TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Aborting our way to pefect kids?
Pages (4): « 1 [2] 3 4 »

quote:

Yes, and what she's carrying inside it isn't only her's.

Well if you believe it's a person then it doesn't really belong to anyone. And if you don't, then it's just a bunch of cells growing inside of her, at which point it doesn't belong to the man merely because he helped to create it any more than a tumor in someone's body belongs to Philip Morris because they helped create it.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Well if you believe it's a person then it doesn't really belong to anyone. And if you don't, then it's just a bunch of cells growing inside of her, at which point it doesn't belong to the man merely because he helped to create it any more than a tumor in someone's body belongs to Philip Morris because they helped create it.

True. I basically agree with you there. And I'm undecided about what I consider it to be in what phase/trimester (also because my knowledge of the different phases is a little rusty right now, but even so).

EDIT: There no way, atlest right now, to fully determine the answer to that question (i.e. What exactly is it? And when is it "human?")

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Yes, and what she's carrying inside it isn't only her's.

to extend that statement to its logical conclusion then: if its half the man's child, then the man has 50% rights. which either means

they have a right to attempt to force termination or birth;

or, since they possess 50% rights each, a third party can decide for them.

luckily the law agrees with me and the decision is up to the woman.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN to extend that statement to its logical conclusion then: if its half the man's child, then the man has 50% rights. which either means they have a right to attempt to force termination or birth;

Who's "they?"

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN or, since they possess 50% rights each, a third party can decide for them.

Uh... no.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Who's \"they?\" Uh... no.

sorry, 'they' being the man.

could you then explain to me what you mean by saying its not 100% a woman's right to decide? because as ive already stated, if it is also a man's right, how exactly does that work, if not being able to force an abortion or birth??? if a man has rights over the foetus, what rights are they?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN sorry, 'they' being the man. could you then explain to me what you mean by saying its not 100% a woman's right to decide? because as ive already stated, if it is also a man's right, how exactly does that work, if not being able to force an abortion or birth??? if a man has rights over the foetus, what rights are they?

So why does a man have rights over his child once it is born?

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 So why does a man have rights over his child once it is born?

because it is no longer a woman's foetus, its a child.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN sorry, 'they' being the man. could you then explain to me what you mean by saying its not 100% a woman's right to decide? because as ive already stated, if it is also a man's right, how exactly does that work, if not being able to force an abortion or birth??? if a man has rights over the foetus, what rights are they?

Well, that doesn't really have a simple or conclusive answer.

I supposed the man should have atleast some say as far as married couples go. I can't really expand on what exactly that would be at this moment (it's late, I'm tired, and this isn't exactly a simple sibject eigther).

But as far as unmarried couples are concerned, that where it get alot more complicated. I obviously don't think it's fair for some dude to knock up some girl and then her having the burden of being a single mother or something (which is one reason why I think it's highly irresponsible to have a kid outside of wedlock).

quote:

Originally posted by MehGoat What about things like muscular dystrophy, which causes death around age 20. By the time you reach your teens, you're in a wheelchair-but you would have a nice, fulfilling childhood! I don't think there's a pre-natal test for it, so it's hypothetical, but one may be someday developed.

I'd say it's better to abort that than to have a person grow up only to realize he's gonna die in a couple of years. It does kinda go hand in hand with what I said earlier, because a little kid is usually not a fully self-sustainable person. And by the age the person would be self sustained, the disease already kicks in and makes that person disabled.

quote:

In any case, I'm not looking for an answer necessarily to the muscular dystrophy thing, I'm just pointing out that there are many, many flavors of birth defects, ranging from some of which may never be noticed (one guy had a dead siamese twin corpse in his body for 30-odd years) to those that will cause death in the childbirth process.

Well, that isn't really a serious defect that disables an individual from functioning normally.

quote:

I'm just saying that your line is none too distinct, and lines like that are too arbitrary for my tastes anyway.

