Abortion

[Tlaceceyaya]

I don't see why. As long as it's in their body, it remains a parasite.

That's a pretty screwed up view. What if I told you it's not a parasite?

an organism which lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other’s expense:

Women do not have to eat more than they would normally until they are pretty close to term. Much of the eating for two stuff is a myth.

Now, pro-choice arguments I've seen have frequently argued that the foetus is not alive so you're not one of them. (Cannot live somewhere without being alive.)

This definition has also excluded something that I think should be there. People are factories and the child is a good we produce for our own benefit. Therefore not a parasite.

Also, if the baby is stil around at 24 weeks it is clearly wanted for some reason.

People are machines and the child is another machine we produce for the benefit of the creators of the machines. (Genes)
In some science fiction, machines go beyond their programming occasionally and become self-aware. This is similar to what humans have achieved. And in some science fiction, machines do not do what they are programmed to do. Humans are able to do things which do not benefit their genes, intentionally.

[IshCong]

You have a severe misunderstanding here. It is not a person, therefore it has no rights. Even if it did have any rights, they would not override the bodily sovereignty of the mother. Period.

If it has rights, it has the right to life, which, all else being equal, I would put above the right to bodily sovereignty, though the two are inexorably intertwined.
That said, I figure, unless it can live outside the womb, it has no right to a life as of yet. Once it can live outside the womb, it should have a right to the life it is capable of having immediately. However, if the woman wishes it, she should be able to remove the child at that time, without killing it intentionally.

[Salandriagado]

You have a severe misunderstanding here. It is not a person, therefore it has no rights. Even if it did have any rights, they would not override the bodily sovereignty of the mother. Period.

If it has rights, it has the right to life, which, all else being equal, I would put above the right to bodily sovereignty, though the two are inexorably intertwined.
That said, I figure, unless it can live outside the womb, it has no right to a life as of yet. Once it can live outside the womb, it should have a right to the life it is capable of having immediately. However, if the woman wishes it, she should be able to remove the child at that time, without killing it intentionally.

OK, we'll have an example:

I am providing some form of donation to someone. If I stop, they will die. Doing this requires me to regularly undergo medical procedures that carry a small risk of long term complications, and potentially death, though this is very unlikely. Do I have the right to stop these donations?

[IshCong]

If it has rights, it has the right to life, which, all else being equal, I would put above the right to bodily sovereignty, though the two are inexorably intertwined.
That said, I figure, unless it can live outside the womb, it has no right to a life as of yet. Once it can live outside the womb, it should have a right to the life it is capable of having immediately. However, if the woman wishes it, she should be able to remove the child at that time, without killing it intentionally.

OK, we'll have an example:

I am providing some form of donation to someone. If I stop, they will die. Doing this requires me to regularly undergo medical procedures that carry a small risk of long term complications, and potentially death, though this is very unlikely. Do I have the right to stop these donations?

Which is why I said prior to being able to live outside the womb a fetus doesn't have the right to life, in my opinion.
If it can live outside the womb, you either continue the pregnancy, or you undergo a medical procedure to remove the child. Between removing a live child, and killing said child, no, you do not have the right to kill said child without some major exigent circumstances. Which may or may not include rape, a severe chance of genetic defect, incest, etc.

[The Steel Magnolia]

If it has rights, it has the right to life, which, all else being equal, I would put above the right to bodily sovereignty, though the two are inexorably intertwined.
That said, I figure, unless it can live outside the womb, it has no right to a life as of yet. Once it can live outside the womb, it should have a right to the life it is capable of having immediately. However, if the woman wishes it, she should be able to remove the child at that time, without killing it intentionally.

OK, we'll have an example:

I am providing some form of donation to someone. If I stop, they will die. Doing this requires me to regularly undergo medical procedures that carry a small risk of long term complications, and potentially death, though this is very unlikely. Do I have the right to stop these donations?

You absolutely and unconditionally have the right to stop those donations at any point in time.

[Salandriagado]

OK, we'll have an example:

I am providing some form of donation to someone. If I stop, they will die. Doing this requires me to regularly undergo medical procedures that carry a small risk of long term complications, and potentially death, though this is very unlikely. Do I have the right to stop these donations?

Which is why I said prior to being able to live outside the womb a fetus doesn't have the right to life, in my opinion.
If it can live outside the womb, you either continue the pregnancy, or you undergo a medical procedure to remove the child. Between removing a live child, and killing said child, no, you do not have the right to kill said child without some major exigent circumstances. Which may or may not include rape, a severe chance of genetic defect, incest, etc.

