bubblypop wrote: » When the foetus can survive outside the womb, without relying on the mother. It happened in this country, a woman wanted an abortion, the state performed a c- section and aborted the pregnancy. The foetus didn't die as it could live outside the womb
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » I think it is a red herring to even discuss it because we can certainly coherently identify points where this is NOT the case. And I find that those points are actually LATER in the process than MOST abortions actually occur. 90%+ of abortions occur after 12 weeks. The arguments I would level for abortion go as far as 16 and even 20 before things become fuzzy.
I trust that my arguments and posts have established that I, at least, am not one of those people and I do not suffer from the inconsistencies or contradictions you feel you have uncovered in others. I think my position on abortion addresses your concern quite roundly and completely.
Certainly abortion when most people actually have them..... 90% before 12 weeks as I said..... very much is about "women's bodies and what they do with them"..... given there is no reason at this point to afford any concern to the fetus at all, let alone in the same way or relative to the concerns of the mother.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » I know I would ENTIRELY reverse my opinion on abortion, over night.......... and without hesitation, reservation or apology....... should someone erect a coherent argument for affording a 12 week old fetus moral or ethical concern, or relevant "humanity" or "person hood". Such arguments are simply not forthcoming however.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Well, how about the argument that a fetus at 9 weeks gestation is capable of sighing, stretching, moving the tongue, opening and closing their jaw etc? Or am I being a tad presumptuous that you would consider that an argument worthy of consideration.
seamus wrote: » Strictly speaking, they are. In fact scheduled C-sections are pregnancies that are "aborted" a week before the due date.
The intention of the act of abortion is to end the pregnancy. The destruction of a foetus is incidental because the foetus is not viable outside of the pregnancy.
seamus wrote: » Well assuming it's correct, doesn't really prove person hood. After all, there are many if not most animals capable of all of these things throughout their lifecycle. We don't ascribe person hood or human rights to these animals. So clearly we consider humanity as being in possession of a little more than some rudimentary autonomic movements.
seamus wrote: » Outlaw Pete wrote: » Well, how about the argument that a fetus at 9 weeks gestation is capable of sighing, stretching, moving the tongue, opening and closing their jaw etc? Or am I being a tad presumptuous that you would consider that an argument worthy of consideration. Well assuming it's correct, doesn't really prove person hood. After all, there are many if not most animals capable of all of these things throughout their lifecycle. We don't ascribe person hood or human rights to these animals. So clearly we consider humanity as being in possession of a little more than some rudimentary autonomic movements.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Fine, and on that we would most likely agree more than disagree (in that particular area at least). Somewhat but you did equate a 12 week old fetus to a rock and so while I do accept that your arguments have been consistent, they have (some of them at least) bordered on the absurdity. Yes, but most people that have an issue with abortions taking place at 12-weeks and below don't do so because they harbour some desire to prevent women 'doing what they want with their bodies' and therefore it is extremely disingenuous to frame the abortion debate in that way, as many do. Preventing a person from doing something with their body is merely a consequence. It would be like suggesting that the drink driving laws are really about body autonomy just because they prevent someone from putting a lot of alcohol into their bodies and then going for a drive using their body. How dare we prevent people from doing what they want with their bodies?? Well, as most people would appreciate, there are other factors to consider. Well, that is the case with the abortion debate also. As for comparing a developing fetus to an infection. Yeah, both are "alive" but it adds nothing to the conversation to point that out and yes we know that but we are talking about developing fetuses here, not trees, or dogs, nor tumours, or infections. Surely protection of the life of our own developing species cannot be equated to protection the life of a pathogen. Incidentally, I would vote for first trimester abortions, or thereabouts, to be made legal here as that's when mother nature seems to be no so concerned about fetal life and I feel there is something to that. Although, I can still understand people's position on being against it even at that stage though. You said:Well, how about the argument that a fetus at 9 weeks gestation is capable of sighing, stretching, moving the tongue, opening and closing their jaw etc? Or am I being a tad presumptuous that you would consider that an argument worthy of consideration.
bubblypop wrote: » Yep, personally I have no issue with those frozen embryos being donated to others, or even surrogate mothers, so long as both parents agree. It's not a case of being pro choice for both parents, it's impossible for a father to become pregnant & grow a pregnancy. I'm pro choice for women because it's their body that the foetus depends on. That's why frozen embryos are different, they are not feotuses, they are not growing & cannot without relying on a womb. I don't believe it's possible for pregnant to donate their feotus to other women?
