Question about abortion. OH NOES!

[EvilDarkMagicians]

The doctor aborts it before it is born, she killed it after it was born(hypothetically). Once a baby takes a breath on it's own then killing it is murder.

Why does making a baby come out of a vagina/belly give it a right to life?

It doesn't. But it does remove the mother's body and rights from the equation.

Again, how come? -__-

...

Because when the fetus is inside the woman's body, attached to the woman's body, feeding off the woman's body, and requiring the woman's body to survive, it kind of involves the woman's body?

Not always as 23-24 weeks, though.

Huh?

It can survive without it's mother at 23-24 weeks.

[Bottle]

So wait, you're then asking why it would be murder for a woman to illegally kill an infant, but not murder for her to get a legal abortion?

That's also easy to answer. Murder is the UNLAWFUL killing of a human person. If we're talking about a country in which late-term abortions are legal at the stage this woman obtains one, then it's not unlawful and therefore can't be murder even if the laws were to recognize a fetus as a "person" (which, in most countries, they don't).

Why does a fetus change into a person, just because it comes outside a vagina.

I don't think Bottle has ever argued that it does.

The point is that its personhood or lack thereof is irrelevant to the fact that it has no inherent right to use the woman's body. Thus, if it is still within the woman's body, she can have it removed. If it is outside the woman's body, she can't kill it any more than she could any other human being.

Don't you give it that right when you don't have an abortion before it can survive outside of the body.

Nope.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

Vagina's aren't magic. Coming out of one doesn't make you State.

How can you be a state..?

[Dempublicents1]

The point is that its personhood or lack thereof is irrelevant to the fact that it has no inherent right to use the woman's body. Thus, if it is still within the woman's body, she can have it removed. If it is outside the woman's body, she can't kill it any more than she could any other human being.

Don't you give it that right when you don't have an abortion before it can survive outside of the body.

No, just like I don't give my husband any rights to my body by allowing him to have sex with me, or my employer any rights to my body by continuing to work for her. I don't give anyone "rights" to my body, although I may give them permission to use it or to have me use it in a certain way. I can also withdraw that permission at any time.

Would most people find it abhorrent for a woman to carry a pregnancy right to the brink of viability and then abort on a whim? Yes. (Hence the reason it doesn't actually happen). But, that doesn't mean she doesn't have a right to do so.

[Paradise Warrens]

How can you be a state..?

Ask Louis XIV. He died but the State remained.

[Dempublicents1]

Because when the fetus is inside the woman's body, attached to the woman's body, feeding off the woman's body, and requiring the woman's body to survive, it kind of involves the woman's body?

Not always as 23-24 weeks, though.

Huh?

It can survive without it's mother at 23-24 weeks.

"Can" and "Is" aren't the same thing. If the woman is still pregnant, it doesn't matter how many weeks it has been or how developed the fetus is, it is still using her body.

[Bottle]

The doctor aborts it before it is born, she killed it after it was born(hypothetically). Once a baby takes a breath on it's own then killing it is murder.

Why does making a baby come out of a vagina/belly give it a right to life?

It doesn't. But it does remove the mother's body and rights from the equation.

Again, how come? -__-

...

Because when the fetus is inside the woman's body, attached to the woman's body, feeding off the woman's body, and requiring the woman's body to survive, it kind of involves the woman's body?

Not always as 23-24 weeks, though.

Huh?

It can survive without it's mother at 23-24 weeks.

In a small minority of cases, it may be able to survive if labor is induced. But there's a reason why most pregnancy last a lot longer than that...because most fetuses won't survive if born that early.

But that's completely irrelevant anyhow, since it still is inside the woman's body, attached to her body, and feeding off her body, all of which make it pretty goddam obvious that her body is very much involved in the picture.

It's kind of mind boggling that we're having to "debate" this.

When a fetus is INSIDE A WOMAN'S BODY, her body is directly involved. When a baby is NOT INSIDE A WOMAN'S BODY, her body is not directly involved. In fact, a great many babies survive without any women's bodies near by...just ask my gay friends and their sons!

[EvilDarkMagicians]

The point is that its personhood or lack thereof is irrelevant to the fact that it has no inherent right to use the woman's body. Thus, if it is still within the woman's body, she can have it removed. If it is outside the woman's body, she can't kill it any more than she could any other human being.