OK, replace "if I stop, he will die" with "if I stop, he will become massively and permanently debilitated". Does the same still hold.

You absolutely and unconditionally have the right to stop those donations at any point in time.

We got us a winner.

[IshCong]

Which is why I said prior to being able to live outside the womb a fetus doesn't have the right to life, in my opinion.
If it can live outside the womb, you either continue the pregnancy, or you undergo a medical procedure to remove the child. Between removing a live child, and killing said child, no, you do not have the right to kill said child without some major exigent circumstances. Which may or may not include rape, a severe chance of genetic defect, incest, etc.

OK, replace "if I stop, he will die" with "if I stop, he will become massively and permanently debilitated". Does the same still hold.

I said it would be acceptable given a severe case of birth defects. Or are you driving at something else behind this extended, and not entirely accurate, metaphor?

[Salandriagado]

OK, replace "if I stop, he will die" with "if I stop, he will become massively and permanently debilitated". Does the same still hold.

I said it would be acceptable given a severe case of birth defects. Or are you driving at something else behind this extended, and not entirely accurate, metaphor?

OK, if I stopped, it would give him a minor cold.

[Forsher]

That's a pretty screwed up view. What if I told you it's not a parasite?

You'd be demonstrably wrong. There is a clear biological definition of the word "parasite", and a foetus fits it.

Women do not have to eat more than they would normally until they are pretty close to term. Much of the eating for two stuff is a myth.

Irrelevant. It takes resources from the mother (what, did you think all that growth happened by magic?)

Now, pro-choice arguments I've seen have frequently argued that the foetus is not alive so you're not one of them. (Cannot live somewhere without being alive.)

You have a severe misunderstanding here. It is not a person, therefore it has no rights. Even if it did have any rights, they would not override the bodily sovereignty of the mother. Full stop.

This definition has also excluded something that I think should be there. People are factories and the child is a good we produce for our own benefit. Therefore not a parasite.

People are not factories. Children are not goods. Foetus' are not beneficial. They are indisputable parasites.

Also, if the baby is stil around at 24 weeks it is clearly wanted for some reason.

Late knowledge of things, poor access (partly due to certain political bodies working hard to deny women's rights) and thought over decisions happen.

What's your definition then. Mind I won't accept a dictionary, it'll have to be biological in source.

24 weeks is plenty of time to make a decision, but on further research I've decided that 28 weeks is actually the better number.

Now, you've misunderstood me. Assuming the definition I've provided is correct, the author oif the post my reply was to cannot be one of the pro-choice advocates who claim the foetus is not alive. That what I wrote can be construed as having another meaning means you have hung around the English profession too long. Sometimes a spade is a spade.

Irrelevancy... I can see where you get that idea. However, as you haven't disputed my definition, you are wrong. It clearly says expense. That means that the resources are needed by the host organism. Clearly they are not.*

Where did I say foetus' are beneficial? Well. I'm inclined to say that that's a strawman. A foetus is a short term cost for long term profit. There's no such thing as a free lunch after all.

[IshCong]

I said it would be acceptable given a severe case of birth defects. Or are you driving at something else behind this extended, and not entirely accurate, metaphor?

OK, if I stopped, it would give him a minor cold.

I presume you are driving at something else entirely. Why don't you just explain the analogy, and to what you refer, so I can respond rather than shadow boxing with an extended and inaccurate metaphor I've long since lost track of?

[Condunum]

Actually, the argument is usually over it if't human. It's rather accepted that a clump of cells is living.

Some clumps of cells are considered non-living.

Such as... Viruses? Proto-life. Not life. We aren't talking about those, are we?

[Salandriagado]

OK, if I stopped, it would give him a minor cold.

I presume you are driving at something else entirely. Why don't you just explain the analogy, and to what you refer, so I can respond rather than shadow boxing with an extended and inaccurate metaphor I've long since lost track of?

The point is that regardless of the results of my actions, bodily sovereignty overrides everything, without exception.

[Salandriagado]

You'd be demonstrably wrong. There is a clear biological definition of the word "parasite", and a foetus fits it.



Irrelevant. It takes resources from the mother (what, did you think all that growth happened by magic?)



You have a severe misunderstanding here. It is not a person, therefore it has no rights. Even if it did have any rights, they would not override the bodily sovereignty of the mother. Full stop.



People are not factories. Children are not goods. Foetus' are not beneficial. They are indisputable parasites.



Late knowledge of things, poor access (partly due to certain political bodies working hard to deny women's rights) and thought over decisions happen.

What's your definition then. Mind I won't accept a dictionary, it'll have to be biological in source.