Donald Trump wrote: » You miss the point. People make a pro-abortion argument saying that to do otherwise would be to see the woman merely as a vessel to give birth. I am not saying she has to carry the baby to term. I am in fact turning the question around. The woman now has some genetic matter inside her which the man says "hey, I never intended to give that to you, please remove it". He's not asking her to carry his child. In fact the opposite. He is making the decision that she does not have to go through the pregnancy. Equal rights? Or is it ok for the woman to decide against the mans wishes to abort a child so that she doesn't have to carry it for 9 months, but he can't make that decision to remove a potentially lifelong obligation that he doesn't want
metaoblivia wrote: » Abortion was legalized in the US on the grounds of right to privacy, which includes the right to make private decisions concerning one's own body. Fertilized embryos are different legal ground because no one's personal body is the battleground. If a man were given the the right to choose abortion over the mother's wishes, then that would be a violation of her right to privacy, namely her right to choose which medical procedures she wants her body to undergo.
metaoblivia wrote: » To your larger point about men being forced into fatherhood, the answer isn't violating a woman's right to privacy by allowing unwilling fathers to force abortions. It's setting up a way in which men can opt out - completely sign away parental rights and you don't have to pay child support.
Donald Trump wrote: » So when do you lose your rights to control your organic tissue? If something gets removed from your body, can the hospital use it for experiments or for some other reason without your consent?
Donald Trump wrote: » Seeing as how you quoted the US above, just have a think of the consequences of your suggestion. In the US a mother can sue the biological father and force him to pay child support. Whether they were previously in a long-term relationship or whether it was a drunked one off with a stranger. And it will be enforced and doesn't come with access rights attached. Your suggestion even allows someone to walk away from say a 4 year old child and just sign away his parental rights if he doesn't have to pay.
metaoblivia wrote: » You're making a false equivalency. Abortion isn't about who has the rights to control organic tissue. Abortion is about a right to privacy, namely the right to choose to have or not have a medical procedure performed on your body. You're trying to apply a narrow definition of equality to a situation that is inherently unequal. Women bear the physical burden of pregnancy. It is their bodies that endure pregnancy, ergo it is their choice to continue or discontinue that pregnancy and their choice alone. They may choose to weigh the opinions of others, but they cannot and should not be forced to either continue or terminate a pregnancy by another person, even the father.
metaoblivia wrote: » I would also counter that in the vast majority of cases, men freely give their sperm of their own choosing, knowing the potential outcomes. Perhaps if a man is afraid of fathering a child, he should take every precaution to prevent that from happening. Condoms work very well 99% of the time, but of course the only 100% effective pregnancy prevention method is abstinence. The burden of contraception is much more equally shared than the burden of pregnancy.
metaoblivia wrote: » Yes, a mother can do all of those things in the US, and I don't necessarily agree with that. I think men should be given an option upon learning they are a father to either accept it or walk away. Plenty of parents find their way around paying child support anyway.
metaoblivia wrote: » By the way, have you had a think about the consequences of your suggestion - forcing women to have abortions if the father doesn't want the child? Forcing women to undergo medical procedures they don't want to have? Stripping them of their autonomy to make highly personal and private decisions concerning their own bodies?
PucaMama wrote: » But that fetus can only develop into an adult human. There's no chance of it being any other animal so comparing it to an animal is pointless.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Somewhat but you did equate a 12 week old fetus to a rock
Outlaw Pete wrote: » I do accept that your arguments have been consistent, they have (some of them at least) bordered on the absurdity.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » therefore it is extremely disingenuous to frame the abortion debate in that way, as many do.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » As for comparing a developing fetus to an infection. Yeah, both are "alive" but it adds nothing to the conversation to point that out and yes we know that but we are talking about developing fetuses here, not trees, or dogs, nor tumours, or infections.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Although, I can still understand people's position on being against it even at that stage though.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » The fetus is not killed though, seamus. The point I was making is that many women will say that they believe 'Her body, her choice' but don't believe in very late term abortions, therefore the slogan/mantra is an empty one as they don't really believe it.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » The intention of a drunk driver is just to get home, the loss of innocent life is just "incidental" - so should we make it legal on that grounds? No.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » What it was attempting to show was that a fetus at that stage of gestation equates to quite a bit more than a "rock"
rjpf1980 wrote: » Can we bring this thread back to the OP. What punishments prolifers think should be inflicted on women who have abortions? Can you conduct your little chit chat privately and stop clogging the thread? Stop talking in tangents
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » No, I demonstrably did not. I equated my moral concerns for a 12 week old fetus with my moral concerns towards a rock. Entirely different thing.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » It is, morally speaking, the equivalent of a rock or a table leg for me.
Because you say so, or because of some argument you can actually make as to why they are absurd? Though as I say, actually getting my argument right would be a useful start.
The "other factors to consider" simply have not come to pass yet. Take your poor analogy to drink driving for example. The "other factors to consider" in that case are real sentient other human beings that exist and to whom we ALSO have moral and ethical concern. The same is not true in the case of a woman containing a 12 week old fetus. There are no other human beings at that point to whom we should have moral or ethical concern, so the drink driving analogy fails entirely.
