This isn't an opinion piece. This appeared in a journal on medical ethics.

[dank69]

Cerpin Taxt made this point once before, and I have to admit he convinced me. If a mother is made pregnant by no consent of her own, she has no duty to lend her body for 9 months to a child, innocent though it is. It's a variation of the self-defense argument.

What about a case where a woman in on the pill, her lover uses a condom, and she still gets pregnant? Do you think this woman has the right to use the 'morning after pill'? Does she have the right to have the clump of cells removed when she misses her period (first month)? First trimester? Or does she forfeit that right in your opinion when she engages in sex regardless of preventative steps taken?

 

[Mursilis]

Well then there you have it. A clump of cells is inflicting harm on its mother. If the mother objects to this assault, you agree, something should be done to stop it. We can't just incarcerate the clump of cells, the only way to stop the assault is to remove the clump of cells from the mother's body. So in this case what do you propose should be done to stop this assault?

To avoid the inevitable sidetrack 'sex is consent' let's assume we are talking about a rape victim who wants the assault to stop.

So are you saying a woman seeking an abortion only has the right to evict a fetus (remove it from her womb), and not kill it (assuming it's viable, or close to viable)?

 

[Atreus21]

What about a case where a woman in on the pill, her lover uses a condom, and she still gets pregnant? Do you think this woman has the right to use the 'morning after pill'?

Plan B does not dislodge an implanted, fertilized egg. It just prevents the meeting of the sperm and egg, as I understand it. I have no issue with that. I've used it myself (my wife has, that is. Happens when you have a hot wife.)

Does she have the right to have the clump of cells removed when she misses her period (first month)? First trimester? Or does she forfeit that right in your opinion when she engages in sex regardless of preventative steps taken?

When you've become pregnant through the consensual act of sex in full knowledge of the consequences should any of your desired methods fail, and in the knowledge that those methods can fail, I don't think you're entitled to kill your own child to avert pregnancy, no. Or at least you shouldn't be.

 

[dank69]

So are you saying a woman seeking an abortion only has the right to evict a fetus (remove it from her womb), and not kill it (assuming it's viable, or close to viable)?

No, I am not saying that at all. I would prefer that a viable fetus was given up for adoption rather than killed but it is not my decision to make for others.

 

[Throckmorton]

Plan B does not dislodge an implanted, fertilized egg. It just prevents the meeting of the sperm and egg, as I understand it. I have no issue with that. I've used it myself (my wife has, that is. Happens when you have a hot wife.)



When you've become pregnant through the consensual act of sex in full knowledge of the consequences should any of your desired methods fail, and in the knowledge that those methods can fail, I don't think you're entitled to kill your own child to avert pregnancy, no. Or at least you shouldn't be.

The egg is already fertilized and starts dividing on the way to the uterus. Plan B prevents it from implanting. It reduces the chance from 20% (or whatever) to about 0%.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

...innocent though it is.

Since this came up above also, I want to make this comment.

Innocence and guilt are both equally falsely attributed to fetuses. In order to be guilty or innocent, one must first possess the capacity for intention. Fetuses, lacking sentience, therefore lack the capacity for intention, and the discriptors "innocent" and "guilty" simply do not apply.

If someone like you would like to assume arguendo that the fetus is capable of being innocent or guilty, then it becomes relevant to point out that it is hardly innoncent of the violations the mother suffers as a consequence of its unwelcome occupation of her uterus.

Therefore, in no case is it accurate to describe a fetus as "innocent." To do so is rather a false appeal to emotion, typically characteristic of arguments which are not favored by the facts.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

When you've become pregnant through the consensual act of sex in full knowledge of the consequences should any of your desired methods fail, and in the knowledge that those methods can fail, I don't think you're entitled to kill your own child to avert pregnancy, no. Or at least you shouldn't be.

When you become injured in an automobile collision through the consensual act of driving on public motorways in full knowledge of the consequences should any of your safety practices fail, and in the knowledge that those methods can fail, I do not think you are entitled to seek medical treatment and financial compensation to recover from that injury, no. Or at least, you shouldn't be.

 

[dank69]

Plan B does not dislodge an implanted, fertilized egg. It just prevents the meeting of the sperm and egg, as I understand it. I have no issue with that. I've used it myself (my wife has, that is. Happens when you have a hot wife.)



When you've become pregnant through the consensual act of sex in full knowledge of the consequences should any of your desired methods fail, and in the knowledge that those methods can fail, I don't think you're entitled to kill your own child to avert pregnancy, no. Or at least you shouldn't be.

Yes I expected this answer from you. I don't agree but you have a right to your opinion of course. I think at that point it is the equivalent of punishing women for having sex. The male does not have to endure 9 months of assault when birth control methods fail. No, women's mood swings don't qualify as assault!

