|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:20 am
Geminii~The Twins sachiko_sohma Hearing Pro-choicers saying it's about the right for her to do whatever her body but the last time I checked the fetus is not her body. It's inside her body and depends on her but it's not her and shes not the fetus. So how is aborting aliving thing that is not her a right over her body? Tell me what you guys think. I agree. I think you misunderstand the argument u.u;; A pro-choicer would argue not that a fetus has a right to its own body, but that if we grant a fetus the right to it's own body it has no right to be inside of a woman's body (based on a notion of bodily integrity). By virtue of that if we remove it from the womb in-tact then it still has a right to it's own body and it is not the woman's responsibility to keep it alive anymore than it is a woman's responsibility to keep any other human being alive. What pro-choicers argue is not that a fetus does not have a right to its own body (though many would argue this), but that more importantly it cannot have a right to be inside of the woman against her will.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 8:35 am
Talon-chan Geminii~The Twins sachiko_sohma Hearing Pro-choicers saying it's about the right for her to do whatever her body but the last time I checked the fetus is not her body. It's inside her body and depends on her but it's not her and shes not the fetus. So how is aborting aliving thing that is not her a right over her body? Tell me what you guys think. I agree. I think you misunderstand the argument u.u;; A pro-choicer would argue not that a fetus has a right to its own body, but that if we grant a fetus the right to it's own body it has no right to be inside of a woman's body (based on a notion of bodily integrity). By virtue of that if we remove it from the womb in-tact then it still has a right to it's own body and it is not the woman's responsibility to keep it alive anymore than it is a woman's responsibility to keep any other human being alive. What pro-choicers argue is not that a fetus does not have a right to its own body (though many would argue this), but that more importantly it cannot have a right to be inside of the woman against her will. But if Pro-Choicers are willing to grant the fetus it's bodily rights, why is the fetus killed inside the womb?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 8:46 am
I.Am Talon-chan Geminii~The Twins sachiko_sohma Hearing Pro-choicers saying it's about the right for her to do whatever her body but the last time I checked the fetus is not her body. It's inside her body and depends on her but it's not her and shes not the fetus. So how is aborting aliving thing that is not her a right over her body? Tell me what you guys think. I agree. I think you misunderstand the argument u.u;; A pro-choicer would argue not that a fetus has a right to its own body, but that if we grant a fetus the right to it's own body it has no right to be inside of a woman's body (based on a notion of bodily integrity). By virtue of that if we remove it from the womb in-tact then it still has a right to it's own body and it is not the woman's responsibility to keep it alive anymore than it is a woman's responsibility to keep any other human being alive. What pro-choicers argue is not that a fetus does not have a right to its own body (though many would argue this), but that more importantly it cannot have a right to be inside of the woman against her will. But if Pro-Choicers are willing to grant the fetus it's bodily rights, why is the fetus killed inside the womb?
Mcfall v. Shimp doesn't really apply to abortion, in my mind, because simply, the woman took the steps to put the child in a situation where that child would rely on her for life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 2:26 pm
I.Am Talon-chan Geminii~The Twins sachiko_sohma Hearing Pro-choicers saying it's about the right for her to do whatever her body but the last time I checked the fetus is not her body. It's inside her body and depends on her but it's not her and shes not the fetus. So how is aborting aliving thing that is not her a right over her body? Tell me what you guys think. I agree. I think you misunderstand the argument u.u;; A pro-choicer would argue not that a fetus has a right to its own body, but that if we grant a fetus the right to it's own body it has no right to be inside of a woman's body (based on a notion of bodily integrity). By virtue of that if we remove it from the womb in-tact then it still has a right to it's own body and it is not the woman's responsibility to keep it alive anymore than it is a woman's responsibility to keep any other human being alive. What pro-choicers argue is not that a fetus does not have a right to its own body (though many would argue this), but that more importantly it cannot have a right to be inside of the woman against her will. But if Pro-Choicers are willing to grant the fetus it's bodily rights, why is the fetus killed inside the womb? That's a philosophical argument between passive and active actions (ie doctrine of double effect). I could go into it if you really want to, but it extends way beyond the scope of mere bodily autonomy and wouldn't have much to do with abortion so much as it would be a philosophical argument. The short answer is this: If you believe there is a difference between active and passive actions then only abortions where the fetus is removed in tact are permissable so long as you grant a fetus personhood first (for if it doesn't have personhood, what does it matter?). So if you wish to argue it must be removed intact one would first have to demonstrate personhood (or in the case of a pro-choicer, one would have to demonstrate a lack of personhood). If you do not believe in such a distinction then there's no problem, because to such a person the distinction between pulling it out whole and chopping it up before hand is inconsequential, both would be equally right or equally wrong (I tend to fall into this camp because I believe the passive choice is still a choice and as such, by default, it becomes active... ie all choices are active, the passive distinction makes no sense to me).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 12:49 am
