Abortion: Humane or not?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

You are now contributing less than nothing to the thread. Please prove I'm wrong without resorting to semantics or rhetoric or take your appeals elsewhere.

I don't have to prove you wrong.
You have to prove you right.
And the thing is, you can't do that, because definitions of personhood are entirely subjective.

There can be an objective legal definition, for sure. It just won't convince anyone who's subjective definition differs.
To get them on board you need different arguments.

Further, there is no benefit to:

Pro-Autonomy: Fetuses are not people

compared to

Pro-Autonomy: Fetuses are people.

In fact, the former closes several doors to us. For instance, if a company sells a product which damages a fetus but not the mother.
It also causes distress in parents who cannot obtain death certificates and such for miscarriages. (Though some countries specifically wrote new laws allowing them to do so.)

Second:
It derails the argument on autonomy into one about personhood. It's useless.

Wut?

You do understand the implications of the personhood argument when it comes to medicine, right?

[Jamzmania]

You're implying that all unwanted children are inherently doomed to lives of crime, which, I'll admit, you have a bit of a point. That said, ideally, if the children weren't wanted by their biological parent(s), a suitable family would be found for them quickly enough. If not, and they end up spending the first 18 years of their lives at an orphanage, life would at least be tolerable. Life with Catholic nuns isn't all that bad.

Frankly, I'd rather be dead than be in an orphanage, and I'm sure a lot would agree....

Why do you like suffering?

What gives you the right to make the decision that "Oh, well I'm sure he/she wouldn't like an orphanage anyway. Kill it."

[Ostroeuropa]

I don't have to prove you wrong.
You have to prove you right.
And the thing is, you can't do that, because definitions of personhood are entirely subjective.

There can be an objective legal definition, for sure. It just won't convince anyone who's subjective definition differs.
To get them on board you need different arguments.

Further, there is no benefit to:

Pro-Autonomy: Fetuses are not people

compared to

Pro-Autonomy: Fetuses are people.

In fact, the former closes several doors to us. For instance, if a company sells a product which damages a fetus but not the mother.
It also causes distress in parents who cannot obtain death certificates and such for miscarriages. (Though some countries specifically wrote new laws allowing them to do so.)

Second:
It derails the argument on autonomy into one about personhood. It's useless.

Wut?

You do understand the implications of the personhood argument when it comes to medicine, right?

If the fetus is a person the docs should try their best to save it, sure.
But heres the thing.
They also divide siamese twins... even when ones definately gonna die from the process.
(Provided it gives the other a good shot. Taking this view along with the inherent risk of pregnancy, personhood of the fetus is irrelevant.)

You can acknowledge that fetuses are people and still decide you're ok with aborting them. When the fetus occupies someone womb without their consent, that is a violation of the persons rights and the doctors can rectify it.
If it's merely a carrot in their stomach, it's a lot easier to say they're wasting everyones time and the thing will come out on it's own sooner or later.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Frankly, I'd rather be dead than be in an orphanage, and I'm sure a lot would agree....

Why do you like suffering?

What gives you the right to make the decision that "Oh, well I'm sure he/she wouldn't like an orphanage anyway. Kill it."

And what gives you the insight said baby won't have a miserable life?

But of course, a life of misery is better than no life, right? I mean, it's better to live in a shithole than be dead. Of course it is, it's always comforting to know society wanted you, but really didn't and you're just another disposable, miserable human being. That is SO much better indeed.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

You are now contributing less than nothing to the thread. Please prove I'm wrong without resorting to semantics or rhetoric or take your appeals elsewhere.

I don't have to prove you wrong.
You have to prove you right.
And the thing is, you can't do that, because definitions of personhood are entirely subjective.Subjectivity is immaterial.

There can be an objective legal definition, for sure. It just won't convince anyone who's subjective definition differs. Good thing there is. Those people would do well to acknowledge it.
To get them on board you need different arguments.

Further, there is no benefit to:There's always benefit to clear concise definitions.

Pro-Autonomy: Fetuses are not people

compared to

Pro-Autonomy: Fetuses are people.

In fact, the former closes several doors to us. For instance, if a company sells a product which damages a fetus but not the mother.Transgression against the mother.
It also causes distress in parents who cannot obtain death certificates and such for miscarriages. (Though some countries specifically wrote new laws allowing them to do so.) Another non-issue.

Second:
It derails the argument on autonomy into one about personhood. It's useless.

You also have not demonstrated how demolishing cells is inhumane.

