Abortion debate thread

JimiTime · 01-12-2012 09:40PM

Elysian wrote: »

I'm pro-choice and I do believe women should have the right to bodily integrity. However this right, like all rights, ends when it infringes on the rights of others. Personally, I think that when a fetus has developed to a point where it is possible for it to survive outside the womb with or without help, then it should be treated as a separate person and inherit the rights associated with this. Prior to this however, it is just another part of the mother and as such the mother should have the choice as to whether she wants to go through with the pregnancy or not.

This is the sophistry I often allude to when it comes to justifying the killing of the unborn.
But its a human!! Yeah, but is it a PERSON.
Its only a bit of the mothers body, but at 22 weeks it now has its own rights, and those rights that the mother once had are now over because its no longer just a bit of her body.

These things truly have me weary. Maybe this is a very slight insight into how Moses must have felt dealing with the Israelites, and why he granted them things that were actually contrary to God.

lmaopml · 01-12-2012 11:40PM

Elysian wrote: »

I'm pro-choice and I do believe women should have the right to bodily integrity. However this right, like all rights, ends when it infringes on the rights of others. Personally, I think that when a fetus has developed to a point where it is possible for it to survive outside the womb with or without help, then it should be treated as a separate person and inherit the rights associated with this. Prior to this however, it is just another part of the mother and as such the mother should have the choice as to whether she wants to go through with the pregnancy or not.

Medical Science has shone a light on the workings inside the womb that brings about new life - 3d scans show so much more that we ever could have even considered a good guess about the child forming in the womb.

Medical Science has continued to roll back the idea that a child is consistently a 'part' of it's mother alone - in fact, the mere idea that abortion should be allowed at all beyond 'X' number of weeks, and the heeby geebies that people get thinking about a child aborted thereafter has been increasingly rolled back and back and back by 'Medical' Science -

The mother, is all too often regarded as part of another human being, the child as some kind of 'leech' and the mother not the means by which they exist - it's the way everybody with an opinion exists and it takes only nine short months to give that gift back.

I'll say it one more time. If a woman, I don't care who she is reduces or seeks to reduce her child to merely a disposable entity within law, than she also reduces another woman's right to say she is carrying a child with the right to life -

I feel sympathy for those who find life tough - but I think they are asking far too much of their fellow women - especially those who give life to a child with special needs, or give birth to a child that nobody cares about except THAT mother who faces the world and stares it down, despite tremendous odds, in order to love their child from the time they conceived them. The single mum.

Elysian · 01-12-2012 11:56PM

JimiTime wrote: »

This is the sophistry I often allude to when it comes to justifying the killing of the unborn.
But its a human!! Yeah, but is it a PERSON.
Its only a bit of the mothers body, but at 22 weeks it now has its own rights, and those rights that the mother once had are now over because its no longer just a bit of her body.

The mothers right to bodily integrity isn't over, but that right can't take away someone elses right to live.

The problem here is deciding when a fetus should have rights. During the first 12 hours of a pregnancy the fertilized egg cell will remain a single cell. Now I don't know about you, but I don't think that single cells should have the right to live as almost any action that you can perform, like cooking food or washing your hands, can potentially kill millions of them. However at the end of the pregnancy, this single cell will become a fully developed person who should of course have the right to life and I don't think any sane person would dispute that. So where between being a single cell to being a fully formed person should the right to life be inherited? For me, viability seems like the logical point.

Coeurdepirate · 02-12-2012 11:44AM

Elysian wrote: »

I'm pro-choice and I do believe women should have the right to bodily integrity. However this right, like all rights, ends when it infringes on the rights of others. Personally, I think that when a fetus has developed to a point where it is possible for it to survive outside the womb with or without help, then it should be treated as a separate person and inherit the rights associated with this. Prior to this however, it is just another part of the mother and as such the mother should have the choice as to whether she wants to go through with the pregnancy or not.