Talon-chan That's a philosophical argument between passive and active actions (ie doctrine of double effect). I could go into it if you really want to, but it extends way beyond the scope of mere bodily autonomy and wouldn't have much to do with abortion so much as it would be a philosophical argument. The short answer is this: If you believe there is a difference between active and passive actions then only abortions where the fetus is removed in tact are permissable so long as you grant a fetus personhood first (for if it doesn't have personhood, what does it matter?). So if you wish to argue it must be removed intact one would first have to demonstrate personhood (or in the case of a pro-choicer, one would have to demonstrate a lack of personhood). If you do not believe in such a distinction then there's no problem, because to such a person the distinction between pulling it out whole and chopping it up before hand is inconsequential, both would be equally right or equally wrong (I tend to fall into this camp because I believe the passive choice is still a choice and as such, by default, it becomes active... ie all choices are active, the passive distinction makes no sense to me). The problem is, the arguments are going like this: Pro-Choicer says that it's her body, she can do whatever she likes with it. So the argument is based on the fact that it is her body. Pro-Lifer says, the fetus is not her body. So she has no right to kill it. Pro-Choicer says, "Well, it's living in her body, and she should have the right to get rid of things she doesn't want in there." So she's saying that, "Okay, it's not part of my body." Meaning that, according to her first argument, she doesn't have the right to do whatever she likes with it. "But I don't want to have it in me." It's more letter of the law then it is a philosophical point; The Pro-Lifers say, "Well, if it's not part of your body and you don't have the right to do whatever with it, then why don't you let it die on it's own, or live on it's own? Take it out of your body if you are concerned with the fact that it is there. But don't actively kill it." Yes, it will die, but if there's no need for you to kill it within the womb to satisfy your requirements. But most people would not like the idea of letting the fetus die out of womb. Which brings up the question, if there's a problem with it dying outside the womb, why is there no problem with it dying inside the womb? And if you are supporting a woman's rights to control what is and isn't in her womb, then why do most Pro-Choicers believe that, after a certain point in the pregnancy, abortion should only be used in case of medical emergency? Isn't it just a lump of flesh until it is born? So why not fight for completely unrestricted abortion until the point of viability?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 2:32 am
whyette Quote: Yet another reason we need artificial wombs... I don't feel like spending nine months eating and sleeping (I eat 5 to 7 times already and I'm not pregnant... and I sleep 8 hours already not pregnant yet at times will STILL be exhausted. So that really isn't too far of a strech for me). You don't feel like being pregnant? Maybe you should think about that before you feel like having sex, huh? An artificial womb could never replace a woman's body, it's something that is vital to the developmental process. If you have artificial wombs, then why even bother raise your children, if you didn't have to birth it? You're taking away some of the most important things about life! The connection a mother has with her offspring. Yes, there are surrogate mothers and adoptive mothers, but that's different, to take away the womb completely from the life process would be silly. That's the thing that enrages me most about society. Life isn't about how we feel, what we want. It's about haw things are. What the facts are. Truth is truth. -Whyette Ah, but however much some people would love for that to be the case, Sex for humans isn't simply for reproduction. Nowhere did I see, to quote someone I read yesterday -"a little label saying 'to be used only for making babies'" Want back up for that argument? Female Orgasm - Nothing to do with the reproductive powers of sex. Therefor it is logical to assume that it has another biological purpose. Perhaps bonging, due to the happiness powers of the endorphins and oxytocin released. God - An argument 'the bible says that...' against this case could easily be refuted by simply picking a different part of the bible, for example the part which reads that the Lord made Mankind in his image and does not seek to control them, only for them to love him and recognise him as the one true God. A Controlling God is not what even the Bible wants us to believe we have. (Also...see above)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 2:51 am
