Personhood and Abortion Rights

[_Themis]

No I don't...this is life, it is not always fair, and tough choices need to be made. Having to make a tough choice, is just that, a tough choice. Having to choose a parents life over a child, or a child's over a parents life, does not make either choice right or wrong, or good of bad...but a unfortunate choice.

You should then pay attention to what you stated. You stated they should have a choice to abort in situations of rape. That is a statement that puts the women's right to choose above the right of the fetus to live. You can't have it both ways Markk.

They are a person in the first stages of life, we have a beginning and a end. They have no choice to be what they are, and they are a person, and if everything goes well, they will continue in their growth as human beings...they are just in a different stage of life.

I think Jersey Girl covered this fairly well. There are attributes to person-hood that a fetus does not have. Some of them are extremely important in regards to the rights of a women and her body and the rights of a fetus which is still very much apart of her.

Okay...but why? Why not just do a late term abortion if it is not a person? Why do you view it as a last option?

Even babies have not developed all the attributes of person-hood, but late term we know they can feel pain, so I would think discouraging late term abortions would be good except of course reason I gave in the other post. But again we both know it is not a real problem in the real world. It is made up as part of the strategy of those who want to make all or almost all abortion illegal. I noticed you never really gave MAP a fair chance when Kevin brought it that it if used shortly after sex it can stop pregnancy before it begins.

[_EAllusion]

Yes, I already agreed this is what you think counts as witty...

Noyou didn't (a.k.a. you lie) - you wrote: "This is about the level at which subs is able to argue things, so I'm inclined to think this one isn't trolling so much as what he thinks passes for clever observation."...this is not a remark on "wit".

Your comment about clever observations has nothing to do with wit.

Ok, subs. Sure.

I get that this was trying to be funny. The humor is supposed to derive from a hypocritical defect in what liberal pro-choicers say. It fails because it so transparently misunderstands what liberal pro-choicers are saying that it doesn't work. But yes, this is what you think is funny. No disputing that.

[_canpakes]

The CDC (2013 study) reports that only 1.2 percent of elective abortions occur at or after 21 weeks.

Is this above or below the critical mass for your "meh, that's not so bad" measure?

That’s “below the critical mass” (precision of language is not your strong suit) for “doesn’t require poorly informed conservatives to post moronic memes about ‘leftists’ killing babies after 9 weeks in the womb”.

[_canpakes]

Ok, subs. Sure.

I get that this was trying to be funny. The humor is supposed to derive from a hypocritical defect in what liberal pro-choicers say. It fails because it so transparently misunderstands what liberal pro-choicers are saying that it doesn't work. But yes, this is what you think is funny. No disputing that.

It fails because subs can never deal honestly with the actual content or issue within any debate, choosing instead to misrepresent or outright lie about opposing viewpoints while occasionally tossing in badly mangled graphics or disingenuously photoshopped images.

All while claiming the moral high ground, of course... which is not what his position is actually about at all.

[_Res Ipsa]

The Analytical:

As much as I read and think about this topic, I keep coming back to this question: should the state be able to force a person to use his or her body to save the life of another? The state cannot force me to give a kidney to save the life of one of my children. It cannot force me to donate blood -- which is a minimal invasion of my body -- to save the life of one of my children. But if abortion is illegal, the state is forcing woman to use their bodies to save the life of another. Certainly one can draw some factual distinctions between forced blood donation and prohibiting abortion, but I don't see how those factual difference justify the difference in treatment. Frankly, it smacks of the same distrust in women's abilities to make decisions that barred them from voting, excluded them from commerce, etc.

If the state cannot force me to even give blood to save my child, how can it force a woman to use her body to sustain the live of a zygote/embryo/fetus/child? It can't -- not consistently. Once an infant is delivered and no longer dependent on it's mother's body, then the state can take an interest in protecting its life. Until them, I'm happy to let the mother and her doctor make the medical decisions concerning her healthcare.

The Anecdotal:

Ms. Ipsa and I had trouble conceiving. We were right at the point where the next step was IVF, when she became pregnant. We were on vacation late in her second trimester when we got a call from her OB's office. They wanted us to come in right away. (Not good). When we got back, they did an ultrasound. The tech was really, really quiet. (Not good). From there we went to a little office with a genetic counselor. (Not good at all). She informed us that the fetus had anencephaly. Ms. Ipsa burst into tears (she researches everything). That meant that the brain stem had developed properly but no other part of the brain had developed. If the baby survived delivery, it would most likely die in a day or two. (I recently read that a child with anencephaly survived to something like two years). But regardless, the part of the brain where the personhood lives would not be present.

The counselor presented us with our alternatives. Ms. Ipsa could go through a normal birth. She said that seeing and holding the child helps some people through the grieving process. Or, Ms. Ipsa could have an abortion. My wife was clear and adamant: she wanted the abortion and she wanted it yesterday. I believe it was a D&E, but I'm not sure. I was focussed on my wife and making sure that what she wanted happened.

One of the local cemeteries had an area where people in situations such as ours purchased small stones and engraved them. We did too, visiting it on Christmas Eve for years.

Afterward, my wife joined a support website for people who terminated pregnancies because of defects. After a while, I joined, too. I don't recall posting much, if ever. I just read. Most of the people were women but there were a few men. I read story after story after story. They were all different and all poignant. I came away convinced that this was a decision we could and should trust to the pregnant women. The issues involved are so deep and so personal that the state should not intrude.

