I didn’t ask Man, I asked you. Other than the fact that they live in different places, perhaps with different levels of viability, do you believe there’s any difference?
As I see it yes, morally she would have the right to evict the fetus, which would lead to the fetus’ death.
Mangetout I believe deforestation would require cutting down trees, those things that we define as x ft high, y inches wide, and usually leaves the ground behind it littered with stumps - if you did that they you have deforested, if not you have not.
Yes, but along the lines that every person is a unique person and therefore different from any others.
I have to say Kanicbird, at this point after reviewing most of your responses in this thread I can’t really find many flaws in your logic. I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I believe a woman has a right to do with her body, both morally and legally as she wishes, and that includes removing a fetus from it if she wants to, regardless of whether the sex was consensual or not.
Right, but see what you’ve done here - you’ve imposed a very specific definition of ‘tree’ - one that focuses not on species and distinct entities, but on functions and attributes. Yet, when we come to the logically similar question of murder, you impose a very liberal definition of ‘human’ that conveniently ignores most human attributes and functions.
I don’t expect to convince you of it, but I think you’re being unjustifiably inconsistent.
The mistake is to indulge him in a discussion of the definition of murder, rather than a discussion of the right of a woman to self-determination. Personally, I don’t care if he wants to call a fetus “human” or “a person” or “a lifeform” or even “sentient”. It’s an object in a woman’s body and she doesn’t want it to stay there. The nature of the object is irrelevant. Even if it could talk in a baby-voice and sing songs to “mommy”, if “mommy” wants it out, out it goes.
Assuming the answer I got in this thread is accurate and it could be done safely. Would you oppose the mother having an option to force the father to take over the pregnancy?
That question was aimed at kanicbirc but anyone who feels the fetus is a person is encouraged to answer.
How would this work? After you subject him unwillingly to surgery, I mean. Is he going to be locked up so he can’t seek an abortion himself? Will he be monitored to make sure he doesn’t smoke, drink and do drugs to deliberately hurt the fetus as petty revenge? Short of physically restaining him, I’m not sure you could be sure he couldn’t harm himself in effort to rid himself of the baby. Strapping him to a bed for a few months and force feeding him to make sure he doesn’t harm the baby probably enters into the teritory of cruel and unusual punishment, doesn’t it? I can’t see current US law allowing for this situation.
These are my quick and dirty answers, I really have not though out this hypothetical case.
Ideal case (abortion only for rape):
If she was raped and didn’t want to carry her child then I would see this as just - including giving full custody to her after birth if she desired.
If it was consensual, unless there was a agreement that he would carry the child, or is became a societal norm for the male to carry the baby I can’t see any reason to enforce this.
Real world case (abortion on demand):
If she wanted to abort I think that the husband should have the option of transferring the fetus into himself instead of the abortion.
And if he didn’t choose to, would he be immoral?
I find that to be perhaps acceptable from a legal standpoint, but utterly wrong from a moral one. IMO, it’s a very sad statement about our society that self-determination on the part of women seems to be held to a higher value than the life of whatever you want to call the fetus.
But we make comparable decisions all the time. If you’re talking just self-determination vs. life of a prospective child, every time someone says “I’m not ready to have kids yet” they make that decision. There are certainly arguments that can be made specifically after conception and not before, but I don’t think this is one of them; you’re just further along one path that way. Saying no to having kids without being pregnant is also such a decision.
IMHO it’s a sad statement about society that people are willing to give the same rights to a nine-month-old fetus as to a just-fertilised ova.
Oh hell. See these hypotheticals take away from the real debate. The fact is that while pregnancy from rape is real and does happen, it is a small part of the problem.
Most abortions are done because the pregnant woman feels that it is not the proper point in her life/situation to have a child. Go to the clinic; pay the $$$, and have an abortion.
This rape, incest, aliens from space impregnating me, transferring pregnancy to a male arguments are all red herrings to confuse the situation to the point of being absurd.
If we could agree that abortion should be illegal except in cases of rape and incest, or to save the life of the mother, then we could have a creative and constructive conversation about how to implement a good policy that reflects that.
But the (people who are in favor of legal abortion on demand) don’t want this rape exemption, so they will argue from absurdity about all of the possibilities that can result from any type of rape exception in the law.
To answer some other points, should a woman who doesn’t want to have children remain abstinent her whole life? It’s up to her. Should a person who doesn’t want to be injured in an automobile accident walk everywhere he goes? Should a person who doesn’t want to die in an airplane crash never fly?
In this analogy, lets say that a person bought the safest rated car. One with driver and passenger airbags. This driver always wore his seat belt and obeyed all traffic laws. But he still got into a traffic accident and was injured. Should GM pay his medical bills?
Of course not. Injury is always a potential consequence of driving the same as pregnancy is always a potential consequence of sex.
You may not want to get pregnant, but you have consensual sex with protection and take the small risk that you will get pregnant.
If you do get pregnant, that is no more of an outrage than getting injured with seat belts and airbags. Life sucks sometimes, and it is YOUR and the man’s responsibility to care for the human life that you have consensually created.
Just because that interferes with your nights clubbing with your girls doesn’t mean you can/should be able to shirk your responsibility.
Heck, we put money ahead of lives. We put sneakers ahead of lives. We don’t even require that dead people donate organs. We don’t even require that anyone donate blood.
The question isn’t why we would allow women to be self-determining. The question is why so many people want to make pregnant women the lone exception to self-determination.
I believe the counter-argument to that would be that abortion is taking responsibility, just in a different manner.
I’d also suggest that some of the people who would prefer abortion illegal would be against the rape exception, not just on-demand people; that’s what this thread is about (well, was about I guess).
I think this hits at the fundamental issue. Everyone should be self-determining. But when you have, what most pro-life people including myself, feel is ANOTHER human individual inside of you, your rights to self-determination conflict with this other human’s right to even EXIST, let alone make any determination.
And this is where the line is crossed…
But it would be like my neighbors complaining that my poor dog doesn’t get enough attention because I’m away all of the time.
So I put a bullet in the dog’s head and tell the neighbor that I am “taking responsibility, just in a different manner”.
The dog doesn’t have to worry about attention anymore
I think self-determination is fantastic, and, to my mind, the most important thing feminsim has given us is the ability to choose our path in life…whether to get married, whether to have kids, whether to have a career, etc. But what I don’t like is when self-determination becomes the highest and most cherished value. A woman who has a wonderful husband and children could up and leave them in the name of self-determination. They have the right to do this, but I wouldn’t call it a good moral choice. This is the same way I think of abortion…just because we have a right to do it, does that make it right?
I don’t think it’s about giving the fetus (of any gestational age) rights, actually. I’m not sure, from a legal standpoint, it’s in any way possible to do so. I’m talking about societal attitudes, which, IMO, should be to try to protect the weakest among us.
But you yourself feel that the rights of the woman sometimes trump the rights of the fetus, which in my opinion really weakens your position. You just feel that the “sometimes” is different than other people’s “sometimes.”
I don’t believe that there is another living human involved in the equation, so I don’t have any problem being consistent.