whyette Whether there is a psychological connection or not, there is still something gained from a real womb. I apologize for my comments earlier, because I know that a mother can have a connection and love an adopted child. But there is something special that comes from the process of birth through the woman's body. -Whyette Although it would seem so on face value, this idea has been highly propagandised in the past in order to keep women at home "looking after their ikkle babies because they have a *special* bond" whereas men simply "don't have that motherly bond" so, oh dear, they will have to go out to work! rolleyes In actual fact, there is no psychological bond between a mother and fetus prior to birth, except in the sense that she may well be looking foreward to its arrival. By the same token however, men may eagerly await the birth of their child just as much, talk to the bump etc. A true psychological bond or attatchment by sheer definition must be formed after the birth of the infant. This fabled special bond, therefor, cannot be one of psychology. Perhaps it is biological then? Unfortunatley not. There is no evidence to suggest a biological bond between a mother and child, certainley not anymore than a father and child. Any gooey feelings on either part are purely psychological. Most people however, both male and female, have a parental instinct to look out for the needs on an infant. Whilst this may be psychologically descriminative, i.e they respond only to the needs of their own child, it is not biologically descriminative, i.e the sound of an infant (any infant) crying goes through your head for a reason, it is at a convienient sound frequency that it strikes nerves. ouch. Furthermore, the amount of women who suffer from post-natal depression is higher than the national statistics show. Possibly simply because everyone expects for a new mother to have some kind of deep bond with her child (just like in the movies! 4laugh ) but that most find that after the birth they are left holding a little person they know nothing about, and feel afraid.( Imagine what it must be like to be in charge of an infant. It's your first baby, you have no idea what to do..but everyone expects that you will somehow magically 'just know'.... rolleyes )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 9:20 am
Eeowynn Although it would seem so on face value, this idea has been highly propagandised in the past in order to keep women at home "looking after their ikkle babies because they have a *special* bond" whereas men simply "don't have that motherly bond" so, oh dear, they will have to go out to work! rolleyes In actual fact, there is no psychological bond between a mother and fetus prior to birth, except in the sense that she may well be looking foreward to its arrival. By the same token however, men may eagerly await the birth of their child just as much, talk to the bump etc. A true psychological bond or attatchment by sheer definition must be formed after the birth of the infant. This fabled special bond, therefor, cannot be one of psychology. Perhaps it is biological then? Unfortunatley not. There is no evidence to suggest a biological bond between a mother and child, certainley not anymore than a father and child. Any gooey feelings on either part are purely psychological. Most people however, both male and female, have a parental instinct to look out for the needs on an infant. Whilst this may be psychologically descriminative, i.e they respond only to the needs of their own child, it is not biologically descriminative, i.e the sound of an infant (any infant) crying goes through your head for a reason, it is at a convienient sound frequency that it strikes nerves. ouch. Furthermore, the amount of women who suffer from post-natal depression is higher than the national statistics show. Possibly simply because everyone expects for a new mother to have some kind of deep bond with her child (just like in the movies! 4laugh ) but that most find that after the birth they are left holding a little person they know nothing about, and feel afraid.( Imagine what it must be like to be in charge of an infant. It's your first baby, you have no idea what to do..but everyone expects that you will somehow magically 'just know'.... rolleyes ) If you are going to argue this way, I would expect you to show sources; I have no reason to believe that psychological bonds don't happen between mother and child within the womb, and you have given me none, except that you say so. And I don't know where you got the idea that there is no biological bond between the mother and child in utero; It's called the umbilical cord. Last, post-abortion depression is higher then the statistics show too. Of course, just like you, I have no evidence for that. But since I'm stating it, it must be true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 9:23 am
