Abortion

[Curious George]

I concede this idea of a difference in value. However, you have posited that the fetus has precisely zero value, haven't you? In fact I even think you went so far as to call it "bodily waste" - stating you would save a disembodied stomach over a fetus - because it is better to let "bodily waste" be hit by a car than have someone's remains further mutilated.

Perhaps you were referring to a fetus on its own, outside of a mother's body, and therefore unable to survive - and juxtaposing that against the stomach? If so, then you were moving the goal posts a bit there, weren't you? Misdirecting to make a point? We're not talking about a dead fetus in all this, are we? Have I been wasting my time? We're talking about a living one - capable of becoming a fully functioning human being - in fact, already imbued with a unique, never before and never again, blend of the combined characteristics of the mother and father. All of its cells alive and looking to replicate and create the rest of the body.

We can call it alive or dead, but if it is without the mother then yes I would save the stomach. But the value that is discussed here is the value of the remains. The stomach while living or dead is not going to survive without the owner and the embryo living or dead is not going to survive with its host. So, which remains are most important. For science-probably the embryo (stem cells and all). For the life that is held valuable? The stomach.

 

[Curious George]

That's OK with me, actually. People do generally mourn their dead children, no matter what level of development they are at....from conceptus to fetus to newborn to just-before-legal-adulthood.

My daughter certainly mourned her lost children....all of them; four lost pregnancies and one born-too-soon daughter who lived a whole eight hours.

Perhaps you could expand on exactly what you mean by treating a dead zygote the same as you would a dead child? It IS a dead child. That is, it is a dead human at the zygote level of development.

Great how often do you visit the graveside of your deceased grand children? I am saying that. When a child dies we buy a funeral plot or cremate the remains. When a mother miscarriages we flush the toilet or have the hospital put away the biohazard material.

 

[sayak83]

This is very true. So....don't get pregnant. Nobody is forcing you to do so. Use contraceptives. However, once that human life is actually created, then you should refrain from killing the already existing human.

You have not addressed the argument at all. The thing that has rights is not the living body, but the mind that exists within it. No mind, no rights. Till a mind has not been created, the mother has no moral obligation to sustain the development of the body, as the body does not have rights. Simple.

 

[dianaiad]

We give rights to individuals, not to collections of living cells that have the POTENTIAL to BECOME individuals. A sixteen year old has the potential to become an eighteen year old, given enough time and the right conditions, we don't recognize his right to vote until he actually becomes eighteen. In the same way that a zygote that has the potential given enough time and the right conditions to become an individual, it shouldn't be afforded the rights of an individual until that time and those conditions have been met.

THAT is a most annoying sophistry and an argument that is beyond, frankly, disgusting, disingenuous and self serving. IF that 'collection of living cells" had the POTENTIAL to become anything BUT a human adult, you might have a point, but it does not. There are only two choices involved here; human...fully human...adulthood or death.

Of course a sixteen year old doesn't have the right to vote. However, what YOU are doing is arguing that because he doesn't have the right to vote, that it is permissible to kill him to PREVENT him from having the right to vote. By the way, the right to vote is an entirely artificial and assigned right that society imposes and has absolutely no biological imperative; for instance, *I* could not vote until I was 21. My next youngest sister could vote when she was 18. This wasn't because of anything about US; but about an entirely societal decision.

But that human zygote WILL become a newborn, a toddler, a child, an adolescent, an adult human....unless it dies first. That's not 'potential.' That's ACTUALITY. The only difference between a zygote and an adult human is the stage of development. There's nothing different about the DNA, the species...it is ONE human individual marching from developmental stage to developmental stage.

....and frankly, the only difference between killing a two year old in order to prevent it from becoming a four year old you don't want to deal with, and killing a zygote to prevent it from becoming a newborn you don't want to deal with, is....

there is no difference. I see absolutely no difference.

 

[Nietzsche]

Please elucidate:

How does this matter in this discussion?

