stopstaaron Posted March 21, 2012 Author Report Posted March 21, 2012 How does whether or not it's an abortion or a c-section, once the fetus has reached the point in the pregnancy that it is viable, affect that choice? I choose the answer that is the opposite of yours Quote Don't ban me bro. Oh behave, I'll behave. I'll be a good little boy.
cybercoma Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 Across the board, it isn't a person ? What about at 9 months ? Just to let you know, even if it's defined as a person it doesn't matter. You would not force a woman to be tied to an ill person to keep him alive for 9 months because she has a right to make decisions about her own body. Same with a person that has unwantedly taken up space in her womb. If she doesn't want that person there, growing and being attached to her body for 9 months, she has every right not to be attached to that person. We cannot oblige her to give up her section 7 rights. Murdering someone is vastly different than not keeping someone alive against your own wishes. If it was required of you to keep someone alive, you would be obliged to give up your organs for someone that needs them and other such frightening invasions of your body by the state. So at the end of the day, it matters not whether the fetus is a person or not. Even as a person, a woman has no obligation to use her body to keep that person alive against her wishes. In this way it is not murder and it would be morally permissable. Quote
dre Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 Women and their doctors need to figure these things out. Politicians dont have any skills or expertise that would qualify them to make reproductive decisions for other people. Late term abortions are not necessary very often, and they arent done very often. But when that decision has to be made the doctor and mother are the best two people to make it. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
dre Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 As long as the snip of an umbilical chord doesn't change this entity's rights, I guess we're on the same page. Thats exactly when it makes sense for the Government to allocate a childs civil rights and afford them constitutional protection. That is the point when government practically CAN enforce these rights. They can take the child, feed it, control what happens to it. Prior to that, they cannot. Prior to that the child is a part of its mothers body. Up until that point the mother has complete defacto control. She can drink a bottle of whiskey a day and smoke 2 packs of ciggarettes... she can stab herself in the stomach, or she could seek services and products designed to end the pregnancy on the black market. Or she could step in front of a train. So there really is no other practical juncture for this transition to happen. The government allocates the childs rights and starts protecting them once its practical for it to do so. ANyhow the point is you need to look at the PRACTICAL significance of that moment in time, not the moral significance. Its just not practical for the government to enforce child welfare any further upstream. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
kimmy Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 Let's just call that Choice on Steroids: The reasons for a third-trimester abortion: * In 40%, an earlier test indicated that a defect existed but not how serious it was. Doctors delayed and re-tested to see if the defect was serious enough to be life-threatening. Some genetic conditions can be mild or severe, so to prevent unnecessary abortions the doctors waited. * In 37%, an earlier test failed to find the serious defects that showed up later. * In 18%, a diagnosis for this kind of defect can’t be made until the third trimester. This often seems to include anencephaly, a fatal birth defect. So... by my math that's 95%. Thanks for that information, which puts the issue into better perspective. It's no longer an issue of whimsy by this point... "I no longer feel I can handle the responsibility..." I'm not exactly sure how I feel about the idea of choosing to abort a child based on the diagnosis of a defect, but it depends on the nature of a defect. But anencephaly? I can't imagine telling a woman that her baby has a horrifically deformed head and no brain... then telling her that she has to bring it to term anyway. That's utterly inhumane. That might be why states like Kansas and Arizona are working to give doctors the right to withhold information like that from women. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 .....I'm not exactly sure how I feel about the idea of choosing to abort a child based on the diagnosis of a defect, but it depends on the nature of a defect. My niece's "potential" baby brother was aborted because modern prenatal "screening" tests revealed dominant genes for and inherited disorder/defect. Seven years later my niece developed a similar disorder as a university undergraduate, but she is very glad there was no test or decision to abort her for not being perfect in the womb. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Bonam Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 (edited) Really ? Don't they do this all the time ? They forcefully subjugate the rights of those to express themselves, to the needs of minorities to be free from hate speech for example. Am I getting tripped up on semantics ? Sorry, I should have said: "The government ought not to have the right..." Edited March 21, 2012 by Bonam Quote