Don't you give it that right when you don't have an abortion before it can survive outside of the body.

No, just like I don't give my husband any rights to my body by allowing him to have sex with me, or my employer any rights to my body by continuing to work for her. I don't give anyone "rights" to my body, although I may give them permission to use it or to have me use it in a certain way. I can also withdraw that permission at any time.

Would most people find it abhorrent for a woman to carry a pregnancy right to the brink of viability and then abort on a whim? Yes. (Hence the reason it doesn't actually happen). But, that doesn't mean she doesn't have a right to do so.

Yes, but those rights aren't about carrying a baby.
I still don't get why when a baby comes out of a vagina, it would be murder to kill it.
Though if you preformed an abortion on that exact baby it wouldn't.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

Because when the fetus is inside the woman's body, attached to the woman's body, feeding off the woman's body, and requiring the woman's body to survive, it kind of involves the woman's body?

Not always as 23-24 weeks, though.

Huh?

It can survive without it's mother at 23-24 weeks.

"Can" and "Is" aren't the same thing. If the woman is still pregnant, it doesn't matter how many weeks it has been or how developed the fetus is, it is still using her body.

Only because the woman has 'forced' the baby to use the body.
She could of decided to abort it before it can survive on it's own.

[Bottle]

The point is that its personhood or lack thereof is irrelevant to the fact that it has no inherent right to use the woman's body. Thus, if it is still within the woman's body, she can have it removed. If it is outside the woman's body, she can't kill it any more than she could any other human being.

Don't you give it that right when you don't have an abortion before it can survive outside of the body.

No, just like I don't give my husband any rights to my body by allowing him to have sex with me, or my employer any rights to my body by continuing to work for her. I don't give anyone "rights" to my body, although I may give them permission to use it or to have me use it in a certain way. I can also withdraw that permission at any time.

This is what makes me so queasy about most abortion discussions...there is always the belief, stated or implied, that at some point a woman gives up her right to her own body.

Some people say she gives up that right when she has sex. If a woman consents to intercourse then she must also consent to allow sperm to remain inside her body, and she must allow any fertilization that might possibly occur, and she must allow any fertilized egg or eggs to remain in her body, and she must carry any subsequent pregnancy for nine months, all because she gave up her right to her own body when she consented to have sex. I find that as repulsive as the guys who argue that if a girl consents to make out then that means she's consented to have sex, and she doesn't get to "take it back" by refusing to go farther.

Some people say the woman gives up her right to her body when the egg implants. I guess because once a pregnancy has started, a woman's rights have stopped?

Some people say the woman gives up her right to her body when the fetus is viable, apparently because either "unborn persons" have rights which we don't grant to any born persons or because pregnant women have fewer rights than what we grant to convicted serial killers.

None of these cases are acceptable to me. I don't believe I give up ownership of my body AT ANY TIME. It's my body, and I retain the right to give and withhold consent to use my body at any time and for any reason.

Would most people find it abhorrent for a woman to carry a pregnancy right to the brink of viability and then abort on a whim? Yes. (Hence the reason it doesn't actually happen). But, that doesn't mean she doesn't have a right to do so.

Very well put.

[Vanzef]

Just shorten the 24 weeks imo

[EvilDarkMagicians]

But that's completely irrelevant anyhow, since it still is inside the woman's body, attached to her body, and feeding off her body, all of which make it pretty goddam obvious that her body is very much involved in the picture.

Her body (for a small amount babies) is not keeping it alive, her body does not need to be involved in the picture.

[Bottle]

Because when the fetus is inside the woman's body, attached to the woman's body, feeding off the woman's body, and requiring the woman's body to survive, it kind of involves the woman's body?

Not always as 23-24 weeks, though.

Huh?

It can survive without it's mother at 23-24 weeks.

"Can" and "Is" aren't the same thing. If the woman is still pregnant, it doesn't matter how many weeks it has been or how developed the fetus is, it is still using her body.

Only because the woman has 'forced' the baby to use the body.
She could of decided to abort it before it can survive on it's own.

And when abortion is safe, legal, and obtainable, women do so.

You know what is the single most common reason why women seek "elective" abortions later in pregnancy?