Abortion is an argument about bodily autonomy. I am going to post a quote that explains my view on this. These are not my own words, but they're better than anything I could come up with myself;

"There’s a concept called bodily autonomy. It’s generally considered a human right. Bodily autonomy means a person has control over who or what uses their body, for what, and for how long. It’s why you can’t be forced to donate blood, tissue, or organs. Even if you’re dead. Even if you’d save or improve 20 lives. It’s why someone can’t touch you, have sex with you,or use your body in any way without your continuous consent.

A fetus is using someone’s body parts. Therefore under bodily autonomy, it is there by permission, not by right. It needs a person’s continuous consent. If they deny or withdraw consent, the pregnant person has a right to remove them from that moment. A fetus is equal in this regard because if I need someone else’s body parts to live, they also can legally deny me their use.

By saying a fetus has a right to someone’s body parts until it’s born, despite the pregnant person’s wishes, you’re doing two things.

1) Granting a fetus more rights to other people’s bodies than any born person.
2) Awarding a pregnant person less right’s to their body than a corpse. "

If for no other reason, that is why it's wrong to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term. Even ignoring the hypocrisy of a large part of the pro-life, who really should be called pro-birth, since after it's born 99% don't seem to give a damn about what happens, bodily autonomy is arguably the most vital of human rights.

 

[dianaiad]

Great how often do you visit the graveside of your deceased grand children?

Every time I drive to the town where they are buried, actually.

I am saying that. When a child dies we buy a funeral plot or cremate the remains. When a mother miscarriages we flush the toilet or have the hospital put away the biohazard material.

And this has precisely what to do with the point?

Tell me: if our society ate its dead, would you support your pro-abortion stance by claiming that if it's not big enough to be an appetizer, it doesn't count?

Look: you are being circular here. I am saying that societies attitude towards this issue is wrong, and that there needs to be a change in both the laws and in the attitudes.

YOU are arguing that it is perfectly acceptable to abort unborn humans BECAUSE society says it's OK.

Circular.

Tell me: society used to claim that it was perfectly OK to kill children who didn't reach the age of two. Some societies set that age at four, others (ancient Rome, for instance) gave parents the right to kill their children right up until they were 21. Should those rules remain the same NOW? Why not?

If the claim is that the law is wrong, and that society is wrong, then appealing to society and the law is NOT a logical argument to make here.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

First....yes. Individual methods of birth control can fail. This is why multiple forms should be used. Look up the statistics; what are the odds that a woman's 'pill' will fail (she had a cold this month) AND the condom breaks, AND the spermicide didn't get all the little swimmers, AND the diaphragm ripped?

Wow. Condoms, pills, spermicide and a diaphragm? Let's get real here; do you realize how unappealing that is? By the time you're all "ready to go," the mood is shot. Thank goodness such unrealistic standards are not enforced.

Would you watch a woman put her newborn in a nest of rattlesnakes and do nothing because it 'doesn't affect you?"

Completely different situation; don't be so dramatic.

BTW, I don't necessarily want to see abortion made illegal. At least, that's what my position used to be. I still want it UNTHINKABLE, so that the only time it is even considered is when the pregnancy causes grave risk to Mom, and even then it should be considered a tragedy and something to mourn, not celebrate over. Except for that, it should have a social stigma akin to putting roast toddler on the menu.

Only it is thinkable; obviously, it is an option. And again, no one is celebrating abortion. Well, some might, but they are considered socially sick, even by people who are pro-choice.

But mourning? No. If a child wasn't wanted, on top of other issues, then you cannot expect people to mourn the loss of a zygot as though it was a child. And just to be clear, you're saying these

Are the same as this

At the end of the day, though, it's not your decision to live with. There is no scientific or objective reason to outlaw abortion, or strongly deter it. There is no reason to impose or strongly suggest such extraordinary contraceptive methods that recreational sex loses any and all appeal. Scientifically, medically, and rationally, a zygot and fetus (prior to 21 weeks) is not a human life yet. Considering them so based on potential is as preposterous as considering sperm and eggs just as "human" because of their potential.

