Another Abortion Thread

[keltzkroz]

Hi everyone! This topic came up in the Abortion/parental fairness thread. We have gone off topic so I'm starting this one.

The question seems to be pretty simple, or perhaps not so simple. IF the fetus is a person, is abortion ok?

[jerickson314]

WARNING: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.

Pregnancy is the only logically possible situation of this sort, if responsibility is taken into account. Unique situations require unique legislation, but that is consistent with the spirit of other laws. Such as laws that protect the defenseless.

There is no other example for this situation in law.

That's what I just said. You basically described pregnancy and then told me to find an example of it that wasn't pregnancy. It's a rather silly way to argue.

The problem arises because believers tend to seperate feutus from its mother.

Both are homo sapiens with individual organs.

For all practical purposes feutus is an intergral part of a woman like her hand,leg or nails.

What? This simply isn't the case. She wasn't born with a fetus, and it is capable of living on its own after so long. It has brain development before then, IIRC.

If she has pain,humiliation and suffering from a body part eg:breast cancer she has the freedom to remove the body part.

Except that those body parts aren't homo sapiens.

Creating legal responsibility from nowhere and government trying to become the guardian of the feutus is not correct.A mother and father shall be the deciding authority on their feutus.Give them freedom to have the child or not.

They always used to say the same sorts of things about slaves.

The actual defenseless person is the woman.Religion says she is responsible for the fall of man.Her pregnency pain is said to be a punishment for her 'sin'.If the baby is born illegitimately she suffers all pain and shame while the father walks away scotfree.It is she who should be protected from the society.

The father should be responsible as well. However, both need protection. Saying that the fetus does not is arbitrary and uncaring.

And the case against abortion doesn't rest on Genesis. If it did, why would these people exist?

I don't say that women shouldn't have abortions so that they will have to suffer. It's just that you can't create a life and then proceed to destroy it.

If the society really stops rape,stops teenage pregnancy etc then abortions will cease to end.Without doing this using the law to further harass the poor woman will not help.

I have a feeling people won't like it if we use force to try to stop teenage pregnancy...

Rape is already illegal.

Certainly, we do need to do more for these women. However, allowing abortion is not something we should do.

[sin_is_fun]

WARNING: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.

That's what I just said. You basically described pregnancy and then told me to find an example of it that wasn't pregnancy. It's a rather silly way to argue.

You tried to find out legal responsibility and damages of woman for pregnancy. You tried to find another way to punish eve.Another attempt was made to make Eve responsible for her 'sins'.She was painted as a murderer for abortion and was about to he hung as a muderer.I stopped this modern day witch hunting.

religion has hurt her in every possible way.Thinking about her is called as adultery.She is refused the right of divorcing a bad husband.Her pregnancy pain was supposed to be a punishment.Believers were supposed not to marry her or think about her.Thinking about her becomes a sin.And now she is painted as a murderer.The poor woman has suffered enough torture.

You say I argue in a silly way.I too can make comments like it,but what is the benefit.Let us debate by using arguments and not by commenting about how the other person debates.

Both are homo sapiens with individual organs.

If one homosapiens harms the other homosapien,it is liable.If the feutus doesnt give pain,hurt and humiliation to the woman it has the right to exist.

What? This simply isn't the case. She wasn't born with a fetus, and it is capable of living on its own after so long. It has brain development before then, IIRC.

She wasnt also born with a cancer tumor.Problem here is not status of feutus but of that woman.She suffers psychological and physical damages because of feutus.So she removes it.

They always used to say the same sorts of things about slaves.

They also refused the human rights of slaves,similiar to refusal of human right of women now.

The father should be responsible as well. However, both need protection. Saying that the fetus does not is arbitrary and uncaring.

Feutus gets protection only if the parents decide to have it.

I don't say that women shouldn't have abortions so that they will have to suffer. It's just that you can't create a life and then proceed to destroy it.

Nobody can help pregnancy.Many pregnant mothers are teens who know nothing.Its difficult to stop pregnancy although not impossible.

I have a feeling people won't like it if we use force to try to stop teenage pregnancy...

Rape is already illegal.

Certainly, we do need to do more for these women. However, allowing abortion is not something we should do.

We need not use force to stop teen pregnancy.If parents live as an example children too will follow it.

If mother has multiple husbands by age 12 the daughter also will follow her mother.If parents raise their children with good value and show their life as an example the child will defenitely reform.Teen pregnancies will stop.

