They are. So you’re saying the mother enters into an agreement with herself on behalf of the fetus? Seems to me that logic says she should be able to opt out if she wants.
So you’re saying that by having sex, I’m entering into a contract with myself, against my best interest, on behalf of some random potential human?
That crazy.
While I think the entire consent argument is a nonstarter (consent can be withdrawn, after all), this is the real pickle. You can’t give consent to a fictional character, and that is what this zygote/embryo/fetus is.
And who is this contract with exactly? You can’t have a contract with someone who doesn’t exist, and my biology may be a little shakey but I think sex comes before the fetus.
That’s a very good way to put it. I’m of the same mind.
An unbreakable contract with yourself.
I… that’s just funny. I love it.
I don’t know if it’s against your best interest or not, where does a contract you enter into have to be for your best interest anyway? You enter into a contract when you order a jelly donut at krispy kreme, you eating a transfat fried doughball full of sugar is not in your best interest, but you still entered into such a contract.
The reason I don’t see the right to withdraw consent is the weight of actually creating another human being, a innocent one that had no part in your choice to create it through your actions.
Fair enough. Say a male and female lab tech are horsing around and one accidentally knocks over a set of books which domino and spill a sperm sample into an egg sample. Does the female lab tech have a moral responsibility’s to have all the eggs implanted in her?
The point is the male has just as much responsibility in causing the pregnancy. You seem deadset that because of the actions of two people that the female’s body alone should be hijacked. Why? The turkey baster in your example is attached to the hip of a male who chose to put it in her.
I’m all for helping the family if she decides to keep it. When I was conceived it was an accident. My mom was still in high school and I grew up poor, thanks to things like food stamps though I lived okay.
My mom could have gotten an abortion but decided to keep me out of love, not state coercion. No one will ever presume to tell her how she can handle her own body if I have anything to say about it.
Even though the male was just as responsible? How come the male’s body can’t be hijacked too? Or is moral contract law different then standard contract law? (IE onesided contracts tend to get ruled null and void)
I know this is fruitless, but…
It’s not a human being-- it’s a clump of cells, a piece of tissue. Later, it develops human characteristics, but it doesn’t start out that way.
Can you at least admit that your view is subjective, and that there are other valid ways of defining what a human being is?
hijacky goodness but: Who the fuck is “pro-abortion”? Nobody I know.
And why would you want to push this to late term abortions? Because it’s the only way you can “win” your point? A fetus does not feel pain until the current age of viability, handily enough, after which abortions are not legal or easy to obtain, rape or not.
I assume, therefore, that for all first and second trimester abortions, your arguments don’t stand, as the fetuses involved don’t feel pain.
Why yes, actually we are. And that includes removing children from life support if they cannot survive on their own and that’s what we wish to do. If the fetus cannot live on it’s own, the mother’s body is providing life support. Under your logic, she’s perfectly entitled to remove that life support from the fetus, as it is her biological child and it’s her job to make that decision.
No, I am entering a contract to give you a certain amount of money in exchange for your giving me a donut. If I give you the cash and you do not give me the donut, I can sue for breech of contract. You cannot force me to eat the donut. Once you give it to me, I am then free to eat the donut, give it to a homeless person, give it to my dog, rub it across my face, have sex with it or any number of other things excepting throwing it at someone else’s property or physically forcing it down someone else’s throat.
If the zygote is entering a contract with the woman, then it is by our current legal system an illegal contract and it is not enforcable. Nobody has the legal right to use you as their support system for nine months, even if you directly caused this scenerio by your actions. You cannot force another person to give you their organs, even if you will die without them.
That’s a one-way transaction, though: you decide you want the donut (weighing the health factor and cost against taste and so on) and you get it or you don’t. In your version of pregnancy, the mother enters into a contract with the fetus, and since the fetus isn’t able to give consent, she also represents the fetus. This is the very picture of a conflict of interest, and yes, the mother is in a contract “against herself” if she decides she wants an abortion, because her interests conflict with those of the fetus, who (via herself) is the other person in the contract.
In my opinion, anyone who enters into such a contract is nuts, and therefore shouldn’t be able to enter into a contract. So I say the whole fucking thing is a catch-22.
I really loathe the constant use of the word “innocent” in these debates. Of course the fetus is innocent, it is incapable of doing anything, and won’t really be capable of doing anything consciously, since our concept of guilt generally requires intent, for quite some time after it is born. Aborting a fetus doesn’t mean a woman is judging it “guilty” of anything, and it implies the fetus is being punished for something - which I think is incorrect, since a fetus cannot be made aware it is being deprived of anything.
This is a good point. It is illegal and immoral to enforce a contract of slavery, even if the would-be slave originally agreed to it with full cognizance and free will.
In a total accident, including getting pregnant from being in a hot tub where someone whacked off, you have not entered into a moral contract, and can terminate the pregnancy by abortion (or not implanting in your example).
I am not trying to enforce punishment, just to preserve human rights of the fetus, which attaches itself to the female. I admit that a male partner is needed, either in person or by sperm deposit, I don’t see how that effects the life that is created and where that life must develop (if allowed to develop).
As I see it moral contracts are different to legal ones, and I’d say most would agree with this. Everyone has most likely entered into a situation where they were not legally obligated to do something but did it anyway under a moral obligation. But there are similarities.
By asking why can’t the male’s body be hijacked too, you are still looking at this as punishment, not a sad situation where the woman, man and child can use help to get through the situation. Trying to punish any of the people for this I can’t understand.
I do admit that my view is subjective, I have stated the premise that I’m going on, and admit there are other views and other points where one would define life, but I contend that my view of no abortion except for rape is morally consistent, as it was stated that this position was not supportable.
I define my position as pro-abortion as though I have stated what I believe is a moral way to look at it, it is not workable in the world, and would allow the mother the decision to murder her unborn child. I state my view as pro-abortion to state the horror of the procedure and that I believe almost everyone is pro-choice, we just differ where that choice is made, I define the choice is when one willingly acts in a way that creates the human.
Because it destroys your argument without looking for cites, and I don’t except your premise that earlier term fetuses don’t also feel pain, never did.
And the parents would be morally responsible for that choice.
Only sometimes. Not all fetuses share this right, in your view.
Yes I’ll admit that, the right has to be granted by the mother, which I have expressed this right is granted at the time of sex.
So do you say you are “anti-abortion”? The only sides I see are “pro-choice” and “anti-abortion.” The most rabid “pro-abortion” person is still “pro-life.”
And the woman is morally responsible for “pulling the plug” on her zygote. If she has the option of pulling the plug on her child knowing it could end its life, she has the same option for the one in her womb. People have to live with the moral responsibilities of all their choices.
Which brings us back to the OP–Is this right granted at the time of the rape?
If she rapes he then yes, if he rapes she then no.
I think we agree on this, if a parent murders their child, born or unborn, they are the ones morally responsible for that decision.
So you get to define political terms but deny me that right. The 2 sides normally are pro choice/pro life, my current real world view on this subject is pro choice (woman has the right to chose to enter into the action that may create that life), anti-life (woman has the right to murder her child she has created), pro abortion (via abortion), which is different then the moral ideal I expressed here.
So children conceived by rape deserve to die. They are just as “alive” as children conceived any other way, but they have fewer rights to say that way.
No they don’t deserve to die, but have no moral claim to stay where they are. If the owner of that womb wants to grant them that right then they will have the same right as other pre-born humans, but if the mother wants to evict that fetus she has that right IMHO.
In other words the way I see it the woman has the right to chose.