 

[dianaiad]

Abortion is an argument about bodily autonomy. I am going to post a quote that explains my view on this. These are not my own words, but they're better than anything I could come up with myself;

"There’s a concept called bodily autonomy. It’s generally considered a human right. Bodily autonomy means a person has control over who or what uses their body, for what, and for how long. It’s why you can’t be forced to donate blood, tissue, or organs. Even if you’re dead. Even if you’d save or improve 20 lives. It’s why someone can’t touch you, have sex with you,or use your body in any way without your continuous consent.

A fetus is using someone’s body parts. Therefore under bodily autonomy, it is there by permission, not by right. It needs a person’s continuous consent. If they deny or withdraw consent, the pregnant person has a right to remove them from that moment. A fetus is equal in this regard because if I need someone else’s body parts to live, they also can legally deny me their use.

By saying a fetus has a right to someone’s body parts until it’s born, despite the pregnant person’s wishes, you’re doing two things.

1) Granting a fetus more rights to other people’s bodies than any born person.
2) Awarding a pregnant person less right’s to their body than a corpse. "

If for no other reason, that is why it's wrong to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term. Even ignoring the hypocrisy of a large part of the pro-life, who really should be called pro-birth, since after it's born 99% don't seem to give a damn about what happens, bodily autonomy is arguably the most vital of human rights.

OK, that's an argument that I disagree with, but that actually has some logical merit behind it...even if I do think your diatribe about how 99% of pro-life people don't seem to give a damn what happens after the child is born is not only over-the-top but irrelevant. That is, frankly, unworthy, unjust and a rank misrepresentation of what actually exists.

When the time comes that we have actually invented an 'artificial womb' so that evicting a fetus from its use of the biological one doesn't mean KILLING it, I would whole heartedly agree with your position, actually.

However, right now it does.

My position is that, except in cases where the sex was NOT consensual, that child IS invited, and once invited, the woman has the obligation to care for it until it is born.

....and this is codified, btw, in law. If the owner of a ship invites someone along on a cruise, and that someone becomes incredibly annoying, the skipper does NOT have the right to throw his obnoxious passenger overboard. A landlord MAY NOT evict a tenant if doing so puts that tenant in immediate physical danger. It doesn't matter whether the skipper or the landlord no longer wants the passenger or the tenant...they cannot be killed. They can only be removed when and where it is safe to do so.

And this is true even when the passenger/tenant is obnoxious past all bearing, and perhaps even destructive.

In the case of a pregnant woman who got that way through consensual sex, the invitation WAS there. Unless she can rescind that invitation in a way that does NOT cause the death of the unborn human, then she's pretty much stuck, IMO....unless that pregnancy endangers the woman's life and/or causes serious health/injury. You know, the way self-defense laws work on everybody else.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I do think your diatribe about how 99% of pro-life people don't seem to give a damn what happens after the child is born is not only over-the-top but irrelevant. That is, frankly, unworthy, unjust and a rank misrepresentation of what actually exists.

To be fair, kind of like the constant comments about pro-choice people not being bothered by abortion, or even "celebrating" it?

 

[Nietzsche]

OK, that's an argument that I disagree with, but that actually has some logical merit behind it...even if I do think your diatribe about how 99% of pro-life people don't seem to give a damn what happens after the child is born is not only over-the-top but irrelevant. That is, frankly, unworthy, unjust and a rank misrepresentation of what actually exists.

I get extremely frustrated with those who claim to be pro-life but also seek to cut welfare programs. Surely you can understand.

When the time comes that we have actually invented an 'artificial womb' so that evicting a fetus from its use of the biological one doesn't mean KILLING it, I would whole heartedly agree with your position, actually.

However, right now it does.

My position is that, except in cases where the sex was NOT consensual, that child IS invited, and once invited, the woman has the obligation to care for it until it is born.

The child was invited because two people had sex? Pregnancy is not a guaranteed outcome of sex, even if you're not using preventive measures. The best possible odds are 30%. How can you say, therefore, that by having sex you're accepting you may get pregnant? That clearly isn't the case.

