With regards to abortion, Who's rights are more important .. women or foetuses?

[Maryjane]

Quote by: Anmon Possibly, it still doesn't change that aborting your kid for your own convenience or your partners, or both, isn't right.

No, not possibly. Either it is or it isn't. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Maryjane a viable human being... b. (of a fetus) having reached such a stage of development as to be capable of living, under normal conditions, outside the uterus.

Maybe you shoud review Laci & Conner's Law signed into law in 2004. No mention of viability is mentioned and in fact, viability is deliberately taken out of the equation. Here is a clip from the law:

`(d) As used in this section, the term `unborn child' means a child in utero, and the term `child in utero' or `child, who is in utero' means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.'.

This is the law by which one can be prosecuted and sentenced for killing an unborn while carrying out a federal crime. This law has an exemption for abortion which will eventually lead to a direct challenge of roe. You can't even be charged for murder or manslaughter, much less convicted and imprisoned in this country unless you have killed a person. According to the constitution, no person can be denied the right to live unless he or she has had due process and no person can deny the personhood of another. This law has a terrible conflict within itself in that it allows a woman to determine whether or not the child is a person. If she wants it, then it is a person. If she doesn't then it isn't.

You are either a person or you are not and the fact that there are people in jail today for killing unborns creates undeniable legal precedent for the personhood of the unborn and therefore their right to the protections of the 14th amendment.

The entire text of the law can be found here:

Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 -- Laci and Conner's Law

[Maryjane]

Maybe you need to consider that you are comparing apples to oranges. If Lacey had wanted to terminate the pregnancey, she should have the ability.

Her husband, Scott, did not have that right. It was against her will.

The topic is who has more rights...the woman or the fetus. Not the sperm donor.

[Anmon]

Quote by: Maryjane No, not possibly. Either it is or it isn't. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

were talking about abortion for the sake of convenience not abortion all together.
eats cake.

[Maryjane]

Sorry, no. Doesn't work that way. You can't pick and choose.

[Anmon]

But theres all shades of grey remember?
Nothing is black and white, isn't that what you guys have been preaching at us for years?
So don't give that all abortion or no abortion garbage, you can be for certain kinds of abortion, and against others.

[Maryjane]

Well you and I are arguing abortion from a religious standpoint. So no, there are no shades of grey.

Do you now want to change tactics?

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Maryjane Maybe you need to consider that you are comparing apples to oranges. If Lacey had wanted to terminate the pregnancey, she should have the ability. Her husband, Scott, did not have that right. It was against her will. The topic is who has more rights...the woman or the fetus. Not the sperm donor.

You seem to fail to grasp the signifigance of saying that an unborn is a person in one instance and not a person in another. They can not be both. Either they are or they aren't and while there is a growing body of legal precedent establishing the personhood of the unborn, there is no legal precedent denying their personhood.

Roe and all subsequent cases were about access to abortion, and not about abortion itself. The new generation of challenges to roe will revolve around what abortion is actually killing rather than the very narrow view of "access" to a thing.

Of course, I encourage you, and all pro choicers to continue to believe that the status quo will never change. That will make the shock value of roe being overturned all the more satisfying. Legal wheels are turning and have been turning for some time now. Ignoring and denying the reality won't change it.

[tommy5x]

I feel that the foetus should have the majority of the rights when considering an abortion. Unless the mother is in danger, or the child will be serverly disbaled (to the extent where its life with be continuing pain or complete, and irrervocable incompatibility with any area of society) then it should be born.

Adoption is always a choice if a young girl or other mother can't cope with their child.

[Maryjane]

I seriously doubt the US government will be so stupid as to step back in time and force women to bring a child to term against their will. It's one thing to bring them to term but then who's going to pay for them? Our social security system is in trouble with the baby boomers coming of age to collect. There's your new generation of challenges.

[Anmon]

Quote by: Maryjane Well you and I are arguing abortion from a religious standpoint. So no, there are no shades of grey. Do you now want to change tactics?

I haven't change tactics once. Go back and find the post I made where I condemned all abortion, because I believed any abortion no matter what the reason should be illegal.
I have no problem with abortion if the woman has been raped against her will as in violently or intimitated(please don't feed me the daterape garbage) drug raped, or complications with the baby that could endanger her life.
I am against abortion if its for convenience sake.
My stance has not changed on this at all.

[ShadowFox]

She didn't say you have changed, simply that you might change the way your arguing. Also, people can lie about these sort of things for the abortion.

[Maryjane]

Quote by: Anmon I haven't change tactics once. Go back and find the post I made where I condemned all abortion, because I believed any abortion no matter what the reason should be illegal. I have no problem with abortion if the woman has been raped against her will as in violently or intimitated(please don't feed me the daterape garbage) drug raped, or complications with the baby that could endanger her life. I am against abortion if its for convenience sake. My stance has not changed on this at all.

