Abortion- "It is her body!" But is it?

Is that why when I kill a baby it's an abortion, and when I crack an egg it's an omelet?

 

No, that's not true in any way.

What a woman thinks she's pregnant with has nothing to do with a person's right to their own body.

She may think she has a bun in the oven but she will NOT give birth to a dinner roll.

YOU do NOT know what all women think.

 

All evidence to the contrary.

 

If you kill a baby , it's murder.


You may call a fetus anything you wish, a teenager, a senior , a toddler....nothing changes, it's still a fetus that's aborted.

 

What if you could kill your kid up until they are 18? Ethics aside, do you think the world would be worse or better?

 

So the difference is really that one is meat and other other is... whatever the (*)(*)(*)(*) an egg is

 

Is it child molestation to have sex with a pregnant woman? The penis at full penetration is very close to the fetus. If the fetus is a person, doesn't the presence of a thrusting penis inches from your face constitute a form of sexual abuse? I know I have been severely traumatized my whole life just thinking about it. Perhaps the pro-lifers should start forbidding vaginal penetration during pregnancy, it is the next frontier of the devout crusader.

 

There is no evidence that people are animals.....if you want to discuss that find another thread....

 

Then, what is it that decides what a life is? Why is a fetus not a life? Why is a baby a life?

One way of looking at life is to equate it to "consciousness"; Are fetuses conscious? Doubtful, but at the same time newborns are not fully conscious either- we remember as much from our first two years as we do from our time in the womb.

After a certain time, some studies claim, the fetus can feel pain; can something that is not a live feel pain?

This is very difficult. Especially for a Libertarian like me where individual freedoms, property-rights and NAP is the foundation.

 

Interesting. Care to elaborate on why? Remember this is the philosophy forum.

If a fetus is not a person then why even bother to take care of it, even if you want motherhood? Why not smoke, drink and jump around as usual? Who cares if you want motherhood. The fetus is not a person, so why bother?!

The other points are very interesting. Of course for you it is easy, you are certain the fetus is nothing so the argument of individual freedoms is well at hands. For us who are not certain what defines life, things are alot harder.

Let us hypothetically imagine that a hypothetical group of researchers conduct their hypothetical science and come to the hypothetical conclusion that a detus is a person. Then let us ask ourselves the question;

If all persons have the right to make their iwn decisions, where is the fetus' say in abortion?

I am not sure what you mean by your last point. Babies, toddlers, children are all in way or another dependent on using their parents' (in early stages, especially the mother's) body, property and resources for protection. Should parents be allowed to entirely ignore their kids? Would that be morally correct?

 

Then why won't the willingly pregnant woman live her life as usual and start to act as if there is another being inside her as soon as she finds out she is pregnant?

Women's rights discussions belong in the women's rights section.

We do not discuss abortion per se in here. If you want to discuss juridics, human rights and medicine there are sub-forums for all that. This thread is in the philosophy section for a reason, you know.

 

Agree that this is the philosophy forum and the "philosophy" of abortion is a waste of time.


Your other points: ""If a fetus is not a person then why even bother to take care of it, even if you want motherhood? Why not smoke, drink and jump around as usual? Who cares if you want motherhood. The fetus is not a person, so why bother?! ""


Not having the legal status of a "person" does not indicate the fetus is not alive. It is alive.

If a woman wants a healthy baby she will choose not to do things that may injure it. It is her CHOICE.



You: """ The other points are very interesting. Of course for you it is easy, you are certain the fetus is nothing"""



NO where did I say the fetus is nothing. I guess "philosophy" is pulling things out of your...er.....the air....



You: "" so the argument of individual freedoms is well at hands. For us who are not certain what defines life, things are alot harder. ""


A fetus is alive, life....what's the problem?

You: """ Let us hypothetically imagine that a hypothetical group of researchers conduct their hypothetical science and come to the hypothetical conclusion that a detus is a person. Then let us ask ourselves the question; """


Science doesn't have a say in if a fetus is a person the law does.



You: """ If all persons have the right to make their iwn decisions, where is the fetus' say in abortion? """

What decision is this?...and yes, WHERE would it be, where would it come from.....the fetus will tap out in Morse code what it decides to do with the body of the woman it's in???




