Abortion Denied

[Liriena]

1. Yeah... thanks for not actually responding to my argument, buddy!
3. Read above.
4. Even in the face of an overwhelming consensus that disagrees with your beliefs?

1. It responds to your argument quite well; you simply disagree with the response.
4. The appeal to mass belief has always been and will always be fallacious.

1. I'll ask again:

Would you say the same of any other human being? If I were to forcibly implant my organs into somebody else's body and leech-off their nutrients, would you say my right to live trumps their right to control their own body?

I kindly ask that you try to refrain from resorting to special pleadings and ad hocs.

4. There's a difference between "mass belief" and "consensus".

[Kepler-22]

1. You've provided no actual arguments to substantiate your claims. Your alternative, on the other hand, is as awfully simplistic as it is myopic. What of the physical integrity of the mother? Is her right to control her own body inexistent when the "human being" inside her is her fetus? Would you say the same of any other human being? If I were to forcibly implant my organs in somebody else's body and leech-off their nutrients, would you say my right to live trumps their right to control their own body?
2. Alrighty then.
3. I believe human rights apply only to actual, existing people. I do not recognize fetuses as such, and even if I did, I would not have somebody else use them as an excuse to control the body of their mothers.
4. And where does that leave your beliefs, then?

1. Her right to control her body while pregnant is the same as it ever was before she got pregnant: She may exercise her bodily sovereignty in any way that does not infringe upon the rights of another. The difference between the pregnant woman and the non-pregnant woman is not one of her rights, but of the state of affairs. In the case of pregnancy, certain actions infringe upon the rights of another that would not do so were she not pregnant, so while she is pregnant, certain actions may not be taken that could have been taken were she not pregnant.

Does that mean the pregnant woman does not have the right to drink, smoke, hit her stomach, and take drugs, legal or illegal, since they may infringe upon the body of the fetus and it may infringe upon the fetus' bodily sovereignty as what the carrier does directly affects the fetus' form?

[Bottle]

No human person has the right to use my organs, tissues, or body without my consent. Even if I'm a convicted serial killer on death row, I can't be forced to so much as donate plasma. Even if I am dead, my organs cannot be harvested if I said no.

If you want to assert that a fetus should have rights which no born human has, or that pregnant women should have fewer rights over their bodily fluids than dead people have, then you probably should get to work...it should be interesting to watch!

Considering the definitions of infant and infanticide this person used (apparently a fetus is an infant, and any death of an infant is infanticide), I am looking forward to it.

I always get a giggle out of the people who assert that other people can be entitled to your organs. What a novel definition of "sanctity of life," in which even your own body can be taken from you whenever some other person wants a piece of it!

[Caecuser]

No answer?


Then back up why your definition of infanticide is accurate, given the fact (not question fact) that an infant is by definition a born child between the ages of birth and around 2 years. In addition, abortion has already been determined by the Supreme Court, to be legal. We are dealing with a current case, meaning we are dealing with current law, meaning how things ought to be does not matter. What matters at this point and time is what are the current legal definitions. The current legal definitions do not match the ones you are claiming. Until you can explain why your definitions matter in this particular case, your definitions are completely and utterly useless. This is the last time, explain why your definitions should be used in this particular circumstance, and in addition why your definitions should hold in any circumstance given the current legal climate.

The infant is only a born child by legal definition. I seek to change this definition, and thus the law, by amending it to more properly reflect the accurate descriptive definition.
I agree that abortion is legal; that is the problem. Where the law errs, it should be corrected.
My definitions should be used in this case because I am the one addressing the case in argument; obviously everyone brings their own preferred definitions in any matter relating to changing the legal status of some act. My contention is that, properly understood, abortion is infanticide, and so the legal definition should be altered to reflect this.

The law only errs in your opinion - even if abortion is reclassified as infanticide; would you want to change it to being illegal? What benefit would that be other than the restriction of rights for some the approval of rights for another group.

[The Tovian Way]

1. Her right to control her body while pregnant is the same as it ever was before she got pregnant: She may exercise her bodily sovereignty in any way that does not infringe upon the rights of another.

