What if fetus == baby

Great Debates
81

Of course, “No one has a right to live at another’s expense” doesn’t say anything about what happens when a fetus is capable of living on its own, which means that the whole “Abortion is a-ok up until birth by that logic!” objection has no grounding.

And, also of course, shouting “Abortion is wrong!” doesn’t actually address the position of, “Abortion is wrong, yeah. Never disputed that. Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term is also wrong. I don’t accept your gods as providing valid puyblic policy cites, so I will continue to consider both wrongs relevant to making decisions.”

82

Um, yeah.

:confused:

Well, that’s really all I need to know about your argument.

Julie

83

I can’t believe no-one acknowledged this beautiful post.

It cracked me up…

:smiley:

84

I find it surprising that some people think that the natural outcome of sex has to be pregnancy. Its very common for fertilized eggs to fail to implaint on a womans womb. Miscarrages also occur naturally for any number of reasons. If life truly begins at conception then we have been letting billions of serial killers walk free.

Another strange thing about the abortion issue is that, as a man, I have great control over what can be forced upon my body. For example, it is my right to refuse giving a bone marrow transplant to another person to save their life. Even if I was the only
available donor, or even if it was my own son(I cannot give a cite, but this has occured). On the other hand many people believe that a woman must be forced to carry a parasitic organism for 9+ months, in the hope it will become a functioning adult human.

Can the state force a medical condition or procedure on someone to save a the (possible)life of another? Its not legal for the state to inject me with deadly diseases in the hope that I may produce life-saveing anti-bodies. Nor can they strap me to a table and draw blood from my body without my consent. Sex does not mean consent to pregnancy, just as walking in a bad neighborhood with loads of cash does not mean consent to assualt, just as mountainclimbing does not mean consent to falling to one’s death. All the the previous are risky, and anyone doing them are likely to aware of the consequences, but few people actually ask for misfortune. mountainclimbing is a good example, many look upon upon them as brave, others stupid,
but you have to be pretty hard-hearted to think that any injury they get is deserved.

Is a fetus a human being? The problem is at what point. If you put it at something medical, like a beating heart, you can create a human simply by thowing a heart on a table and attaching electrodes. You can’t test cognition or mental state while in the
womb. I don’t believe it happens a conception either, many natural abortions and miscarrages happen without the woman even knowing about it. If you join a sperm and an egg in a lab and then drop the test tube, is it murder? Do they draw a chalk outline around it?

Lets put it like this, a young girl needs a liver transplant, without it she will die. They don’t need all of it, just slice of a piece of someone elses, and then grow it to full size in a lab. Still very dangerous, but the donor still keeps most of their liver that should grow back. Test have found that YOU are the only possible donor.
**
Does the Government have the right to strap you down and forcibly take part of your liver wether you want to or not? I agree volunteering would be the right thing to do, but consider if the choice was taken away from you. What if you believed that the
body was a holy vessel, and cutting it open let your soul escape? Think it could never happen? China is known for being a great place to find donor organs for the right price.

I’m not pro-choice, I simply believe women should have the same rights I do.

85

**

Not true. Certainly you can see the difference between actively having an abortion and a natural miscarriage, or a fetus that never implanted being expelled. To characterize a miscarriage as a murder is a far, far stretch and no pro-life person would do so.

**

True, but on the other hand, pregnancy is a natural consequence to sex. And while it’s true that no one has the right to force you to any kind of operation, the question we are now dealing with is an “after the fact” situation. IF we give a fetus the equal rights and protections under the law that we give a child (which is the premise of the thread), then we have to ask the question: Surely no one can force you to have another living being attached to yourself, but once done (even against your will), do you now have the right to kill that being by having it detached, even against it’s wishes?

**

Again, no, the government doesn’t have the right to force you to do so. But the question, now that it’s done, is “do you have the right to ask the girl to give the piece of liver back, thereby killing her?”

Zev Steinhardt

86

If getting the piece of liver back makes a marked improvement in my quality of life, then yes. I believe I should have that right.

Julie

87

Even if removing the liver piece is fatal to the recipient (and, assuming of course, you won’t die from the lack of it)??? :eek:

Zev Steinhardt

88

Yes. If the body part was taken from me without my consent and if the return of the body part will improve my life, then I have a right to it.

Otherwise, you’re saying that if a crime can be committed against me has a good result then I can’t do anything about it. Someone steals $10,000 from me and gives it to charity. Does the charity get to keep the money?

Now, some people might not take the liver back. But that doesn’t mean they don’t have a right to that thing that was stolen.

Julie

89

**

Yes, sometimes you can be the victim of a crime and do nothing about it. It’s not a great situation, but sometimes it happens.

IANAL, so I can’t answer your question about a charity, but let’s take it one step further. What if the thief blew your $10,000 at a casino. Can you get it back from the casino. My guess would be no.

In any event, surely you can see the distinction between suing a person (or organization) for money, or having a court order that someone be opened up, have their liver removed and be killed.

Sometimes, some things are just a fait accompli. I’m sure you can sue the liver-theif for damages, but I highly doubt that you’d get any court to allow what amounts to the execution of the thief.

Zev Steinhardt

90

:smack:

Or you could sue me for the trauma of making you read my horrible spelling.

Zev Steinhardt

91

Is your argument based on what does happen or what should happen? I’m interested in the shoulds, not the does.

Julie

92

I’m basing my argument on what should happen. Should the transplant have already taken place, you should not be able to force the thief to die.

Granted, they shouldn’t have done it. And granted, they should face prosecution for their crimes and have to make restitution. But they should not have to die.

Zev Steinhardt

93

Well, I come at it from the other way. I should be able to get my property back, irrespective of the use to which the thief is putting it. I should not have to suffer and continue to suffer for the benefit of the thief. I owe the thief nothing, and that “nothing” includes the use of my body parts.

