Okay, Fine, Abortion Again.

[Hamlet]

@Gedd

Considering abortion is legal I think this is a poor analogy. Try “YOU don’t have to drink, but you can’t force me not to drink” or “YOU may believe homosexuality is wrong, but you can’t force me not to be gay.”

Let’s try this another way. Could you expound on what you mean when you said: “And the anti-abortion argument is blind to the fact that you not wanting an abortion doesn’t mean you get to force everyone else not to have one.” As I read it, you seem to be saying that society can’t make something illegal because they think it is wrong. But I’m saying that that is precisely what society does, takes something that is wrong (robbery, stealing, murder) and make it illegal. The fact that it is possible to do that illegitimately (making homosexuality illegal) doesn’t change that fact. Am I misreading your intent?

I think I see where this is going, though. And it boils down to the same issue raised in this thread already: whether or not the interest/rights in/of the fetus (or clump of cells if you’re Czarcasm) is one that has any bearing at all on the decision. But I don’t think that does anything to change my point that simply saying “well you don’t have to get one/do it” isn’t any kind of counter argument for deciding if something is moral or should be legal.

[simster]

@Hamlet

Let’s try this another way. Could you expound on what you mean when you said: “And the anti-abortion argument is blind to the fact that you not wanting an abortion doesn’t mean you get to force everyone else not to have one.” As I read it, you seem to be saying that society can’t make something illegal because they think it is wrong. But I’m saying that that is precisely what society does, takes something that is wrong (robbery, stealing, murder) and make it illegal. The fact that it is possible to do that illegitimately (making homosexuality illegal) doesn’t change that fact. Am I misreading your intent?

I think I see where this is going, though. And it boils down to the same issue raised in this thread already: whether or not the interest/rights in/of the fetus (or clump of cells if you’re Czarcasm) is one that has any bearing at all on the decision. But I don’t think that does anything to change my point that simply saying “well you don’t have to get one/do it” isn’t any kind of counter argument for deciding if something is moral or should be legal.

Robbery, Stealing, Murder - all impact other peoples rights.

having an abortion or a gay lover do not.

even more so since I am neither gay nor a woman, but the point stands that some things are ‘my choice’ - and if you don;t agree with them - that’s your problem, not mine.
Some argument could be made that a woman’s choice to the abortion has an impact on the prospective father as well - but I would maintain that the mother’s choice is of higher wieght than the fathers - else we end up in a case where the prospective father might try and force an abortion to prevent child support, etc.

[puddleglum]

@simster

Robbery, Stealing, Murder - all impact other peoples rights.

having an abortion or a gay lover do not.

even more so since I am neither gay nor a woman, but the point stands that some things are ‘my choice’ - and if you don;t agree with them - that’s your problem, not mine.
Some argument could be made that a woman’s choice to the abortion has an impact on the prospective father as well - but I would maintain that the mother’s choice is of higher wieght than the fathers - else we end up in a case where the prospective father might try and force an abortion to prevent child support, etc.

Abortion impacts the fetus rights. Maybe you believe that the fetus does not have rights. Does a premature baby delivered at 25 weeks have more rights than a fetus in its mothers uterus at 40 weeks? What basis is there to make that distinction?

[Czarcasm]

@puddleglum

Abortion impacts the fetus rights. Maybe you believe that the fetus does not have rights. Does a premature baby delivered at 25 weeks have more rights than a fetus in its mothers uterus at 40 weeks? What basis is there to make that distinction?

The law.
Duh.

[Saltire]

I think that the doctor is included in ‘between a woman and her doctor’ for two reasons. First, the doctor can provide the woman with information to help her make the decision. Second, that the doctro also has a choice. In most cases, the doctor is not forced to perform an abortion he or she disagrees with.

I do think there should be some sort of rule making doctors who oppose abortion make that fact clear to their patients at the outset. This should also apply to phamacists who won’t dispense emergency contraception. Otherwise, unscrupulous anti-choicers could cause a delay that would limit the woman’s choices through no fault of hers.

[simster]

@puddleglum

Abortion impacts the fetus rights. Maybe you believe that the fetus does not have rights. Does a premature baby delivered at 25 weeks have more rights than a fetus in its mothers uterus at 40 weeks? What basis is there to make that distinction?