....and this is codified, btw, in law. If the owner of a ship invites someone along on a cruise, and that someone becomes incredibly annoying, the skipper does NOT have the right to throw his obnoxious passenger overboard. A landlord MAY NOT evict a tenant if doing so puts that tenant in immediate physical danger. It doesn't matter whether the skipper or the landlord no longer wants the passenger or the tenant...they cannot be killed. They can only be removed when and where it is safe to do so.

You can't evict a tenant or the like because they're paying rent. If they aren't, you can kick them straight out. Is the fetus doing something similar to warrant its stay?

And this is true even when the passenger/tenant is obnoxious past all bearing, and perhaps even destructive.

In the case of a pregnant woman who got that way through consensual sex, the invitation WAS there. Unless she can rescind that invitation in a way that does NOT cause the death of the unborn human, then she's pretty much stuck, IMO....unless that pregnancy endangers the woman's life and/or causes serious health/injury. You know, the way self-defense laws work on everybody else.

Again. Unprotected sex only has a 30% chance of resulting in a pregnancy. And even then, if the woman does get pregnant, there is a 10-25% chance of miscarriage. This is assuming a woman is at peak health and age(18-25). The numbers get worse as age and health change.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

My position is that, except in cases where the sex was NOT consensual, that child IS invited, and once invited, the woman has the obligation to care for it until it is born.

....and this is codified, btw, in law. If the owner of a ship invites someone along on a cruise, and that someone becomes incredibly annoying, the skipper does NOT have the right to throw his obnoxious passenger overboard. A landlord MAY NOT evict a tenant if doing so puts that tenant in immediate physical danger. It doesn't matter whether the skipper or the landlord no longer wants the passenger or the tenant...they cannot be killed. They can only be removed when and where it is safe to do so.

Medical informed consent doesn't work like a contract. Hence why, in my post, I stressed continuous consent. If, for example, you agreed to donate bone marrow and signed all the release papers with it, even if you're in mid-procedure, even if someone in the next room will die if you don't go through with it, you can withdraw your consent and say 'I can't go through with it' with no penalties. US law is incredibly touchy about bodily autonomy laws because it is actually illegal to give away rights to autonomy. Signing away ownership of your body is called voluntary slavery, and is illegal.

 

[Curious George]

Every time I drive to the town where they are buried, actually.



And this has precisely what to do with the point?

Tell me: if our society ate its dead, would you support your pro-abortion stance by claiming that if it's not big enough to be an appetizer, it doesn't count?

Look: you are being circular here. I am saying that societies attitude towards this issue is wrong, and that there needs to be a change in both the laws and in the attitudes.

YOU are arguing that it is perfectly acceptable to abort unborn humans BECAUSE society says it's OK.

Circular.

Tell me: society used to claim that it was perfectly OK to kill children who didn't reach the age of two. Some societies set that age at four, others (ancient Rome, for instance) gave parents the right to kill their children right up until they were 21. Should those rules remain the same NOW? Why not?

If the claim is that the law is wrong, and that society is wrong, then appealing to society and the law is NOT a logical argument to make here.

I am not appealing to society. I am pointing out the internal inconsistencies in your argument. Personally, I think abortion is okay for a myriad of reasons the most substantial of which is a balancing of government rights vs. Individual rights. But that is not what I am discussing with you. What I am discussing with you is the value that is placed on a zygote vs an embryo vs a fetus vs a child. There is a clear hierarchy that exists. And if your daughter had a miscarriage within the first trimester, I can almost guarantee she did not bury the remains.

 

[Stevicus]

A fetus is using someone’s body parts. Therefore under bodily autonomy, it is there by permission, not by right. It needs a person’s continuous consent. If they deny or withdraw consent, the pregnant person has a right to remove them from that moment. A fetus is equal in this regard because if I need someone else’s body parts to live, they also can legally deny me their use.