You keep saying this, but you don't respond to my straight forward question: why does the fetus get to infringe on the woman's right to bodily sovereignty? Specially if, as you claim, all rights are equal. Seems like you're giving preference to one right over the other.

The fetus does not get to infringe upon the woman's right to bodily sovereignty. The fetus has taken no action to so infringe. The fetus began its existence within the woman, it did not choose to enter into her. Given the state of affairs in any pregnancy, a being exists inside another, and therefore no action can be taken by the one to infringe upon the rights of the other.

[Liriena]

No human person has the right to use my organs, tissues, or body without my consent. Even if I'm a convicted serial killer on death row, I can't be forced to so much as donate plasma. Even if I am dead, my organs cannot be harvested if I said no.

If you want to assert that a fetus should have rights which no born human has, or that pregnant women should have fewer rights over their bodily fluids than dead people have, then you probably should get to work...it should be interesting to watch!

Indeed they cannot, and neither can the unborn child's body be destroyed or used without its consent.
I do not assert that a fetus should have rights which no born human has, nor that pregnant women should have fewer rights over their bodily fluids. What I assert is that both the fetus and the woman do in fact have the same right to life and self-autonomy, and that this precludes the woman from exercising that right to bodily sovereignty in a way that infringes upon the rights of the fetus, and that hence, abortion should not be allowed.

That makes absolutely no fucking sense, even as an ad hoc.

[Neutraligon]

You keep saying this, but you don't respond to my straight forward question: why does the fetus get to infringe on the woman's right to bodily sovereignty? Specially if, as you claim, all rights are equal. Seems like you're giving preference to one right over the other.

The fetus does not get to infringe upon the woman's right to bodily sovereignty. The fetus has taken no action to so infringe. The fetus began its existence within the woman, it did not choose to enter into her. Given the state of affairs in any pregnancy, a being exists inside another, and therefore no action can be taken by the one to infringe upon the rights of the other.

Should a fetus in fetu be removed?

[The Tovian Way]

The infant is only a born child by legal definition. I seek to change this definition, and thus the law, by amending it to more properly reflect the accurate descriptive definition.
I agree that abortion is legal; that is the problem. Where the law errs, it should be corrected.
My definitions should be used in this case because I am the one addressing the case in argument; obviously everyone brings their own preferred definitions in any matter relating to changing the legal status of some act. My contention is that, properly understood, abortion is infanticide, and so the legal definition should be altered to reflect this.

The law only errs in your opinion - even if abortion is reclassified as infanticide; would you want to change it to being illegal? What benefit would that be other than the restriction of rights for some the approval of rights for another group.

If abortion were reclassified to be included in the legal definition of infanticide, it would therefore be illegal. So yes, it should be illegal.
Outlawing abortion does not infringe upon anyone's right, it prevents the infringement of others upon rights of another.

[Neutraligon]

The law only errs in your opinion - even if abortion is reclassified as infanticide; would you want to change it to being illegal? What benefit would that be other than the restriction of rights for some the approval of rights for another group.

If abortion were reclassified to be included in the legal definition of infanticide, it would therefore be illegal. So yes, it should be illegal.
Outlawing abortion does not infringe upon anyone's right, it prevents the infringement of others upon rights of another.

The Supreme Court disagrees.

[Caecuser]

You keep saying this, but you don't respond to my straight forward question: why does the fetus get to infringe on the woman's right to bodily sovereignty? Specially if, as you claim, all rights are equal. Seems like you're giving preference to one right over the other.

The fetus does not get to infringe upon the woman's right to bodily sovereignty. The fetus has taken no action to so infringe. The fetus began its existence within the woman, it did not choose to enter into her. Given the state of affairs in any pregnancy, a being exists inside another, and therefore no action can be taken by the one to infringe upon the rights of the other.

There's no reason why action can't be taken by the Woman - she can make her own medical decisions - the one whose body is being used by the fetus, after all; she didn't decide for it to be there either.

[Bottle]

No human person has the right to use my organs, tissues, or body without my consent. Even if I'm a convicted serial killer on death row, I can't be forced to so much as donate plasma. Even if I am dead, my organs cannot be harvested if I said no.