Eeowynn whyette Quote: Yet another reason we need artificial wombs... I don't feel like spending nine months eating and sleeping (I eat 5 to 7 times already and I'm not pregnant... and I sleep 8 hours already not pregnant yet at times will STILL be exhausted. So that really isn't too far of a strech for me). You don't feel like being pregnant? Maybe you should think about that before you feel like having sex, huh? An artificial womb could never replace a woman's body, it's something that is vital to the developmental process. If you have artificial wombs, then why even bother raise your children, if you didn't have to birth it? You're taking away some of the most important things about life! The connection a mother has with her offspring. Yes, there are surrogate mothers and adoptive mothers, but that's different, to take away the womb completely from the life process would be silly. That's the thing that enrages me most about society. Life isn't about how we feel, what we want. It's about haw things are. What the facts are. Truth is truth. -Whyette Ah, but however much some people would love for that to be the case, Sex for humans isn't simply for reproduction. Nowhere did I see, to quote someone I read yesterday -"a little label saying 'to be used only for making babies'" Want back up for that argument? Female Orgasm - Nothing to do with the reproductive powers of sex. Therefor it is logical to assume that it has another biological purpose. Perhaps bonging, due to the happiness powers of the endorphins and oxytocin released. God - An argument 'the bible says that...' against this case could easily be refuted by simply picking a different part of the bible, for example the part which reads that the Lord made Mankind in his image and does not seek to control them, only for them to love him and recognise him as the one true God. A Controlling God is not what even the Bible wants us to believe we have. (Also...see above) No one said that reproduction is the only purpose of sex. But it is -a- purpose. Pregnancy is -a- possible result. She said "Think about that before you have sex" not "don't have sex." See the difference? But I still disagree with her argument that we shouldn't have artificial wombs; I think that is naive and short sighted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 2:29 pm
Quote: Which brings up the question, if there's a problem with it dying outside the womb, why is there no problem with it dying inside the womb? Could you clarify? Are we working under the assumption that a fetus has a right to life and is equivalent to a born person? If so I'd refer to McFall V Shimp and the notion that if a fetus cannot sustain its own life it is not my responsibility to sustain that life for it anymore than I'd be responsible for sustaining anyone else's life if they could not do so on their own. Once removed from the womb the fetus's survival is solely a responsibility of the fetus and no one person ought be required to surrender their bodily resources to save it anymore than they should for any other born person. If we work under the assumption a fetus is not the equivalent of a born person, I'd like to know where the concern for it out of womb comes from? IE, if it is not the equivalent of a born person/has no right to life, and is what pro-choicers say (a lump of flesh), why would anyone really care beyond irrational emotional attachments (I say irrational because we'd be assuming a fetus is worth less than a born person, closer to a lump of flesh... had we assumed it was a person or the equivalent of one, then such emotional attachments wouldn't be irrational because the personhood qualifier would justify them)? Quote: And if you are supporting a woman's rights to control what is and isn't in her womb, then why do most Pro-Choicers believe that, after a certain point in the pregnancy, abortion should only be used in case of medical emergency? Isn't it just a lump of flesh until it is born? So why not fight for completely unrestricted abortion until the point of viability? This point is at viability, where the pro-life and pro-choice side agree that personhood has been granted (though there are some extremists out there who feel abortions right up until the moment of birth are ok - By referring to the argument above they would justify it - that the fetus can still be removed, but this time it will live on it's own and sustain its own being. It would be no different than removing the fetus before it can sustain its own life, or so I imagine they would argue). I fully support completely elective, unrestricted abortions for women up until viability. At viability I believe a fetus has acquired what is necessary to grant it personhood status. At viability I believe if a woman does not want to be pregnant she should induce premature birth, not abortion, with the exception of medical complications because at this point in time killing the fetus to get it out would be unneccesary (and why this distinction doesn't matter pre-viability I explained somewhere else in this guild... something along the lines of if you chop it up before and it dies, and you pull it out whole and it dies, what does it really matter, especially if one method will be significantly easier on the woman?). If someone were using my body against my will and I had the option to disable them or kill them and I chose to kill them I would go to jail, and rightfully so. I chose to kill rather than to disable when both were viable solutions. When a fetus has reached a viable stage, I'd be choosing between killing it, or merely disabling it, in order to get it out of my body... and by choosing to kill it I'd be ignoring a better viable solution. This same argument applies to artaficial wombs. If such a construct were to exist and be available to me... if I chose to kill it rather than use one I'd be ignoring a viable solution and I'd be wrong (again assuming personhood is granted at conception. Since many do not believe this there are pro-choicers who would argue that artaficial wombs would only be optional, and not necessary. They would be necessary if personhood was granted, however).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 2:43 pm
