2 billion years and impose tidiness on evolution.
Irrevocable permission to what and for whom? Judging by the rest of your post, I’m reading this as, “‘Choice’ means women get to fuck, but if the dirty slut gets pregnant, tough shit.” I hear variations of this argument a lot, which makes sense, since a lot of the anti-abortion movement overlaps the anti-sex/birth-control movement. There’s a difference between choosing to have sex and choosing to be pregnant.
Count me as one of the “abortion on demand, without apology” supporters. I don’t care how a woman got pregnant, or what you want to call the thing in her body. If there’s something inside of you, and you don’t want it there, you have the absolute right to have it removed.
The hypothetical, “what if the fetus could be raised outside the womb” is basically the viabiltiy argument used now. Now, the vast majority of abortions take place before this point, and the few that occur later are done for medical reasons, but what this argument ignores is that it’s not just raising a child that a woman wants to forgo, it’s pregnancy and childbirth. Unless we develop Star Trek-like technology and can beam a fetus out of the womb, this too is an undue imposition.
There is so much wrong with this that I don’t even know where to begin. Your whole view of rape (“real rape”) is simply flabbergasting. Do you have any idea how hard it is to get a rape conviction in this country? Women aren’t going around tossing out false accusations of rape. But I love that your reasoning for keeping abortion legal is out of concern for the guys (the only “good” and useful members of society). Classy.
Since you seem confused, here’s a handy definition of what “rape” means: Unwanted, unconsensual sexual contact. You might want to write that on a card so you can keep it in mind on future dates.
No she can’t. Hypothetically, if the father were able to track the child down, he could still sue the mother for support. I don’t know how the law would handle the situation if the father had already asserted his custodial rights, but I doubt the law looks kindly on mothers who would dump their kids on the state when there’s a parent ready and willing to care for it.
Or, once grown, the abandoned child might track her down. That would take quite a bit of impressive detective work, but it’s far from impossible. Mom may not be financially beholden to the kid, but the kid may still feel she has an emotional obligation.
Once the child is born, you cannot absolve yourself from all responsibility. There’s a living breathing human being there, and eventually it might track you down.
Dealing with abortion on this level does not even begin to describe its impact. We are taking a snapshot of the real problem, Due to your superior moral choice ,you decide someone who chooses not to have a child. Could be rape, incest, drug habits, alcoholism, believe they are incapable of rainsng a kid at that time in their life. The child will be a lifetime choice for a person ,made by an outsider. The decision not to have a child can have a lot of reasons. They cannot be dismissed as not relevant ,by someone not in their shoes.
Society (aka “outsiders”) does not allow a mother to kill her 1-day-old infant, no matter how much better her life might turn out if she did. This line of reasoning means absolutely nothing to one who accepts the premise that abortion is a moral wrong equivalent to murder.
I took it as “irrevocable permission for any fetus created to exist.”
The rest of what you said, if restated less bitterly, is the position a lot of pro-lifers take (I know kanicbird is not pro-life, but is pro-choice only reluctantly). You have to accept the responsibilities and risks that come with sex. It’s a very defendable conservative position.
“There’s a difference between choosing to have sex and choosing to be pregnant.”
They are inextricably linked.
Man, I said I was uncomfortable being on the same side of this issue as many others. Between feelings that abortion has nothing to do with an unborn’s rights, using the fact that a fetus fits the characteristics of a parasite to draw conclusions about its worth, and denying risk of pregnancy should be accepted with the act of sex, I feel pretty dirty.
So you’re uncomfortable aligning yourself with Salt Seller, who feels that having sex shouldn’t automatically mean becoming a parent, but you’re **not ** uncomfortable aligning yourself with kanicbird, who feels that abortion needs to be legal because women are lying sluts?