[Ostroeuropa]

I don't have to prove you wrong.
You have to prove you right.
And the thing is, you can't do that, because definitions of personhood are entirely subjective.Subjectivity is immaterial.

There can be an objective legal definition, for sure. It just won't convince anyone who's subjective definition differs. Good thing there is. Those people would do well to acknowledge it.
To get them on board you need different arguments.

Further, there is no benefit to:There's always benefit to clear concise definitions.

Pro-Autonomy: Fetuses are not people

compared to

Pro-Autonomy: Fetuses are people.

In fact, the former closes several doors to us. For instance, if a company sells a product which damages a fetus but not the mother.Transgression against the mother.
It also causes distress in parents who cannot obtain death certificates and such for miscarriages. (Though some countries specifically wrote new laws allowing them to do so.) Another non-issue.

Second:
It derails the argument on autonomy into one about personhood. It's useless.

So yeh, none of this is an argument. It's just pure assertion. I'm beginning to think you don't know the difference.

How is the product a transgression against the pregnant person? They were unharmed.

[Camelza]

If you have a funeral for and bury your computer, you're off the Christmas card list.

...

Please don't take me off the list.

Speaking of; Is it legal to marry your computer?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

If the fetus is a person the docs should try their best to save it, sure.
But heres the thing.
They also divide siamese twins... even when ones definately gonna die from the process.
(Provided it gives the other a good shot. Taking this view along with the inherent risk of pregnancy, personhood of the fetus is irrelevant.)

You can acknowledge that fetuses are people and still decide you're ok with aborting them. When the fetus occupies someone womb without their consent, that is a violation of the persons rights and the doctors can rectify it.
If it's merely a carrot in their stomach, it's a lot easier to say they're wasting everyones time and the thing will come out on it's own sooner or later.

You're still missing the whole point.

If fetus are given personhood, then what prevents them to have the same rights we do legally? Once you give personhood to a fetus, you are also giving them rights they did not have before. One of them would be that doctors and nurses now have to obey consent laws before any treatments.

You can't get consent out of a non-talking, non-feeling organism.

[Hurdegaryp]

Because every birth is a golden opportunity to bring more suffering in the world. And the more suffering, the better. If those unwanted children malfunction rather seriously in a world that does not want them, there's always the death penalty.

You're implying that all unwanted children are inherently doomed to lives of crime, which, I'll admit, you have a bit of a point. That said, ideally, if the children weren't wanted by their biological parent(s), a suitable family would be found for them quickly enough. If not, and they end up spending the first 18 years of their lives at an orphanage, life would at least be tolerable. Life with Catholic nuns isn't all that bad.

Having to live with Catholic nuns can literally kill you, as the recently unearthed mass graves in Ireland proved. Prophylactics, morning after pills and abortion exist because it is always better to prevent than to dump another hapless soul on a world with more than seven billion people. Unless you're one of those apocalyptical fundamentalist types, in that case you crave as much cannon fodder for your divine quests as can possibly be birthed.

[Ostroeuropa]

If the fetus is a person the docs should try their best to save it, sure.
But heres the thing.
They also divide siamese twins... even when ones definately gonna die from the process.
(Provided it gives the other a good shot. Taking this view along with the inherent risk of pregnancy, personhood of the fetus is irrelevant.)

You can acknowledge that fetuses are people and still decide you're ok with aborting them. When the fetus occupies someone womb without their consent, that is a violation of the persons rights and the doctors can rectify it.
If it's merely a carrot in their stomach, it's a lot easier to say they're wasting everyones time and the thing will come out on it's own sooner or later.

You're still missing the whole point.

If fetus are given personhood, then what prevents them to have the same rights we do legally? Once you give personhood to a fetus, you are also giving them rights they did not have before. One of them would be that doctors and nurses now have to obey consent laws before any treatments.

You can't get consent out of a non-talking, non-feeling organism.

Consent where it CAN be obtained.

Doctors don't throw up their arms and declare that we can't do anything, the patient is unconscious, I guess he'll just bleed out.
As you say, consent is impossible to obtain here, so it is not required.
Further, siamese twins example again.
The consent of the parents is sufficient.

[Esternial]

You're still missing the whole point.

If fetus are given personhood, then what prevents them to have the same rights we do legally? Once you give personhood to a fetus, you are also giving them rights they did not have before. One of them would be that doctors and nurses now have to obey consent laws before any treatments.

You can't get consent out of a non-talking, non-feeling organism.

Consent where it CAN be obtained.