If fathers stop concentrating on money and concentrate on their children,family life will be much much better.Nowadays fathers run after money and mothers too run after money.Children naturally run after dating and sex.

Mistake is with parents.Let us not make children responsible for it.

[jerickson314]

You tried to find out legal responsibility and damages of woman for pregnancy.

You are creating another weak analogy. Damages have nothing to do with it. It's just that when you create life, you have responsibility for that life.

You tried to find another way to punish eve.Another attempt was made to make Eve responsible for her 'sins'.

No, not at all. It isn't about punishment, it's about not murdering.

She was painted as a murderer for abortion and was about to he hung as a muderer.I stopped this modern day witch hunting.

I don't suggest that we hang them or anything. We simply shouldn't offer legalized killing.

religion has hurt her in every possible way.

More like misunderstandings of religion, if you ask me.

Thinking about her is called as adultery.

Lusting. That is different from simply "thinking about her".

She is refused the right of divorcing a bad husband.

And the husband is refused the right of divorcing a bad wife, if we are consistent. Your point?

Her pregnancy pain was supposed to be a punishment.

You're taking the Genesis passage way out of context.

Believers were supposed not to marry her or think about her.

Huh?

Thinking about her becomes a sin.

No, again, just lusting.

And now she is painted as a murderer.The poor woman has suffered enough torture.

This doesn't change whether abortion is murder.

You say I argue in a silly way.I too can make comments like it,but what is the benefit.Let us debate by using arguments and not by commenting about how the other person debates.

Good idea.

If one homosapiens harms the other homosapien,it is liable.If the feutus doesnt give pain,hurt and humiliation to the woman it has the right to exist.

Whose actions resulted in that consequence? The mother's. The fetus had no choice in the matter. And the right to life is not contingent on not hurting someone else, barring the death penalty. However, the death penalty is not usually applied when there was no choice.

She wasnt also born with a cancer tumor.Problem here is not status of feutus but of that woman.She suffers psychological and physical damages because of feutus.So she removes it.

Again, we are dealing with a person fetus here. That's the premise of this thread! The status of both matters, not just one or the other.

If you insult me, does that mean I can kill you? What if I forced you to insult me?

They also refused the human rights of slaves,similiar to refusal of human right of women now.

No, women don't really lack their human rights. Fetuses do, though.

Feutus gets protection only if the parents decide to have it.

Slave gets protection only if the masters decide to let it.

Nobody can help pregnancy.Many pregnant mothers are teens who know nothing.Its difficult to stop pregnancy although not impossible.

Not true. It's called "abstinence". And yes, there is another choice besides abstinence. It's called "living with the consequences of your actions."

We need not use force to stop teen pregnancy.If parents live as an example children too will follow it.

If mother has multiple husbands by age 12 the daughter also will follow her mother.If parents raise their children with good value and show their life as an example the child will defenitely reform.Teen pregnancies will stop.

If fathers stop concentrating on money and concentrate on their children,family life will be much much better.Nowadays fathers run after money and mothers too run after money.Children naturally run after dating and sex.

Mistake is with parents.Let us not make children responsible for it.

I agree that we need change in this area. However, this doesn't mean that we can let the children kill people.

[sin_is_fun]

You are creating another weak analogy. Damages have nothing to do with it. It's just that when you create life, you have responsibility for that life.

You not only have responsibility but also authority to choose whether you have the child or not.You are responsible if you choose to endure the associated pains.If the mother is not prepared to pay the cost then she has the freedom not to have the child.This freedom can be exercised even after getting pregnant.Without trial we cannot know whether the product is good or bad.Just like we return a product if we dont like it after a trial,we send back the feutus to where it came from.

No, not at all. It isn't about punishment, it's about not murdering.

Aborting woman is equated to a murderer here.

I don't suggest that we hang them or anything. We simply shouldn't offer legalized killing.

poultry farms also engage in legalized killings. wanna stop eating chicken?

Lusting. That is different from simply "thinking about her".

'Thought is a crime'-even hitler and stalin did not make thought a crime.

And the husband is refused the right of divorcing a bad wife, if we are consistent. Your point?

equally bad law. two wrongs dont make a right.

You're taking the Genesis passage way out of context.