If you want to assert that a fetus should have rights which no born human has, or that pregnant women should have fewer rights over their bodily fluids than dead people have, then you probably should get to work...it should be interesting to watch!

Indeed they cannot, and neither can the unborn child's body be destroyed or used without its consent.

Irrelevant, since minors cannot consent.

I do not assert that a fetus should have rights which no born human has, nor that pregnant women should have fewer rights over their bodily fluids. What I assert is that both the fetus and the woman do in fact have the same right to life and self-autonomy, and that this precludes the woman from exercising that right to bodily sovereignty in a way that infringes upon the rights of the fetus, and that hence, abortion should not be allowed.

No, see, you're asserting a "right" that nobody has. Nobody has any "right to life" which includes getting to use another person's body without their consent.

The pregnant women does not have the right to use another person's body to prolong her life without that person's consent. Neither does the fetus. Nobody has that right, born or unborn.

If you want to argue that such a right SHOULD exist, then feel free to make a case for it. But nobody currently has any such right.

[Liriena]

You keep saying this, but you don't respond to my straight forward question: why does the fetus get to infringe on the woman's right to bodily sovereignty? Specially if, as you claim, all rights are equal. Seems like you're giving preference to one right over the other.

1. The fetus does not get to infringe upon the woman's right to bodily sovereignty.
2. The fetus has taken no action to so infringe.
3. The fetus began its existence within the woman, it did not choose to enter into her.
4. Given the state of affairs in any pregnancy, a being exists inside another, and therefore no action can be taken by the one to infringe upon the rights of the other.

1. Good to see we finally agree on something!
2. Oh, fuck me! It has taken a very blatant action to infringe: It's living within another person's body without said person's consent, feeding on said person's nutrients without said person's consent, and endangering said person's mental and physical health.
3. That's irrelevant. Violating somebody else's rights is still unacceptable, whether we do it knowingly or not, whether we began our very existence doing it or not.
4. Which brings me back to my previous question:

Would you say the same of any other human being? If I were to forcibly implant my organs in somebody else's body and leech-off their nutrients, would you say my right to live trumps their right to control their own body?

[Immoren]

... and neither can the unborn child's body be destroyed or used without its consent.

Can adult Hominids or cetaceans be destroyed or used without their consent?

[The Tovian Way]

The fetus does not get to infringe upon the woman's right to bodily sovereignty. The fetus has taken no action to so infringe. The fetus began its existence within the woman, it did not choose to enter into her. Given the state of affairs in any pregnancy, a being exists inside another, and therefore no action can be taken by the one to infringe upon the rights of the other.

Should a fetus in fetu be removed?

I am unclear regarding the genetic makeup of a fetus in fetu. If it is composed entirely of the genetic material of one person, it would therefore be a part of the person and could be removed without infringing upon another's rights, provided the person from whom it was removed consented.
If a fetus in fetu is composed of a distinct genetic makeup, then it does have a right to life, and may not be removed without its consent until it has died, absent the necessity of self defense.

[Bottle]

The law only errs in your opinion - even if abortion is reclassified as infanticide; would you want to change it to being illegal? What benefit would that be other than the restriction of rights for some the approval of rights for another group.

If abortion were reclassified to be included in the legal definition of infanticide, it would therefore be illegal. So yes, it should be illegal.
Outlawing abortion does not infringe upon anyone's right, it prevents the infringement of others upon rights of another.

Yes, if we redefined legal rights, then there would be different legal rights.

You're going to need to make a case for why any of us should want to do that, though. Why should I want it to be legal for the state to take ownership of my body for the purpose of supposedly furthering the interests of a third party?

[Immoren]

The law only errs in your opinion - even if abortion is reclassified as infanticide; would you want to change it to being illegal? What benefit would that be other than the restriction of rights for some the approval of rights for another group.

If abortion were reclassified to be included in the legal definition of infanticide, it would therefore be illegal. So yes, it should be illegal.
Outlawing abortion does not infringe upon anyone's right, it prevents the infringement of others upon rights of another.

Why do you hate women?

[Liriena]

Should a fetus in fetu be removed?