THe fetus has no rights - and certainly does not have any rights greater than the mother.

If, in fact, the fetus ‘had rights’, the mother would then be the primary caregiver and speaker of said rights, and could jsut as easily say ‘the fetus made it choice known to me via the umblical bond - it does not wish to enter the world’.

And you couldn’t argue against it.

As for the Premature baby - you’ve just indicated why it has rights that the fetus does not - it’s been ‘delivered’ into this world. But you’ll note that in cases where that ‘baby’ is not viable or has extreme health issues, the parents (and likely specifically the mohter) have full rights to terminate any ongoing care for that baby.

Just like parents in some bullshit religions have the same right to ‘not’ seek health care for thier children that are much older.

And you have the right to terminate any health care you are recieving.

Have pleasant day.

[Hamlet]

@simster

Robbery, Stealing, Murder - all impact other peoples rights.

having an abortion or a gay lover do not.

That’s why I said: " And it boils down to the same issue raised in this thread already: whether or not the interest/rights in/of the fetus (or clump of cells if you’re Czarcasm) is one that has any bearing at all on the decision.

[Czarcasm]

@Hamlet

That’s why I said: " And it boils down to the same issue raised in this thread already: whether or not the interest/rights in/of the fetus (or clump of cells if you’re Czarcasm) is one that has any bearing at all on the decision.

And the answer is “legally, not much.”

[Hamlet]

@simster

THe fetus has no rights - and certainly does not have any rights greater than the mother.

If, in fact, the fetus ‘had rights’, the mother would then be the primary caregiver and speaker of said rights, and could jsut as easily say ‘the fetus made it choice known to me via the umblical bond - it does not wish to enter the world’.

We allow parents to be “primary caregivers and speakers of” the rights of their children, yet do not allow them to say: “My child said he wanted to be beaten with a belt until bloody and sent to the hospital”. Being a “primary caregiver and speaker of” the rights isn’t carte blanche to do as you want.

[Hamlet]

@Czarcasm

And the answer is “legally, not much.”

Just because I’m feeling nitpicky, the answer actually is: "when the “clump of cells” [sub]TM[/sub] becomes viable, then the legal system recognizes an interest.

[spamforbrains]

It doesn’t matter in the slightest if a fetus is alive, viable, a person, or not. Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term and then go through the horrors of childbirth against her will is such an extreme violation of her rights that she has every right to kill another person to avoid the situation. And we all agree. I give you two scenarios:

A man, living, breathing, talking, clearly a viable person, kidnaps a woman and tells her he is going to hold her hostage for nine months. During this time, he will restrict her freedom, cause her a great deal of discomfort, and permanently damage her body. At the end of nine months he’s going to beat the shit out of her, causing incredible pain and possibly killing her. Then he’s going to let her go. If the woman manages to get hold of a gun or knife and kills the guy before the nine months is up, everyone is going to agree it was justifiable on her part to kill her tormentor. When a woman gets pregnant, the fetus basically takes her body hostage. It is not a benign situation-it’s not very pleasant for the woman, and even the least-complicated pregnancy and childbirth permanently damages a woman’s body in many ways. Even with the best medical care, some women die.

So what you say, that was an evil man, not an innocent clump of cells. Well, I give you another scenario: A newborn baby needs an organ donation of some kind, perhaps a kidney or marrow, in order to survive. We identify a woman who is a perfect match. We all agree she has every right to refuse to allow her body to be used to keep a child alive, and everyone would flip out if laws were passed forcing people to donate pieces of their body to keep children alive. It is even considered unethical to try to coerce a potential donor into donating.

So why on earth is abortion any different? It’s not. The real problem is that most of the anti-abortionists have a completely different agenda: they are not actually opposed to abortion and are instead opposed to women being allowed to have autonomy. We know how to reduce the abortion rate to close to zero. Many European countries have achieved this goal. They all have three things in common: Free, widely available abortions. Free, widely available contraception. Comprehensive sex education in school. So if you’re opposed to abortion, you know policies need to be put in place. But the anti-abortionists push the exact opposite agenda.