Am I?What does this verse mean then?

gen 3:16 To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."

source: www.bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=Gen+3:16

Believers were supposed not to marry her or think about her.

Huh?

so do you refuse this?

Thinking about her becomes a sin.

No, again, just lusting.

Thought crime

And now she is painted as a murderer.The poor woman has suffered enough torture.

This doesn't change whether abortion is murder.

killing for self defense isnt murder.

[
Whose actions resulted in that consequence? The mother's. The fetus had no choice in the matter. And the right to life is not contingent on not hurting someone else, barring the death penalty. However, the death penalty is not usually applied when there was no choice.

We discussed responsibility earlier.You werent able to prove that the mother is responsible.

[
Again, we are dealing with a person fetus here. That's the premise of this thread! The status of both matters, not just one or the other.

Feutus is a person or not is immaterial.If it causes physical harm,mental harm to the mother she can abort it.

[If you insult me, does that mean I can kill you? What if I forced you to insult me?

It is not only insult but also physical pain and mental trauma.If these can be avoided without abortion then we can ban abortion.Do you have any methods of avoiding these without abortion?

[
No, women don't really lack their human rights. Fetuses do, though.

Thats because they are not legally a seperate person and human.We simply assume it to be the case for this thread,that's all.

Slave gets protection only if the masters decide to let it.

slave is a person,feutus isnt We simply assume feutus as a person to be the case for this thread,that's all.

Nobody can help pregnancy.Many pregnant mothers are teens who know nothing.Its difficult to stop pregnancy although not impossible.

Not true. It's called "abstinence". And yes, there is another choice besides abstinence. It's called "living with the consequences of your actions."

Abstinence is not practical and not needed.Having sex is the basic constitutional right of a man adn woman.

There is also another choice of 'freedom from sins levied by religion and living with dignity'

[
I agree that we need change in this area. However, this doesn't mean that we can let the children kill people.

we can also not let the children to be hostages of their disasterous decisions.

[jerickson314]

You are creating another weak analogy. Damages have nothing to do with it. It's just that when you create life, you have responsibility for that life.

You not only have responsibility but also authority to choose whether you have the child or not.

Just as slaveholders had the authority to choose whether to beat their slaves to death or not. It's an authority that shouldn't exist.

You are responsible if you choose to endure the associated pains.If the mother is not prepared to pay the cost then she has the freedom not to have the child.This freedom can be exercised even after getting pregnant.

Not true, because after pregancy it causes the death of a homo sapien.

Without trial we cannot know whether the product is good or bad.Just like we return a product if we dont like it after a trial,we send back the feutus to where it came from.

So if I don't like debating you, I can murder you?

No, not at all. It isn't about punishment, it's about not murdering.

Aborting woman is equated to a murderer here.

Your point?

poultry farms also engage in legalized killings. wanna stop eating chicken?

Chickens are not homo sapiens.

'Thought is a crime'-even hitler and stalin did not make thought a crime.

You are confusing sin and crime. Thought crime laws would be unenforceable and thus cannot be in a legal system.

And the husband is refused the right of divorcing a bad wife, if we are consistent. Your point?

equally bad law. two wrongs dont make a right.

It is a given person's choice who to marry or not to marry.

You're taking the Genesis passage way out of context.

Am I?What does this verse mean then?

gen 3:16 To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."

source: www.bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=Gen+3:16

It means that pain for pregnancy, even when the sex was morally good, is part of the general punishment for sin. It does not mean that pain in pregnancy is a specific punishment for sexual immorality.

Believers were supposed not to marry her or think about her.

Huh?

so do you refuse this?

I'm not clear on what you meant.

And now she is painted as a murderer.The poor woman has suffered enough torture.

This doesn't change whether abortion is murder.

killing for self defense isnt murder.

"Self defense" is only a valid excuse when your life is threatened. Being pregnant does not cause enough risk to warrant "killing in self defense". It is possible that abortion should be allowed when there is actually a risk of death for the mother. However, this would be the exception rather than the rule.

And if you want to use that argument, are you also in favor of the death penalty?

[
Whose actions resulted in that consequence? The mother's. The fetus had no choice in the matter. And the right to life is not contingent on not hurting someone else, barring the death penalty. However, the death penalty is not usually applied when there was no choice.

We discussed responsibility earlier.You werent able to prove that the mother is responsible.

The mother had sex. She is therefore responsible for whatever outcome this has.