+100000. Nobody is suggesting we start aborting 37-week-old foetuses, that is barbaric.

JimiTime · 02-12-2012 02:41PM

Elysian wrote: »

The mothers right to bodily integrity isn't over, but that right can't take away someone elses right to live.

The problem here is deciding when a fetus should have rights. During the first 12 hours of a pregnancy the fertilized egg cell will remain a single cell. Now I don't know about you, but I don't think that single cells should have the right to live as almost any action that you can perform, like cooking food or washing your hands, can potentially kill millions of them. However at the end of the pregnancy, this single cell will become a fully developed person who should of course have the right to life and I don't think any sane person would dispute that. So where between being a single cell to being a fully formed person should the right to life be inherited? For me, viability seems like the logical point.

I said it before, but I look at my children and think, 'When did their life begin?' Answering that should give you the principal.

Fanny Cradock · 02-12-2012 06:30PM

Coeurdepirate wrote: »

+100000. Nobody is suggesting we start aborting 37-week-old foetuses, that is barbaric.

Actually, some people are suggesting that we at least consider the option. Thank God they remain on the lunatic fringes.

Elysian · 02-12-2012 06:36PM

JimiTime wrote: »

I said it before, but I look at my children and think, 'When did their life begin?' Answering that should give you the principal.

Being alive isn't enough to have the right to live. Since you, presumably, wanted children then I'm sure that they were worth the world to you from the moment they were conceived. But for other people a fertilized cell has little inherent value and they don't see any harm in it being terminated. Should those people have their hands tied because you want to assign an arbitrary value to a bunch of undifferentiated cells?

JimiTime · 02-12-2012 07:36PM

Elysian wrote: »

Being alive isn't enough to have the right to live. Since you, presumably, wanted children then I'm sure that they were worth the world to you from the moment they were conceived. But for other people a fertilized cell has little inherent value and they don't see any harm in it being terminated. Should those people have their hands tied because you want to assign an arbitrary value to a bunch of undifferentiated cells?

We can of course go down the road of reducing everything to cold medical terms etc. However, once you look at your child, or if you have none, someone you love, and ask 'When did their life begin', the reality is unavoidable. Thats not to say that I don't understand what it means to be pregnant when you don't want to be, but the reality is that every person you see's life began at conception. We cannot as a society pretend that there is no such thing as an unwanted or crisis pregnancy of course, but the principal should be that we should not legislate for unborn children be killed. As a society we should tackle the 'why's' in terms of why a person would actually consider a pregnancy a 'crisis' etc.

Elysian · 02-12-2012 09:11PM

JimiTime wrote: »

However, once you look at your child, or if you have none, someone you love, and ask 'When did their life begin', the reality is unavoidable.

To you, not to me. You see human life as being equally important from the day it's conceived to the day it dies. I don't. I see a fertilized cell as having very little inherent value while a newborn having very much.

JimiTime · 02-12-2012 10:00PM

Elysian wrote: »

To you, not to me. You see human life as being equally important from the day it's conceived to the day it dies.

I didn't actually say that. I wouldn't even get into the debate in terms of when is it 'important' and when its not. What I know, and indeed what you know, is that when you look at a person and ask 'When did their life begin?', the answer is unambiguous and undeniable.

I don't. I see a fertilized cell as having very little inherent value while a newborn having very much.

Only because you choose to see it as no different to a skin cell. As I said though, when I look at my children and ask, 'When did their life begin?' The answer is concise and unambiguous both to you and to me and indeed to everyone. When there is a desire for abortion, then we enter into the sophistry of 'Ahh, but when is it a PERSON' or getting into debates about when we should give that life 'rights' etc.

Lingua Franca · 02-12-2012 10:35PM

JimiTime wrote: »

I didn't actually say that. I wouldn't even get into the debate in terms of when is it 'important' and when its not. What I know, and indeed what you know, is that when you look at a person and ask 'When did their life begin?', the answer is unambiguous and undeniable.