I mostly support abortion rights, although I can see that this argument is problematic. The fetus in question is there as a direct result of a (presumably) voluntary act by the person who is pregnant. The required "permission" for the fetus to be there is implied in the consent to have sex. That's the expected, natural biological consequence of sexual intercourse. A fetus may not technically be a person, but it's also not a parasite or cancerous tissue or human waste. The fetus is not a voluntary participant, nor could it ask for any kind of "permission" or consent to be inside the person's body or using their body parts. It just happens to be stuck in there due to the act of two people who chose to have sex, but apparently didn't want a baby and didn't want to use birth control.

I don't oppose abortion, though. I think there are practical reasons for society to keep it legal, and I think it's an issue best kept in the medical realm. I don't think that abortion is murder, and I wouldn't try to argue that a fetus has some kind of "squatter's rights" inside a woman's uterus.

But it is what it is. In this day and age, with scads of information on birth control which is easily accessible, abortion should really be a last resort type of thing - or in case of emergency or to save the life of the mother. While I still believe society is better off by having abortion legal and accessible, I never really thought of abortion as a "good" thing. Some people might refer to an unintended pregnancy as an "accident," but accidents don't just happen. They are caused. Abortion might be analogous to "accident repair," and that may be necessary at times. But the troubling thing about accidents is that most of the time, they're preventable.

 

[Valjean]

Carlita said: ↑
I agree. I rationalize it like this. In all parts of the person's growth is essential to be a person. If you stop the process early is no different than stopping the process of aging by killing a mid-aged man. Once conception begins, life does. Our brains don't have to be completely formed for us to have life.

But it's not life, per se that's sacred or that commands rights; it's personhood, which presupposes certain types of sentience.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

We can call it alive or dead, but if it is without the mother then yes I would save the stomach. But the value that is discussed here is the value of the remains. The stomach while living or dead is not going to survive without the owner and the embryo living or dead is not going to survive with its host. So, which remains are most important. For science-probably the embryo (stem cells and all). For the life that is held valuable? The stomach.

Haha... then you were referring to a fetus without a mother! What a waste...

 

[dianaiad]

Wow. Condoms, pills, spermicide and a diaphragm? Let's get real here; do you realize how unappealing that is? By the time you're all "ready to go," the mood is shot. Thank goodness such unrealistic standards are not enforced.

Where do you draw the line, sir? One takes a pill every morning...that doesn't interfere. One dons a condom...are you one of those utterly selfish men who figure that the risk of her getting pregnant is absolutely nothing compared to your own pleasure? Unlike men, SHE can insert a diaphragm before the date; no last minute fumbling. So....in that list of things the only one that would interupt the 'mood' is the condom.

yep, that's unrealistic.

What's REALLY unrealistic is that you are so worried about YOUR mood that you are willing to expose your partner to the risk of pregnancy...and the decision to abort. I have news for you, too; abortion isn't as simple as you seem to think it is. Abortion is a medical procedure and it has risks of its own. It hurts, and it can affect the future fertility of the woman. Even those who think that abortion is a good thing and a fine back up method of birth control warn women that too many of them can be a real problem.

.......................and you are willing to put her through that because you are worried that putting on a condom will 'shoot the mood?"

Wow.

Completely different situation; don't be so dramatic.

That's not 'drama.' That is PRECISELY THE SAME MORAL SITUATION AND CHOICE. In both cases, it is an utterly innocent and helpless life at risk. In neither case does YOUR life change if that life is extinguished....so it is hypocritical indeed to claim that there is any real difference.

Only it is thinkable; obviously, it is an option. And again, no one is celebrating abortion. Well, some might, but they are considered socially sick, even by people who are pro-choice.

I have news for you; abortion IS celebrated...a certain 'women's march' proves that. Indeed, I have a friend who belongs to a women's rights group...very, very left wing/liberal, actually. We argue a LOT. Well, we argue a lot about many issues except one. We are both rather rampantly anti-abortion in almost all cases. So is her group. She and her group were planning to join the women's march, but were specifically uninvited; as in, the transportation they had arranged, along with the accommodations they had paid for in concert with another pro-abortion group was rescinded. Oh, the money they paid was refunded, but not until AFTER the march. Why?