Doctors don't throw up their arms and declare that we can't do anything, the patient is unconscious, I guess he'll just bleed out.
Further, siamese twins example again.
The consent of the parents is sufficient.

In which case the mother can consent to an abortion in her person fetus' stead. That is indeed quite simple.

[Dyakovo]

If the fetus is a person the docs should try their best to save it, sure.
But heres the thing.
They also divide siamese twins... even when ones definately gonna die from the process.
(Provided it gives the other a good shot. Taking this view along with the inherent risk of pregnancy, personhood of the fetus is irrelevant.)

You can acknowledge that fetuses are people and still decide you're ok with aborting them. When the fetus occupies someone womb without their consent, that is a violation of the persons rights and the doctors can rectify it.
If it's merely a carrot in their stomach, it's a lot easier to say they're wasting everyones time and the thing will come out on it's own sooner or later.

You're still missing the whole point.

If fetus are given personhood, then what prevents them to have the same rights we do legally? Once you give personhood to a fetus, you are also giving them rights they did not have before. One of them would be that doctors and nurses now have to obey consent laws before any treatments.

You can't get consent out of a non-talking, non-feeling organism.

The thing is, the people who want to grant personhood to foetuses don't want to give them all the rights a born person does... The want to give all those rights, plus the "right" to use another's body against their will.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

You're still missing the whole point.

If fetus are given personhood, then what prevents them to have the same rights we do legally? Once you give personhood to a fetus, you are also giving them rights they did not have before. One of them would be that doctors and nurses now have to obey consent laws before any treatments.

You can't get consent out of a non-talking, non-feeling organism.

Consent where it CAN be obtained.

Doctors don't throw up their arms and declare that we can't do anything, the patient is unconscious, I guess he'll just bleed out.
As you say, consent is impossible to obtain here, so it is not required.
Further, siamese twins example again.
The consent of the parents is sufficient.

But then you are reducing fetuses to property since they don't have their own consent but depend on the consent of the parent, in this case the mother.

Which brings us back to the current status quo of "we're not defining it as any because it's too complicated".

[Ostroeuropa]

Consent where it CAN be obtained.

Doctors don't throw up their arms and declare that we can't do anything, the patient is unconscious, I guess he'll just bleed out.
Further, siamese twins example again.
The consent of the parents is sufficient.

In which case the mother can consent to an abortion in her person fetus' stead. That is indeed quite simple.

I agree. The argument over whether the fetus is a person just bogs us down in semantics and insoluble theological arguments.
It's letting the pro-lifers win.

Just let them say the fetus is a person.
It wont matter either way, and then we can advance the ACTUAL argument, which is one of bodily autonomy.

[Esternial]

Consent where it CAN be obtained.

Doctors don't throw up their arms and declare that we can't do anything, the patient is unconscious, I guess he'll just bleed out.
As you say, consent is impossible to obtain here, so it is not required.
Further, siamese twins example again.
The consent of the parents is sufficient.

But then you are reducing fetuses to property since they don't have their own consent but depend on the consent of the parent, in this case the mother.

Which brings us back to the current status quo of "we're not defining it as any because it's too complicated".

Not property. A 10-year old child whose parent still has to provide consent for certain things isn't their property.

[Galloism]

If the fetus is a person the docs should try their best to save it, sure.
But heres the thing.
They also divide siamese twins... even when ones definately gonna die from the process.
(Provided it gives the other a good shot. Taking this view along with the inherent risk of pregnancy, personhood of the fetus is irrelevant.)

You can acknowledge that fetuses are people and still decide you're ok with aborting them. When the fetus occupies someone womb without their consent, that is a violation of the persons rights and the doctors can rectify it.
If it's merely a carrot in their stomach, it's a lot easier to say they're wasting everyones time and the thing will come out on it's own sooner or later.

You're still missing the whole point.

If fetus are given personhood, then what prevents them to have the same rights we do legally? Once you give personhood to a fetus, you are also giving them rights they did not have before. One of them would be that doctors and nurses now have to obey consent laws before any treatments.

You can't get consent out of a non-talking, non-feeling organism.

The tax consequences should be considered too.

If you are supporting a descendant who becomes a person (currently through birth) and ceases being a person (through death) during the year, you can claim them as a dependent on your tax return and get a (up to) $1,000 child tax credit and other benefits.

If you move personhood to conception, you have financial incentives to get pregnant and have an abortion. The tax adjustment might be greater than the cost of the abortion in certain brackets.

[Ostroeuropa]

Consent where it CAN be obtained.