Because they were prevented from obtaining one sooner.

Because the laws in their country make it hard or impossible for them to get a safe, legal abortion. Because they weren't able to afford a doctor or a pregnancy test to figure out they were pregnant. Because they were malnourished to the point where they don't get their periods anyhow, so they didn't even realize they were pregnant until three months in. Because they wanted an abortion but were scared off by the protesters who screamed that they were a murderer. Because they live in a state like Mississippi, where there is one clinic in the entire state that performs abortions. Because they couldn't find somebody to watch their kids while they drove 8 hours to that clinic, got a hotel over night to accomodate the 24-hour waiting period, got the abortion, and then drove back home. Because they couldn't afford an abortion and had to scrape up the money. Because their father/boyfriend/husband/pimp didn't allow them to get one, so they had to figure out how to get away. Because they couldn't FIND a clinic that performs abortions, and the phone book just led them to "crisis pregnancy centers" that fed them false information and misdirection.

I could keep going, but the point is that when women have access to safe, legal abortion, they DO make good choices about it. They don't wait until 24 weeks and then just up and decide to have an abortion, because women aren't stupid and women aren't evil. Women don't WANT to endure 24 weeks of pregnancy only to go through a surgical abortion just for the hell of killing something, and women aren't stupid enough to think that 24 weeks of pregnancy followed by major surgery is going to be easier or cheaper than taking two pills.

[Nulono]

When a fetus can survive on its own, what is wrong with induced birth over abortion when the only difference is the death of the fetus?

Because when the fetus is inside the woman's body, attached to the woman's body, feeding off the woman's body, and requiring the woman's body to survive, it kind of involves the woman's body?

Not always as 23-24 weeks, though.

Huh?

It can survive without it's mother at 23-24 weeks.

"Can" and "Is" aren't the same thing. If the woman is still pregnant, it doesn't matter how many weeks it has been or how developed the fetus is, it is still using her body.

Yes, but then killing it is unnecessary.

The doctor aborts it before it is born, she killed it after it was born(hypothetically). Once a baby takes a breath on it's own then killing it is murder.

Why does making a baby come out of a vagina/belly give it a right to life?

It doesn't. But it does remove the mother's body and rights from the equation.

Again, how come? -__-

...

Because when the fetus is inside the woman's body, attached to the woman's body, feeding off the woman's body, and requiring the woman's body to survive, it kind of involves the woman's body?

And when the infant has left the woman's body, is not attached to her body, can feed through means other than her body, and does not require the woman's body to survive, it no longer has to involve the woman's body?

But after viability (which was the OP's question), the fetus doesn't REQUIRE the mother's body.

for this discussion, keeping the murkyness of the definition along the lines of the OP. on why a woman who gave birth to her baby then killed it is charged with murder while an abortion at the same time period/stage/whatever you call it ( ) is not.

Well, if we're talking about abortions performed at 24 weeks, and if we are assuming that the fetus is viable, then sure, I'd assume the fetus would have to be killed for an abortion to be performed.

Of course, I don't know of any case where that would be done, particularly since I know of cases where labor has been induced that early for medical reasons. If it was a perfectly healthy pregnancy, I really don't see any (legal) doctors agreeing to perform an elective abortion at the drop of a hat like that. In most countries, it WOULD be considered a form of murder for them to do so even if you could find somebody to do it.

This whole scenario is so weird, though. Like, does the OP really think women work like that? That a woman is going to carry a pregnancy for 24 weeks and then suddenly change her mind about it "for financial reasons"? That a woman who is 24 weeks pregnant will somehow conclude that getting an abortion at that stage (which, by the way, is NOT cheap) rather than carrying to term and then putting the baby up for adoption (which she can get paid to do) will help her "financial" situation? Is this fictional woman supposed to be evil, or just deeply stupid?

Financial situations can change at the drop of a hat.

[Bottle]

But that's completely irrelevant anyhow, since it still is inside the woman's body, attached to her body, and feeding off her body, all of which make it pretty goddam obvious that her body is very much involved in the picture.

Her body (for a small amount babies) is not keeping it alive, her body does not need to be involved in the picture.

Dude, scroll back up and read the conversation, cause I think you've lost track of what we're talking about.

