Personhood and Abortion Rights

[_Themis]

I don't know, that would be a tough one. In weakness maybe, in strength no. If I were King I would have to really weigh the greater good based on my baseline of morality and faith...which most here would disagree with. I would always have in my thought process that the child, whether conceived in love, lust, or rape... is a real person and it is not their fault.

I still suspect you are not being completely honest here so lets change the question. Should a women have the right to abort a fetus/unborn baby if the doctor tells her she is likely to die if she goes through with her pregnancy?

My turn...

If you were King, when would abortions be allowed and when would they be restricted? Would you allow scientific experiments on a aborted child...and if so at what stages and if at stages what would be your reasoning?

I would allow women to make choices for themselves. They have the right to their bodies that we do not have the right to interfere. The system in place where I live now does a good job. I am not against using material from a fetus for scientific or medical purposes as long as any REAL ethical concerns are meet and we don't create a system that may encourage an increase in abortions.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Perhaps another take we ought to think about when it comes to abortion is that our bodies are only 43% human by mass. The other 57% is symbiotic microbiology that lives inside us. We're not just killing the human, but we're also exterminating all the related symbiotes. I know that's too abstract for most, but that's a lot of life we're killing because of convenience.

And if one is dismissive of that thought, then perhaps life isn't that important, to include our own?

- Doc

[_Markk]

I don't know, that would be a tough one. In weakness maybe, in strength no. If I were King I would have to really weigh the greater good based on my baseline of morality and faith...which most here would disagree with. I would always have in my thought process that the child, whether conceived in love, lust, or rape... is a real person and it is not their fault.

I still suspect you are not being completely honest here so lets change the question. Should a women have the right to abort a fetus/unborn baby if the doctor tells her she is likely to die if she goes through with her pregnancy?

I have to ask...what do you mean by being dishonest? Do you think I am lying about how I feel about the issue?

That is another tough one, but if I were King, I think I would let the woman and/or father (if the woman was not conscious) make the choice, with the woman having the end choice as to whether or not they would end the life of the child, or the mother, or both on the chance of life.

Themis wrote:
I would allow women to make choices for themselves. They have the right to their bodies that we do not have the right to interfere. The system in place where I live now does a good job. I am not against using material from a fetus for scientific or medical purposes as long as any REAL ethical concerns are meet and we don't create a system that may encourage an increase in abortions.

Even if it is days before a healthy birth?

"Material"...I'll phrase it a little more real...you would allow science to experiment and do research on body parts and organs from another human being recently killed.

Explain what a REAL ethical concern is vs a non-REAL ethical concern...is supporting the life for a living being, a non-REAL ethical reason?

What is the baseline and benchmark for ethical in your view here?

[_Themis]

I have to ask...what do you mean by being dishonest? Do you think I am lying about how I feel about the issue?

You just seem to be intentionally vague.

That is another tough one, but if I were King, I think I would let the woman and/or father (if the woman was not conscious) make the choice, with the woman having the end choice as to whether or not they would end the life of the child, or the mother, or both on the chance of life.

This means you are putting a higher value on the mother then with the fetus/unborn baby.

Even if it is days before a healthy birth?

Is that a real issue? The problem with trying to make laws is how much before birth. Where is the line drawn. At least birth has a better defined line. In addition to very few women even trying to get an abortion days before you have medical communities with rules in these areas.

"Material"...I'll phrase it a little more real...you would allow science to experiment and do research on body parts and organs from another human being recently killed.

Have we not been doing that for centuries or longer?

[_Jersey Girl]

Would you allow scientific experiments on a aborted child...and if so at what stages and if at stages what would be your reasoning?

Yes, at any stage with the bio parent(s) consent. We already allow research on cadevers. Medical studies, research studies, student education. In your view, is there a difference and if so, what is it?

you would allow science to experiment and do research on body parts and organs from another human being recently killed.

Yes, it's already allowed.

[_Jersey Girl]

6) Finally, I think if a woman has total right to determine whether or not a future adult gets to live, and a dude has no say in the matter, then I think he ought to be free to financially abort his obligation to give her money so she can use it to better the kid's life get her nails did.

- Doc

He already can abort his financial obligation to the child by relinquishing his parental rights, can't he?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

6) Finally, I think if a woman has total right to determine whether or not a future adult gets to live, and a dude has no say in the matter, then I think he ought to be free to financially abort his obligation to give her money so she can use it to better the kid's life get her nails did.

- Doc

He already can abort his financial obligation to the child by relinquishing his parental rights, can't he?

I suppose, in the rare case if their's some dude or dudette willing to take on that responsibility through adoption, then sure. However, men don't have a legal opt out if the woman decides to keep the future human.

- Doc

[_Markk]

You just seem to be intentionally vague.

I don't see how I can be more honest and any clearer...can you show me where I am being intentionally vague? Not knowing what one would do in an actual situation, is not being vague, it is being uncertain. You have asked some fair questions given your position vs mine, and I have answered them honestly and clearly. Could it be you need to find fault in my belief to justify your position. Do you really feel that the position of protecting the child is a unmoral and/or bad position for one to have?

This means you are putting a higher value on the mother then with the fetus/unborn baby.

No it doesn't, the woman may choose to let her child live and she may die. How am "I" putting a higher value on it if it is a choice in that scenario?

Is that a real issue? The problem with trying to make laws is how much before birth. Where is the line drawn. At least birth has a better defined line. In addition to very few women even trying to get an abortion days before you have medical communities with rules in these areas.

It is a real issue and question, which you ducked, especially for the child.

Have we not been doing that for centuries or longer?

In context with this conversation, some have, like Nazi Germany.

Do you believe it is okay, to take the life of a baby days before it's normal birth without complication to woman or child, and then perform medical experiments on that child, simply because it is the woman's choice? And Why? I would hope your line here is based more on just the convenience of a clear line.

Do you believe that if a child was aborted a few days before it birth date, a child is being killed?

[_Markk]

He already can abort his financial obligation to the child by relinquishing his parental rights, can't he?

Here in CA. at the request of the mother for a missed payment or two, the state will garnish the wages of the man in a heart beat. Most the time it is deserved, but if a woman just decides she does not like the guy, tells him to kick dust, he is on the hook until the child is 18. He will get visitation rights, but has financial obligations until they are 18 or so, even if the woman remarries.

It is up to the woman to relinquish any rights. I have a cousin that relinquished his rights for visitation, in return his ex signed off on financial obligation. He is a good guy who was in a bad way with addiction with his wife. She cleaned up he didn't. That decision has haunted him ever since. He has a picture of "the Prophet" on his mantle, and is still addicted to drugs and alcohol and so guilt ridden mainly because of that decision, I don't know if he will ever find peace. His son, is in his late 20's now and he has not seen him in 20 years or so and it eats him up alive. It is 100% his fault, but very sad.

His TBM brothers and sisters view addiction as leprosy, and just add to his guilt. I am the only family member that can talk to him without judgement. I have a standing offer to help in get in recovery, but he told me until his dad, who pasted about 5 years ago, comes to him and tells him what to do, he will keep doing meth and drinking. TBM'ism + addiction = chronic inescapable guilt.

Sorry for rambling.

[_Res Ipsa]

6) Finally, I think if a woman has total right to determine whether or not a future adult gets to live, and a dude has no say in the matter, then I think he ought to be free to financially abort his obligation to give her money so she can use it to better the kid's life get her nails did.

- Doc

He already can abort his financial obligation to the child by relinquishing his parental rights, can't he?

In general, not unless there will be a substitute parent that will provide support.