You:""" I am not sure what you mean by your last point. Babies, toddlers, children are all in way or another dependent on using their parents' (in early stages, especially the mother's) body, property and resources for protection. Should parents be allowed to entirely ignore their kids? Would that be morally correct? """


For legal purposes human stages of life are determined. A fetus is NOT a baby anymore than it is a teenager or a 20 something.....the point being that the people who refer to the fetus as a baby with no regard for science, facts or law may as well refer to it in any other stages of it's life.

As for babies /children/anyone being dependent on others there is a difference between socially dependent and biologically/physically dependent.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, you have no answers to that post of mine

 

So does cancer, so it doesn't seem to me like that's the deciding factor.

 

Then it seems you agree the safest course is to decide and act as if the unborn are people.

 

You can repeat your opinion that "It's not a person" one million times, that does not make it fact, that does not help resolve the issue, that does not move the discussion forward in any way.

You are making a circular argument - if "A" then "B", but since there is "B" then "A". When you have a real argument, let us know.

 

Well, last time I checked the dictionary, murder was the premeditated killing of another human being.

The definition of a human being is a child, man or woman. Even though I admit that the fact that it doesn't mention fetuses is probably inconsequential.

However, if you are of the opinion that abortion is murder since it kills a sentient being, fetuses (so I've heard) become sentient between the 4th and 6th month of pregnancy.

 

Not at all. The safest course of action is to act as if women are people and are in charge of their own bodies. If we want to keep them alive that is.

 

The premise of your argument "the cells have the ability to shape shift" is flawed. That it is considered a baby in one instance and not in another.

The reality is that, until proven otherwise, the single cell at conception is not ever a "baby" and those who consider it a "defacto" baby have not really thought things through and/or, their thinking is flawed.

You are in essence, confusing colloquialism ( a pregnant woman referred to as "with child") with reality. Referring to a woman as "with child" does not actually mean a child exists.

If a woman gets pregnant then she has a choice.

1) She can either continue the pregnancy which "might" result in the creation of a baby or
2) She can discontinue the pregnancy stopping the process of baby creation.

In either case the status of "the baby" does not change because there is no baby. There is a process of creation of a baby underway.

 

And once again you try to ignore the huge elephant in the issue - the baby.

 

No baby involved. But a woman is a person and if her life is in even the slightest risk (as it is in every pregnancy) she has every right to make medical decisions to protect herself IF SHE CHOOSES TO.

 

Is sentience (mental capacity) the only metric? A fertilized egg is set on a course in which it will become a baby, be born, grow into a infant, toddler, child, adolescent, adult, and finally a senior. Each stage of development represents different levels of physical and mental maturity. As a person passes through these stages, physical and mental ability increase, plateau, then decrease sometimes into disability. Why should the post-birth stages considered to be "human" and the pre-birth stages ignored? They all form a continuum of a human individuals development and life.

 

And once again you try to ignore the huge elephant in the issue - the baby.

The status of the baby is the one and only issue, and that issue has not been resolved. That is why the abortion issue is still raging. You can state your personal opinion that "no baby is involved" all day long, it does nothing to resolve the issue. Or are you afraid to entertain the major issue because you are afraid that society will decide it is a baby?

 

Is it?

Would the question even be brought up if MALES had the children?

 

Oh, gee the f word

Must be frustrated with having everything you post thrown back at you with facts .


It's a simple concept.

The fetus is alive. I NEVER said it was nothing. Nothing is nothing oh great philosopher....is "alive" but not a "person" too deep for philosophy?

It is NOT a person. Murder is the illegal killing of a person. So killing a fetus which is NOT a person is not murder.

It has been covered for you in the abortion forum but under the cloak of "philosophy" you seem to have forgotten your schooling in that forum.

 

It's not just my opinion, it's the law


My argument/statement is circular only to you.


Quote Originally Posted by FoxHastings View Post

IF a fetus (there is no "baby" involved in abortion) is ever deemed a person

it has all the rights and protections AND RESTRICTIONS granted to all people.

A restriction: No person may use another's body to sustain it's life, you can't, I can't, no one can....not even a "person" inside another person.""



Instead of your usual whining why don't you address the points?

You have NEVER answered why you think someone can force you to use your body to sustain their life.......