[
Again, we are dealing with a person fetus here. That's the premise of this thread! The status of both matters, not just one or the other.

Feutus is a person or not is immaterial.If it causes physical harm,mental harm to the mother she can abort it.

< sarcasm >Thanks for the legal advice. I'll start killing everyone who makes fun of me.< / sarcasm >

Again, killing in self defense can only happen in life-threatening situations. And again, only when you are not truly responsible for the threat to yourself.

[If you insult me, does that mean I can kill you? What if I forced you to insult me?

It is not only insult but also physical pain and mental trauma.If these can be avoided without abortion then we can ban abortion.Do you have any methods of avoiding these without abortion?

Abstinence.

[
No, women don't really lack their human rights. Fetuses do, though.

Thats because they are not legally a seperate person and human.We simply assume it to be the case for this thread,that's all.

That's because the law is unjust, just as it used to be unjust towards slaves.

Slave gets protection only if the masters decide to let it.

slave is a person,feutus isnt We simply assume feutus as a person to be the case for this thread,that's all.

Both are homo sapiens. This constitutes a person in my book.

Not true. It's called "abstinence". And yes, there is another choice besides abstinence. It's called "living with the consequences of your actions."

Abstinence is not practical and not needed.Having sex is the basic constitutional right of a man adn woman.

The right to sex is even more basic than the right to life? Since when? So if I want your girlfriend, I can kill you?

Oh, and sex isn't mentioned in the Constitution.

The only alternative you have provided to abstinence constitues ending the life of a homo sapien. In other words, a non-alternative. (The alternative of living with actions also exists, but you don't seem to like it.)

There is also another choice of 'freedom from sins levied by religion and living with dignity'

My opposition to abortion has little to do with my religious views, except that I believe murder is wrong. If sex necessarily results in either shame or murder, it must be linked with shame under a just legal system. This isn't because some religion says so, but rather due to logic.

[
I agree that we need change in this area. However, this doesn't mean that we can let the children kill people.

we can also not let the children to be hostages of their disasterous decisions.

A world without personal responsibility is dangerous. People have to learn to be responsible sometime!

[sin_is_fun]

Just as slaveholders had the authority to choose whether to beat their slaves to death or not. It's an authority that shouldn't exist.

slaves were persons,they had pain.Feutus doesnt feel pain till 18 months well after the period of abortion.Feutus isnt a person,we just assume it as a person in this thread,thats all.

Not true, because after pregancy it causes the death of a homo sapien.

Feutus isnt a person,we just assume it as a person in this thread,thats all.

Without trial we cannot know whether the product is good or bad.Just like we return a product if we dont like it after a trial,we send back the feutus to where it came from.

So if I don't like debating you, I can murder you?

Do you own me?Did you buy me?

poultry farms also engage in legalized killings. wanna stop eating chicken?

Chickens are not homo sapiens.

who gave you the license to kill non homo sapiens?Are animals' lives worth nothing?I dont know why you draw a distinction between life of a homosapiens and that of an animal.Both are living beings who experience pain.So why this artificial difference between homosapiens and animals?

You are confusing sin and crime. Thought crime laws would be unenforceable and thus cannot be in a legal system.

God made thought a crime to be punishable by eternal damnation in hell fire.why did he make thought a crime?

It is a given person's choice who to marry or not to marry.

It should also be a given persons choice as to divorce or not.

gen 3:16 To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."

source: www.bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=Gen+3:16

It means that pain for pregnancy, even when the sex was morally good, is part of the general punishment for sin. It does not mean that pain in pregnancy is a specific punishment for sexual immorality.

I did not say it was punishment for sexual immorality.I said religion thinks pregnency pain is the punishment for the original sin.God punished billions of women for the mistake of one woman.

killing for self defense isnt murder.

"Self defense" is only a valid excuse when your life is threatened. Being pregnant does not cause enough risk to warrant "killing in self defense". It is possible that abortion should be allowed when there is actually a risk of death for the mother. However, this would be the exception rather than the rule.

Self defense is not only for life threatening issues.It can be used even if somebody attacks you with an intention of hurting you.In the case of feutus the only way in which that pain can eb stopped is abortion.

And if you want to use that argument, are you also in favor of the death penalty?

Yes,I am.

The mother had sex. She is therefore responsible for whatever outcome this has.

That was before the existence of feutus.That was a legal act.So she is not responsible.We discussed this earlier.

