Women have a responsibility to more than themselves

That is correct....killing a child or person is legally and morally prohibited because it is an individual person. Killing a fetus is not illegal because it is NOT a person, it is a fetus. Thus did we thinking humans come up with separate terms. I'm impressed that you understood that...did not seem likely.

 

It's interesting how you are able to compartmentalize killing babies in the womb as separate and distinct from killing babies outside the womb, and rationalize it as all ok.

 

You offer no alternative, so I assume we can agree that brain development is the logical basis to determine when a living organism becomes a person. As you pointed out, even after birth the newborn brain is not finished developing, but birth is the most practical point to draw the line because it does not infringe on the rights of any other person. Maybe that is why God designed the baby to exit the womb at that time. Scientific research tells us the brain has developed enough to support thought by the time the baby is born and that gives our 1 year old the benefit of the doubt by considering him/her a person at birth.

 

It's vaguely interesting that you still can't comprehend the difference between born and unborn.

Why do you think born and unborn are exactly the same word and mean the same thing when they are two different words with two different meanings?

 

It is completely understandable that rational thought confuses you...even expected. The primary factor in what makes a Human Being, a person if you will, would be the brain that allows us to do the things that make us so. This is the aspect that differentiates us from other animals more than anything else. The fetus has yet to develop this organ sufficiently let alone the nervous system it must be attached to. At a certain point (about six months) enough of this has developed to a point that it should be taken in to account...even if it is not yet ready to become a human being.
It is also attached to and living in a fully developed human being who must be considered to be such and therefore entitled to the rights and freedoms our society bestows on them. When a choice between the two is required, all laws and decisions favor the fully formed individual every time. Except in personal opinion from people who either do not understand or are blinded by dogma.

 

How about you actually learn what words and phrases mean?

anti-choice

› opposing the idea that a pregnant woman should have the freedom to choose an abortion (= the intentional ending of pregnancy):

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/anti-choice

 

Fascinating. You and I are in agreement then. But you would not be in agreement with RandomObserver's post above...which you liked.

Oh. So you don't think men should have to pay child support for children they didn't intend to have?

Yes. And the discussion about how to understand the implications of your ideas about abortion is being explored (for example, if it leads to an absurd consequence - see reductio ad absurdum). Or to put it another way, yes we are still talking about abortion.

Your first answer was to the question whether limiting choices was okay. You said no. So to clarify, you don't think that limiting any choices is wrong? Your second clause about the issue of abortion being different than other choices begs the question. The point of my analogy was to demonstrate the rhetorical attempt to delegitimate opposing views through an ad hominem attack- anyone against abortion is therefore against freedom since it limits choice. But the same tactic can be employed against those who are against child-abusers, preventing child abuse is a restriction of choice and hence a limiting of freedom. Unless you are an anarchist, this then would render your own position contradictory. You are for the limiting of choice in some cases (child abuse) but not other (abortion) - but throwing around loaded language meant to discredit the other position (they are anti-freedom and as such are wrong) is logically fallacious.

Hmm. Does where one live/exist remove one's rights? Are rights spatially determined, or are they natural/universal/inalienable? If a physician holds the fetus in the birth canal 1 second before it is born, would it be okay to kill it? What about after it is born but before the umbilical cord is cut? Rather it seems you want to deny the child the same rights that the mother has.

Well, they aren't unrelated - again see reductio ad absurdum claim above. So actually, it is intellectually honest. To attempt to sequester the discussion so that one doesn't have to apply the same standards to other contexts (particularly when done in a self-serving fashion) in order to be able to judge another position more critically than one's own -well that would be intellectually dishonest.

That would be irony.

 

Why do you think this phrase was chosen to relate to abortion? Did it have anything to do with limiting choices? Do you think it carries with it an attempt to delegitimate the opposition by characterizing them in ways that discredit them (as anti-free) - the language is performative (it's not just informing but actually constructing identity in that it creates an identity of suspicious character -a person who is against freedom). By showing how that can apply in other contexts (anti-child abusers are against the freedom to abuse) helps to clarify the purpose the language is meant to serve - the power to unconsciously undermine the opposition's credibility.