Because of that one stand she and her group took regarding abortion. You, I'm sure, have seen other examples of that. How is that concentration upon one issue, how is that particular litmus test NOT a 'celebration?"

Oh, she and her group DID go to the march, but they had to provide their own transportation and accommodations, and she tells me that their welcome was less than, er, welcoming when they got there.

But mourning? No. If a child wasn't wanted, on top of other issues, then you cannot expect people to mourn the loss of a zygot as though it was a child. And just to be clear, you're saying these

Are the same as this

Yep. They are. Just as this:

and this:

and this:

And this:

Are the same. ALL of them are simply different stages of development of the same individual. That teeny conceptus WILL become that 100 year old man/woman; only one thing will stop it from advancing through all those stages; death.

I'm saying that it is as wrong to kill a zygote in order to prevent it from becoming a baby as it is to kill the teenager in order to prevent it from becoming 100 year old with wrinkles.

At the end of the day, though, it's not your decision to live with. There is no scientific or objective reason to outlaw abortion, or strongly deter it. There is no reason to impose or strongly suggest such extraordinary contraceptive methods that recreational sex loses any and all appeal. Scientifically, medically, and rationally, a zygot and fetus (prior to 21 weeks) is not a human life yet.

That is not true. There is no scientific reason to draw any line between conception and birth...or 21 weeks or any other time that says 'now it is a human life, and less than a second ago it was not."

Considering them so based on potential is as preposterous as considering sperm and eggs just as "human" because of their potential.

Consider the difference in 'potential' here.

Sperm and egg each have the POTENTIAL to become any one of literally millions of individual humans, but before any of those potential outcomes can be realized, they MUST combine into one, specific, individual human. It is at that point that 'potential' becomes 'actual,' because at that point, its physical future is set; only two outcomes are possible; the contintuation of that one, specific individual, or death.

That's not 'potential.' That's 'actual,' and it happens when the sperm and egg combine.

 

[dianaiad]

I get extremely frustrated with those who claim to be pro-life but also seek to cut welfare programs. Surely you can understand.

Yes, actually, I do. However, those same people who seek to cut GOVERNMENT welfare programs also contribute to such programs themselves something like seven times more than do political liberals. ....and yes, I can prove that. What they are saying is that welfare programs from the government are too expensive, badly managed and don't do the job, whereas private charities are better managed, more efficient and certainly more effective.

I can prove that, too.

But that's an entirely different topic.

The child was invited because two people had sex? Pregnancy is not a guaranteed outcome of sex, even if you're not using preventive measures. The best possible odds are 30%. How can you say, therefore, that by having sex you're accepting you may get pregnant? That clearly isn't the case.

Well, if one could get pregnant by shaking hands or sitting on the same toilet seat as a man just did, you'd have a point. However, just because sex is not a guaranteed outcome of sex, it is also the ONLY method by which one can GET pregnant, absent modern medical technology.

You are reminding me of Russian roulette. Just because there is only one bullet in the gun, can you honestly tell me that if that one bullet gets fired when the trigger is pulled, that death was NOT 'invited?" Same sort of thing.

You can't evict a tenant or the like because they're paying rent. If they aren't, you can kick them straight out. Is the fetus doing something similar to warrant its stay?

No you can't, not if doing so puts them in immediate physical danger....and the analogy would be closer to 'non-paying guest.'

Again. Unprotected sex only has a 30% chance of resulting in a pregnancy. And even then, if the woman does get pregnant, there is a 10-25% chance of miscarriage. This is assuming a woman is at peak health and age(18-25). The numbers get worse as age and health change.

I see. This is the same argument made by someone who sends a bunch of runners on a marathon....only to shoot the winners for the crime of, er, winning.

how much sense does that make? You are arguing that it's OK to kill the survivors because they actually succeeded, using the excuse that they DID succeed.