No, it's not. You're projecting.

Only because you choose to see it as no different to a skin cell. As I said though, when I look at my children and ask, 'When did their life begin?' The answer is concise and unambiguous both to you and to me and indeed to everyone. When there is a desire for abortion, then we enter into the sophistry of 'Ahh, but when is it a PERSON' or getting into debates about when we should give that life 'rights' etc.

Again, no it's not. Do you really, honestly think that absolutely everyone unambiguously, undeniably, without question believes that life begins at conception unless they want an abortion in which case they faff about with sophistry?

In before "ah sure, any reasonable person believes exactly what I believe".

For someone with such a problem with sophistry, you sure have a problem with separating your opinion from fact and making grand sweeping statements encompassing "everyone".

JimiTime · 02-12-2012 10:52PM

Lingua Franca wrote: »

No, it's not. You're projecting.

Again, no it's not. Do you really, honestly think that absolutely everyone unambiguously, undeniably, without question believes that life begins at conception unless they want an abortion in which case they faff about with sophistry?

In before "ah sure, any reasonable person believes exactly what I believe".

For someone with such a problem with sophistry, you sure have a problem with separating your opinion from fact and making grand sweeping statements encompassing "everyone".

The plain fact of the matter, is that a new unique life begins at conception. Are you denying that this is a fact and somehow making out that this is just my opinion?
As I said, when I look at my children and ask 'When did their life begin', it is unambiguous as to the fact of when this unique being came into existence. The sopistry as I said, comes into it when someone decides that they don't want to give this new human being value for whatever reason. So they bring in 'Yeah, but is it a PERSON' etc.

Lingua Franca · 02-12-2012 10:56PM

I'll answer your question when you answer mine.

Lingua Franca · 02-12-2012 10:58PM

Although, to be fair, your question answered it already. Well, before you edited it.

JimiTime · 02-12-2012 11:04PM

Lingua Franca wrote: »

I'll answer your question when you answer mine.

No worries. TBH, I'm not sure which question you mean though?

doctoremma · 03-12-2012 01:18PM

lmaopml wrote: »

I'll say it one more time. If a woman, I don't care who she is reduces or seeks to reduce her child to merely a disposable entity within law, than she also reduces another woman's right to say she is carrying a child with the right to life

I really don't buy this argument.

Let's say I don't eat animals and haven't done so for the majority of my life. I believe an animal - a live, born creature - has a right to life.

My belief and my application of "right to life" for cows is not in any way "reduced" by other people chomping down on a steak.

Zombrex · 03-12-2012 11:59PM

Elysian wrote: »

The problem here is deciding when a fetus should have rights.

Well no, the problem here is deciding when a fetus should have more rights than anyone else, and the justification for recognizing those rights.

For example, I'm a 33 year old person. My mother is a 62 year old person. I have no right at all to do anything to her body. At all. I can't extract blood for my own purposes. I can't take a kidney. I can't require her to have an operation. I can't restrict her from having an operation. I cannot interfere with my mothers right to bodily integrity at all. Even if it means I will die for some reason.

So, the next question is why, given that I don't have that right now, did I have that right for approx 9 months 33 years ago? And at what point did I lose that right and under what justification?

PDN · 04-12-2012 12:14AM

Zombrex wrote: »

Well no, the problem here is deciding when a fetus should have more rights than anyone else, and the justification for recognizing those rights.

Nobody's suggesting that the foetus has more rights. Most civilised codes of ethics recognise that sometimes conflicts occur between people's rights. And, when that happens, we prioritise the rights of those who face the direst consequences.

For example, I'm a 33 year old person. My mother is a 62 year old person. I have no right at all to do anything to her body. At all. I can't extract blood for my own purposes. I can't take a kidney. I can't require her to have an operation. I can't restrict her from having an operation. I cannot interfere with my mothers right to bodily integrity at all. Even if it means I will die for some reason.