 

Since its the male that causes the pregnancy, they have a much greater responsibility and yet, they often walk away and never look back. Our justice system gives lip service to holding "dead beat dads" responsible but really, that's all it is.

So, if men can walk away, why can't women?

Most don't but why shouldn't they have the same freedom of choice as men?

 

But what hasn't yet been clarified is what constitutes the criteria of personhood. And indeed this is tricky, since these characteristics generally move beyond mere consciousness (general awareness/capacity to feel pain) and entails intentionality, communication, rationality, and self-consciousness - which does seem to provide a challenge since it would definitely raise the specter of rendering infanticide morally permissible. One question: are you a vegetarian? It would appear then that animals would have even greater claim to being persons than fetuses and infants. Pushing the date back to birth is indeed cautious (as Peter Singer does) but why not the 35th week of gestation? Or the first 5 days after birth? If you go the personhood route...things must be clarified. That being said, what are your thoughts of someone like Judith Jarvis Thomson who grants personhood at life, but still claims abortion is okay (like most of the pro-abortionists on this board)? If personhood is granted at conception, would abortion be wrong?

Well maybe. I could argue that what makes killing an adult wrong is that it robs them of a meaningful future (a future with experiences, projects, and activities that are significant) - and for the very same reason - killing a fetus would be wrong since it deprives them of a meaningful future. Or I could say that potential people have some rights (including the right to life) even if they aren't as fully robust as full persons. Or I could just claim that the fetus is a person and deny the personhood criteria altogether. All of these are possible responses that haven't yet been ruled out, since your argument concerning what constitutes personhood, and why this formulation of personhood is preferable hasn't yet been established.

 

Personhood is removed from a patient when they are brain dead. A fetus is essentially brain dead until week 24 to 27

 

Well everything turns on the term essentially, most accounts claim that a fetus can't process pain until the 28th week (although there is some debate as to whether this begins at the 20th week - this is generally thought to be an outdated account). Brain activity begins in the 8th week - granted these are not regular wave patterns, but some electrical impulses can be recorded at this time. Nevertheless, there is not one reputable physician in the country that would remove life sustaining technology from a person who would emerge from a vegetative state within a matter of weeks. A fetus is not in a permanent vegetative state like your example. But just to clarify, if the fetus was deemed to be a person, should the mother have the right to choose to kill it?

- - - Updated - - -

One question: should men walk away?

 

Remove the word essentially. An EEG is simple to do on a fetus. They ARE brain dead until around week 24 to 27. A fetus may go on to develop a brain. It also might not. But it is also inside another living person so combining that factor sways the issue toward the woman to decide

 

The point is that they can.

Bottom line really is that one's body is one's property. Men have the right to control their reproduction and so should women.

As it is now, unless you're the one who is pregnant, its none of your business.

 

You: "" But just to clarify, if the fetus was deemed to be a person, should the mother have the right to choose to kill it?""

Well women already have that choice.

The fetus is NOT a person.

IF the fetus is deemed a person the woman would have even more right to kill it. With it's rights as a person comes restrictions. Even the fetus can't use another's body to sustain it's life. I can't force someone to give me their heart if I need one to survive and if I tried to take it by force they can kill me...

The fetus causes the woman harm and she has only one way to stop the harm if she's not willing to consent to the harm.

 

Brain death implies permanence (i.e. irreversible damage), this is simply not the case with a fetus. No physician would ever tell a mother at 15 weeks whose baby is healthy, "your baby is just fine, brain dead, but fine." To suggest that a fetus is brain death, is just hyperbole. Regardless, I'm assuming you hold that mere brain activity (i.e. consciousness) is not enough to constitute personhood anyway so this seems moot (of course if you do think that this is enough to constitute personhood, I would love to hear your thoughts on the eating of fish).

