Abortion: Humane or not?

[Ostroeuropa]

See, conversely, I view the fetus as a person right from the moment the brain activity fires up, but also recognize that viability is entirely irrelevant to the autonomy argument.

It MAY be relevant as to whether the doctors attempt to remove the child and save its life, or simply remove it and accept it's going to die.

You can remove it at 9 months for all I care.

Right. I mean, it's why I said from a medical angle.

One of my nephews was born at 6 months and is a healthy boy nowadays, so yes considerations should be taken at the third trimester whether or not the child can be saved and whether or not the child can survive.

Below that? We can't even bother from a medical angle given the child will die no matter what doctors do.

I agree. Though technology marches on, and doubtless the viability ceiling will be lowered.
Another VERY pressing reason for us to abandon the "They aren't people." line.

The ceiling on abortion limits is going to be lowered over time as we become more capable of saving the lives of early-born children.
If we consider that it's a straight up autonomy issue, then there would be no such ceiling.

[Camelza]

Sorry but it doesn't. Women aren't livestock where you can determine if they give birth or not.

And fetuses aren't parasites where you can determine if they live or die.

Well, technically they are.

[Sanctissima]

True, but I still don't advocate that it has 0 rights. I don't advocate that it has the same rights as it's mother, in fact, far from it. I do however advocate that it has 1 inalienable right: the right to live. This right takes precedence over the mother's rights to her body (unless of course, as I already stated, it's the result of rape or if the mother's life is in danger).

I'm of the view that viability and risks should determine case-by-case whether or not an abortion is okay to do from a medical angle.

The less viable to live outside the womb the fetus is the less "rights" it has for medical professionals to be concerned about their life. You can't give rights to a cell in the same proportion as a neonate. That's not how we operate or how we should operate.

I see your point, but, personally, I think that from conception afterwards, the mother has a responsibility to carry the child. Philosophically, my stance is flawed, since I'm basically giving a single-celled embryo the right to live. Morally, since this cell has a very good chance to develop into a fetus, and later, a fully formed human baby, I think my stance is quite strong.

[Mavorpen]

Sorry but it doesn't. Women aren't livestock where you can determine if they give birth or not.

And fetuses aren't parasites where you can determine if they live or die.

Of course we can. We regularly do it.

[Dyakovo]

Sorry but it doesn't. Women aren't livestock where you can determine if they give birth or not.

And fetuses aren't parasites where you can determine if they live or die.

Highly debateable... They are definitely parasitic in nature, and you have the right to use whatever means necessary to prevent another from using your body against your will.
Really looks like you are wrong...

[Allentyr]

And fetuses aren't parasites where you can determine if they live or die.

They are in fact parasites, since they give nothing back and feed off you. And we can in fact determine if they live or die... Just down a pill or two.

[Jamzmania]

And fetuses aren't parasites where you can determine if they live or die.

Well, technically they are.

If they are "technically" then its a parasite there with the consent and active support of the body. The body even has specific body parts needed in order to create this "parasite" and still other special body parts required to sustain it.

[Sanctissima]

My argument is that it's a morally flawed stance.

I'm quite sorry that women can't have as much unprotected sex as they damn well please without creating another human being in the process. If I was God, I'd change that so that you sex monkeys can do whatever you want, but I'm not, so people make do.

You can't kill someone, and yes, I'm referring to the fetus as "someone", just because you had unprotected sex and didn't give a damn about the potential consequences. The fetus is incapable of thought, so it doesn't get the same rights as it's mother, but it still gets 1 basic right: the right to be born and live. That right takes precedence over sex.

Sorry but it doesn't. Women aren't livestock where you can determine if they give birth or not.

You know, you give very brief, analogical and poor arguments.

But if you're going to be analogical, do consider this: If you're going to have sex like a cow, you might as well give birth like one.

I suppose that sounds rather crude of me, but oh well.

[Mavorpen]

I'm of the view that viability and risks should determine case-by-case whether or not an abortion is okay to do from a medical angle.

The less viable to live outside the womb the fetus is the less "rights" it has for medical professionals to be concerned about their life. You can't give rights to a cell in the same proportion as a neonate. That's not how we operate or how we should operate.

I see your point, but, personally, I think that from conception afterwards, the mother has a responsibility to carry the child. Philosophically, my stance is flawed, since I'm basically giving a single-celled embryo the right to live. Morally, since this cell has a very good chance to develop into a fetus, and later, a fully formed human baby, I think my stance is quite strong.

It isn't. Whether it is a human being or person is irrelevant. No human being or person can enter a woman's body against their will.

[Ostroeuropa]

By the way pro-lifers.

I'm also completely seriously of the opinion that if a baby somehow learned it's mother was going to abort it, and decided to go fucking chuck norris and punch it's way out of her stomach to save itself, killing her in the process, that it would be entirely within it's rights to do so as well.