Your rights will be treated as more important than those of your mother if the consequences you face by having your rights denied are more dire than the consequences she faces if her rights are denied.

Let's say you and your mother both arrive at hospital and require treatment. She has a sprained ankle and you are suffering a heart attack. You both have a right to expect prompt treatment. But, if only one doctor is available, your rights will trump hers.

I think one major problem with your argument (where you make bodily integrity sacred to the exclusion of all else) is that it ignores the concept of people having responsibility for others. Most people would recognise that a mother has responsibilty for her child - and 'bodily integrity' is not an excuse for child neglect.

Zombrex · 04-12-2012 12:41AM

PDN wrote: »

Nobody's suggesting that the foetus has more rights. Most civilised codes of ethics recognise that sometimes conflicts occur between people's rights. And, when that happens, we prioritise the rights of those who face the direst consequences.

They are suggesting that the fetus has the right to stay in the woman's body against the woman's wishes, which effectively is saying that the fetus has more right to the body than the woman.

Can you explain anyone else who has that right? I can't think of any, hence the more rights than anyone else.

PDN wrote: »

Let's say you and your mother both arrive at hospital and require treatment. She has a sprained ankle and you are suffering a heart attack. You both have a right to expect prompt treatment. But, if only one doctor is available, your rights will trump hers.

I currently do not have the right to control over anyone else's body, under any circumstances, so how would this non-existent right be prioritized?

PDN wrote: »

I think one major problem with your argument (where you make bodily integrity sacred to the exclusion of all else) is that it ignores the concept of people having responsibility for others. Most people would recognize that a mother has responsibilty for her child - and 'bodily integrity' is not an excuse for child neglect.

That only works if you classify "not allowing your child to be inside your body or to control your body" as "child neglect".

If that was the case any time a child attempted to do anything to their parent and the parent stopped them they are committing child neglect.

J C · 04-12-2012 12:59AM

Zombrex wrote: »

Well no, the problem here is deciding when a fetus should have more rights than anyone else, and the justification for recognizing those rights.

For example, I'm a 33 year old person. My mother is a 62 year old person. I have no right at all to do anything to her body. At all. I can't extract blood for my own purposes. I can't take a kidney. I can't require her to have an operation. I can't restrict her from having an operation. I cannot interfere with my mothers right to bodily integrity at all. Even if it means I will die for some reason.

So, the next question is why, given that I don't have that right now, did I have that right for approx 9 months 33 years ago? And at what point did I lose that right and under what justification?

... if your argument is based on situational ethics ... then equally, your mother also doesn't now have the right to deliberately kill you (other than in self-defense) ... so why should she have such a right 33 years ago either???

Zombrex · 04-12-2012 01:04AM

J C wrote: »

... your mother also doesn't now have the right to deliberately kill you (other than in self-defense) ... so why should she have such a right 33 years ago either???

She didn't. Abortion does not give the mother the right to kill anyone.

PDN · 04-12-2012 01:08AM

Zombrex wrote: »

They are suggesting that the fetus has the right to stay in the woman's body against the woman's wishes, which effectively is saying that the fetus has more right to the body than the woman.

Can you explain anyone else who has that right? I can't think of any, hence the more rights than anyone else.

Anyone else who has the right to remain in someone else's body? :rolleyes:

J C · 04-12-2012 01:21AM

Zombrex wrote: »

They are suggesting that the fetus has the right to stay in the woman's body against the woman's wishes, which effectively is saying that the fetus has more right to the body than the woman.
Can you explain anyone else who has that right? I can't think of any, hence the more rights than anyone else.

You have produced a 'strawman' there!!
The unborn child doesn't have more of a right to it's mothers body than she has herself. Indeed, where the mother's life is in real and present danger ... the mother has the greater right.
However, a child does have the right to be born alive, if this is possible. If it's not possible because the mother's life is in real and present danger ... then the mother's right to life is supreme.

Zombrex wrote: »

I currently do not have the right to control over anyone else's body, under any circumstances, so how would this non-existent right be prioritized?

