Mississippi voters have a chance to eliminate women's rights

[Ifreann]

I am picking and choosing the pro-life position that I feel will be most acceptable to a pro-choice audience, to be sure.

I can help you out with that, it's very easy:

All human persons retain ownership of their own bodies, and no human person has ownership of another person's body, and therefore the personhood of embryos and fetii is irrelevant to the issue of a woman's right to obtain an abortion.

Isn't is foetuses/fetuses?

[Maji Matamu]

Not really, sorry. Your argument is still based on that shaky and fundamentally wrong idea that "we should give the child a chance".

It is not in any way based upon that idea, but I don't see why that idea would be shaky or fundamentally wrong in itself. What's wrong with giving children chances?

When a child is inside of the womb of a mother who wants to have it executed, do you really think that it is going to be a warm and nurturing environment?

Being someone who hopes to adopt, I would hope that we would not also make adoption impossible by forcing people to rear children which they do not want. And I think a pro-lifer would say, 'what, so we should just kill people who aren't existing in a warm nurturing environment?" -- that is, I'm not sure what conclusion you wish to draw from this.

What happens in this debate is a failure to distinguish between life and the state of being alive. Being alive is what these children will have, breathing and eating and other biological issues. Life comes when a person grows in an environment in which both their physical and emotional needs are met. They do the best of their abilities and always have a family support system. If a child is denied this, they are denied a life in ways much worse than killing the fetus.
And yet these self professed pro lifers never seem to care much for welfare for the kids they brought into a subpar existence...

Look, I don't know a pro-lifer who doesn't also care at some level about the welfare of children; but it is an orthogonal issue. It's like saying "We shouldn't affirm Clinton's economic successes because he cheated on his wife and lied about it to the US public" -- it just doesn't make sense because it's a different issue entirely. Unless you are seriously claiming that we should preemptively kill adoptive children to 'put them out of their misery' or some other really bizarre claim, I don't see how this impacts the argument that I've actually made. The argument that I've actually made is simply that a pro-life view is defensible without appeals to religion or emotional repugnance, simply from the idea that (a) it's clear that there is a certain point where killing a fetus would not be morally conscionable as an arbitrary choice of the mother; (b) it's not clear when this point starts; thus (c) we should err on the side of killing too few rather than killing too many. Unless you are denying (a) by saying "no it's always morally conscionable because the fetus will surely face a Fate Worse Than Death," it doesn't deny the premises and thus cannot impact the conclusion.

I am picking and choosing the pro-life position that I feel will be most acceptable to a pro-choice audience, to be sure.

I can help you out with that, it's very easy:

All human persons retain ownership of their own bodies, and no human person has ownership of another person's body, and therefore the personhood of embryos and fetii is irrelevant to the issue of a woman's right to obtain an abortion.

I wouldn't describe that as a "pro-life" position, due to the last statement. The pro-life position would be that the personhood of the fetus then becomes immensely relevant because it marks the part where it becomes a "human person" and therefore retains ownership of its own body -- and it marks the point where the mother subsequently does not have ownership of this other person's body.

For example, something like the IDX (or "partial birth") abortion would be utterly forbidden if the fetus is a person, because it requires sucking fluid out of the fetus's head to make it smaller for easy passage when you rip it out of the mother. This would be asserting an ownership over the fetus's body which 'no human person' can claim, if the fetus is its own person.

In addition, there's a "devil in the details" in terms of application of this idea. Is someone attempting to take ownership of someone else's body if one intentionally poisons them? If yes, then you can't justify the use of abortifacients under this philosophy. If no, then it's hard to believe that the hormones and shared nutrients constitute "taking ownership" of someone else's body, since if we turned the tables and had the fetus outright pumping poison into the mother's body, it wouldn't be a violation -- and the mother's body has indeed "made place" for the fetus, whether or not the mother happens to like the idea.

What I'm saying is, you could justify a pro-life position from these pro-choice foundations but the core arguments would, I think, be much murkier.

[Bottle]

I wouldn't describe that as a "pro-life" position, due to the last statement. The pro-life position would be that the personhood of the fetus then becomes immensely relevant because it marks the part where it becomes a "human person" and therefore retains ownership of its own body -- and it marks the point where the mother subsequently does not have ownership of this other person's body.

Right...and the fetus does not have ownership of HER body, so she retains the right to end her pregnancy at any time and for any reason.

Seriously, it really is that simple, and it's a very pro-life position. Frankly, I find it infinitely more "pro-life" than the position which says that my life stops belonging to me the moment I get pregnant.