I find that reasoning to be, er...specious.

 

[dianaiad]

Medical informed consent doesn't work like a contract. Hence why, in my post, I stressed continuous consent. If, for example, you agreed to donate bone marrow and signed all the release papers with it, even if you're in mid-procedure, even if someone in the next room will die if you don't go through with it, you can withdraw your consent and say 'I can't go through with it' with no penalties. US law is incredibly touchy about bodily autonomy laws because it is actually illegal to give away rights to autonomy. Signing away ownership of your body is called voluntary slavery, and is illegal.

As I said, your position, though I disagree with it, does have the only logically reasonable position I've ever come across. All others, like 'potential,' or 'look how many do NOT survive," and "does this zygote look like that baby?" are specious, silly and utterly illogical and sophist.

Yours, however,....

Well, I have problems arguing with it, except for a certain moral indignation. After all, we KNOW that sex causes pregnancies. we KNOW that it takes up to nine months to 'grow' a baby. It's not as if this comes as a surprise. My own opinion is that an agreement to have sex IS considered consent, IF that sex results in pregnancy, to not kill the child that results.

"continuous consent" doesn't fly at all, after all, if one goes into a Los Vegas casino and loses a bundle of money. One knows the odds going in, and one is EXPECTED to pay one's debts up to and including making very large payments for a very long time if one loses. Nobody is going to let the gambler claim that he has rescinded his continuous consent to pay that money, after all.....and no innocent life is at stake there.

 

[dianaiad]

I am not appealing to society. I am pointing out the internal inconsistencies in your argument. Personally, I think abortion is okay for a myriad of reasons the most substantial of which is a balancing of government rights vs. Individual rights. But that is not what I am discussing with you. What I am discussing with you is the value that is placed on a zygote vs an embryo vs a fetus vs a child. There is a clear hierarchy that exists. And if your daughter had a miscarriage within the first trimester, I can almost guarantee she did not bury the remains.

Does that make that life any less ended?

The people of Nagasaki and Hiroshima who were vaporized....does that mean that they were not human, and were not alive beforehand?

The folks who were swept out to sea in various tsunamis, or in floods, or avalanches, or in any one of the myriad ways that human bodies just vanish away from our ability to bury them....were they, then, 'not alive,' or 'not human?"

Your argument makes absolutely no sense.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

As I said, your position, though I disagree with it, does have the only logically reasonable position I've ever come across. All others, like 'potential,' or 'look how many do NOT survive," and "does this zygote look like that baby?" are specious, silly and utterly illogical and sophist.

Yours, however,....

Well, I have problems arguing with it, except for a certain moral indignation. After all, we KNOW that sex causes pregnancies. we KNOW that it takes up to nine months to 'grow' a baby. It's not as if this comes as a surprise. My own opinion is that an agreement to have sex IS considered consent, IF that sex results in pregnancy, to not kill the child that results.

"continuous consent" doesn't fly at all, after all, if one goes into a Los Vegas casino and loses a bundle of money. One knows the odds going in, and one is EXPECTED to pay one's debts up to and including making very large payments for a very long time if one loses. Nobody is going to let the gambler claim that he has rescinded his continuous consent to pay that money, after all.....and no innocent life is at stake there.

Continuous consent IS required in medical ethics, which is what we're talking about. Not legal or business ethics (although neither one would accept sex as a contractual agreement. Having sex doesn't mean you've agreed to complete a pregnancy. Any more than having sex means you've agreed to not treat a STD that may come as a result of it.)

Pregnancy is a donor-donee situation and operates like all other donor-donee situations. If you had a direct blood transfusion going, which you consented to, you can still withdraw consent mid procedure.
At no point is the donee entitled to use of the donors body without their continuous expressed consent, and that's the same for the embryo/fetus.

Or, to put it another way, if a criminal stabs an innocent person in the kidney, that does not mean the criminal must give up a kidney as punishment. The victim of the stabbing does not therefore supercede the criminal's body autonomy. That's how seriously we take body autonomy laws.