There is no right to have an abortion

THat ISN'T what he posted!

Here is what he posted :


"""Quote Originally Posted by RandomObserver View Post

There is no person to protect until there is (at least) a sentient mind present."""



There is no PERSON to protect NOT ""there is nothing to protect a fetus from before the 3rd trimester"""



Good GAWD you people are desperate .....

 

Imo the issue is not whether a woman has a right to have an abortion
The issue is that the government has NO RIGHT to intervene in this medical decision

 

My opinion is that the developing fetus has life, but no sentient mind before the third trimester. Here is a simple explanation of the science:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-consciousness-arise/
"Consciousness requires a sophisticated network of highly interconnected components, nerve cells. Its physical substrate, the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation. Roughly two months later synchrony of the electroencephalographic (EEG) rhythm across both cortical hemispheres signals the onset of global neuronal integration. Thus, many of the circuit elements necessary for consciousness are in place by the third trimester."

If a woman has chosen to have a baby, we should protect the fetus (at any stage) since she is the person with the responsibility and the authority to make that decision. If she has NOT chosen to have a baby, the fetus should be removed as soon as possible. That is not an act of ill will TOWARD the fetus but a response to the circumstances.

 

Excellent point. The government has no right to compel me to donate a lobe of my liver to save a fetus, and it has no right to compel a pregnant woman to donate the next 6-7 months to growing a fetus.

 

Ok, and how exactly do you propose she stop expending her energies growing a fetus without the woman launching an attack against that fetus?

It's one thing to say "I'm not going to help you", it's quite another to intentionally inflict harm on another for your own benefit.

 

There are not two people because human tissue without a mind is just human tissue, not a person.

Who controls human tissue, ethically? The mind involved in it. The embryo has no mind and thus deserves no rights much like my appendix has no mind so has no say on whether I remove it or not. So a woman having a choice in abortion is sort of like a man making the decision of whether to consent to surgery.

 

Easy, the fetus isn't "another".....and you've been told that hundred times and you have never proven that a fetus IS a person....


...and you 've been told a hundred times that IF the fetus is a person then it does not have the right to harm another and if it does the other can use self defense to kill it...


...those are facts, why do you have to be told them over and over and over ????

 

Prior to the third trimester, there is no sentient person associated with that fetus, so there is no intent to harm anybody. There is no sentient being there to be the object of an attack. The point remains that you agree that the fetus is not so important that some other person should be forced to sacrifice a few days of discomfort to save its life.

 

Unlike most pro-lifers, I do not consider abortion an act of ill will. I recognize that people are influenced by the current legal status and debate that abortion is acceptable, so I don't say they are acting out of ill will. But let's set abortion aside. There are other things that can be done to a fetus that do qualify as ill will. I'm sure everyone can think of some. My question was, should the fetus be protected from those?

 

But if it's not a person, why protect it from anything?

 

Good question... Maybe because people are stupid

No one is forced to have an abortion if they feel differently

 

I am not pro-abortion. I am pro-choice, so if our government (like China) decided certain women MUST have abortions against their will, I would be equally opposed to that intrusion into the woman's life.

If someone attacks a pregnant woman who WANTS to have the baby, and that causes a miscarriage, I would agree that person deserves a harsher sentence than normal for his actions, but that is based on what he took away from the woman (not based on the fetus as a separate entity).

 

Uh, 'cause that's how women who want babies get them....so they have the option to protect their fetus

 

That it is factually incorrect!

An abortion terminates the POTENTIAL for another human being to inhabit the planet at some point in the future.

There is nothing that guarantees that the fetus and/or the woman will survive the pregnancy and childbirth.

So you cannot claim something to be "factual" when there is no absolute assurance of the final outcome.

 

Explain exactly how you would give up "certain rights" to allow me to take one of your kidneys, or both for that matter.

Which part of "inalienable" rights was not explained during home schooling?

 

It is not a fact. I think you could argue that the fetus is composed of living cells, and those cells contain human DNA (unless there is severe chromosome damage), but it does not have the physiology to support a sentient mind, so it is not a sentient human being. Do you claim that an 8-celled organism is a sentient human being?

 

Yeah but what if the person who harbors the ill will toward the fetus is the woman? Again, let's set aside abortion. There are ways a woman can intentionally harm a fetus. There are ways a doctor or geneticist, with the mother's consent, can harm a fetus. Should we protect a fetus from nefarious deeds besides abortion?

 

Assumes all women would never harm their fetus. My question is what if the woman herself, or with assistance, does harm to the fetus, but doesn't abort it. Should we protect people in the womb from harmful acts besides abortion?

 

There are no people in the womb.

There may be laws against self -mutilation already.

 

Again it is not a matter of ill will toward the fetus and there is no sentient human to harm (unless you are talking about late in the third trimester). You did not specify. If you find an unexpected growth on your torso and you do not want it there, it has human DNA and living tissue, but your decision to remove it is NOT due to any ill will toward the growth. Maybe if it is a cute wart on your face and you are a model you want to keep it. It is your body, so you have the right to choose. So when do YOU think the fetus becomes a sentient human?

 

No one argues this ? Strawman-ville. The argument is that the Fetus is not a Person prior until the third trimester and therefor is not entitled to protection.

2 would be the correct answer.

 

I think pro-lifers are only willing to trample on OTHER people's inalienable rights to save a fetus.

 

You dodged the question. Should we protect the fetus from experimentation or drug use before the third trimester? Or is it a free for all on fetal experimentation as long as you get the woman's consent? Mengeles of the world, rejoice!

 

That's your argument, and I'm telling you it is wrong because it doesn't protect people from everything that they should be protected from. Everyone agrees that we have a right to not have a doctor experiment on us while we are in the womb when those experiments would cause irreparable harm throughout life as a person. Your logic, your theory of a person, does not protect against that, and so it must be wrong.