For example, something like the IDX (or "partial birth") abortion would be utterly forbidden if the fetus is a person, because it requires sucking fluid out of the fetus's head to make it smaller for easy passage when you rip it out of the mother. This would be asserting an ownership over the fetus's body which 'no human person' can claim, if the fetus is its own person.

IDX is most often performed when the fetus is dead or so catastrophically malformed that it will not survive, or in cases where the mother's life is in danger if the pregnancy continues and therefore it is also unlikely the fetus will survive. Not seeing how the fetus' "right to life" really factors in if it's dead or dying already, and the doctors simply want to use the procedure that is least likely to harm the woman as they remove the corpse from her uterus.

Try again.

In addition, there's a "devil in the details" in terms of application of this idea. Is someone attempting to take ownership of someone else's body if one intentionally poisons them? If yes, then you can't justify the use of abortifacients under this philosophy. If no, then it's hard to believe that the hormones and shared nutrients constitute "taking ownership" of someone else's body, since if we turned the tables and had the fetus outright pumping poison into the mother's body, it wouldn't be a violation -- and the mother's body has indeed "made place" for the fetus, whether or not the mother happens to like the idea.

What I'm saying is, you could justify a pro-life position from these pro-choice foundations but the core arguments would, I think, be much murkier.

Not really murky at all, no.

I'm pro-life and pro-choice, which is why I support a woman's right to end her body's participation in pregnancy at any time and for any reason.

[Bottle]

I can help you out with that, it's very easy:

All human persons retain ownership of their own bodies, and no human person has ownership of another person's body, and therefore the personhood of embryos and fetii is irrelevant to the issue of a woman's right to obtain an abortion.

Isn't is foetuses/fetuses?

It's UNBORN BAY-BEEZ!

[Polruan]

It's UNBORN BAY-BEEZ!

It's both, foetus is just the scientific term for "unborn baby". Calling the weird reptilian-looking thing you get at 10 weeks or so an "unborn baby" is stretching it but it's a perfectly reasonable term for a late-term foetus. At the very least, pregnant women say it more than "foetus".

[Gauthier]

CANCER ARE PEOPLE TOO!

[Polruan]

CANCER ARE PEOPLE TOO!

are you actually comparing a cancer to a foetus because that's the stupidest thing I have heard for a while

[Bottle]

CANCER ARE PEOPLE TOO!

are you actually comparing a cancer to a foetus because that's the stupidest thing I have heard for a while

Oh fer chrissakes...read back through the thread, we've been over this already.

[Polruan]

I've heard people actually say that like they're making a point or something

Whatever the intent it always comes across as partisan tub-thumping that a psychologist could have a field day with

[Bottle]

I've heard people actually say that like they're making a point or something

Whatever the intent it always comes across as partisan tub-thumping that a psychologist could have a field day with

Seriously, just read back, we've covered it very thoroughly. If you don't care enough to educate yourself then please don't care enough to post more about it?

[Outer Chaosmosis]

Seriously, just read back, we've covered it very thoroughly. If you don't care enough to educate yourself then please don't care enough to post more about it?

Well, I suppose that about does it. Bottle has declared that everything has already been said. Move along everyone! Nothing to see here!

[Bottle]

Seriously, just read back, we've covered it very thoroughly. If you don't care enough to educate yourself then please don't care enough to post more about it?

Well, I suppose that about does it. Bottle has declared that everything has already been said. Move along everyone! Nothing to see here!

Is it really driving you THAT crazy that I won't answer your question in the other thread?

Of course it is. Because that's actually the answer to the question.

[Nova Nacio]

http://uselectionnews.org/mississippi-initiative-to-outsmart-roe-v-wade-prohibit-abortion/854746/

Well if this is true they are fucking nuts. A fetus is never a person. An egg is not a person when it is fertilized either. I can't find a better source.

See, when I saw this title; I thought you meant removing their right to vote, or hold office, or speak their mind, or bear arms. I didn't think you meant abortions. Well, I'm off to go misread something else.

Yay. Thread DE-RAILED.

FUCK THIS!!!

Let women do what they want, pig-fucklers. We let you fuck pigs...

[Polruan]

I can help you out with that, it's very easy:

All human persons retain ownership of their own bodies, and no human person has ownership of another person's body, and therefore the personhood of embryos and fetii is irrelevant to the issue of a woman's right to obtain an abortion.

The thing is, newborns are dependent, consider if bottled formula wasn't available, would that make infanticide okay? if you say yes then your position is tenable

[SpectacularSpectacular]

I can help you out with that, it's very easy:

All human persons retain ownership of their own bodies, and no human person has ownership of another person's body, and therefore the personhood of embryos and fetii is irrelevant to the issue of a woman's right to obtain an abortion.