A parasite is an organism which extracts its sole or primary nutrition from another organism without providing nutritional or other aid to its host. Your definition isn't bad.

24 weeks is plenty of time to make a decision, but on further research I've decided that 28 weeks is actually the better number.

Not if you don't know about it. Not if your rights are being actively denied by the governments by forcing delays and unnecessary medical procedures on you.

Now, you've misunderstood me. Assuming the definition I've provided is correct, the author oif the post my reply was to cannot be one of the pro-choice advocates who claim the foetus is not alive. That what I wrote can be construed as having another meaning means you have hung around the English profession too long. Sometimes a spade is a spade.

Those people do not exist.

Irrelevancy... I can see where you get that idea. However, as you haven't disputed my definition, you are wrong. It clearly says expense. That means that the resources are needed by the host organism. Clearly they are not.*

They are. They are a minor proportion of the resources said host needs, but they are required. A basic appreciation of biology (x amount needed to maintain mother. y amount needed to grow foetus. Foetus takes y from host, host requires x + y.

Where did I say foetus' are beneficial? Well. I'm inclined to say that that's a strawman. A foetus is a short term cost for long term profit. There's no such thing as a free lunch after all.

You said they aren't a parasite. Besides which, children, particularly unwanted ones, are not necessarily beneficial. What right do you have to define for them what is and isn't to their benefit?

[IshCong]

I presume you are driving at something else entirely. Why don't you just explain the analogy, and to what you refer, so I can respond rather than shadow boxing with an extended and inaccurate metaphor I've long since lost track of?

The point is that regardless of the results of my actions, bodily sovereignty overrides everything, without exception.

It does not override the right to life.

[Salandriagado]

The point is that regardless of the results of my actions, bodily sovereignty overrides everything, without exception.

It does not override the right to life.

As repeatedly demonstrated by your agreement with my statements; it does.

[IshCong]

It does not override the right to life.

As repeatedly demonstrated by your agreement with my statements; it does.

I didn't agree that the fetus had a right to life in your analogy. I don't recall agreeing to any such thing at any other juncture.
And, no, it does not. The right to life is the right from which all other rights must be derived. As such, it is the ultimate right.

[Salandriagado]

As repeatedly demonstrated by your agreement with my statements; it does.

I didn't agree that the fetus had a right to life in your analogy. I don't recall agreeing to any such thing at any other juncture.
And, no, it does not. The right to life is the right from which all other rights must be derived. As such, it is the ultimate right.

The right to life derives from the right to bodily sovereignty.

And you agreed that my right to bodily sovereignty overrides the right to life of a living, breathing, thinking adult human. Are you then declaring that a foetus has rights over and above those of a living human?

[Forsher]

What's your definition then. Mind I won't accept a dictionary, it'll have to be biological in source.

A parasite is an organism which extracts its sole or primary nutrition from another organism without providing nutritional or other aid to its host. Your definition isn't bad.

24 weeks is plenty of time to make a decision, but on further research I've decided that 28 weeks is actually the better number.

Not if you don't know about it. Not if your rights are being actively denied by the governments by forcing delays and unnecessary medical procedures on you.

Now, you've misunderstood me. Assuming the definition I've provided is correct, the author oif the post my reply was to cannot be one of the pro-choice advocates who claim the foetus is not alive. That what I wrote can be construed as having another meaning means you have hung around the English profession too long. Sometimes a spade is a spade.

Those people do not exist.

Irrelevancy... I can see where you get that idea. However, as you haven't disputed my definition, you are wrong. It clearly says expense. That means that the resources are needed by the host organism. Clearly they are not.*

They are. They are a minor proportion of the resources said host needs, but they are required. A basic appreciation of biology (x amount needed to maintain mother. y amount needed to grow foetus. Foetus takes y from host, host requires x + y.

Where did I say foetus' are beneficial? Well. I'm inclined to say that that's a strawman. A foetus is a short term cost for long term profit. There's no such thing as a free lunch after all.

You said they aren't a parasite. Besides which, children, particularly unwanted ones, are not necessarily beneficial. What right do you have to define for them what is and isn't to their benefit?

Seems to me your complaints are all about a failure to compromise leading to a messy and inefficient and ineffective system.

They do, I've read their arguments.

I said they aren't a parasite, I assumed they were wanted,* a government and that covers all of that.

They aren't required. Not until later. That's why compensation occurs during the end of the pregnancy. If you think that everything that goes in is yours, so be it.

Don't know about the time limit? Advertise and educate man. Rest is the system again.

Now I've gone and made the child into money. Great.