Well, if all the lines were distinct and clear, we wouldn't need laws and courts. Unfortunately, everything in this world is more or less composed of shades of gray.

quote:

As for myself, I beleive in a woman's right to abortion, regardless of whatever reason. I beleive that she can CHOOSE to have an abortion for whatever reason she wants, whether it be because the child will have a birth defect, or the "wrong" color eyes, or because a stranger gave her 5 bucks to do it. It's none of my buisness, and certainly none of the government's.

A woman can consciously choose not to get pregnant. If pregnancy was something that just happened to people without their consent, I'd totally go with your viewpoint. But the thing is, a pregnancy is usually under woman's control.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Well, that doesn't really have a simple or conclusive answer. I supposed the man should have atleast some say as far as married couples go. I can't really expand on what exactly that would be at this moment (it's late, I'm tired, and this isn't exactly a simple subject either).

well, im sorry to pick on you when youre tired but i think its a pretty simple subject. defining 'some say' in law (ie where rights come from) would have to condone forced abortion or birth, otherwise 'some say' means nothing. you cant legislate to curb/control the inner dynamics of a relationship.

ultimately, in a married situation it would be natural for the man to have a say, given the nature of the relationship. however, you cant possibly move beyond that and into a legislative approach that guarantees the man any rights at all.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN because it is no longer a woman's foetus, its a child.

Obviously, yes. But on which bases does a male parent get rights over a child and not over a fetus? How does a child suddenly become his at birth, while it was only mother's when it was concieved?

Or take this case for example. A guy kills a woman in 8th month of pregnancy who really wanted a child. Should his punishment be equal to killing a non-pregnant woman?

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Obviously, yes. But on which bases does a male parent get rights over a child and not over a fetus? How does a child suddenly become his at birth, while it was only mother's when it was concieved?

because the foetus is part of the woman, and i dont mean the 50% part. its in her body. it is as much a part of her as all her other bits and pieces.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Or take this case for example. A guy kills a woman in 8th month of pregnancy who really wanted a child. Should his punishment be equal to killing a non-pregnant woman?

actually, no, i think he should be punished for killing the child as well, however i know (at least in the US) this isnt how it works.

what you have to answer though, is what rights a man should have over a foetus? coz i really cant see any. then you have to justify how a man ultimately gets rights over a woman's body.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN because the foetus is part of the woman, and i dont mean the 50% part. its in her body. it is as much a part of her as all her other bits and pieces.

So I suppose you think that as long as a child is physically dependant upon mother's body it's as good as her property, regardless of the fact that it has 50% genes from her father? On the other hand, as soon as it stops being physically dependant, it becomes father's as well as mothers?

But, take this example into consideration - you have siamese twins, one of wom controls the body and the other is basically a lump hanging on it. A conscious lump, however. Admittedly, not an everyday scenario, but possible nevertheless. So do you think that the controlling twin has the right to a surgery that would remove the non-controlling twin from his body, effectivly killing him? Admittedly, though, I really don't know what to say on this one myself

quote:

actually, no, i think he should be punished for killing the child as well, however i know (at least in the US) this isnt how it works.

But why? Isn't killing a woman same as killing that woman + a part of that woman? You can't kill only half of her anyways, so it should be the same.

quote:

what you have to answer though, is what rights a man should have over a foetus? coz i really cant see any. then you have to justify how a man ultimately gets rights over a woman's body.

The rationale behind a man having rights over a foetus is the same as a man having rights over a baby. He participated in its creation, and the baby is carrying half of his genes. However, I'm not saying here that the man should have the right to abort the baby either.