You do have such a right in many circumstances ... for example, you have every right to physically restrain somebody who is a threat to themselves or others (using as much force as is reasonably necessary) ... and you have the right to make an arrest if you know that a crime has been committed and you are in 'hot pursuit' of the guilty party.

Zombrex wrote: »

That only works if you classify "not allowing your child to be inside your body or to control your body" as "child neglect".

It's analagous to a situation where your child is desperately hanging on to your hand while it's dangling over a cliff ... and you deliberately shake off its grip, thereby allowing them to plunge to their death ... on the basis that they were 'interfering' with your right to 'bodily integrity'.

Zombrex wrote: »

If that was the case any time a child attempted to do anything to their parent and the parent stopped them they are committing child neglect.

... abortion is the deliberate killing of the child ... and is therefore morally much more reprehensible than neglect.
... and neglect would only occur in situations where a parent refused to provide for the demands of the child for things necessary to its welfare and life ... as distinct from the demands of a 'spoiled brat' for something that is dangerous or unnecessary for them to have.

Zombrex · 04-12-2012 01:33AM

PDN wrote: »

Anyone else who has the right to remain in someone else's body? :rolleyes:

I'll take that as a no then.

J C · 04-12-2012 01:37AM

Zombrex wrote: »

She didn't. Abortion does not give the mother the right to kill anyone.

Legalised abortion removes the criminal penalty for procured abortion ... so it does actually give a mother the right to kill her unborn child.
Please stop playing with words ... and at least have the courage of your convictions ... and stop denying the reality of what we are dealing with here ... which is the deliberate killing of unborn children.

J C · 04-12-2012 01:42AM

Zombrex wrote: »

I'll take that as a no then.

Nobody else has a life-necessary need to be in a womans body.

Its analagous to a child depending on you for its life because you are holding the rope to which a life-buoy is attached ... and you deliberately let it go thereby allowing the child to be swept to its death because the rope was hurting your hand ... and dragging the child ashore would impose on your time and you body because of the effort required to do so.
I think you might find yourself on the wrong side of the law if you were found to have done this.

The impact imposed on you (even if you did cut your hand and dirtied your clothes and were late for an important meeting) is so minor as to be insignificant when compared with the life or death situation that the child finds themselves in.

Equally, once you have started the rescue process, you have an obligation to see it through ... and not just 'abandon ship' ... because you fear that your clothes could be dirtied ... or you have some remote possibility of contracting some disease from the river-water.
You do not have to put your own life in danger to rescue the child ... but you certainly must morally do all in your power to save them, short of putting your own life in iminent danger.

Zombrex · 04-12-2012 01:54AM

J C wrote: »

You have produced a 'strawman' there!!
The unborn child doesn't have more of a right to it's mothers body than she has herself.

So the mother can perform an action on her body irrespective of the unborn child, such as, oh I don't know, the removal of the unborn child from the mothers body.

If not then who ever is stopping that, either directly or by proxy, has more right to the woman's body than she does.

J C wrote: »

You do have such a right in many circumstances ... for example, you have every right to physically restrain somebody who is a threat to themselves or others (using as much force as is reasonably necessary)

You seem to not understand what is being actually being discussed when one discusses bodily autonomy/privacy.

Restraining someone does not give you right over their body. Just because I'm restraining a bank robber doesn't mean I can take their kidney or amputate their leg. You don't own their body simply by restraining them.

If the foetus was not inside the woman's body then any argument to bodily privacy would be, by definition, irrelevant.

J C wrote: »

It's analagous to a situation where your child is desperately hanging on to your hand while it's dangling over a cliff ... and you deliberately shake off its grip, thereby allowing them to plunge to their death ... on the basis that they were 'interfering' with your right to 'bodily integrity'.