The thing is, newborns are dependent, consider if bottled formula wasn't available, would that make infanticide okay? if you say yes then your position is tenable

Wow...A very differant form of dependency. I mean this statement shows a total abcense of understanding for what you would call 'fetal dependency.'

[Polruan]

If you don't have formula what are you going to feed the baby except mother's milk?

It's fundamentally a quantitative, not qualitative, difference.

[SpectacularSpectacular]

If you don't have formula what are you going to feed the baby except mother's milk?

It's fundamentally a quantitative, not qualitative, difference.

We should all be so lucky to live in a world of 'what ifs' & one where wet nurses do not exist, apparently.

[Polruan]

I brought it up because it ties into the abortion laws of many countries in an interesting way. In the UK for example, they're based off when the foetus is viable - which, obviously, depends on the advance of technology. So if, as seems likely, we eventually develop full artificial wombs, so the baby is never fully "dependent", does this mean abortion would have to be illegal?

In any case I find the argument that foetuses are dependent in a special way while no-one else is to be specious and libertarian. A five year old can't survive on its own, and, in a very real way, neither can most adults, given we are a social species. What about the disabled who rely on carers, or people who are in intensive care in hospitals? They're totally dependent! Can we get rid of them?

I'm not really against abortion I just don't like lots of arguments pro-choicers use. I'd never describe myself as pro-choice come to that.

[Outer Chaosmosis]

We should all be so lucky to live in a world of 'what ifs' & one where wet nurses do not exist, apparently.

Is there a response in there somewhere?

[SpectacularSpectacular]

I brought it up because it ties into the abortion laws of many countries in an interesting way. In the UK for example, they're based off when the foetus is viable - which, obviously, depends on the advance of technology. So if, as seems likely, we eventually develop full artificial wombs, so the baby is never fully "dependent", does this mean abortion would have to be illegal?

In any case I find the argument that foetuses are dependent in a special way while no-one else is to be specious and libertarian. A five year old can't survive on its own, and, in a very real way, neither can most adults, given we are a social species. What about the disabled who rely on carers, or people who are in intensive care in hospitals? They're totally dependent! Can we get rid of them?

I'm not really against abortion I just don't like lots of arguments pro-choicers use. I'd never describe myself as pro-choice come to that.

In this world of 'what if,' we develop an artificial enviroment capale of gaseous, hormonal, and biochemical exchanges between it and the embyro? If it came to that I see no need for pregnancy, may as well grow a fetus under a controllable enviroment.

You are right, we are a social species, which is why those are forms of social dependencies...Not even remotely similar to biomolecular depencies which is what the fetus has in relation to its womb. Its like you are comparing apples and oranges then saying what if they grew on the others tree.

Nothing is more lazy than a 'what if' argument.

[Zampellia]

All I can say is: GO MISSISSIPPI!

What pro-abortion people don't realize is that they went through the fetal stage themselves, and could have just as easily been killed like millions of people around the world are killed each year.

To quote pro-life activist, and saline abortion survivor, Gianna Jessen: "If abortion is about women's rights, then were were mine?"

[SpectacularSpectacular]

We should all be so lucky to live in a world of 'what ifs' & one where wet nurses do not exist, apparently.

Is there a response in there somewhere?

An appropriate response to a baseless hypothetical, yea.

[Outer Chaosmosis]

An appropriate response to a baseless hypothetical, yea.

Baseless? It was a comparison and the overall point merits a response. There is a dependency between an unborn child and the mother and, in many cases, there is a dependency between the newborn child and the mother. In what sense, then, are these dependencies different in a way that engenders legal obligations in the latter case, but no legal obligations in the former?

[Polruan]

In this world of 'what if,' we develop an artificial enviroment capale of gaseous, hormonal, and biochemical exchanges between it and the embyro? If it came to that I see no need for pregnancy, may as well grow a fetus under a controllable enviroment.

We do already have incubators you know so it's not exactly far-fetched, it's a logical thought experiment.

You are right, we are a social species, which is why those are forms of social dependencies...Not even remotely similar to biomolecular depencies which is what the fetus has in relation to its womb. Its like you are comparing apples and oranges then saying what if they grew on the others tree.

If you're dependent, you're dependent. You need other people to survive or you don't.

If you don't like that for whatever reason (since you mention apples and oranges, it's salutary to note that they're both fruit and you can use either when discussing fruit for whatever reason), what about my intensive care or disabled examples?

Nothing is more lazy than a 'what if' argument.

Better tell most philosophers since the beginning of the written word

[Salandriagado]

Abortion is murder. If women have a "right" to do whatever they want with their bodies then why not make suicide legal ? It's my body afterall, why can't I do whatever I want with it ? What makes women so special that they have their own set of "rights" ?

Yes, suicide should be legal.