This is, as I said, assuming that the return of those parts benefits me in some way. If the loss of that part of my liver makes me ill, for example, while the return of it would help the illness.

In other words, if the part is gone, nothing can bring it back, nothing can reattach it to me or improve my life at this point, then I would see no purpose in demanding it back.

But if my life, health, quality of life, or anything of similar gravity is at stake, then I believe I should have the right to demand my pieces and parts be returned to me.

Julie

94

Julie,

As a side point, let me ask this:

You are (presumably) basing your case on the fact that the liver thief committed a wrong against you (i.e. she stole a part of your liver and used it to extend her life). I’m wondering what your opinion would then be in a case where no wrong was done to you (i.e. she somehow got a cloned copy of your liver – no harm was done to you, you’re not missing anything). Go one step further and assume that she didn’t even consent to receiving this piece of cloned liver from you. She is, in effect, guiltless in the matter. Do you still think that you have the right to ask for it back? You stated above (bolding mine):

I would take it from this that if the return of it would mean nothing to you (i.e. you can’t use it – you have your complete healthy liver already), then you should not be able to force her to return it. Do I have that correct?

Zev Steinhardt

95

But is that a valid argument? After all, if you are basing your argument on “it’s mine and therefore it’s my decision,” then whether or not you can benefit from it is really irrelevant, isn’t it? Just because I have all the money in the world and would never notice the $20 that the thief stole from me, surely I should be able to ask for it back, correct?

IOW, if you’re opinion is “it’s mine and the thief shouldn’t benefit” then whether or not you need it or can use it is really irrelevant. After all, it’s still yours, even if you can’t use it, and, as I am reading your position, you should still be able to force the thief to return it. Just because you would see no purpose in asking for it back, suppose another liver-thief victim would want it back anyway (they want it for their grandkids?) ? Would you then condone the execution of the thief?

Zev Steinhardt

96

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by zev_steinhardt *
**Julie,

As a side point, let me ask this:

You are (presumably) basing your case on the fact that the liver thief committed a wrong against you (i.e. she stole a part of your liver and used it to extend her life). I’m wondering what your opinion would then be in a case where no wrong was done to you (i.e. she somehow got a cloned copy of your liver – no harm was done to you, you’re not missing anything). Go one step further and assume that she didn’t even consent to receiving this piece of cloned liver from you. She is, in effect, guiltless in the matter. Do you still think that you have the right to ask for it back? **
[/QUOTE ]

If it was never mine, how do I ask for it back?

If the return would mean nothing to me, then I wouldn’t demand it back. I would have no reason to.

Julie

97

A small benefit is not the same as no benefit.

Again, I am not condoning the execution of the thief. What happens to the thief is immaterial. My right to a thing that was mine and contributes to my health or wellbeing supercedes anyone else’s right to that thing. Even if someone steals a dollar to buy a hamburger to keep from starving, I don’t owe them that hamburger. I might give it to them. I might choose to let them keep it. But their starvation isn’t my problem.

If the thief dies from having my liver removed, well, that’s tough. If the thief can survive having my liver removed, I’m not going to kill him. The death of the thief isn’t the intent. Regaining the liver is.

If we say otherwise, we are saying that as long as the thief gets away with it (where “it” means whatever theft) long enough to “deposit” the stolen item in a place where it cannot be recovered without damage to someone, then the thief should get away with it.

Julie

98

**

But from a practical standpoint, in this case, that’s what is happening. The thief will die as a result of returning the stolen property. As with everything else, circumstances must be taken into consideration.

Yes, sometimes the thief gets away with the stolen goods. Sad to say, but sometimes it happens. If the stolen goods were food and the thief ate it, would you demand it’s return? No. The fact of the matter is that the thief “got away” with the stolen goods. If he stole some blood from you and put it in his body, would you demand a pint in return (can you even isolate the original pint?)? What if he stole some rare papers from your house and used them to fuel his fire so his family didn’t freeze to death. Do you get your papers back when the thief is caught, or do you want his family’s life since that was a direct benefit of the papers that were stolen from you? No, the thief “got away with it.” There comes a certain point when we have to say “no, even though what was yours was stolen from you, you don’t have the right to ask for it back.”

That doesn’t, of course, mitigate your right to ask for compensation for the stolen property, nor does it mitigate your right to have criminal proceedings brought against the thief. He doesn’t “get away with it” in that respect, but, in reality, you cannot get your piece of liver back.

Zev Steinhardt

99

Perhaps the thief should have considered my circumstances before doing me an injury.

As I said, if I got no real benefit from getting the liver part back, then I would make no effort to get it back. But say that if I had it back I would avoid a long illness, with the accompanying pain and monetary loss that entails. I’m supposed to go through that for the sake of someone who means nothing to me? I don’t agree with that.

If, on the other hand, having the liver part back would make no difference, I’m 100% fine without it, my life can continue without interruption, etc. Then I wouldn’t even consider trying to get it back. And, of course, if I could donate a part of my liver so readily, with so little harm, then it would be perfectly reasonable for someone to ask why I am such a selfish snot for not offering a chunk of it in the first place. :smiley:

Julie

100

**

Agreed. The thief should have. But that doesn’t change the “after-the-fact” circumstances.

You’re making this about you, but I’m trying to get at a general rule. You may not want it back, but if the “donor” has a right to get it back, then you would think he has a right to have it back, regardless of the circumstances. You may not want it back if it’s of no use to you anymore and you’re perfectly healthy without it, but suppose the “donor” wanted the liver back out of spite (or for whatever reason, or no reason). Would you support the forcible removal of the liver in that circumstance?

Zev Steinhardt