The Abortion debate

[SilentPony]

Have they though?

I think by definition of the experiment we have to. The experiment calls for a cat in a box - I think its reasonable to assume that cat is a cat, and not a fetus or collection of cat sex cells soon after sex. The experiment implies the cat is capable of living on its own, and its the gas that will kill it. Neither a fetus or sex cells can boast that.

 

[Baffle]

I think by definition of the experiment we have to. The experiment calls for a cat in a box - I think its reasonable to assume that cat is a cat, and not a fetus or collection of cat sex cells soon after sex. The experiment implies the cat is capable of living on its own, and its the gas that will kill it. Neither a fetus or sex cells can boast that.

I'm against animal testing of this kind. Can we just gas sperm instead? I've got loads (not in jars or anything, I operate a JIT system).

 

[Agema]

Yes, because they are going to be dead before their circumstances change no matter what you do. When life isn't an option, death isn't a choice.

You don't know their circumstances won't change. That's a living person with potential that you're killing.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

I would classify myself as anti-choice. It really is a good description of how we legislate around death in general. If someone has the option for nobody to die and chooses death, that's a crime. If somebody dies by nobody's choice, that's not a crime. Choice is, in fact, the problem.

Kinda weird how you're pro "force somebody to risk death against their will". What other circumstances do we get to apply that to?

 

[Baffle]

Kinda weird how you're pro "force somebody to risk death against their will". What other circumstances do we get to apply that to?

Students at Manchester Uni apparently.

 

[Agema]

Students at Manchester Uni apparently.

If they're out having parties when they want to, they don't get to complain that they have to sit in a classroom occasionally.

 

[Baffle]

If they're out having parties when they want to, they don't get to complain that they have to sit in a classroom occasionally.

Pretty sure they're locked in halls at the moment.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Like I said on page 1, I think that personhood is irrelevant, or rather, that "personhood" begins at conception.

I know it's nitpicking, but that would seem to make personhood pretty relevant. If the difference between a single celled organism which it's okay to kill, and a single celled organism which it's not okay to kill is that one is, in your eyes, a "person", then personhood is clearly the only thing that matters.

I'm kind of interested in that radical idea of interconnectedness you're proposing though. I'm curious if it applies to other situations and people, or just to fetuses.

If a person will die because they can't afford medical care, do we have a moral responsibility to appropriate wealth from someone else to pay for their medical care? Can that person "own" the resources that someone else needs to live? Can companies own the patents for lifesaving drugs, or do we have a moral responsibility to make those drugs universally available if it will save lives? What about police? Are police allowed to shoot people in order to protect the property of someone else? Or does the threat of death automatically abolish those property rights?

Okay, that last one was pretty forced, but I'm not lying about being intrigued by the concept of a consistent ethical stance that acknowledges the interdependency of human lives, because I think that has implications far beyond unborn fetuses, if you'd care to see them.

 

[Houseman]

I'm kind of interested in that radical idea of interconnectedness you're proposing though.

I'm proposing an idea of interconnectedness? What makes you think that? I didn't intend to...
Are you confusing me with someone else?

If a person will die because they can't afford medical care, do we have a moral responsibility to appropriate wealth from someone else to pay for their medical care? Can that person "own" the resources that someone else needs to live? Can companies own the patents for lifesaving drugs, or do we have a moral responsibility to make those drugs universally available if it will save lives? What about police? Are police allowed to shoot people in order to protect the property of someone else? Or does the threat of death automatically abolish those property rights?

Okay, that last one was pretty forced, but I'm not lying about being intrigued by the concept of a consistent ethical stance that acknowledges the interdependency of human lives, because I think that has implications far beyond unborn fetuses, if you'd care to see them.

1) Ideally, yes. I don't think it'll ever happen this side of Armageddon, though.
2) Ideally, one shouldn't be able to, no
3) Well, they can and they do, but they shouldn't. Yes, it should be universally available
4) Ideally, we shouldn't have or need police, and nobody's life or property should ever be under threat

But it seems strange that you're asking me all these questions. I don't get it.

 

[CM156]

My views on the topic are probably what you would expect, given my general conservative political philosophy.

 

[tstorm823]

Kinda weird how you're pro "force somebody to risk death against their will". What other circumstances do we get to apply that to?