This started when you said, "Why does making a baby come out of a vagina/belly give it a right to life?"

Then Demi said, "It doesn't. But it does remove the mother's body and rights from the equation."

Whether or not the fetus can survive outside the woman's body at 24 weeks, it is INSIDE HER BODY. Her body and rights are INHERENTLY INVOLVED, no matter how that fetus may eventually leave. Whether or not it might live if it exited her body, it IS inside her body at the time. If it wasn't, we wouldn't be talking about it in this thread.

[Nulono]

But that's completely irrelevant anyhow, since it still is inside the woman's body, attached to her body, and feeding off her body, all of which make it pretty goddam obvious that her body is very much involved in the picture.

Her body (for a small amount babies) is not keeping it alive, her body does not need to be involved in the picture.

Dude, scroll back up and read the conversation, cause I think you've lost track of what we're talking about.

This started when you said, "Why does making a baby come out of a vagina/belly give it a right to life?"

Then Demi said, "It doesn't. But it does remove the mother's body and rights from the equation."

Whether or not the fetus can survive outside the woman's body at 24 weeks, it is INSIDE HER BODY. Her body and rights are INHERENTLY INVOLVED, no matter how that fetus may eventually leave. Whether or not it might live if it exited her body, it IS inside her body at the time. If it wasn't, we wouldn't be talking about it in this thread.

So how would her rights be violated if the fetus was born alive?

[Bottle]

When a fetus can survive on its own, what is wrong with induced birth over abortion when the only difference is the death of the fetus?

Induced labor or C-section can introduce a host of risks to the mother. Some abortions are specifically performed because the mother's life is in danger if she proceeds to give birth.

But after viability (which was the OP's question), the fetus doesn't REQUIRE the mother's body.

But it IS INSIDE her. Whether or not you could get it out, whether or not it might survive if you removed it, you've still got to accept the fact that her body is kinda sorta involved. And, thus, "her body and her rights" (which is what Demi was talking about) are inherently involved.

Financial situations can change at the drop of a hat.

Given that having an elective abortion at 24 weeks will most likely be more expensive than carrying to term and giving birth, particularly in countries where you'll have to be paying for an illegal abortion at that point, I don't see how a 'changing financial situation' would lead a woman to change her mind and get an abortion at that stage.

[Paradise Warrens]

STAGES OF FETAL GROWTH

[Bottle]

But that's completely irrelevant anyhow, since it still is inside the woman's body, attached to her body, and feeding off her body, all of which make it pretty goddam obvious that her body is very much involved in the picture.

Her body (for a small amount babies) is not keeping it alive, her body does not need to be involved in the picture.

Dude, scroll back up and read the conversation, cause I think you've lost track of what we're talking about.

This started when you said, "Why does making a baby come out of a vagina/belly give it a right to life?"

Then Demi said, "It doesn't. But it does remove the mother's body and rights from the equation."

Whether or not the fetus can survive outside the woman's body at 24 weeks, it is INSIDE HER BODY. Her body and rights are INHERENTLY INVOLVED, no matter how that fetus may eventually leave. Whether or not it might live if it exited her body, it IS inside her body at the time. If it wasn't, we wouldn't be talking about it in this thread.

So how would her rights be violated if the fetus was born alive?

/facepalm

If you guys aren't going to bother to read the original discussion, then there's no point in continuing this. You're arguing something completely unrelated.

[Nulono]

Actually, it's completely related. I am asking why the ability to survive on one's own takes precedent under the mother keeping the baby in her womb.

[The Alma Mater]

Actually, it's completely related. I am asking why the ability to survive on one's own takes precedent under the mother keeping the baby in her womb.

Because it is still using her.
Of course, the doctors will probably try to keepthe fetus alive after removing it if it really can survive alone. But the decision to remove it from the womans body is the womans.

[Nulono]

Then I think that we need to define our terms here. An abortion, by definition, involves the death of the embryo or fetus.

[The Alma Mater]

Then I think that we need to define our terms here. An abortion, by definition, involves the death of the embryo or fetus.

Eeehm, no. As mentioned earlier, an abortion is a termination of the pregnancy.

[Nulono]

So I was aborted?

[The Alma Mater]

So I was aborted?

The pregnancy was aborted.