I am unclear regarding the genetic makeup of a fetus in fetu. If it is composed entirely of the genetic material of one person, it would therefore be a part of the person and could be removed without infringing upon another's rights, provided the person from whom it was removed consented.
If a fetus in fetu is composed of a distinct genetic makeup, then it does have a right to life, and may not be removed without its consent until it has died, absent the necessity of self defense.

Yet another concept of yours that makes no fucking sense.

If a creature inside my body does not have the exact same genetic makeup as me, I cannot remove it?

[Neutraligon]

Should a fetus in fetu be removed?

I am unclear regarding the genetic makeup of a fetus in fetu. If it is composed entirely of the genetic material of one person, it would therefore be a part of the person and could be removed without infringing upon another's rights, provided the person from whom it was removed consented.
If a fetus in fetu is composed of a distinct genetic makeup, then it does have a right to life, and may not be removed without its consent until it has died, absent the necessity of self defense.

...you really need to look it up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus_in_fetu

Are you going to answer or respond to my post about definitions or not?

[Hurdegaryp]

If abortion were reclassified to be included in the legal definition of infanticide, it would therefore be illegal. So yes, it should be illegal.
Outlawing abortion does not infringe upon anyone's right, it prevents the infringement of others upon rights of another.

Why do you hate women?

We could speculate, but let's not.

[Immoren]

I am unclear regarding the genetic makeup of a fetus in fetu. If it is composed entirely of the genetic material of one person, it would therefore be a part of the person and could be removed without infringing upon another's rights, provided the person from whom it was removed consented.
If a fetus in fetu is composed of a distinct genetic makeup, then it does have a right to life, and may not be removed without its consent until it has died, absent the necessity of self defense.

Yet another concept of yours that makes no fucking sense.

If a creature inside my body does not have the exact same genetic makeup as me, I cannot remove it?

All those parasites gonna have field day.

[Bottle]

If abortion were reclassified to be included in the legal definition of infanticide, it would therefore be illegal. So yes, it should be illegal.
Outlawing abortion does not infringe upon anyone's right, it prevents the infringement of others upon rights of another.

Why do you hate women?

Now now.

I honestly believe it's not hatred. In most cases it's either ignorance or a genuine inability to see women as fully human.

[Escasia]

Yet another concept of yours that makes no fucking sense.

If a creature inside my body does not have the exact same genetic makeup as me, I cannot remove it?

All those parasites gonna have field day.

It's good to be a tapeworm.

[The Tovian Way]

1. It responds to your argument quite well; you simply disagree with the response.
4. The appeal to mass belief has always been and will always be fallacious.

1. I'll ask again:

Would you say the same of any other human being? If I were to forcibly implant my organs into somebody else's body and leech-off their nutrients, would you say my right to live trumps their right to control their own body?

I kindly ask that you try to refrain from resorting to special pleadings and ad hocs.

4. There's a difference between "mass belief" and "consensus".

If you were to forcibly implant organs into my body, you would be infringing upon my right to bodily sovereignty. Since the organs are not genetically distinct, they possess no right to life, and can be removed.
The unborn child has not forcibly implanted anything into anyone's body; it began its existence there. Further, since it is a genetically distinct human being, it does possess a right to life, and cannot be removed absent its consent or the necessity of self defense, in a way that causes its death.

There is no difference between mass belief and consensus. Consensus is simply an instance of mass belief that encompasses a very large portion of the population.

[The Tovian Way]

I am unclear regarding the genetic makeup of a fetus in fetu. If it is composed entirely of the genetic material of one person, it would therefore be a part of the person and could be removed without infringing upon another's rights, provided the person from whom it was removed consented.
If a fetus in fetu is composed of a distinct genetic makeup, then it does have a right to life, and may not be removed without its consent until it has died, absent the necessity of self defense.

Yet another concept of yours that makes no fucking sense.

If a creature inside my body does not have the exact same genetic makeup as me, I cannot remove it?

If the creature is of the species homo sapiens, then no, you cannot.

[Hurdegaryp]

Yet another concept of yours that makes no fucking sense.

If a creature inside my body does not have the exact same genetic makeup as me, I cannot remove it?

All those parasites gonna have field day.

Another good reason to keep some people and their ideas far away from hospitals. They can come back when they repent and cast aside their evil ways.