< sarcasm >Thanks for the legal advice. I'll start killing everyone who makes fun of me.< / sarcasm >

Physical pain and mental trauma are different from making fun.

Again, killing in self defense can only happen in life-threatening situations. And again, only when you are not truly responsible for the threat to yourself.

it can happen in any attack that causes physical damage.

It is not only insult but also physical pain and mental trauma.If these can be avoided without abortion then we can ban abortion.Do you have any methods of avoiding these without abortion?

Abstinence.

Not possible.You give a religious solution,not a practical solution.

That's because the law is unjust, just as it used to be unjust towards slaves.

law is fair.You couldnt legally establish a responsibility earlier,could you?

Both are homo sapiens. This constitutes a person in my book.

But not in the law book.That book is more important. slaves did not cause physical pain to women,feutus does so.

The right to sex is even more basic than the right to life? Since when? So if I want your girlfriend, I can kill you?

Without right to have sex,where will life come from?

Right to live is availaible only for people who dont cause hurt.Feutus hurts the women.

Oh, and sex isn't mentioned in the Constitution.

I thought freedom to pursue individual happiness is guaranteed in the constitution.

The only alternative you have provided to abstinence constitues ending the life of a homo sapien. In other words, a non-alternative. (The alternative of living with actions also exists, but you don't seem to like it.)

abstinence is not a choice.sex is freedom of every human being guaranteed by the constitution.I wont accept to lose that freedom.Abortions should be considered as trial and error.

My opposition to abortion has little to do with my religious views, except that I believe murder is wrong. If sex necessarily results in either shame or murder, it must be linked with shame under a just legal system. This isn't because some religion says so, but rather due to logic.

This is only religious logic.sex leads to shame only due to religion.religion made sex a shame,child bearing a punishment.religion made a pleasurable activity a sin.

A world without personal responsibility is dangerous. People have to learn to be responsible sometime!

You have to responsible only for things over which you have control.Sex isnt one such thing.Its a natural instinct.

[steen]

Person's don't have the right to use another person's bodily resources against their will, so regardless of the fetus' status, it does not hold such a right.

Suppose Joe steals something from Samantha. Is Samantha then justified in killing Joe?

"something" that is not a bodily resource?

If joe hooks up an IV to Samantha and runs her blood into his body, does Samantha have the right to pull the tube out if she doesn't want her body used in that manner? Does it matter if Joe WILL die if he doesn't use Samantha's blood??

[steen]

Adam kills Jacob's son accidentally

Reckless homicide. The "accidentally" also produces a weak parallel as compared to abortion, since having sex isn't an accident.

But the unwanted pregnancy is as much an "accident" from having sex as is a lung tumor from smoking. Unwanted outcomes of voluntary actions resulting in unwanted use of bodily resources. And both receive medical care to rectify the unwanted outcome and restore the person to the original state. Are you going to stop cancer surgery?

[steen]

But there is at least one scenario - rape - in which the fetus comes into existence against the woman's will and by no fault of her own. In that case, it's pretty hard to argue that she has any obligation to it, and it seems clear that she'd be morally justified in getting an abortion - even if we accept that the fetus is a separate, morally autonomous person.

Which means that the fetus doesn't automatically have a "right to life" that trumphs the woman's bodily autonomy.

And there is, of course, no difference in a fetus conceieved through voluntary and forced sex.

So it is the SITUATION that determines her right?

[steen]

Well, I think jerickson is arguing - with some merit - that if the fetus is living off the woman's body as a result of her actions, which she engaged in of her own free will, then she has a moral obligation to sacrifice some of herself to keep the fetus alive.

Do you have a moral obligation to keep a tumor alive if it arose gfrom your voluntary action?

The fetus - which we're assuming is a person - is an innocent, brought into the mother's body not by its own volition but by the conscious act of the woman herself.

She decided to have sex, she did not decide to conceive. Sex is not consent to pregnancy, unless you outlaw all contraception (Pr. CDC data, 58% of all abortions are from couples who used contraception)

For that reason, she bares some responsibility for its situation.

Nope, there is no responsibility to a non-sentient unwanted fetus.

I don't think it's necessary for the person to exist at the time of the act for there to be responsibility, since the person's existence is the thing the woman's actions caused.

Again irrelevant, as no person has the right to use another person's bodily resources against their will anyway.