"Person-hood" is not the defining factor in abortion

And we are free to choose how we deal with those consequences when they occur, whether we choose to have an abortion or to give birth.

 

1-For most women, pregnancy isn't life threatening (we're living in modern times, remember?)

2-The goal isn't to control women's bodies, the issue is about the rights of innocent children, actually.

 

Some pro-choicers say that, "consent to sex isn't consent to pregnancy", and "even if consent to sex is consent to pregnancy, consent can be withdrawn".

What would your response to those arguments be?

 

Pregnancy is life threatening for every woman. Complications can develop in ANY pregnancy at any time for any woman.

Actually the goal IS to control women's bodies for some pro-lifers, even if they won't freely admit it. You don't speak for all pro-lifers.

 

1. All daily tasks are life threatening, if you want to get down to it, mishaps can occur at any time. Everything from driving, walking across the street, doing household chores.

2. So you assume their goal is to control women's bodies. A few pro-lifers may feel that way, but it does not speak for all pro-lifers. Just like not all pro-choicer support abortion, just the woman being able to have one if she wants to.

 

Yes, driving, for instance, is life threatening. But we do those things voluntarily. No one is forced to drive, or forced to do any of those things.

I said it is the goal for SOME.

 

Though not everybody volunteers to get pregnant, it is a risk associated with sex, which a majority of times is voluntary. No fetus volunteered to be the chosen one. Punishing the unborn with death to avoid a potential mishap is IMO wrong. there are exceptions that I can support, other I can't that I can accept. At this time i also have to accept the reasons I find unacceptable as well, because the law says so.

 

As you pointed out, we live with risks every day, and take them voluntarily, but that doesn't mean we must be denied medical intervention when injurious consequences result. You are assigning qualities to the unborn it can't possibly have. Of course a fetus can't volunteer; it hasn't developed the capacity to do so. An embryo or fetus has no consciousness or feelings so it can't be punished. Let's just be realistic and honest about what the unborn is, not what it potentially is. By exalting the status of the fetus you diminish the woman's personhood, and make her subservient to the fetus.

 

Well if you want to get technical the woman is subservient to the fetus. The fetus uses the mother for nourishment and and shelter while it develops. It does not reduce her personhood by saying you can not kill an unborn child without there being an immediate danger to your health, or the health of the unborn child. the unborn human is exactly what it always will be. A human, complete with the full DNA, to try to reduce it to something else is really being dishonest isn't it? You are also saying an embryo, or fetus can not be punished, because it is not aware of what it is doing correct? Also that it can not feel pain. However killing it is punishing it to death.
Not every pregnancy ends in tragedy, but every abortion does. And the further along the pregnancy is, the more risky an abortion becomes. Abortions are a danger to the mothers life as well.
http://www.ramahinternational.org/abortion-risks.html-
http://afterabortion.org/1999/abort...r-physical-complications-related-to-abortion/
a couple sites. First one might be a religious website

 

the legal definition of consent would be my response

Informed consent: a phrase used in law to indicate that the consent given by a person has been based upon a clear appreciation and understanding of the facts, implications, and future consequences of an action. In order to give informed consent, the individual concerned must have adequate reasoning faculties and be in possession of all relevant facts at the time consent is given. In some instances, a substitute decision maker may be involved in giving informed consent.

 

Only if she chooses to be. A woman is unquestionably a full human being who has achieved personhood.

With her permission. She can't be and should never be forced to provide nourishment and the use of her body to another.

You can't give rights to the unborn without taking rights away from the woman.

There is no scientific nor theological consensus that a fetus is a human, and full DNA doesn't make it a human being. We know it is a potential human being, but that is all we know as fact.

Abortion kills the embyo or fetus, it doesn't "punish" it.

Abortion ends in tragedy for whom? Most women feel only relief. You are correct that as the pregnancy progresses, the abortion becomes more risky. That's why TRAP laws and other legal obstacles for abortion only increase risks for women. 90% of abortions are performed in the first trimester, however, and abortion is 14 times safer than childbirth for women.
http://healthland.time.com/2012/01/25/why-abortion-is-less-risky-than-childbirth/

 

her rights as a person doesn't give her the right to violate the rights of another

she gave that permission when she gave consent to have sex

that women willingly gave up some liberty so to give life to another when she agreed to have consensual sex

so when is it a human what mile stone needs to be reached there for to be considered human ?

abortion is always tragic for the unborn

 

The risk is more then just the abortion itself, but the post abortion trauma and mental issues women suffer
Abortion ends in tragedy for everyone. Relief? Really.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/12951.php
killing the fetus is punishing it
a fetus is a human not a potential human. What else can it be realistically... There's no consensus on when it becomes a human being. Full DNA is what makes it human. Human and human being are different. Yes I know body parts contain DNA. But a leg is not going to turn into a person. A fetus/embryo/zygote is in 80% of cases. 20% end in the body aborting the fetus.
It would not be taking away a right of the woman, it would be taking away the extra right they have to kill another human simply because it is unborn.
She is subservient to the fetus whether she wants to be, or not. Only when she chooses killing the unborn is when she is set free from this, in which case there is no longer a fetus in question.
She should be forced to respect the unborn as she would a born baby. That includes respecting its right to live, which current laws deny the unborn. Using what nature gives you as an excuse to kill is hardly what I'd call liberating.
some dispute the claims of the study calling it biased.