That's exactly what I didn't have the energy to put into words at this moment. Plus uno for Tito.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 So I suppose you think that as long as a child is physically dependant upon mother's body it's as good as her property, regardless of the fact that it has 50% genes from her father? On the other hand, as soon as it stops being physically dependant, it becomes father's as well as mothers? But, take this example into consideration - you have siamese twins, one of wom controls the body and the other is basically a lump hanging on it. A conscious lump, however. Admittedly, not an everyday scenario, but possible nevertheless. So do you think that the controlling twin has the right to a surgery that would remove the non-controlling twin from his body, effectivly killing him? Admittedly, though, I really don't know what to say on this one myself

no, not 'physically dependant', 'inside'. the baby remains physically dependant on the mother for a pretty long while after birth

no, i dont support the killing of the other twin (unless its a decision made by the mother whilst the twins are in the womb). however, i dont think the analogy is that great. i dont define a foetus as a child until it is born, or the mother indeed wants it to become a child, and intends to keep it (re your murder scenario).

however, if its one or the other, i would consider it preferable to just punish the murderer for the woman, as it opens all kinds of abortion debate if you extend the right to life to a foetus.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 The rationale behind a man having rights over a foetus is the same as a man having rights over a baby. He participated in its creation, and the baby is carrying half of his genes. However, I'm not saying here that the man should have the right to abort the baby either.

yes, but you have to *articulate* what you think these 'rights' entail? how can the man have rights, if there isnt anything he can do about it? if he cant force an abortion or birth, what rights remain?

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 But, take this example into consideration - you have siamese twins, one of wom controls the body and the other is basically a lump hanging on it. A conscious lump, however. Admittedly, not an everyday scenario, but possible nevertheless. So do you think that the controlling twin has the right to a surgery that would remove the non-controlling twin from his body, effectivly killing him? Admittedly, though, I really don't know what to say on this one myself

Actually, I'd imagine this happens pretty frequently. In the case of siamese twins, the doctors / parents often have to chose which twin lives and which twin dies when there aren't enough fully formed organs to sustain them both. In these sorts of cases, the rights of the twin with the greatest likelihood of surviving the surgery are given precedence over the rights of the twin least likely to survive. It may sound harsh, but unfortunately if one of them isn't fatally severed from the other then the odds are that they will both die. So, to answer your question, there is nothing necessarily wrong or immoral about killng a "conscious lump" if it saves the life of the other twin.

quote:

The rationale behind a man having rights over a foetus is the same as a man having rights over a baby. He participated in its creation, and the baby is carrying half of his genes. However, I'm not saying here that the man should have the right to abort the baby either.

In principle, I'd agree with you: it would be great if a man could somehow have equal rights over the fetus he helped to create, but - practically - how could such principles be implemented? It would be unthinkably immoral to either force a woman to have an abortion or to unwillingly go through 9 months of labour, so what other options are there? How could these theoretical "rights" be implemented in practice?

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade In principle, I'd agree with you: it would be great if a man could somehow have equal rights over the fetus he helped to create, but - practically - how could such principles be implemented? It would be unthinkably immoral to either force a woman to have an abortion or to unwillingly go through 9 months of labour, so what other options are there? How could these theoretical "rights" be implemented in practice?

I know you won't like this, but there's a pretty simple answer to that. You can find it in the Bible, Quran, & Torah.

IMO the father should have no rights over a child- but equally, should have no responsibilities.

In other words, if/since the father has no say in whether the mother has an abortion (which he doesn't and souldn't) he also should have absolutely no responsibility for child support, etc.

The idea that men can be held responsible for a child, but have no say in if the child is kept, appalls me.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN because the foetus is part of the woman, and i dont mean the 50% part. its in her body. it is as much a part of her as all her other bits and pieces. actually, no, i think he should be punished for killing the child as well, however i know (at least in the US) this isnt how it works. what you have to answer though, is what rights a man should have over a foetus? coz i really cant see any. then you have to justify how a man ultimately gets rights over a woman's body.

That's how it works in my state (Pennsylvania). When you kill a lady who's pregnant, you get charged for killing both - the woman and the child (I believe this applies to foetus as well).

quote:

Originally posted by ali92 That's how it works in my state (Pennsylvania). When you kill a lady who's pregnant, you get charged for killing both - the woman and the child (I believe this applies to foetus as well).

That's the classic double-standard of abortion in the US.