*Remember I really don't care how many they abort as long as none got to the ammended figure of 28 weeks first.

[Dempublicents1]

The point is that regardless of the results of my actions, bodily sovereignty overrides everything, without exception.

It does not override the right to life.

In what other instance can a person be bodily used against their will to save or sustain the life of another?

Most healthy people can give blood every 8 weeks. A single blood donation can save up to 8 lives. It takes an hour or so, has negligible risk, and the effects to the donor are completely reversed in a matter of weeks. But no one can be legally forced to give blood. Even if there is no blood of given type available and you are a known match, you cannot be legally forced to donate. This is true even if there is someone currently bleeding out and you were the one who caused them to be in that predicament.

Yet people argue that a woman should be legally compelled to go through months of pregnancy against her will. That she should take on all of the risks inherent in pregnancy (which include everything from nausea to death) and continue long after the pregnancy is over. That she should take on all of the irreversible bodily changes that will occur. And all of that to create, in general, one life.

If the right to life is so broad that a woman should be bodily used as an incubator against her will, why on Earth is it not enough to put someone through a blood donation against his will?

Edit: You seem to be arguing this only in the instance that the fetus would be viable outside the womb. I agree that it may be permissible to limit the elective choices to induced birth at that point, providing that such a limitation does not put her in further danger.

[IshCong]

I didn't agree that the fetus had a right to life in your analogy. I don't recall agreeing to any such thing at any other juncture.
And, no, it does not. The right to life is the right from which all other rights must be derived. As such, it is the ultimate right.

The right to life derives from the right to bodily sovereignty.

And you agreed that my right to bodily sovereignty overrides the right to life of a living, breathing, thinking adult human. Are you then declaring that a foetus has rights over and above those of a living human?

I'd flip it, and say the right to bodily sovereignty is derived from the right to life.

Oh did I now? And where did I say that, do tell. I recall saying nothing about a fetus having more rights than a live person.

[IshCong]

It does not override the right to life.

In what other instance can a person be bodily used against their will to save or sustain the life of another?

Most healthy people can give blood every 8 weeks. A single blood donation can save up to 8 lives. It takes an hour or so, has negligible risk, and the effects to the donor are completely reversed in a matter of weeks. But no one can be legally forced to give blood. Even if there is no blood of given type available and you are a known match, you cannot be legally forced to donate. This is true even if there is someone currently bleeding out and you were the one who caused them to be in that predicament.

Yet people argue that a woman should be legally compelled to go through months of pregnancy against her will. That she should take on all of the risks inherent in pregnancy (which include everything from nausea to death) and continue long after the pregnancy is over. That she should take on all of the irreversible bodily changes that will occur. And all of that to create, in general, one life.

If the right to life is so broad that a woman should be bodily used as an incubator against her will, why on Earth is it not enough to put someone through a blood donation against his will?

Excuse me, but that argument has no bearing on my stance on the matter, so what are you talking about?
I've said that if a fetus cannot live outside the womb, it should not be granted the right to life. If, however, it can live outside the womb, there are a finite number of divergent choices available to the woman.
1: Continue the pregnancy. If she chooses this, there's zero argument from anyone.
2: Abort. She concedes to an invasive procedure, kills the child, and goes about her business.
3: Remove the child, conceding to a second invasive procedure, but with the child (which could, as stated, live outside her womb in some manner or another), left alive.

Barring reasons such as rape, incest, severe chance of birth defect, or some other issue, I see precisely zero reason why she should be permitted to kill an infant which can live without her having to do anything for it after it leaves her womb.

[Raeyh]

In what other instance can a person be bodily used against their will to save or sustain the life of another?

Criminal negligence.

[Dempublicents1]

Excuse me, but that argument has no bearing on my stance on the matter, so what are you talking about?

See my edit.

In what other instance can a person be bodily used against their will to save or sustain the life of another?

Criminal negligence.

I see nothing in that definition that requires someone to be used in the manner I described.

[IshCong]

Excuse me, but that argument has no bearing on my stance on the matter, so what are you talking about?

See my edit.

Whoops. Wasn't there when I started typing. Ehehe...yeah.
Uh, agreed to the limitation of not inducing birth if it puts the mother at severe risk, of course.

[Raeyh]

Excuse me, but that argument has no bearing on my stance on the matter, so what are you talking about?

See my edit.

Criminal negligence.

I see nothing in that definition that requires someone to be used in the manner I described.

If somebody is drowning and you can swim, you have to try to save them or it's criminal negligence. Wouldn't that be forcing you to use your body to save or sustain the life of another?