I remember you. You're the christian that believes in god's plan and doesn't have a problem with women having certain abortions, as long as you and god get to make the choices for her.


Little FYI for you... Rape is called rape because it's against a woman's will. Also, it's a violent act, no matter how it's done. But if you want to make it the only way she can obtain an abortion, be my guest. Don't be surprised at the pandora's box you just opened. Guys might want to double wrap that rascal.

She didn't say you have changed, simply that you might change the way your arguing.

Thanks Halo..you got it!

[Matt]

The fact is having abortion is doing no mental or physical damage to the fetuse, since it can't think or feel, since in most cases when abortions happen it would just be a lump of cells.

[Morality Games]

Ego, intellect, will, instinct, etc are characteristics that human beings posess, but they are not what make a human being.

These are all qualifying aspects of a sapient being (humans are sapient beings, which is why we are called homo sapiens), so saying they aren't what makes humans human is senseless.

This is evidenced by the fact that one with a larger ego, stronger will, sharper instincts, more imagination, etc is not "more" human than one with lesser ego, will, instincts, imagination etc.

This is what I mean when I say your logic and metaphysics are faulty, because "more or less" is in a completely different sphere of logic from 'non-existent' and 'existent'. This fact evidences nothing in your favor. 'More or less' is always existent (and therefore relevent), whereas 'non-existent' and 'existent' may exist or they may not. In the case of fetuses, it is always not, at least not as sapient beings (humans).

Your argument here is about as sensible saying a square television can be a triangular television.

There is nothing you can do to make yourself more human just as there is nothing you can do to make yourself less human. Human is what you are and what you have been since the time you were concieved.

Functionally, reducing myself to dust annihilates (destroys, if part of the body) or displaces (sends somewhere else, if not part of the body or a removable part of the body) myself, and makes my body less human and more dust.

Anyway, you are wrong, because humans are sapient (have certain powers of the mind that differentiate us from animals, and fetuses).

[Jack]

I consider the whole "is a fetus a human being" and "whose rights are more important" debate a red herring on the part of the anti-abortion folks.

I contend the real issue is freedom of choice for all versus the imposition of the beliefs of some on all.

Freedom of choice does not require anyone to get an abortion, but allows those who wish to undergo that procedure, for whatever personal reason, to do so. Those who wish to refrain are free to do so.

Anti-abortionists would deny everyone the opportunity to have an abortion, whether or not they share the morals of those who ban it.

Why is the freedom to choose so frightening to some? Do they not trust themselves to do what they consider right? Do they require prohibitions to force them to comply with their own standards?

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Maryjane I seriously doubt the US government will be so stupid as to step back in time and force women to bring a child to term against their will. It's one thing to bring them to term but then who's going to pay for them? Our social security system is in trouble with the baby boomers coming of age to collect. There's your new generation of challenges.

You clearly have not been following the cases through the lower courts and apparently have ignored the fact that late term abortion has already been banned. That decision was an open invitation for states to further restrict access to abortion which will invariably lead to lawsuits, some of which will reach the supreme court which, in case you haven't noticed, has a conservative majority these days. A majority which actually looks to the constitution when deciding cases rather than looking to foriegn sources in an attempt to justify a decision based on an already existing agenda.

And you seem to assume that somehow women are being forced to get pregnant. Surely they know how they become pregnant and when the option of abortion on demand is no longer available, you seem to assume that they will continue merrily along if they must actually accept the consequences of their actions. You must believe that women are very stupid.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Morality Games These are all qualifying aspects of a sapient being (humans are sapient beings, which is why we are called homo sapiens), so saying they aren't what makes humans human is senseless

Human beings are sapient when they reach a particular level of maturity but sapience is not what defines a human being.

By the way, sapien is a reference to the greek sapientia which is a bow to the writers and sages who were the first to begin the science of taxonomy.

Quote by: Morality Games This is what I mean when I say your logic and metaphysics are faulty, because "more or less" is in a completely different sphere of logic from 'non-existent' and 'existent'. This fact evidences nothing in your favor. 'More or less' is always existent (and therefore relevent), whereas 'non-existent' and 'existent' may exist or they may not. In the case of fetuses, it is always not, at least not as sapient beings (humans).

You seem to believe that we do not exist until we hit the air. Unborns exist, and the offspring of two human beings can be nothing other than a human being. If you feel that we are something other than human beings from the time we are concieved, I welcome you to provide some credible science that suggests that the offspring of two human beings may be something other than a human being. I can certainly provide all manner of credible science that states explicitly that we are human beings from the time we are concieved.

The underlying premise of your argument seems to be that non humans can turn into human beings. Such a change woud require a radical change in our essential nature at some point.