If someone kills a pregnant woman (along with the fetus) they will be charged with double homicide.

If someone causes a pregnant woman distress to the point that the fetus is spontaneously (or otherwise) aborted, they will be charged with homicide.

If a woman has an abortion...they aren't charged with anything.

(And leave out the damn "o")

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z I know you won't like this, but there's a pretty simple answer to that. You can find it in the Bible, Quran, & Torah.

Any verses in particular? From my own reading of the Bible, I certainly can't remember any specific passages about abortion or paternal rights.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono That's the classic double-standard of abortion in the US. If someone kills a pregnant woman (along with the fetus) they will be charged with double homicide. If someone causes a pregnant woman distress to the point that the fetus is spontaneously (or otherwise) aborted, they will be charged with homicide. If a woman has an abortion...they aren't charged with anything. (And leave out the damn "o")

That's a failure of law rather than a failure of logic or morality.

I have no problem with the law recognising that an assault which destroys the life of an unborn fetus is quantitatively "worse" than any other assault of the same nature, but this stems from the rights of the mother rather than the rights of the fetus. If a mother loses a fetus during the course of an assault that she would have otherwise carried through to nascency, then her "injuries" are far greater than those of a regular assualt and this should be reflected in the law. I support the rights of women to "choose" when it comes to pregancy and this support unreservedly runs both ways - removing a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy is abhorrent, but then so is removing her right to give birth.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade So, to answer your question, there is nothing necessarily wrong or immoral about killng a "conscious lump" if it saves the life of the other twin.

...

Just because something is justified, does not mean there is nothing "wrong or immoral" with it.

Part of this whole argument is: "What defines a human being?"

Is a fetus a human being? Is a "conscious lump" or malformed siamese twin a human being?

I do not know how you answer these questions. But if you answer "yes" to either and then justify the killing of either it is still "wrong or immoral".

If you answer no to either and then justify the killing of either, I would contend that it is still "wrong or immoral", but that is just my opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by NebulousQ ... Just because something is justified, does not mean there is nothing "wrong or immoral" with it.

If the concept of "justification" incorporates any element of morality at all (and I would argue that it does), then yes - that which is "justified" is neither "wrong or immoral".

quote:

Part of this whole argument is: "What defines a human being?"

I'm running with:

• Human DNA (therefore it is "human")
  
• Biological independence (therefore it is a "being")

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade That's a failure of law rather than a failure of logic or morality. I have no problem with the law recognising that an assault which destroys the life of an unborn fetus is quantitatively "worse" than any other assault of the same nature, but this stems from the rights of the mother rather than the rights of the fetus. If a mother loses a fetus during the course of an assault that she would have otherwise carried through to nascency, then her "injuries" are far greater than those of a regular assualt and this should be reflected in the law. I support the rights of women to "choose" when it comes to pregancy and this support unreservedly runs both ways - removing a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy is abhorrent, but then so is removing her right to give birth.

To me, even if that is not a failure of morals, it is a failure of logic. If you are going to say that in one instance, the forced termination of pregnancy constitutes homicide (the murder of a human) I can't see how who commits that forced termination has any relevance on the legality of the outcome. I don't understand the logic behind saying that in the aftermath of an outside attack, the fetus is considered a human and its death will be justified as murder, but if the mother would do the exact same thing, the fetus is no longer considered a human.

I just don't see how you can logically define the "human" status of a fetus by who kills it.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono To me, even if that is not a failure of morals, it is a failure of logic. If you are going to say that in one instance, the forced termination of pregnancy constitutes homicide (the murder of a human) I can't see how who commits that forced termination has any relevance on the legality of the outcome. I don't understand the logic behind saying that in the aftermath of an outside attack, the fetus is considered a human and its death will be justified as murder, but if the mother would do the exact same thing, the fetus is no longer considered a human. I just don't see how you can logically define the \"human\" status of a fetus by who kills it.

so, you therefore do not discriminate between suicide, euthanasia & murder then?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.