Abortion

[JRMcC]

It's the law, whether you like that or not. A fetus is not a viable child until it takes a breath. A living breathing human cannot be murdered and if you don't see the difference, I don't have the time or inclination to try to educate you. Good day.

It's the law...You think the legal books are ultimate authority, and you think they have anything to do with biology?
And I see I've asked a question that challenges your beliefs so much that you can't deal with it. Ok, good day.

 

[JoStories]

This is something that goes well beyond this subject (maybe I should start a thread), but why do you think it's wrong to kill a grown woman? How is it different from killing a dog? A person in a coma? A tree? A fetus? A fish? What makes life valuable? In your opinion please.

Since you asked and since I'm an advanced practice nurse, I will share my opinion. I believe that some elders, and others with intractable disease that cannot be cured, should have the right to end their lives on their own terms. Should we murder them? Of course not. But I have shut off the vents and drips of several brain dead people and let them drift peacefully on to their next lives or heaven or whatever you wish to beleive. I don't believe in killing animals and have a feral cat shelter here as I have a nice barn for them. I use only No kill vets. And as a Buddhist, I believe in the sanctity of all life, including plant and animals lives. I do eat meat but venerate the animal that gave its life for my meal. Does this answer you?

 

[Marisa]

There's no guarantee of anything. If there are two viable lives, the mother and unborn child, as long as we aren't trading one life for the other I don't think probability of survival should be a factor. They both deserve a chance to live.

Not if we're talking about elective abortion, which I thought we were.

We are talking about elective abortion. The only life about which there is no question of viability is the pregnant female. A fetus, until it survives birth, is still only the potential of life.

 

[JoStories]

It's the law...You think the legal books are ultimate authority, and you think they have anything to do with biology?
And I see I've asked a question that challenges your beliefs so much that you can't deal with it. Ok, good day.

I did answer you. I believe that women have the right to ownership of their bodies and no one else can dictate what she does with it. I have stated I don't really support late term abortion. What else do you want here?

 

[JRMcC]

Does this answer you?

No, I mean thanks for your thoughts but I was asking why is it wrong to kill at all. So we shouldn't murder the elderly man, but why not? Say he doesn't suffer, and no one grieves for him. Obviously it's subjective. I haven't read Nietzsche for myself, but I think he came to the conclusion that there isn't any objective goodness or value to life. We need to come up with an answer to that. Actually, I think Buddhism does a good job.
Related: Why is it wrong to kill animals? And why don't you just not eat meat?

 

[JRMcC]

A fetus, until it survives birth, is still only the potential of life

We need to figure out exactly what life is, I think. I think I stated earlier that humankind doesn't know enough about biology or morality to really understand this stuff. I mean this is my input, but I think the burden of proof is on you guys when you say life begins at birth and breath.

 

[freethinker44]

It's the law, whether you like that or not. A fetus is not a viable child until it takes a breath. A living breathing human cannot be murdered and if you don't see the difference, I don't have the time or inclination to try to educate you. Good day.

As far as US law goes, most states actually have a fetal homicide law.

 

[Marisa]

We need to figure out exactly what life is, I think. I think I stated earlier that humankind doesn't know enough about biology or morality to really understand this stuff. I mean this is my input, but I think the burden of proof is on you guys when you say life begins at birth and breath.

No it's not. And you might do well to re-read what I've already posted. Legally, no one has the right to conscript another person in order to further their own life. I respect your opinion, which is why I haven't challenged it. I'm sorry you seem to not respect the legalities of the situation, but I feel like thus thread is a perfect example of precisely why it's needed.

 

[freethinker44]

We are talking about elective abortion. The only life about which there is no question of viability is the pregnant female. A fetus, until it survives birth, is still only the potential of life.

Let's be real here, there is only a 0.5% chance they will not survive birth, so calling them potential life because they might not survive is a little disingenuous, isn't it? And it's hardly a rational reason to terminate one of these "potential" lives.

 

[Marisa]

Let's be real here, there is only a 0.5% chance they will not survive birth, so calling them potential life because they might not survive is a little disingenuous, isn't it? And it's hardly a rational reason to terminate one of these "potential" lives.

No one has the right to conscript another person in furtherance of their own life.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I'm making no distinction. One simply does not have the right to conscript another to further their own life. It's very simple.

Exactly. Perhaps I was misunderstood.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Please forgive me if I am reading this wrong, but are you saying that a woman who is raped or whatever should be forced to have the fetus?

Absolutely not. I'm pro-choice. It's a persons uterus, and having been pregnant twice before, I just have to shake my head whenever pregnancy is referred to as an inconvenience. It isn't. But often times anti-choice folks love to diminish the health condition of the woman down to moral platitudes.

 

[freethinker44]

No one has the right to conscript another person in furtherance of their own life.

A person's rights ends where anothers begins.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

A person's rights ends where anothers begins.

Hence fetal viability from the Roe v Wade decision being a suitable compromise between both sides. Legally and ethically, this is still the best compromise in determining personhood according to the justice system and medical ethics.

 

[Nietzsche]

A person's rights ends where anothers begins.

But nor is another individual obligated to sustain the life of another against their will.

 

[Marisa]

A person's rights ends where anothers begins.

Yes. But this does not meet that standard, and we've settled that in society. See: bodily autonomy. Saying a fetus has the right to another person's body is special pleading.

 

[freethinker44]

But nor is another individual obligated to sustain the life of another against their will.

Yes. But this does not meet that standard, and we've settled that in society. See: bodily autonomy. Saying a fetus has the right to another person's body is special pleading.

Well then they should get an abortion before the fetus is viable. After that, if you're not dying you're a parent as far as I'm concerned.

And for the record, I don't care what the law is or what is currently socially acceptable, I'm not arguing what is I'm arguing what should be. I'm pretty sure the law is on my side here anyways. As far as I know elective abortions are generally prohibited after fetus viability.

 

[JRMcC]

Legally, no one has the right to conscript another person in order to further their own life

Again, I don't see any reason to think that the law is the authority here. We don't look to the law to solve problems like this, we solve them and then create the law. Anyway, I agree with you in a way, but remember that this issue comes down to what Life is, and what makes a living being deserving of rights and/or personhood.
Your sentence that I quoted here only makes sense if life begins at birth, which is what I'm challenging here. Why is a mother required to take care of their child? Doesn't that infringe on her rights?

 

[Marisa]

Well then they should get an abortion before the fetus is viable. After that, if you're not dying you're a parent as far as I'm concerned.

And for the record, I don't care what the law is or what is currently socially acceptable, I'm not arguing what is I'm arguing what should be. I'm pretty sure the law is on my side here anyways. As far as I know elective abortions are generally prohibited after fetus viability.

I thought we'd moved past late term abortion? I already stated my opinion on that in my first post.

 

[Marisa]

Again, I don't see any reason to think that the law is the authority here. We don't look to the law to solve problems like this, we solve them and then create the law. Anyway, I agree with you in a way, but remember that this issue comes down to what Life is, and what makes a living being deserving of rights and/or personhood.
Your sentence that I quoted here only makes sense if life begins at birth, which is what I'm challenging here. Why is a mother required to take care of their child? Doesn't that infringe on her rights?

Law is always the authority. That's why its law. And that doesn't mean bad laws can't be changed.

You're simply wrong in your assessment of the applicableness of my statement. Post birth, it no longer applies. The fetus must have the female's body in order to continue developing. What do you think an umbilical cord is for? A born infant requires care, but it does require the care of its birth mother. A fetus will only continue to develop in a female's uterus. You're simply confused.