I guess I’m confused on the issue of what difference it makes as to whether the unborn are defined as “persons” or not. Do all members of the pro-choice crowd use the idea that “the fetus is not a person” as a justification for abortion?
I don’t think it matters either way.
I think the thing that matters is the person who owns the uterus and whether or not she wants anything in there.
How could it not matter whether the “thing” in the uterus is a human being or not? I can see that it wouldn’t matter if a cancerous tumor was growing in the uterus - that’s obviously not a human being. Wouldn’t you want to know if you were removing a human being or removing a tumor?
No.
What matters to me in terms of my uterus is that it remains unoccupied.
Well, by gum, if that’s true, then I must have forgotten about that.
Would you do me the courtesy of specifically pointing out where I called you a “baby killer”? I am not in the habit of using that term. I have said that abortion is killing, but I am quite certain that I never referred to you, catsix, as a “baby killer.”
Remember, you made the accusation. The burden of proof is on you.
Tragically, no. Some of them believe that the unborn is still fair game for killing, even if it is a person. Princeton’s Dr. Peter Singer, for example, argues for abortion and infanticide on the grounds that this is a morally acceptable act.
Under what circumstances? I’m sure you’re aware of the 100% foolproof way to ensure eternal emptiness in your uterus. But what if, in the course of gratifying your sexual desire, a human being was implanted into your uterus. Are you saying that it doesn’t matter that a human being has taken up residence there? You will evict it under ALL circumstances, morality be damned?
Egad! :eek:
Even if it means the death of an innocent human being, with no opportunity to plead on its own behalf?
No. There are many varied pro-choice opinions. Not all of them focus on the ‘personhood’ or ‘humanity’ of the fetus.
I personally believe that a fetus is no different from a two year old, is no different from an 18 year old, is no different from an adult (biologically speaking) apart from a bit of time to develop further. This thread explains my opinion (which isn’t the most common of pro-choice opinions, I’ll admit). Please note that I’m not responding to any posts in that thread that aren’t specifically relating to the OP, since that’s all I was interested in arguing about. Obviously, as with all abortion debates, it didn’t remain a narrowly-focussed debate and extended to cover the usual ‘personhood’ stuff that I was trying to avoid.
Ah. In other words, it’s not the pro-lifers who are using the term “person.” Rather, this is all predicated on your claim that a baby is a person.
Well, let’s examine the logical implications of that claim. As pointed out earlier, the dictionary says that the fetus is a baby. catsix says that a baby is a person. Ergo…?
Actually, I misspoke. I reviewed my notes, and Singer DOES claim (or rather, assert) that the fetus is a non-person. However, he also recognizes that there are no logical or scientific grounds for saying that personhood begins at birth. (You may recall that I’ve been asking for some shred of evidence that personhood begins at birth, none of which has materialized.)
Tragically, Singer carries his assertion to its logical conclusion, and argues for the moral acceptability of infanticide. Shudder
Singer’s claims are discussed more thoroughly here.
Okay, first of all, placing the woman under suicide watch is NOT done so that she can suffer from her illness. It is done to prevent her from killing herself, or from killing another human being. You know this well enough by now, but of course, it’s more convenient to claim that this is done so that she can suffer.
Second, I have repeatedly asked for evidence that these deformed individuals DO want to be killed. All the evidence so far indicates otherwise. So please, if you believe in the supremacy of “bodily rights,” then why should women be allowed to make decisions about the bodies of these deformed individuals?
BTW, I did not – at ANY point – speak about drugging the mentally ill woman “against her will,” and I challenge you to prove me wrong.
What I said is that she may need to be placed under suicide watch, and prevented from committing suicide. This is NOT the same as drugging her against her will.
But, once again, it’s easier to claim that this is what I said, since that’s a much easier target for criticism.
Okay, but only if you provide me with evidence that aborted deformed fetuses wish they had not been killed.
First you say that the" “Z/E/F=baby” equivalency" is logical. Then you say that unless we reject the logical that “it’s hard for me to see how such a deliberate, planned act could be seen as not being equivalent to murder”. Yet in the OP, you clearly stated your pro -choice stand. I’m very curious as to how you were able to morally overcome your logic of abortion as murder to arrive at a pro-choice stance. After all, I’m convinced that you are a moral person. 
I’m pro-life but I accept pro-choice for others as long as it is the law of the land. I’m anti-war but I won’t oppose those who travel to a foreign land to murder babies and grown ups in an effort to secure some greater sense of security or freedom back up home. I can’t see how a distinction can be made by a woman murdering a human being in the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness, and a revolutionary soldier murdering a British soldier in pursuit of the same.
Sounds like a cop out, but that is how I’m able to escape the moral dilemna. There is precedence for sanctioned murder and it goes way back to the old testament in the bible.
No I didn’t say that. I said that IF the “Z/E/F=baby” equivalency is accepted, then this logically has certain implications. If someone were to claim that all human cells are “human life”, and morally equivalent to human beings, then the logical implication of that stance would be that taking a blood sample from someone–a premeditated act which will result in the destruction of many human cells–is ethically equivalent to mass murder. One can escape this logical implication by rejecting the initial premise of an equivalency between any human cell and a human being. Pointing out the logical implications of a position doesn’t mean one accepts the position, nor does it mean that the position is itself “logical” (whatever that might mean).
Do you really not understand what a sentence like “The logical implications of this position would be ___” means?
Excuse me? In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we should assume that they would choose to LIVE. The decision to end their own lives would be their own.
I mean, really. Do civilized people say, “Unless you can prove that this innocent human wants to live, we should feel free to end its life?” So much for “the right to control one’s body,” eh?
Moreover, I already cited articles which stated that the suicide rate for disabled, deformed individuals is virtually zero. If we’re to presume that these deformed individual would truly prefer death, then we should see a suicide rate of nearly 100%. The stark absence of any such statistic provides clear evidence that they do NOT prefer death.
Joel
This is in reply to your Friday post.
I have no interest whatsoever in what you are thinking or whether you know what you are thinking, yourself.
Whatever you are thinking, whatever you think you are thinking, what you are effectively arguing for is social control of women’s bodies, realities and lives - the infantalization of women, in fact.
From the moment of a conception, in your scenario, I would become infantalized, unable to make choices within the society I live in.
In a personal sense, Joel, I’m anti-abortion but pro-choice. I know that I wouldn’t choose to have an abortion - though what a candida who, to take an extreme example, had seen her husband and children murdered and then had been raped by the attackers, would choose to do might be another matter, I cannot know that.
Notice the use of the word ‘choose’, it’s something I do or would do and, since I’m affluent enough to afford to make that choice, whatever change there is in the law, it will remain my choice and never yours or anybody else’s.
That Joel, is, to me, the whole point. I am not prepared to have your morality, whatever that might be, imposed on my right to choose, myself, to have, or not have, an abortion.
=)
I wonder, in these debates, just whom of who is debating knows, above theory, what’s going on.
I sure don’t!
Interestingly, convention states that age begins with birth, age being a measure of life, and thus life begins at birth - not conception. According to convention. Interesting that pro-lifers should owe me a shot.
Personally, I think because an unborn child is not apart, it must be of, and whom it’s of, well, governs it, much as I govern my hand and may chop it off if I feel so. Though an unborn baby is not a hand, it’s not necessarily a human yet, either. So how is it not the carrier’s right?
I’m not sure I’m wrong. Scary.
Here’s what I’d like to know:
How is the baby apart, an individual deserving of individual rights;
Why does the carrier not have rule over what it carries;
and what reason is so powerful as to override the two previous, via the law?