Doctors don't throw up their arms and declare that we can't do anything, the patient is unconscious, I guess he'll just bleed out.
As you say, consent is impossible to obtain here, so it is not required.
Further, siamese twins example again.
The consent of the parents is sufficient.

But then you are reducing fetuses to property since they don't have their own consent but depend on the consent of the parent, in this case the mother.

Which brings us back to the current status quo of "we're not defining it as any because it's too complicated".

A person cannot "Consent" to using anothers body against their will.
The consent of the fetus is irrelevant.
You don't talk about the consent of the criminal to being arrested.

If the mother demands it is removed, it should be removed.
That's irrespective of if you acknowledge it as a person before you do so.

[Hurdegaryp]

In which case the mother can consent to an abortion in her person fetus' stead. That is indeed quite simple.

I agree. The argument over whether the fetus is a person just bogs us down in semantics and insoluble theological arguments.
It's letting the pro-lifers win.

Just let them say the fetus is a person.
It wont matter either way, and then we can advance the ACTUAL argument, which is one of bodily autonomy.

It appears we're on the same boat here. Theology and medical science should be strictly divided.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

But then you are reducing fetuses to property since they don't have their own consent but depend on the consent of the parent, in this case the mother.

Which brings us back to the current status quo of "we're not defining it as any because it's too complicated".

A person cannot "Consent" to using anothers body against their will.
The consent of the fetus is irrelevant.
You don't talk about the consent of the criminal to being arrested.

If the mother demands it is removed, it should be removed.
That's irrespective of if you acknowledge it as a person before you do so.

That's what happens now, except without all the legalese in the way.

[Allentyr]

What gives you the right to make the decision that "Oh, well I'm sure he/she wouldn't like an orphanage anyway. Kill it."

What gives you the right to force a woman to give birth to a child?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I agree. The argument over whether the fetus is a person just bogs us down in semantics and insoluble theological arguments.
It's letting the pro-lifers win.

Just let them say the fetus is a person.
It wont matter either way, and then we can advance the ACTUAL argument, which is one of bodily autonomy.

It appears we're on the same boat here. Theology and medical science should be strictly divided.

Medical science has always been divided.

Except when it comes to certain religious patients and their treatments.

[Ostroeuropa]

A person cannot "Consent" to using anothers body against their will.
The consent of the fetus is irrelevant.
You don't talk about the consent of the criminal to being arrested.

If the mother demands it is removed, it should be removed.
That's irrespective of if you acknowledge it as a person before you do so.

That's what happens now, except without all the legalese in the way.

Sure.

EXCEPT!!!!

Because we advanced the:

"They aren't people" argument instead of the
"Bodily autonomy!!" argument, we're in a position where on-demand abortion is illegal when it shouldnt be, because, quite rightly, people look at babyscans and go
"That's clearly a person." when it hits a certain age and is viable.

We should instead be getting them to understand that the personhood is irrelevant to the discussion.

Further, it basically does the pro-lifers propoganda for us to be denying that they are people. It makes us seem like assholes.
Instead of acknowledging that they are people, and it's unfortunate for them, but the pregnant person is excercising their human right to bodily autonomy, and liberty is important.

[Vazdaria]

I personally believe abortion should not be used no matter the situation. Abortion is essentially killing a baby, while some say it's the woman's choice if she has intercourse and becomes pregnant, it's obviously the woman's fault. That's just my opinion, what's yours?

:-) New Republica _:-D

Medically unnecessary Abortion is a horrible practice that should be endee Immediately

[Ostroeuropa]

I personally believe abortion should not be used no matter the situation. Abortion is essentially killing a baby, while some say it's the woman's choice if she has intercourse and becomes pregnant, it's obviously the woman's fault. That's just my opinion, what's yours?

:-) New Republica _:-D

Medically unnecessary Abortion is a horrible practice that should be endee Immediately

Define unnecessary. Is it unnecessary police brutality to remove a rapist from somebodies orifice when they request it?

Well... i'm kind of stuck then. What, exactly, is the difference here fundamentally?

Someone is inside your body without your consent.
You wish them removed.
You report to the authorities to ask them to safeguard your rights.
They do so.

[Sanctissima]

It appears we're on the same boat here. Theology and medical science should be strictly divided.

Medical science has always been divided.

Except when it comes to certain religious patients and their treatments.

Personally, I prefer the phrase "I think, therefore I am".

So, basically, thought determines whether or not you're a person. Hence, a fetus isn't a person.

That said, this doesn't make it a useless waste of carbon-based watery flesh.