Some what irrelevant since again this is not an issue of bodily integrity (a concept you don't seem to understand) but it should be pointed out that this is a perfectly legal thing to do, irrespective of the morality of such a choice, since we consider the choice of someone in such a situation something that cannot be interfered with (ie there is no agreement on the right thing to do and as such it is left to the person to decide).

For example there was a case a few years ago where a mother and child went into a river due to a car accident. As the mother was attempting to escape the water the child grabbed onto the mother's hair. The mother, either through panic or belief that she could not escape the water while the child was holding her, broke the child's grasp and swam to safety while the child perished.

No action was taken against the mother, nor was there any argument that she "killed" her child by not allowing the child to hold on to the mother hair. It is important to point out that this was not a conclusion based on the assessment that if the child had continued to hold on to the mothers hair the mother would have drowned. That is unknown and in fact irrelevant. Even if the mother wasn't going to drown, merely thought she was or in fact simply panicked (or heck rationally decided I'm fine by I don't want this child pulling my hair), it makes no difference.

J C wrote: »

... abortion is the deliberate killing of the child ...

... no its not ...

This should be obvious from all the Christian propaganda about children who were aborted but survived. You cannot survive being successfully killed. :rolleyes:

J C wrote: »

... and neglect would only occur in situations where a parent refused to provide for demands of the child for things necessary to its welfare and life ... as distinct from the demands of a 'spoiled brat' for something that is dangerous or unnecessary for them to have.

So if a mother refuses to provide a kidney, or lung, to their child they are guilty of child neglect and should be legally charged with murder if the child dies?

Zombrex · 04-12-2012 02:00AM

J C wrote: »

Nobody else has a life-necessary need to be in a womans body.

So if they did, they would have that right?

J C wrote: »

Its analagous to a child depending on you for its life because you are holding the rope to which a life-buoy is attached ... and you deliberately let it go thereby allowing the child to be swept to its death because the rope was hurting your hand ... and dragging the child ashore would impose on your time and you body because of the effort required to do so.

No, its not. Again you seem to not understand what bodily integrity/privacy is.

It is analogous to a child depending on you for its life because you have a rope surgically embedded into your stomach, and you deliberately saying "take this rope out of my stomach now" results in the child to be swept to its death. You will find that you can still say "take this rope out of my stomach now".

Or a better analogy would be saying that I have the right to require you to open your body and give me access to your organs because I require a function of them to live (for example I require you to use your liver to clean my blood, pumped to you through a blood transfusion).

Do I have that right over your body, even if I am going to die without it?

J C · 04-12-2012 02:32AM

Zombrex wrote: »

So the mother can perform an action on her body irrespective of the unborn child, such as, oh I don't know, the removal of the unborn child from the mothers body.

If not then who ever is stopping that, either directly or by proxy, has more right to the woman's body than she does.

No right is absoute in extremis.
People can be restrained from performing life-threatening actions on their own bodies ... that is the basis for mental illness restraint laws.
... so if somebody threatens to remove their own kidney with a kitchen knife ... they shouldn't be surprised if they are subject to detention by police under a 'sectioning' order.

Zombrex wrote: »

You seem to not understand what is being actually being discussed when one discusses bodily autonomy/privacy.

Restraining someone does not give you right over their body. Just because I'm restraining a bank robber doesn't mean I can take their kidney or amputate their leg. You don't own their body simply by restraining them.

Carrying a child to term isn't remotely analagous to organ donation ... as the woman still has all her body parts when the pregnancy is over.

Zombrex wrote: »

If the foetus was not inside the woman's body then any argument to bodily privacy would be, by definition, irrelevant.

... this 'privacy' thing is a 'red herring' as its morally irrelevant whether the person whose life is dependent on your actions is outside your body or inside it ... if you deliberately kill them without due cause it is grossly immoral.

Zombrex wrote: »

Some what irrelevant since again this is not an issue of bodily integrity (a concept you don't seem to understand) but it should be pointed out that this is a perfectly legal thing to do, irrespective of the morality of such a choice, since we consider the choice of someone in such a situation something that cannot be interfered with (ie there is no agreement on the right thing to do and as such it is left to the person to decide).