......... I am not moved by the argument from autonomic responses no. Even an amoeba, a life form I think we would both agree shows NO sign of subjective awareness or sentience at any level, can respond to stimulus like light and needle pricks. So a complex mammalian fetus with a developing nervous system is of course going to display many complex behaviors.
But if I build a human shaped machine tomorrow that can sigh, stretch, move mouth and tongue and MORE.... you would very quickly identify that what you are looking at is a machine with no humanity that is simply going through motions. And those motions do not confer humanity upon the machine because behind those motions the lights are off and no one, quite literally, is home. The same is true of what you speak of. It is a biological machine going through autonomic motions. But behind those motions the lights are off and no one, quite literally, is home.
So no it is not right to say the slogan is empty or not really believed because you are simply ignoring, or missing, the parameters under which people espouse it.
Of course it does. NO ONE has said otherwise, least of all me. You seem really hung up on this imaginary comparison you feel I made between rocks and the fetus. I made no such comparison.
Rocks are grey. My dads car is grey. Does that mean I think rocks and cars are comparable? NO, it does not. It merely means that under the sole attribute "grey" they are comparable. I have identified the attribute "grey" and I have identified both the rock and the car have that attribute. That is as far as the comparison goes.
So yes a fetus is much more than a rock. No one said otherwise. But in terms of treating them with moral and ethical concern, they are to my view entirely identical.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Here is the quote:
Outlaw Pete wrote: » That is 'equating' a 12-week-old fetus with a rock.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Stop trying to run away from your own words. You equated the two, now own it.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » I did get your argument right. You just want people to march to your beat on this thread.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » You have been a great one on this thread for telling people that when they say one thing, they are also saying another
Outlaw Pete wrote: » You say my drink driving analogy 'entirely fails' because there are no reasons to have an ethical or moral concern for a 12-week-old fetus the way we have a moral and ethical concern for those of us that might be at risk of someone who is out drink driving.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » therefore, what you are essentially saying (all be it indirectly) is that you also believe that the body autonomy argument is a disingenuous one (just at a later stage than others).
Outlaw Pete wrote: » So explain at which point it is that your ethical and moral concerns for a fetus kick in and precisely why it is that you feel they are not emotionally driven.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » And you know this, how exactly?
Outlaw Pete wrote: » <condescending nonsense snipped>
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Waffle.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » You go on about exact meanings of terms and expressions when t suits you but .......you start trying to waffle your way out of it but it doesn't wash.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » You equated, morally speaking, a rock with a 12 week old fetus. There is nothing "imaginary" about that.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » How long are you gonna keep trying to dilute what you did for exactly?
seamus wrote: » So clearly we consider humanity as being in possession of a little more than some rudimentary autonomic movements.
thee glitz wrote: » Lots of people argue in favour of abortion on the basis of bodily autonomy, ignoring the unborn's ability to act autonomously. If abortion stops a beating heart (it does), I don't see how its legalisation can be morally justified.
Grayson wrote: » So you're not in favour of switching off machines to kill the body of a brain dead coma patient?
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » And you, quite dishonestly I fear, put a font size stress on the wrong part of the quote. You should have stressed the words "morally speaking" because as I said in post #115 I demonstrably did not compare fetuses and rocks. I compared my moral position on fetuses and rocks.
Any clearer for you now, or do you wish to distort my position further?
The failure in the analogy is that one side of it is a scenario with ONE ethical agent.... the mother. The other side of it is a scenario with SEVERAL ethical agents. So the two scenarios are not usefully analogous for that reason.
I repeat, the "slogan" with which you have an issue is very much context based. And the context in this case is that of the temporal time period under which people apply that slogan. Which likely differs from person to person. Slogans serve a purpose, but they are by necessity short little sound bites which tend to only paint a fraction of the position the person behind the slogan actually holds. If you wish to appraise the slogan alone, rather than explore what the people saying it actually think and mean then that is your failing, not theirs.
So when I say the lights are out and no one is home, I do so based on the fact that we know what the pre-requisites for HCSSE are generally, and they are all simply absent. I am not merely saying HCSSE is absent, I am saying all the things we connect with the production and existence of HCSSE are themselves also absent.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » ..the well being of people who actually exist, rather than people who might potentially exist, should be the focus of our health system...
Outlaw Pete wrote: » ........ but I have seen far too many ultrasounds like the following .............
