Renegade

I understand that is your position, but you haven't explained the reasoning behind it. Are cells which are produced by your body, "owned" by you? If so, why are fetal cells an exception.

Choose what exactly? What is done with her body or what happens to her fetus? Option like this, open the debate on whether a woman "owns" the fetus, in the same way as she "owns" her own liver. Afterall the cells are a product of her own body. Shoud she not get a say in what happens to the fetus once taken from her body? What about the man, does he to have some "ownership" in the fetus since it is his cells too which form the zygote?

No, I don't think implied consent can be used to deny all abortions at evey stage and here is why. We (society) define what the specific conditions must be met for consent to be implied. In the pregnancy case, lets say we pick 3 months as the threshold for allowed abortion. It is then clear to anyone that continuing a pregnancy beyond 3 months has implied consent for the pregnancy and no consent is given prior to 3 months. If you clearly define the terms of what consist of implied consent then by no one can argue that anything less is considered consent. Yes, but if that argument holds true for the fetus, then it should also hold true for the organ doner, and it should also hold true for the violinisth in Thompson's example. As do I. Therefore we have to establish at what point consent is irrevokable. The criteria is different for pregnancy and organ donation but in either case, at some point consent is given and irrevokable. Actually I wasn't only citing examples of organ donation from dead people, I was also citing donation from live doners. There is an anology between organ or blood donation from live donors and a pregnancy. I don't think I ever advocated mandotory organ donation from the dead. However what many countries do, is change the default so that if the person's wishes are not known, consent to donate is assumed.

Unfortunately libertarians are given very little choice in politicians which align exactly with their beliefs. In many cases conservative politicians allign with a libertarian's free market philosophy but do not align with tthe view of imposing moral standards on others. More then likely libertarians pick conservatives as a best fit even if all policies don't align. Perhaps you should define what you mean by "conservative". At its very root definition "convservative" means perserving the status quo, so if you go by that definition then not surprisingly conservatives would be against any change including change to environmental policies. Somehow you seem to lump libertarians with conservatives. I think that this is wrong. Libertarians have some policies in common with typical conservatives and other policies with typical liberals. I suggest that by lumping them all together you are not getting a true picture of what motivates either group.

You also cannot say that someone else is moral or immoral for the same reason. Again libertarianism doesn't restrict you personal beliefs in morality, it simply doesn't allow you to impose them on anyone else.

If you don't agree that the woman at some point consents to host the pregnancy, how do you reconcile that with your position that late-term abortions should not be permitted. If a woman has never consented to the pregnancy, she in theory can refuse to host the pregnancy right up until birth, despite the fact that unborn baby depends upon the mother for life. This is analogous to your example of someone opting out of donation at the last minute. Would that not be regrettable but permitted according to your viewpoint? Essentially I see that you have inconsistent postions between organ donation and late-term abortion. With organ donation you are ok for the donor to refuse donation right up until the last minute even if it means death of the recepient. With late-term abortion you are giving the unborn baby's rights prioritiy over the mother's wishes. Why the inconsistency? For me the resolution and difference in the situation is "implied consent" and when it consent can be revoked. It seems to me a reasonable restriction on the mother to restrict the period in which she can revoke consent to host the pregnancy. I would say the consent in the donor example is also requred and at some point will also be irrevokable, however circumstances allow us to permit the donor to revoke consent closer to the time of transplantation. BTW, implied consent or implied agreement is not a new concept. When you drive, you are legally considered to have given implied consent to be pulled over and breathalized. When you live with someone for a set period, you are legally assumed to implcitly agreed to a common-law marriage. When you have a baby and don't give it up for adoption, you have implicitly agreed to accept the responsibilies of parenthood. It is got nothing to do with blame and eveything to do with how we determine what constutes consent and agreement.

Of course there is a period to change your mind, but there is also a point at which the donor's mind cannot be changed. At what point do we establish that the donor has made a non-revokable commitment to donate and "ownership" of the donated organ transfers to the recepient? Is it at the point of agreement to donate, is it some timelimit afterward, is it up to the point where the donor undergoes the operation, is it up to the point where is implanted in the recepient. If the point is never established and it is allowed that donor can always change their mind, presumably the donor still "owns" the donated organ even after transplantation. You can imagine the mess that would ensue if a donor tried to exert authority over a donated organ after transplantaion.

I don' t really know what the right point is. I'm not an expert nor have I done enough research to determine conclusively, however for me the third trimester seems very late, given that there have been babies which have born and survived at 22 weeks. I've never said that it is important only in the third trimester. What I have said that there needs to be a defined period after which consent to carry the pregnancy through to term is implied. We can debate upon when that period should be but the proposal that there is a defined time to decide does not change. You are reiterating and essentially agreeing with what I have already said that it is a balance of rights.

Molly OK Thanks. I as well do understand and respect your position. I firmly consider myself in the pro-choice camp, but feel that it needs to be properly framed in a philosphical context of respect of rights.

The laws protect more than just a countries citizens. For example laws apply to resident aliens as well as citizens. Laws also can be enacted to protect other entitites. Animal cruelty laws are one example of that. There are examples of countries protecting entities prior to them being born.