I don't understand why viability has anything to do with it. Is personhood dependant on your physical abilities? I thought that the personhood of a fetus was supposed to be the mother's choice. Why take it away from her at viability? Because we've got the technology to help a child survive? It wasn't always the same age of viability, does this mean that personhood changes as technology changes?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 2:47 pm
And another thing: Why does the pro-choice definition of personhood, that being a viable fetus, get to dictate the law, whereas the pro-life definition does not?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 9:04 pm
lymelady I don't understand why viability has anything to do with it. Is personhood dependant on your physical abilities? I thought that the personhood of a fetus was supposed to be the mother's choice. Why take it away from her at viability? Because we've got the technology to help a child survive? It wasn't always the same age of viability, does this mean that personhood changes as technology changes? I would argue that in order to be qualified as an agent upon whom we grant rights (ie a person) you must meet certain criteria. This is demonstrated in our law... we are able to "pull the plug" on people who are PVS (ie braindead, not merely in a coma). I would argue that it is the ability for higher thought that makes one an agent upon whom we endow rights, that is what separates humans from animals, and what permits us to kill the braindead when sustaining them until a natural death is a perfectly available option. The age of viability will come to a limit at some point in time. A fetus who does not have a working brain or a functioning heart at the time of removal (I presume) will not be able to live no matter what technology we have (or at least that technology which could save it is way far off down the road). Would personhood status change as technology gets better? Maybe, maybe not. It depends on how you justify personhood. If viability (ie survival outside of the womb) is it, then yes it will change with technology. If it is having human DNA, it won't change. If it is having the ability to think and feel that also won't change (even if artificial wombs are created, prior a certain date in the "pregnancy" it still won't have that ability). Quote: And another thing: Why does the pro-choice definition of personhood, that being a viable fetus, get to dictate the law, whereas the pro-life definition does not? I would argue two ways: 1 - What is the pro-life justification for personhood? Can you present a clear and distinct definition of "personhood" that excludes animals that can feel pain and arguably have higher thought (ie monkeys are said to be as intelligent as 5 year olds)? Would this definition also explain why we are allowed to kill (or "let die" a distinction to me that I think makes no sense, you choosing to remove the feeding tube may be a "passive" action, but it was still your choice and still your active decision to make) people who are in a PVS that are also human? If a definition were constructed that was clear and distinct about what defines one as a person, then one could lobby for that definition to become the legal one. Right now the legal construct of personhood starts at birth. The philosophical one... who knows? So the reason pro-choice definitions control the government now is because the pro-life definition hasn't become law yet ^_^;; Though you must admit your side is getting closer and closer to "winning" every day. A pro-life president, a pro-life congress, and soon a pro-life supreme court. If abortion isn't overturned in the next 4 years then you should start blaming your politicians for failure when they have not only the edge, but a thousand mile head start. 2 - I would argue that if the pro-life definition of personhood were granted that bodily integrity would still trump the fetus's right to life, just as it would for any other person. This argument has been gone through so many times though and I'm sure you understand where pro-choicers are coming from with it... and since debating really isn't allowed here there's really no need to go into it deeply.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 9:39 pm
There's a difference between someone who is waiting to die when the plug is pulled, and a person who is "waiting to live" when the plug is pulled.
The person who is PVS is already dead, they just don't know it yet. If there is no, or virtually no, chance of recover, it is only a matter of saving money on electricity that could be used to save the life of the guy in the next room over. I am pretty sure that they are still legally people, however.
The fetus, however, will live as long as you don't kill it.
1. Pro-Life justification? He said definition. The Pro-Life definition of personhood varies from person to person, I would think, just as Pro-Choicers have varying definitions.
But mine is "Is human, has full human DNA that is different from it's mother's, and is capable of growing to it's next stage of life."
2. I would argue that nothing trumps the right to life. As I believe I posted somewhere else, if a situation came up in which a born person was connected to another born person in an almost perfectly similar way, I would argue that they have a duty to let that person live. The situation, however, includes the person who has to take care of the other person having put them there, there being no other way for them to survive (I.e, no other person could possibly take care of them), and it being a short term thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