Around the world, aside from Europe, the abortion rate is about the same in all countries regardless of whether there are laws restricting abortion. The only thing that happens when abortion is legally restricted that women start dying in unsafe abortions. When a woman needs an abortion, she’ll do anything to escape from being held hostage, even if it means risking her life. Which is very rationale behavior, see my first scenario.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Geez, Trin, it’s only been three months since the last one. Use protection, already!

[simster]

@Hamlet

We allow parents to be “primary caregivers and speakers of” the rights of their children, yet do not allow them to say: “My child said he wanted to be beaten with a belt until bloody and sent to the hospital”. Being a “primary caregiver and speaker of” the rights isn’t carte blanche to do as you want.

Did you intentionally skip the rest of the post where I am a bit more specific about this?

Where did I imply that ‘beating the child until needing hospital attention’ was a ‘right’ the parents had?

[Hamlet]

@simster

Did you intentionally skip the rest of the post where I am a bit more specific about this?

Nope, I just didn’t see anywhere where you were more specific about that.

@simster

Where did I imply that ‘beating the child until needing hospital attention’ was a ‘right’ the parents had?

You didn’t. I was using that as an example of times where the rights of a person who is a “primary caregiver and speaker” for others can, and should, be limited.

[John_Mace]

@spamforbrains

It doesn’t matter in the slightest if a fetus is alive, viable, a person, or not. Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term and then go through the horrors of childbirth against her will is such an extreme violation of her rights that she has every right to kill another person to avoid the situation. And we all agree.

I don’t agree. And I’m firmly pro-choice.

If you believe a woman has a right to an abortion at any point during her pregnancy, then you are in a tiny minority.

And the whole thing about her having a right to kill the other person is so over the top that it hardly deserves comment.

Furthermore… noting your join date, you might want to take some time to understand how an argument is expected to be presented in this forum. You might find some posters willing to chase you to the ends of the earth over your statements, but I’m unlikely to respond further to similar, over-the-top posts.

[Lobohan]

@Grumman

Saying abortion should be between a woman and her doctor is like saying murder should be between a man and his hired assassin. Right from the start, you are deliberately trying to hide the fact that there are three parties, not two: the woman, the doctor and the unborn child.

You’re wrong. There is no third party. A fetus isn’t a person.

A fetus is as brain-dead as Terry Schaivo. There is no person there.

[Czarcasm]

@Hamlet

Nope, I just didn’t see anywhere where you were more specific about that.
You didn’t. I was using that as an example of times where the rights of a person who is a “primary caregiver and speaker” for others can, and should, be limited.

Yes, but while we are talking about other persons with full legal rights, you keep pulling a conversational bait-and-switch, referring to something that is NOT a person with full legal rights.

[Hamlet]

@Czarcasm

Yes, but while we are talking about other persons with full legal rights, you keep pulling a conversational bait-and-switch, referring to something that is NOT a person with full legal rights.

Something doesn’t have to be a “person” to be given some rights or protections, both under the law and morally. Saying: “A clump of cells[sub]TM[/sub] isn’t a person!” over and over (and over and over) does not mean it cannot be afforded rights or protections.

[watchwolf49]

@Grumman

Saying abortion should be between a woman and her doctor is like saying murder should be between a man and his hired assassin. Right from the start, you are deliberately trying to hide the fact that there are three parties, not two: the woman, the doctor and the unborn child.

Usually we have a father involved here somehow as well … and I’m just suggesting that perhaps we should strictly enforce the the child support orders we have already before we outlaw abortion and create more child support cases.

If men continue to believe they have no responsibility, maybe we let the women decide the issue on their own.

[spamforbrains]

Something doesn’t have to be a “person” to be given some rights or protections, both under the law and morally. Saying: “A clump of cellsTM isn’t a person!” over and over (and over and over) does not mean it cannot be afforded rights or protections.

um, actually, under current law it does have to be a person to have rights. And the legal definition of a “person” revolves around whether it has higher brain function. Which a fetus does not. Perhaps towards the end of the third trimester it might qualify as a person, but certainly not in the first or 2nd trimester.

We can and do extend “protections” to certain non-persons such as animals, but they don’t include any “rights.” Animal owners cannot abuse their animals, but they can have them killed if they so wish.