Except that a fetus only has a “right to live” if you use a definition that is tailor made for the sole purpose of justifying outlawing abortion. When it comes to a fetus, suddenly we are supposed to ignore brain function, personhood, anything like that and treat a mindless thing as being so valuable that it justifies reducing women to cattle.
Of course nobody can stop her. My question was would you be OK with what she did? Do you think she should not be charged with anything once she comes in contact with other people and she tells them what happened?
I guess the answer is that you’re hunky-dory with someone who does that.
(And by the way, donating a kidney is a bit more involved than breastfeeding a baby)
No ethics doesn’t necessarily mean SHE gets to choose all the time. We are not satisfying “whims” we are protecting the lives of human being (geez, didn’t some pro-choicer recently accuse me of trivializing the concerns of the pro-life side?). The concerns of compulsion is the reason why pro-lifers like me feel that abortion should be unrestricted during the first trimester and and not prohibited during the second trimester.
Totalling 222%?
For some reason I don’t trust your numbers.
[/QUOTE]
I dunno, maybe some women checked more than one box.
Women choosing to carry a baby to term is not what is causing the concern. Its the abortion part of it that is causing concern. If every pro-choicer wanted the right to choose but chose to have the baby, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
Sorry about the multiquote thing. the firewall here does not permit it.
I quoted teh entire post. What next sentence are you referring to?
That depends on whether she’s arrested by the imaginary police, charged by the imaginary court, and convicted by an imaginary jury of her imaginary peers. I think you meant to ask if she committed murder, in which case I’d say yes.
Show me who made that argument with respect to a child instead of a fetus.
A baby is a person and has rights as such. If a mother stops caring for her child, she can be charged with negligence or even murder regardless of its age. This doesn’t have anything to do with abortion rights and you’ll have a hard time finding a pro-choice person who will argue that this is anything other than murder. (ZPG Zealot, maybe.) A fetus isn’t a person, so that doesn’t apply. I think that point has been made approximately 79 times in this thread. You added some window dressing to the question but it doesn’t change any of the issues. I have no idea why you think this might be legal.
For what?
I think that she should be torn limb from limb, like all women. Whether or not she feeds the child. It’s only just, I mean - we think it’s okay to murder serial killers, right? So it’s clearly okay to murder her, even if she’s lovingly caring for the baby.
But donating a kidney is a lot less involved than carrying a fetus to term and bearing the child, which highlights how your analogy was garbage. Which is the actual answer: your analogy is garbage. And that’s that.
Yes, its a problem when it involves killing a fetus. If it weren’t a problem then what would we be debating about?
You’re right, you did quote the whole post. I’m pretty sure his point was:
My bolding and emphasis.
1). I would have no problem with the woman letting the brat starve in the scenario discribed above as chances are it could only occur in a situation in which a woman was kidnapped, denied an abortion, and forced to give birth. However, I would suggest instead that she smother the brat as the crying will be quite annoying while the baby dies, not to mention it could put the woman in danger mentally from the stress and physically by drawing bad attention to the cabin.
2). From a legal standpoint, how are you going to go about proving the woman was even capable of breast-feeding the baby? Just because a woman gives birth does not mean her mammary glands automatically work.
For fucks sake… Aren’t DianaG et al saying that the personhood of the fetus is unimportant?
That is, even if the fetus is considered a person, the woman’s right to use her body as she sees fit trumps any rights any other person has to stay alive.
So, if it trumps the rights of any other person to stay alive, and a baby a woman just gave birth to is some other person with the right to stay alive, doesn’t that woman’s right to use her body as she sees fit trumps any rights this baby has to stay alive?
And if she chooses to not use her breasts to feed the baby, doesn’t that trump any rights this baby has to stay alive?
I’m not sure what you mean? Did the arguments make you realize that the pro-life side is entirely meritless, that there really isn’t pro-life argument or are you jsut pissed off that people are disgreeing with you?
Why is it garbage?
We’re debating over the fact that you seem to fail to understand how flimsy a statement “its a problem when it involves killing a fetus” is.
A fetus is a fetus for nine months. For a healthy portion of that there is no sensible reason not to kill it - the thing is alive but it doesn’t have individual life in any meaningful sense. And for the rest of it, despite absurd nonsense about elective abortions of viable fetuses, no abortions would happen anyway.
You’re outraged by the fact I’m okay with not criminalizing last-second elective abortions? I’m outraged by the fact you’re okay with not criminalizing humans who exceed the freeway speed limit on foot. I mean seriously, what if one of those people running at 80 miles per hour on I-95 ran into somebody? They’d kill them! It’s imperative that we specifically outlaw breaking the speedlimit on foot, and I mean now!!!
But what if the mother doesn’t want to a the mother, never did, and was stuck with the pregnancy by force. How in good conscience is it legal to force her to feed (from the substance of her own body no less) a baby whose existence she never consented to?
This is a false premise, because it skips one very salient point. In the example, you suddenly wake up to find that “someone” has attached this person to you. Well, in pregnancy, YOU chose to engage in an act which has the very real potential of creating this situation. YOU had a CHOICE in what to do with your body. Should you have to live with the consequences of that initial choice is the real question. (This of course disregards cases of rape or forced incest - which, for the record, I consider an exception BECAUSE there was no initial choice involved.)
The point is that it does happen. There are about 1000 late term abortions every year and most of these are elective (in the sense that they are not medically necessary to prevent death or disability).
I realize that its not millions of deaths every eyar but 1000 is still a lot.
So now the fetus is like an assailant? A cannibalistic organ stealer?
Why? And if it’s only generally required and not specifically required, then I’m making a principled argument that finds the inconsistency you’ve pointed out to be irrelevant.
Anyway, what’s your worst-case scenario where abortion is legal up to the moment of birth? What savageries would society embrace, when would ten year-old children become hunted for sport, how soon before civilization crumbles?
I’ll be sure to let you know when Canada (abortion-law free since 1989) starts edging in this direction.