Why is the concept a problem for you? Legally it is used in at least a couple of areas of law. Basically it means that when your consent isn't explicit, either your action or lack of action can be used legally to indicate consent. If the one who supposedl granted it is standing by screaming NONONONONO!" that would not be implied consent it would be dissent. I'm not talking about the sex act, because I don't think the act implies any consent. I am talking about the act of aborting or not aborting within a limited and resonable period.

It is an interesting parallel. Today no one can take your organ (regardless of if you are dead or alive) unless you explicitly consent. That is being considered for change. The change being considered is to make organ donation consent the default, and only prohibit it if the wishes not to donate were explicit. Organ Donation Policy If you accept that implied consent or implied agreement is legally valid then you should be able to accept that such consent would also apply to a woman hosting a pregnancy.

The legislation applies to everyone once they are pregnant. IMV you don't need to declare that you won't have an abortion. You have a period to decide, after which consent is implied by inaction (ie your failure to get an abortion within that period)

You should have no legal obligation to be the donor even if you are the only donor who can save the person's life. When the government can step in is if you consent to be a donor and then at some point have a change of heart. The government can set down the terms of what implies consent, and when is that consent revokable and at what point does it become irrevokable. (Can you refuse consent as or after they are implanting it in the recepient?)

Again, I don't have any issue with late-term termination due to complications which arise from the pregnancy and threaten the health of the mother. I do however have an issue with late-term termination with a normal healthy pregnancy.

No probably not, but regardless she should be punished.

I absolutely agree, however what I am saying is that the period of making "her choice" is not unlimited because that choice can impact another. Do you agree that if a woman agrees to carry a pregnancy to term, that at some point the state can force her to honor that commitment? I suppose you need to ask youself that how many cases would you be willing to permit before you agreed such limitation of behaviour was necessary. IMV the fact that such behaviour is not just possible but has happened before is sufficient justitication to bring on the limitation: Fetal Rights Common sense and compassion may work in the 99.9% of the time. It is in the .1% of the time that it doesn't that we need the laws. It would be great if no one ever needed to be charged with such a law, however, part of the purpose of a law is deterence to prevent such an incident from occuring in the absence of common sense and compassion. Personally I don't argue this based upon religious beliefs. I don't have any ethical or moral issue with abortion. I do, as do each of us, religious or otherwise, have an issue with rights. In this case there is a clash of rights between the mother and the unborn child. We need to find the proper balance between maintaining both sets of rights.

No, the government has no such right because you have entered into no contract and given no consent to have your kidney taken. IMV, with pregnancy if you do not terminate the pregnancy within the allowed period, you are implicitly agreeing to a "contract" to host the pregnancy to term.

Absolutely I do.

I did not address specfics, however I would make exceptions for circumstances which changed with time. For example if as the pregnancy progressed there was increased threat to the mothers life, then abortion should be permtted at any time. I would not include rape or incest in these exceptions as those cirmcumstances are known up front. Simply put, if the mother is a victim of rape or incest and wants to abort she should have the same period to decide as anyone else. The issue of a non-viable or mal-formed fetus is a different issue. It is a similar to a question of euthenasia. Yes I think there ought to be critiera by which living entities are euthanized to be humane to those beings, but that principle applies to both the pre-born and the post-born. So no, I don't think that the decision of aborting the pregnancy due to non-viable or mal-formed fetus should be left to the woman afer the decision period. If she aborts regardless, then yes she can plead the circumstances in a trial.

No, Drea, the specfic issue we are arguing is the statement that "one has the absolute right to do what one wants with his own body". Blowing yourself up, spreading aids, are not permissable because it affects others beyond oneself. That's the point, isn't it? Sorta of like aborting affect unborn child's body and not jus the person's own. Before you jump up and down, the point here is that the right to do what one wants with their own body is not absolute. Drea, if you believe that such a right was absolute, you should not have issue with people aborting at 9 months.

You have maintained that you have the absolute right to do what you want to your own body. I have maintained that your right to do what you want to your own body is limited by its effect on others. You can blow yourself up if you and only you are affected. You can't blow yourself up if you will take others with you. If you agree that the govenment has the right to protect the public and thereby limit your actions, you should clearly see that the government would also extend that same power to protect the public to protecting the unborn child by limiting the actions of what you do with your own body.

So then, do you think the government has no right to quarantine you if you have SARS? Do you think that you have the right to strap on a bomb and blow yourself up in a crowed public space? Why not, aferall it is your body? I agree, however if you agree to donate your kidney, and sometime after that, change your mind, the government can specifiy at what point your decision is irrevokable and enforce the "contract".

People "go wild" because your explaination defies logic. You have stated that abortion is murder, yet are somehow willing to "compromise" your position so that murder is permitted within the first three months. If you truly believed that abortion = murder, why compromise as you betray your principles if you do.

The right to do what one pleases with one's body isn't absolute. For example, if someone who has AIDS sleeps with others, they can be criminally charged. If someone has a communicable and serious desease, they can be quarantined, despite their right to do as they please. In short the right to do what you want with your body is limited by it's impact on others.