It's not that we are ranking the baby as less important or lesser than the mother. It's that the mother is excercising her right to bodily autonomy.

Were the baby capable of defending itself, it could do so.

It's an issue of a conflict of rights.

[Allentyr]

If they are "technically" then its a parasite there with the consent and active support of the body. The body even has specific body parts needed in order to create this "parasite" and still other special body parts required to sustain it.

If someone wants an abortion, they're clearly NOT consenting to the parasite being there.

[Mavorpen]

Sorry but it doesn't. Women aren't livestock where you can determine if they give birth or not.

You know, you give very brief, analogical and poor arguments.

But if you're going to be analogical, do consider this: If you're going to have sex like a cow, you might as well give birth like one.

I suppose that sounds rather crude of me, but oh well.

That doesn't make any sense. If you're going to be blatantly sexist at least make something resembling sense.

[Galloism]

Well, technically they are.

If they are "technically" then its a parasite there with the consent and active support of the body. The body even has specific body parts needed in order to create this "parasite" and still other special body parts required to sustain it.

Wait, just to be clear, you're saying an uncontrollable autonomic response establishes legal consent for the individual?

I just want to make sure I understand your position.

[Jamzmania]

I see your point, but, personally, I think that from conception afterwards, the mother has a responsibility to carry the child. Philosophically, my stance is flawed, since I'm basically giving a single-celled embryo the right to live. Morally, since this cell has a very good chance to develop into a fetus, and later, a fully formed human baby, I think my stance is quite strong.

It isn't. Whether it is a human being or person is irrelevant. No human being or person can enter a woman's body against their will.

They never "entered." They were created there.

[Sanctissima]

I see your point, but, personally, I think that from conception afterwards, the mother has a responsibility to carry the child. Philosophically, my stance is flawed, since I'm basically giving a single-celled embryo the right to live. Morally, since this cell has a very good chance to develop into a fetus, and later, a fully formed human baby, I think my stance is quite strong.

It isn't. Whether it is a human being or person is irrelevant. No human being or person can enter a woman's body against their will.

Actually, given the sex was consented to, it's quite willful.

[Dyakovo]

Well, technically they are.

If they are "technically" then its a parasite there with the consent and active support of the body. The body even has specific body parts needed in order to create this "parasite" and still other special body parts required to sustain it.

Bodies can't give consent.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Well, technically they are.

If they are "technically" then its a parasite there with the consent and active support of the body. The body even has specific body parts needed in order to create this "parasite" and still other special body parts required to sustain it.

The uterus and placenta, which connects the uterus to the mother via an umbilical cord which is part of the placenta.

I just explained the basic anatomy of a fetus in one sentence. You're welcome.

[Galloism]

You know, you give very brief, analogical and poor arguments.

But if you're going to be analogical, do consider this: If you're going to have sex like a cow, you might as well give birth like one.

I suppose that sounds rather crude of me, but oh well.

That doesn't make any sense. If you're going to be blatantly sexist at least make something resembling sense.

I think he's saying if you're going to be mounted roughly by a large hairy animal, you should give birth to a large walking baby and then just go back to chewing your cud.

Or something.

[Sanctissima]

You know, you give very brief, analogical and poor arguments.

But if you're going to be analogical, do consider this: If you're going to have sex like a cow, you might as well give birth like one.

I suppose that sounds rather crude of me, but oh well.

That doesn't make any sense. If you're going to be blatantly sexist at least make something resembling sense.

If you're going to be blatantly spiteful of children, please do the same.

[Dyakovo]

It isn't. Whether it is a human being or person is irrelevant. No human being or person can enter a woman's body against their will.

Actually, given the sex was consented to, it's quite willful.

Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.

[Mavorpen]

It isn't. Whether it is a human being or person is irrelevant. No human being or person can enter a woman's body against their will.

They never "entered." They were created there.

So basically they entered.

[Ostroeuropa]

It isn't. Whether it is a human being or person is irrelevant. No human being or person can enter a woman's body against their will.

Actually, given the sex was consented to, it's quite willful.

When a cop goes on patrol, does they consent to being shot?
They may acknowledge it's a risk, but do they consent to it?

Further, would you say they have no right to demand the bullet removed?

[Lost heros]

It isn't. Whether it is a human being or person is irrelevant. No human being or person can enter a woman's body against their will.

They never "entered." They were created there.

Either way they are being sustained within the body, despite the person's wishes.

[Dyakovo]

That doesn't make any sense. If you're going to be blatantly sexist at least make something resembling sense.

If you're going to be blatantly spiteful of children, please do the same.

Mav never referred to children.

[Allentyr]

They never "entered." They were created there.

Doesn't change it one bit. They're still there against the woman's will.

Actually, given the sex was consented to, it's quite willful.

You consent to being horribly disfigured from a nasty accident while driving then?