 

You are assuming a fetus has rights.

To whom did she give that permission?

A woman doesn't lose her rights when she becomes pregnant.

There are many theories. It has never been established that a zef is a human being.

How so?

 

"Post abortion trauma" is made up propaganda. Women who have abortions have no more "mental issues" than women who give birth.

Propaganda. Studies show most women feel only relief.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/05/AR2010110507322.html

It is scientifically possible for a cell from a leg can be cloned and turn into a person.

Up to 80% of fertilized eggs do not survive to birth.

Forcing a woman to use her body against her will for pregnancy/childbirth, a life changing event that risks her health and life, and causes permanent damage to her body...is not taking away a woman's rights???

How can someone be "forced" to respect something? Try to remember, the abortion issue is a basic disagreement about when significant life begins. Your opinion is no more valid than hers.

Would you believe the APA?

APA Task Force Finds Single Abortion Not a Threat to Women's Mental Health

BOSTON—There is no credible evidence that a single elective abortion of an unwanted pregnancy in and of itself causes mental health problems for adult women, according to a draft report released Tuesday by a task force of the American Psychological Association.
http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2008/08/single-abortion.aspx

Edit: Were you talking about the study showing abortion is up to 14 times safer than childbirth? There are many studies...

Abortion is 10 to 30 times safer than childbirth depending on the length of pregnancy at the time of termination and the age of the woman. The younger a women is under age 20, the higher the risk for carrying the pregnancy to full term and the safer abortion is in comparison.
http://www.womensmed.com/abortion-care/safety/

 

Because there are laws on the books that treat a fetus as a baby does not change the fact that it is not one.

 

Becasue a law is on the books, and it varies by state, does not mean it is factually correct per medical science. Please explain how one can be a person without a Brain, it is NOT possible.
Sorry, nothing you or anyone else has ever posted proves otherwise.

 

In as much as "persons" are legal constructs- you're wrong about ^that.

 

Don't take this as a personal slam or anything but the fact is - brains - are not a requirement for personhood (at least as far as U.S. laws are concerned).

Indeed, our courts have already ruled numerous times now that anencephalic children (born with no cerebral cortex) are entitled to the same protections of law that any other child is entitled to.

 

Not to mention that state laws do not trump federal law. Roe v Wade is federal law. If the UVVA was brought to the Supreme Court to try and declare fetuses as persons under the law it would more than likely be deemed unconstitutional and thrown out based on Roe v Wade.

The UVVA is a nice law for pregnant women who want to protect their rights and govern their own bodies though and it certainly defends them against anyone who would violate those rights, but to try and turn the law around and use it to violate women's rights to have an abortion, it'd be tossed out without a second glance, especially since it already makes an exception for women seeking an abortion.

 

Read it already, so please do explain how you would assume that a woman would have unprotected sex for a prolonged period of time unless she wants to become pregnant?

 

Problem is that in reality no person has a "right to live" that is obvious when you consider that governments pass death sentences, go to war and allow self-defence. A life only has as much value as another puts upon it.

The injuries incurred during pregnancy more than meet the standard required for use of deadly force in self-defence. I draw your attention to the second item listed on where self-defence is justified;

2. when one is threatened with a serious bodily injury (defined as damage or loss of use of an organ or limb for a protracted period of time, such as six weeks)

If six weeks is enough to warrant sefl-defence then approx nine months more than meets the requirements.

"The mere existence of the fetus" does injury the woman, whether the injuries are intended or not, no person is expected to suffer injury due to a risk taken.

I didn't say that a normal pregnancy results in changes to the woman (she is not a mother until after the birth) I said pregnancy causes injuries to the woman and that is a fact already recognized in law in some cases and is also stated in some states constitutions. What it boils down to is whether the woman consents to those injuries or not.

Yes they are, but it still comes down to whether she consents to those injuries, whether she accepts the pregnancy will incur injuries to her. It is very, very rare that a woman's body will return to the same state it was prior to the pregnancy.

Individual consent in most societies and most legal system is of primary importance. Bearing that in mind, if a woman does not agree to the ways a fetus affects her body and liberty, then, by definition, the fetus is legally harming her. To say that a medically normal pregnancy is a serious bodily injury is already established in the law in contexts other than abortion. It is termed "wrongful pregnancy." When a fetus affects a woman's body and liberty in pregnancy without consent, the changes are so massive, they meet the standards currently set in law for the use of deadly force in selfdefense.

Whether nature intended it that way doesn't change that abortion has been around since records began and it is only relatively recently that it has been seen in the way pro-lifers see it now.

 

Err, no it doesn't, it involves obligation to a company, which can be seen as a judicial person .. in your analogy the fetus then becomes a judicial person/

 

and the fetus (if as pro-lifers want to believe is a 'person') then it is violating another humans rights. The right of the person to have body autonomy, no person may use another persons body in order to sustain its own life .. True or False?

 

when it is given consent to do so then yes
when you give consent to have sex you are also giving consent to the consequences that possibly can happen caused by having sex