For example there was a case a few years ago where a mother and child went into a river due to a car accident. As the mother was attempting to escape the water the child grabbed onto the mother's hair. The mother, either through panic or belief that she could not escape the water while the child was holding her, broke the child's grasp and swam to safety while the child perished.

In that case the mother's life was directly threatened ... and she broke no law by what she did. People are quite entitled to knock out somebody who is dragging them down under water, in self-defense, if they reasonably perceive their lives to be at risk, at the time.

However, the law on bystanders being required to assist with life or death situations is most developed in France where it is a criminal offense to not assist somebody in a life or death situation. For example, if you see a car crash and drive on by without rendering assistance to the injured, you can be charged with an offense by the police. Either way, a moral obligation always exists to assist others in life or death situations and to save life whenever possible. Indeed, I'm sure that you would expect nothing less from other people, if your life could be saved by some minor imposition on other people ... like calling an Ambulance or throwing in a buoy to a drowning person and hauling them ashore.

Zombrex wrote: »

No action was taken against the mother, nor was there any argument that she "killed" her child by not allowing the child to hold on to the mother hair. It is important to point out that this was not a conclusion based on the assessment that if the child had continued to hold on to the mothers hair the mother would have drowned. That is unknown and in fact irrelevant. Even if the mother wasn't going to drown, merely thought she was or in fact simply panicked (or heck rationally decided I'm fine by I don't want this child pulling my hair), it makes no difference.

... if the mother thought she was going to drown ... no action would or should be taken ... but if she was an excellent swimmer, trained in life saving and let her child drown merely because she didn't want her hair pulled ... she would likely face charges of death by neglect ... or even manslaughter charges.

Zombrex wrote: »

This should be obvious from all the Christian propaganda about children who were aborted but survived. You cannot survive being successfully killed. :rolleyes:

Quite true ... and that is why the abortion procedure has been changed to lethal injection before delivery.
Abortion 'survivors' are all now adults, from the era of saline late-term abortions ... when a small miority did survive the attempt to kill them.

Zombrex wrote: »

So if a mother refuses to provide a kidney, or lung, to their child they are guilty of child neglect and should be legally charged with murder if the child dies?

Like I have said, the obligation to carry a child to term isn't even remotely analagous to organ donation ... as the woman still has all her body parts when the pregnancy is over.

J C · 04-12-2012 02:52AM

Zombrex wrote: »

So if they did, they would have that right?

Your question is academic ... because only the unborn have this morally defensible life-necessary need.
Parasites may also have this need ... but as they are not Human ... the person infested always has the right to kill them.

Zombrex wrote: »

No, its not. Again you seem to not understand what bodily integrity/privacy is.

It is analogous to a child depending on you for its life because you have a rope surgically embedded into your stomach, and you deliberately saying "take this rope out of my stomach now" results in the child to be swept to its death. You will find that you can still say "take this rope out of my stomach now".

I don't think so ... firstly its a completely natural 'rope' that we are talking about here ... and secondly, if somebody required my active assistance to preserve their life, I would have no difficulty in rendering such assistance, once my own life wasn't iminently threatened in the process.

Zombrex wrote: »

Or a better analogy would be saying that I have the right to require you to open your body and give me access to your organs because I require a function of them to live (for example I require you to use your liver to clean my blood, pumped to you through a blood transfusion).

None of these are analagous to pregnancy which is a natural process that places little burden on most women for most of the nine months ... and, apart from the occasional stretch mark, leaves no permanent bodily damage in its wake.

Zombrex wrote: »

Do I have that right over your body, even if I am going to die without it?

You don't, if doing so puts my life in iminent danger ... but you do have a moral right (and a legal right in some countries) to reasonable assistance from me to preserve your life, in a life or death situation, once my own life isn't iminently threatened in the process.

Abortion debate thread

Comments