Michael Hardner Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 I can see where you're coming from but I just don't see all these women and doctors doing abortions at that point so I see framing the argument in this way to be pointless and meaningless (if not pushing the boundaries of strawpersonhood ). For me, legal rights do not depend on personhood - we extend certain legal rights to animals and animals clearly are not people. How many "rights" does such an entity need ? Maybe just the right to life legally ? I don't think that animal have legal rights, but rather that they are protected as property and under moral laws around humane treatment, but that's a quibble that I'm not qualified to delve into much further. I find the personhood argument to be BS. The only right I think they need is the right to not be killed. It's not broke so don't fix it. The principle seems to be "the law isn't being broken so we don't need it". I don't agree with it. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Michael Hardner Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 Just to let you know, even if it's defined as a person it doesn't matter. You would not force a woman to be tied to an ill person to keep him alive for 9 months because she has a right to make decisions about her own body. No you wouldn't but that's an analogy to a subset of cases here anyway. Same with a person that has unwantedly taken up space in her womb. If she doesn't want that person there, growing and being attached to her body for 9 months, she has every right not to be attached to that person. Ok. We cannot oblige her to give up her section 7 rights. Murdering someone is vastly different than not keeping someone alive against your own wishes. If it was required of you to keep someone alive, you would be obliged to give up your organs for someone that needs them and other such frightening invasions of your body by the state. So at the end of the day, it matters not whether the fetus is a person or not. Even as a person, a woman has no obligation to use her body to keep that person alive against her wishes. In this way it is not murder and it would be morally permissable. None of this seems germane to the example we're talking about. In the example, the person in question could stay alive outside of the womb. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Black Dog Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 For the same reason any demographic information is compiled. You know, kinda like that long form census you people continue to bitch about. And what reason is that in this case. Be specific. Quote
cybercoma Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 (edited) No you wouldn't but that's an analogy to a subset of cases here anyway. Ok. None of this seems germane to the example we're talking about. In the example, the person in question could stay alive outside of the womb. In the example I'm giving, the hypothetical person I'm talking about must be tied to the woman to survive medically. She needs to filter his blood, let's say. She has every right to deny this circumstance. Even if it means it would result in this person's death. She's not killing him. She's simply choosing not to keep him alive and she's not morally or ethically obligated to give up her body in order to do so. I'm saying abortion on demand is not only a woman's right, but it's also not unethical or murder. Edited March 21, 2012 by cybercoma Quote
Michael Hardner Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 In the example I'm giving, the hypothetical person I'm talking about must be tied to the woman to survive medically. Right. This is not the situation we've been discussing in the aside here. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
cybercoma Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 Right. This is not the situation we've been discussing in the aside here. Then what's being discussed? Quote
Michael Hardner Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 Then what's being discussed? The philosophy of rights for unborn, examining late term fetuses. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
dre Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 The philosophy of rights for unborn, examining late term fetuses. I commented on that btw... Thats exactly when it makes sense for the Government to allocate a childs civil rights and afford them constitutional protection. That is the point when government practically CAN enforce these rights. They can take the child, feed it, control what happens to it. Prior to that, they cannot. Prior to that the child is a part of its mothers body. Up until that point the mother has complete defacto control. She can drink a bottle of whiskey a day and smoke 2 packs of ciggarettes... she can stab herself in the stomach, or she could seek services and products designed to end the pregnancy on the black market. Or she could step in front of a train.So there really is no other practical juncture for this transition to happen. The government allocates the childs rights and starts protecting them once its practical for it to do so. ANyhow the point is you need to look at the PRACTICAL significance of that moment in time, not the moral significance. Its just not practical for the government to enforce child welfare any further upstream. Its not really a moral question. Government does not extend legal protection to fetuses because they would be taking on an impossible responsibility. They have no ability to control the situation. They cant sieze the child nor can they legally compell the mother to act in a way thats conducive to the health of the fetus. They could ban late term abortion but that wouldnt mean they stopped happening. It would mean they just happened in a less regulated environment. What we do now makes good sense, and theres no real role for the government in these kinds of reproductive decisions. They bring nothing of use to the table, and they have no effective authority over the fetus that they could excersize in any reasonable way. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 Its not really a moral question. Government does not extend legal protection to fetuses because they would be taking on an impossible responsibility.... Government does extend legal protection to fetuses in many jurisdictions: Currently, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws. The states include: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. At least 20 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation," "conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization"); these are indicated below with an asterisk (*). http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx What we do now makes good sense, and theres no real role for the government in these kinds of reproductive decisions. They bring nothing of use to the table, and they have no effective authority over the fetus that they could excersize in any reasonable way. Nevertheless, the state has a compelling interest in the outcomes of such free exercise, and the regulation of health care reproductive services. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
stopstaaron Posted March 22, 2012 Author Report Posted March 22, 2012 (edited) this guy got thoroughly owned! LOL http://www.tennessean.com/article/20120321/NEWS0201/303210157/TN-abortion-bill-eliminates-provisions-ID-abortion-doctors A controversial Tennessee bill that would have posted online abortion providers’ names and potentially identifying information about women obtaining the procedure was stripped of those provisions after its sponsor accused opponents of spreading lies about the bill, slandering his reputation and inciting threats of violence against him. Rep. Matthew Hill, R-Jonesborough, told members of the Legislative Health and Human Service committee that in the interest of protecting women’s health, he would withdraw those provisions. The bill that now is moving forward includes only its original provision to require doctors performing abortions to have admitting priviledges at area hospitals. Edited March 22, 2012 by stopstaaron Quote Don't ban me bro. Oh behave, I'll behave. I'll be a good little boy.
stopstaaron Posted March 22, 2012 Author Report Posted March 22, 2012 (edited) this is what the guy looks like who's sponsored this bill My link can you say EW Hey chubby creepy looking white men .. screw off with trying to control women's bodies Edited March 22, 2012 by stopstaaron Quote Don't ban me bro. Oh behave, I'll behave. I'll be a good little boy.
dre Posted March 22, 2012 Report Posted March 22, 2012 this is what the guy looks like who's sponsored this bill My link can you say EW Hey chubby creepy looking white men .. screw off with trying to control women's bodies Yeah... thats generally what the womb-goons look like. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
stopstaaron Posted March 22, 2012 Author Report Posted March 22, 2012 another extreme idea from a repub http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/20/abortion-bill-arizona-terri-proud-witness-email_n_1368386.html A Republican state legislator in Arizona reportedly wrote an email to a constituent saying that women should witness an abortion before having an abortion. YOU'RE KIDDING RIGHT? Quote Don't ban me bro. Oh behave, I'll behave. I'll be a good little boy.
Black Dog Posted March 22, 2012 Report Posted March 22, 2012 another extreme idea from a repub http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/20/abortion-bill-arizona-terri-proud-witness-email_n_1368386.html A Republican state legislator in Arizona reportedly wrote an email to a constituent saying that women should witness an abortion before having an abortion. YOU'RE KIDDING RIGHT? I'd go one better: I think women who want abortions should have abortions before they have abortions. Quote
stopstaaron Posted March 22, 2012 Author Report Posted March 22, 2012 I'd go one better: I think women who want abortions should have abortions before they have abortions. As part of sexual education we had to watch an abortion...well didn't have to, people were allowed to "skip" class that day if they didn't want to see it. Out of a class of 27 students only 4 didn't attend class because of that. Quote Don't ban me bro. Oh behave, I'll behave. I'll be a good little boy.
Guest American Woman Posted March 22, 2012 Report Posted March 22, 2012 As part of sexual education we had to watch an abortion...well didn't have to, people were allowed to "skip" class that day if they didn't want to see it. Out of a class of 27 students only 4 didn't attend class because of that. I think "witness" involves more than "watching;" witnessing something requires being there while it's happening. The very idea that women should have to first witness an abortion is asinine for so many reasons. Quote
stopstaaron Posted March 22, 2012 Author Report Posted March 22, 2012 The very idea that women should have to first witness an abortion is asinine for so many reasons. Agreed. Quote Don't ban me bro. Oh behave, I'll behave. I'll be a good little boy.
Michael Hardner Posted March 22, 2012 Report Posted March 22, 2012 I'd go one better: I think women who want abortions should have abortions before they have abortions. YOU'RE KIDDING RIGHT ? Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.