Such a premise presents an insurmoutable logical problem however. If the change was biologically inevitable from conception, given time, then this change is not a change in essential nature.

It stands to reason that if the unborn naturally initiates the change, it must be in its nature from the beginning. If it is in its nature, then despite any changes in such characteristics as independence, place of residence, physical development, or demonstration of mental ability, what the being is in later life is what the being is from the beginning of its life.

QUOTE=Morality Games;499017]Your argument here is about as sensible saying a square television can be a triangular television. [/quote]

Funny since it is you who is suggesting that non humans metamorphose into human beings by some as yet undescribed process. If you are arguing that we undergo some metamorphosis that changes our essential nature, I am afraid that I am going to see some credible and valid science to support such a wild claim.

QUOTE=Morality Games;499017]Functionally, reducing myself to dust annihilates (destroys, if part of the body) or displaces (sends somewhere else, if not part of the body or a removable part of the body) myself, and makes my body less human and more dust.[/quote]

So now you are trying to compare the dead to the living? Your argument gets weaker all the time. If you find that you must attempt to draw an analogy between a thriving, perfectly healthy being and one who is dead and cremated, you should recognize that your argument is failing.

QUOTE=Morality Games;499017]Anyway, you are wrong, because humans are sapient (have certain powers of the mind that differentiate us from animals, and fetuses).[/quote]

Accepted evidence suggests that human children don't even become self aware until sometime between 8 and 18 months of age and the definition of sapient is to have wisdom and exhibit sound judgement. Newborns certainly aren't sapient and neither are most teenagers, and ditto for a large number of adults. Are you really arguing that we are not human beings until we are sapient?

Your argument is weak. Very weak. Any argument that suggests a radical change in our essential nature at any point in our life is going to require some sound science to back it up. We both know that such sound science will not be forthcoming because no credible scientist would suggest that the offspring of two human beings is ever anything but a human being.

[Morality Games]

Your whole argument is very semantics driven, which is difficult to deal with and not really meaningful.

You seem to believe that we do not exist until we hit the air.

I don't doubt fetuses exist, but all of the pertinent aspects of being associated with humans are not part of their existence.

Unborns exist, and the offspring of two human beings can be nothing other than a human being.

No, the immediate offspring (if the term offspring is even applicable here) of two humans is a clump of cells. There is an ontological difference between a clump of cells and a nervous system driven entity. That is to say, there is a physical difference, just as there is a physical difference between a thumb and a pink, a cardboard box and a television set, and so on.

Hence, why you have bad metaphysics.

If you feel that we are something other than human beings from the time we are concieved, I welcome you to provide some credible science that suggests that the offspring of two human beings may be something other than a human being.

You need to lighten up Francis. Your argument has little to do with science, and everything to do with a gross misapplication of language and logic.

I can certainly provide all manner of credible science that states explicitly that we are human beings from the time we are concieved.

Science has a noted disregard for language, so whether a fetus is called human or not is of little scientific significance -- either/or passes in most scientific circles. That is why the idea of presenting credible scientific evidence that we are human beings from the time we are conceived is nonsensical.

What science can do is note the difference between a fetus and a nervous system driven entity, which is not to your advantage.

The underlying premise of your argument seems to be that non humans can turn into human beings. Such a change woud require a radical change in our essential nature at some point.

We have no 'essential' nature -- the word 'essential' when used to describe human beings nowadays refers to ideas concerning us which show a high degree of success in qualifying the characteristics of those of us going under that term.

Such a premise presents an insurmoutable logical problem however. If the change was biologically inevitable from conception, given time, then this change is not a change in essential nature.

Essentialism is de funct. Almost any contemporary philosopher could tell you that. The logic of essentialism failed to account for actuality and was disregarded. There are a few 'neo-essentialists', but their logic operates in terms very different from yours.

The only insurmountable logical problem here is how essentialism can be true.

It stands to reason that if the unborn naturally initiates the change, it must be in its nature from the beginning. If it is in its nature, then despite any changes in such characteristics as independence, place of residence, physical development, or demonstration of mental ability, what the being is in later life is what the being is from the beginning of its life.

Stands to everything but reason to think this way, partially because the logic is super circular. Can you explain exactly where in the being the features that will appear later in life are lurking right now? If not, there is nothing scientific about your claims.

Accepted evidence suggests that human children don't even become self aware until sometime between 8 and 18 months of age and the definition of sapient is to have wisdom and exhibit sound judgement. Newborns certainly aren't sapient and neither are most teenagers, and ditto for a large number of adults. Are you really arguing that we are not human beings until we are sapient?

From a physicalist perspective, the essence of my argument has always been there is an ontological (metaphysical) difference between a non-existent nervous system and an existent nervous system, and that a nervous system performs all the functions we associate with the abstract idea 'human being'.