Outlaw Pete wrote: » but I have seen far too many ultrasounds like the following where fetuses are .......... sucking their thumb etc,
(WARNING - actual 12 week old ( unfortunately miscarried )http://i.imgur.com/gUw7HKV.jpg
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Unbelievable. Here is the quote again, andwithout emphasis this time:
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Nobody distorted your position dude.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Well, I'll give you this, you sure have a great knack at making utter nonsense sound rational and perceptive.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » What you highlight is correct, but so what? An analogy can still be useful despite that
Outlaw Pete wrote: » you decide to move the goalposts
Outlaw Pete wrote: » So, these slogans such as 'Her Body, Her Choice' are not hollow, even if the same people repeating them believe that it should be illegal for women to have abortions at 16 weeks
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Yeah, sure that's not waffle at all like.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Well, at the start of the thread you were just saying fetuses full stop and now you seem to be softening on that.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » I have seen far too many ultrasounds like the following where fetuses are moving around in response to sounds, the mother's movements, scratching, sucking their thumb etc, not to have a moral and ethical concern of some degree for them.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » I just wanted to say that I don't see why we can't do both: focus on the health of a devolving fetus as well as the mother.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Unbelievable, I still maintain that I did not equate the Rock (X) and the Fetus (Y) but my moral position on rocks (X1) and my moral opinion of fetuses (Y1).
Except you, in the ways I outlined. Dude.
If an analogy does not hold, there is little utility in it. The purpose of analogy is to explain a point in a way that is more accessible to the target, so when they move back to your ACTUAL point, it will be easier to parse. But the analogy you used fails because there is no analogy to be drawn between a scenario with one moral agent, and scenarios with multiple moral agents.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » ... if there is no arguments for affording moral or ethical concern towards the fetus (and as I say, I simply am not seeing any) then there is nothing left in the debate OTHER than the woman and what she is doing with her own body...
Except I did not move any goalposts. What I did is to point out there are more than one playing FIELDS, with different goal posts and rules, in which the same ball can be played but under different conditions.
What I am saying is that if you merely harp on about the slogan, rather than also considering how, why and when people apply that slogan.....then you are taking their positions and words out of the context that renders them coherent.
I am not aware that my position has changed at all since entering into the thread. So I think what is more likely that my position "softening" is that your understanding of what my actual position IS has been improving. This happens a lot on forums. Person X's understanding of what person Y is actually saying changes..... but person X assumes (often, and in your case, falsely) that this is because person Y's position has changed.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » My own position on abortion was formed when I decided to not only sit down and REALLY understand what I mean by those words.... but specifically what I mean by them in the context of a fetus or the subject of abortion. And what I realized is there is no coherent way to ascribe person-hood or "humanity" to a fetus. All the things I would hang moral or ethical concern off..... say the faculty of human consciousness and sentience for example..... are simply ABSENT in the fetus. And in the absence of these things I have no basis to hold any moral or ethical concern for a fetus over, say, a rock.
Firstly because while watching such videos as the one you have linked to, you are merely ASSUMING to know what the "movement" is in response to. You tell me it is in response to "sound" for example. How do you know that? I do not see any basis to believe you do know that. I think you are assuming it because you are parsing it true a narrative that renders it true for you.
“A motor response can first be seen as a whole body movement away from a stimulus and observed on ultrasound from as early as 7.5 weeks’ gestational age. The perioral area is the first part of the body to respond to touch at approximately 8 weeks, but by 14 weeks most of the body is responsive to touch.” The fetus starts to make movements in response to being touched from eight weeks.." “Movement of the fetus in response to external stimuli occurs as early as 8 weeks gestation…” “The earliest reactions to painful stimuli motor reflexes can be detected at 7.5 weeks of gestation"
Secondly movement does not indicate the lights are on and anyone is home. Even a bacteria, one of the simplest forms of life we know and not one I think you or I would consider holds ANYTHING even remotely relating to "HCSSE", will change it's behaviors, direction and movements in response to light sources or needle pricks.
Fair enough, I can understand that position emotionally. You look at something human shaped, making human like movements, and your moral centers light up in your brain.
I get that.
But it simple is not coherent at the intellectual level at all. So perhaps we differ solely in that I do not let emotional fallacy over ride intellectual truths.
Because for me on one hand we have a blob of biological matter with no moral agency I can discern..... and on the other we have an ACTUAL person with emotional concerns striving towards maximizing her own well being and happiness.
Why do our moral and ethical concerns only kick in at the extremes? That makes little sense to me when only one moral agent is involved.
And SHE has decided that maximizing her own well being and happiness involves not becoming a mother, not being pregnant, and exercising autonomy over her own biological and reproductive processes. And given there is only one moral agency in the equation..... herself..... I see absolutely no moral reason to stand in the way of her choice at all.
222233 wrote: » I don't know about the general punishment feelings from the pro-life campaigners but I'm assuming those coming from the religious perspective would expect whatever it is that happens when you "sin"
volchitsa wrote: » So why has the Catholic Church been so adamant that it has to remain illegal then? A heavenly punishment doesn't seem to be enough for them?