As for dependency, why should that matter? All children are dependent, you can't throw children into dumpsters. A lot people like to make distinctions about biological and social dependency here - but outside of merely describing the difference in empirical terms, no one ever seems to show why some dependency is okay (social dependency) and some is bad (biological dependency) and on what criterion the distinction seems to lie - the baby requires someone else to live either way. So, if a fetus is a person, then it appears they have the same rights and protections as the mother.

 

Objective personhood, I believe, must depend on a functional brain. Naturally parents who look forward to a new child will think and speak of their unborn child as a person, but that does not prove it has personhood in any objective sense. The brain only has the potential for meaningful thought in the last few weeks of pregnancy. There is no evidence that the fetus can, or does, think at that point but it would be impossible for it to think before that point. Some pro-lifers have stated the newborn does not even have meaningful thought for the first year, but (giving them the benefit of the doubt) it seems reasonable (and consistent with centuries of tradition) to consider them persons at birth.

In the last few weeks of pregnancy, I believe the fetus might be considered a person (objectively), but by that time the pregnant woman has demonstrated her interest in its well-being so she should be given the benefit of the doubt in the event of a crisis. I would not want to see the US repeat the mistake Ireland has made in its abortion law.

Am I a vegetarian? No. It puzzles me to see that some pro-lifers are so adamant about protecting "all life" (until it is time for their veal dinner).

If we did not have scientific evidence to distinguish between mindless reflex and the capacity for meaningful thought, we would have to guess at the threshold (is it when the fetus first moves, or when it draws its first breath?) Now we know the first thoughts are impossible until very near the end of pregnancy.

Regarding Judith Jarvis Thomson? I had heard of the violinist analogy but had not read her defense of abortion. It is interesting, and I might have thought along the same lines when I thought it was possible for the fetus to have a functional brain earlier in the pregnancy. I used to be pro-life (many many years ago) until I did my own research into the "facts" I was getting from Operation Rescue.

The difference between terminating a fetus, and terminating an adult, is that the adult mind is inhabited by a person who has thoughts and memories (among other things) making it an individual. You are terminating a person in that case. The fetus is considered "innocent" because it is still an empty vessel (a potential person).

 

Well the reason I ask about being a vegetarian, is that it would appear that if personhood is grounds for giving something moral status (as an entity that is due obligations) then it would appear that many animals meet the criteria for personhood, far more so than a newborn (consciousness, intentionality, rationality, continued interest in living, etc.). So a pig would meet the criteria but not a severely mentally disabled child. I'm not using this as an argument to dismiss personhood claims, merely to suggest the interesting consequences of the view. In this regard, Peter Singer is particularly vocal.

 

As personhood doesn't depend on having a functional brain, then it doesn't really matter.

A person is a human entity born alive.

 

[

 

A woman is not required to gestate a fetus because of what "might" happen in the future or even what "might probably" happen in the future. A woman's uterus is assumed to be hers alone, and she can have it removed from her body at will even though she "might" or even "might probably" gestate several children if it is not removed. She is not killing children if she has her uterus removed and she is not killing children when she has potential children removed from her uterus.

The distinction between biological and social dependency is important because of the difference between compulsory and voluntary. We are all socially dependent to some degree, or at least socially interdependent, but that dependency is always dealt with voluntarily, whereas biological dependency requires one person to provide care.

 

no idea if you understand the US laws, but just in case you don't, in order for self-defence to be justified it must happen at the time the injuries are taking place, you cannot decide to "defend" yourself after the fact.

The statue of limitations doesn't apply because the unborn cannot legally be seen to have committed any crime, they lack the mens rea to be charged ie they are mentally incompetent .. however, that in no way diminishes the right of the female to defend herself against non-consented injuries .. just as you can defend yourself against a mentally incompetent person if they should injure you even though they cannot be prosecuted for any harm they cause.

 

Pure bollocks as usual, it appears you don't comprehend your own laws concerning self-defence, in what way does female circumcision aid in defending the female against the non-consented injuries inflicted upon her during pregnancy?

simple answer, it doesn't and as such your whole absurd argument sinks without a trace.