[_canpakes]

RI -

My heart goes out to you and your wife for having had this experience.

Anencephaly is the example I usually give when defending the right of a parent to choose abortion. I considered posting a link to a website that has information about this condition when I responded to Markk a page or so back, but did not want to seem to be misleading anyone into clicking on a link that they might not be prepared for.

[_Res Ipsa]

RI -

My heart goes out to you and your wife for having had this experience.

Anencephaly is the example I usually give when defending the right of a parent to choose abortion. I considered posting a link to a website that has information about this condition when I responded to Markk a page or so back, but did not want to seem to be misleading anyone into clicking on a link that they might not be prepared for.

Thank you. And good call on the link. I didn't link for the same reason.

[_EAllusion]

The Analytical:

As much as I read and think about this topic, I keep coming back to this question: should the state be able to force a person to use his or her body to save the life of another? The state cannot force me to give a kidney to save the life of one of my children. It cannot force me to donate blood -- which is a minimal invasion of my body -- to save the life of one of my children. But if abortion is illegal, the state is forcing woman to use their bodies to save the life of another. Certainly one can draw some factual distinctions between forced blood donation and prohibiting abortion, but I don't see how those factual difference justify the difference in treatment. Frankly, it smacks of the same distrust in women's abilities to make decisions that barred them from voting, excluded them from commerce, etc.

The state can force you to donate your labor to support the well-being of another. Those donations amount to a much more significant demand on how you use your body than blood donations would.

The temptation here is to create a distinction that says, "The state doesn't force you to work. It just says if you do so, it will force you to relinquish the proceeds." This distinction probably does not stand up to scrutiny given that most people need to work to maintain basic needs being met. But more importantly, it runs into conflict with arguments liberals almost universally accept that when some activity becomes a necessity to funciton, it ceases to be a "choice" to engage in it.

But if you maintain that distinction is real, then rescue laws are a clear example where the state is telling you that you are obligated to use your body to help another person. They rely on the moral principle that a person has an obligation to help another person in peril when they have the ability to do so and the cost/risk to them is comparatively minimal. The person in peril has a right to assistance that the state has the moral authority to enforce by making other people use their bodies to fulfill.

One of the fascinating things about pro-choice arguments that rely on the bodily property rights of the mother is that they turn otherwise quite liberal people into absolutists regarding bodily property rights that you normally don't see outside of a radical version of libertarianism. It has implications they normally don't accept.

[_Chap]

The Analytical:

As much as I read and think about this topic, I keep coming back to this question: should the state be able to force a person to use his or her body to save the life of another? The state cannot force me to give a kidney to save the life of one of my children. It cannot force me to donate blood -- which is a minimal invasion of my body -- to save the life of one of my children. But if abortion is illegal, the state is forcing woman to use their bodies to save the life of another. Certainly one can draw some factual distinctions between forced blood donation and prohibiting abortion, but I don't see how those factual difference justify the difference in treatment. Frankly, it smacks of the same distrust in women's abilities to make decisions that barred them from voting, excluded them from commerce, etc.

The state can force you to donate your labor to support the well-being of another. Those donations amount to a much more significant demand on how you use your body than blood donations would. ...

Having your body used as a life support system for nine months, by a growing organism that ruthlessly changes your body in its own interests, and then makes you go through what can be a traumatic physical process when it needs to leave you - that is a lot bigger a demand than a blood transfusion, or (I suspect) a kidney donation by a healthy person.

[_Res Ipsa]

The Analytical:

As much as I read and think about this topic, I keep coming back to this question: should the state be able to force a person to use his or her body to save the life of another? The state cannot force me to give a kidney to save the life of one of my children. It cannot force me to donate blood -- which is a minimal invasion of my body -- to save the life of one of my children. But if abortion is illegal, the state is forcing woman to use their bodies to save the life of another. Certainly one can draw some factual distinctions between forced blood donation and prohibiting abortion, but I don't see how those factual difference justify the difference in treatment. Frankly, it smacks of the same distrust in women's abilities to make decisions that barred them from voting, excluded them from commerce, etc.

The state can force you to donate your labor to support the well-being of another. Those donations amount to a much more significant demand on how you use your body than blood donations would.

The temptation here is to create a distinction that says, "The state doesn't force you to work. It just says if you do so, it will force you to relinquish the proceeds." This distinction probably does not stand up to scrutiny given that most people need to work to maintain basic needs being met. But more importantly, it runs into conflict with arguments liberals almost universally accept that when some activity becomes a necessity to funciton, it ceases to be a "choice" to engage in it.

One of the fascinating things about pro-choice arguments that rely on the bodily property rights of the mother is that they turn otherwise quite liberal people into absolutists regarding bodily property rights that you normally don't see outside of a radical version of libertarianism.

I think you're overlooking the personal/privacy dimension of the intrusion when it comes to abortion. in my opinion, that's what distinguishes the government, say, forcing me to donate a kidney, from taxing my wages to pay for a kidney.

I don't think I'm making property-based argument. That's you Libertarians. I don't derive my position by starting with "I own my body, therefore the government can't poke or prod me." Frankly, I think the Libertarian treatment of the body as property is shallow and misguided. But that's just me.