Every time you're obligated to travel somewhere. How many millions of kids do we put in school buses despite the risk of injury or death?

You don't know their circumstances won't change. That's a living person with potential that you're killing.

Never regaining brain function is sort of the definition of brain dead. If there's a chance of recovery, you aren't brain dead. That's what those words mean.

 

[Shadyside]

My views on the topic are probably what you would expect, given my general conservative political philosophy.

I would be pro choice and all life is sacred if the people who said that actually cared what would happen to the baby after birth. Rape babies need a good place to go to.

 

[tstorm823]

Rape babies need a good place to go to.

In the US at least, the waiting line to adopt an infant is orders of magnitude greater than the number of abortions resulting from rape. There are plenty of good places to go to. If you've heard the foster system is overwhelmed, it's almost entirely with children removed from parents by child protective services who are often a) older and abused and require more specific care than just someone who wants to adopt, and/or b) unable to be adopted because the parents still have conditions under which they might regain parental rights.

 

[Shadyside]

 

[Terminal Blue]

I'm proposing an idea of interconnectedness? What makes you think that? I didn't intend to...

So, your argument is that a fetus is a person from the point of conception. It's a separate person from the body it inhabits. As you pointed out, they do not share a single body, they are two separate bodies with separate DNA and, in your eyes, this makes them separate people. Thus, your argument is that the fetus should recieve the same individual rights and protections as a person, rather than being treated purely as a medical issue for the mother.

But assuming that is true, then a fetus is a person living inside the body of another person from whom they are entirely distinct yet entirely dependent. The fetus cannot live outside the body it inhabits, and yet it also has no inherent right to be there. As a wholly distinct entity from its mother, it has no legal right or ownership towards its mothers body. Removing it is no different from evicting a squatter from your property, unless we see the personhood of these two people as interconnected.

And that's what I find interesting, because I think once you start believing that people are interconnected and have obligations towards each other simply because there is dependence, then that has some pretty serious ramifications for society. It's potentially a very radical idea.. a very comradical idea if you catch my drift.

I mean, the alternative is that you see fetuses as people but don't quite see women as people, but I don't want to assume that so I'll assume the more charitable one.

 

[Houseman]

As a wholly distinct entity from its mother, it has no legal right or ownership towards its mothers body.

Parents wouldn't kick a child out of their home at the age of 3 because "they have no legal right or ownership" to live there.

Mothers (and fathers) must care for their children or else they are negligent, which has the potential to be criminal. Not providing your child with the necessities of life is criminal. If those necessities happen to be a womb, then it would be criminal not to provide one.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Mothers (and fathers) must care for their children or else they are negligent, which has the potential to be criminal. Not providing your child with the necessities of life is criminal. If those necessities happen to be a womb, then it would be criminal not to provide one.

I see we've slipped from the moral position that a fetus is a person, to the legal position that a fetus is a child.

Why?

I mean, legally it isn't.

 

[Gordon_4]

Not providing your child with the necessities of life is criminal. If those necessities happen to be a womb, then it would be criminal not to provide one.

If that were true, from a legal perspective, what does that mean for women who suffer miscarriages or ovarian cancer?

 

[Houseman]

I see we've slipped from the moral position that a fetus is a person, to the legal position that a fetus is a child.

Why?

Because you said "it has no legal right or ownership towards its mother's body"

You don't think it's immoral to refuse to care for you child? I do.
If we want to restrict this to just morality, then there's your answer. It's immoral to neglect your child and refuse the things that are necessary for its life.

If that were true, from a legal perspective, what does that mean for women who suffer miscarriages or ovarian cancer?

Do they bring on those miscarriages or cancer through their own actions?
Are they smoking, drinking, engaging in underground fight clubs, or doing drugs while pregnant?

 

[Gordon_4]

Because you said "it has no legal right or ownership towards its mother's body"

You don't think it's immoral to refuse to care for you child? I do.
If we want to restrict this to just morality, then there's your answer. It's immoral to neglect your child and refuse the things that are necessary for its life.



Do they bring on those miscarriages or cancer through their own actions?
Are they smoking, drinking, engaging in underground fight clubs, or doing drugs while pregnant?

I’m not doing your fuckin’ work for you. If you’re deadset on this then you should be able to answer the question with a broad set of variables.