Your argument is weak. Very weak. Any argument that suggests a radical change in our essential nature at any point in our life is going to require some sound science to back it up. We both know that such sound science will not be forthcoming because no credible scientist would suggest that the offspring of two human beings is ever anything but a human being.

Most scientists would steer clear of an essentialist thinker who believes in something that isn't tangibly real. Most.

Funny since it is you who is suggesting that non humans metamorphose into human beings by some as yet undescribed process. If you are arguing that we undergo some metamorphosis that changes our essential nature, I am afraid that I am going to see some credible and valid science to support such a wild claim.

Claiming humans have an essential nature is a wild claim (at least it is these days), and does not sit easily with science (which is why it has not survived in science-driven analytical philosophy).

So now you are trying to compare the dead to the living? Your argument gets weaker all the time. If you find that you must attempt to draw an analogy between a thriving, perfectly healthy being and one who is dead and cremated, you should recognize that your argument is failing.

Can you explain your interpretation of the logic of my text?

Accepted evidence suggests that human children don't even become self aware until sometime between 8 and 18 months of age and the definition of sapient is to have wisdom and exhibit sound judgement. Newborns certainly aren't sapient and neither are most teenagers, and ditto for a large number of adults. Are you really arguing that we are not human beings until we are sapient?

As a non-essentialist, I don't think there exists in actuality any kind of line between different stages of being. Lines, firm or weak, exist only in the mind. The question here is whether or not we should draw a firm or weak line between a nervous system driven entity and a fetus. You are arguing for a weak line, but in addition, you are arguing (as an essentialist) that this line is intrinsically part of the nature of actuality, as opposed to me, who is arguing (as a non-essentialist) that the lines are drawn from imperfect observations of actuality in order to help us cope with it. Actuality in-itself is perfectly seamless and without any cracks, divisions, or lines.

Also, sapience is a relative term meant to differentiate humans from other animals -- it designates that we are capable of certain mental activities that they are not. Every nervous-system driven entity that qualifies as a 'human' is sapient in comparison to, say, a squirrel.

As for the status of newborns: they have existent and active nervous systems, which puts them in the play for rights. Whether or not this system is functional enough for the emergence of ego is debatable, but the aspect of being which allows for ego is present.

In advance, you say, "So potentiality does matter!"

Yes, but in a discussion of rights, potentiality is only pertinent in so far as the nervous system is already in existence -- if that existence is cut off before the development of a nervous system, the object which allowed for discussion of rights to be pertinent never existed.

[Maryjane]

@ Pale Rider:

You clearly have not been following the cases through the lower courts

No I haven't been following it. I've had plenty of other legal issues to deal with that do effect me on a personal level at the current time. Besides, it's impossible to get pregnant when you are celibate.
It doesn't effect me so why would I need to? I don't think you have to worry about having one either, seeing as you are male and unless by some miracle you'd never have to have one either.

and apparently have ignored the fact that late term abortion has already been banned.

How can I ignore something if I haven't been following it?

What I do recognize is pro lifers like to misguide people with their statements. What's the percentage of people having late term abortions? Any idea? It's not the misleading and inflammatory numbers pro lifers like to spout. (If you recall that's when I stepped into this debate when another member was giving false information) People can still have late term abortions, abet, under very close scrutiny and there are provisions.

"This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself."

That decision was an open invitation for states to further restrict access to abortion which will invariably lead to lawsuits, some of which will reach the supreme court which, in case you haven't noticed, has a conservative majority these days.

In case you haven't noticed, we live in a litigious society. Some will, some won't. Are you betting it will stay a conservative majority forever?

A majority which actually looks to the constitution when deciding cases rather than looking to foriegn sources in an attempt to justify a decision based on an already existing agenda.

I know how the court systems work, don't patronize me. That's the personal issue I've been dealing with while you've been obsessing over something that doesn't concern you on an intimate level.

And you seem to assume that somehow women are being forced to get pregnant.

Exactly how did you come to that conclusion?

Perhaps you misunderstood? I insinuated that if all abortions are denied, don't be surprised when women start making false accusations that they were forced into sex against their will.

If the choice isn't there, one of the alternatives will be to go to back in time to back alley abortions to terminate a pregnancy. But pro lifers don't want to concern themselves with that (as you already admitted) because it's only certain lives they care about.

Surely they know how they become pregnant and when the option of abortion on demand is no longer available, you seem to assume that they will continue merrily along if they must actually accept the consequences of their actions.

Who's assuming now?

Some actually don't. My 10 year old is having three days of family life classes this week concentrating on puberty, the reproductive system, HIV and AID's. I gave my full parental consent even though these are topics we've already discussed. Some parents opt their kids out, they don't want them knowing about their own anatomy and how their reproductive system works. I can think of a number of religious groups that would li