I am surprised to see you say you agree that abortion is okay in the case of rape, we probably could have saved quite a bit of time had I known that. :$

However, the fact that you agree that rape victims should have the right to have an abortion means that there is indeed a case where suffering trumps death if you do believe life begins at conception.

 

[Mxylplyx]

I don't understand why pro-lifers react with special horror to "late term abortions," in the sense that they make a special point of heaping opprobrium on those who do not support banning them. According to pro-life logic, life begins at conception. Accordingly, there is no moral difference between an early and later term abortion, which is to say that both are equally immoral. It seems to me that that pro-lifers who make a special point about late term abortions are implicitly acknowledging that the degree of development of the fetus, i.e. its degree of similarity to a post-birth human, does have moral significance.

Just as I think conservatives should relent on the issue of gays, liberals should relent on the issue of late term abortion for non medial reasons. I think the oft used liberal argument that a midterm fetus is of no more value than an equally sized cut of prime rib hurts their cause. It is rather illogical that a mother can willingly terminate a late term fetus with no consequence while an attacker would get a murder rap for terminating the same fetus.

 

[Atreus21]

The male does not have to endure 9 months of assault when birth control methods fail. No, women's mood swings don't qualify as assault!

I was about to say, have you ever been married to a pregnant woman?

I am surprised to see you say you agree that abortion is okay in the case of rape, we probably could have saved quite a bit of time had I known that. :$

However, the fact that you agree that rape victims should have the right to have an abortion means that there is indeed a case where suffering trumps death if you do believe life begins at conception.

I wrestled for a long time with the rape issue. I decided that a person ought not be bound to conditions against their will, even if that means someone has to die. It's extreme, but so is the alternative.

I've now been tending to this thread for almost 6 hours. This isn't fair to my boss. Thanks for being civil.

 

[HumblePie]

First off, thread title is wrong and mis informative. The article in the original link IS AN OPINION PIECE. The thread title needs to be changed asap and the OP needs an infraction for it.

As for the debate upon abortion. I'm pro abortion if caught early. Late term abortion I'm not so pro choice upon without certain conditions being met. Those conditions all have to do with the potential health risks to both mother and unborn child at that point.

Early term abortion is nothing more than flushing a bunch of cells. No worse than scratching your arm of some dead skin. It is not a child at that point. It is no where close to being a child at that point. There is no nervous system, no brain, no internal system structures of any sort. It is just a bunch of stim cells rapidly multiplying being they convert over to the cells needed to support various body structures and systems. Technically at this point it can be labeled as a parasitic organism because it can't survive on its own and does nothing back for the woman to which the zygote is attached. But that is besides the point.

Even those pro-choice are split on late term abortion rights. I think once a woman has made it to late term, their intentions by that point have been expressed. Meaning it is too late to change your mind now. They have months to decide to carry the child or not and by waiting months they've made their choice to have the child born.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I think the oft used liberal argument that a midterm fetus is of no more value than an equally sized cut of prime rib hurts their cause.

Who is this argument often usen by? I've heard a lot of debate on both sides of the abortion issue, and I've never once heard anyone comparing the worth of a fetus to a cut of meat.

 

[Mursilis]

No, I am not saying that at all. I would prefer that a viable fetus was given up for adoption rather than killed but it is not my decision to make for others.

Why isn't it? If someone shoots a trespasser, without warning, for cutting across their lawn, do you think you have a right to request that act (of shooting a trespasser without warning or opportunity to leave the property) be made illegal?

 

[cybrsage]

Since this came up above also, I want to make this comment.

Innocence and guilt are both equally falsely attributed to fetuses. In order to be guilty or innocent, one must first possess the capacity for intention. Fetuses, lacking sentience, therefore lack the capacity for intention, and the discriptors "innocent" and "guilty" simply do not apply.

If someone like you would like to assume arguendo that the fetus is capable of being innocent or guilty, then it becomes relevant to point out that it is hardly innoncent of the violations the mother suffers as a consequence of its unwelcome occupation of her uterus.

Therefore, in no case is it accurate to describe a fetus as "innocent." To do so is rather a false appeal to emotion, typically characteristic of arguments which are not favored by the facts.

In the US, innocense is assumed until proven otherwise. As you say, you cannot prove otherwise. Innocense does not need to be proven, it is the default condition.

Thus, unborn are innocent of any crime. If you wish to say the unborn are not innocent, you must show what crime the unborn committed.

 

[dank69]

Why isn't it? If someone shoots a trespasser, without warning, for cutting across their lawn, do you think you have a right to request that act (of shooting a trespasser without warning or opportunity to leave the property) be made illegal?

Why isn't it within my rights to tell another person what to do with their fetus? Is that what you are asking me?

As for the trespassing situation, what are the local laws and were there signs posted? If you are saying no signs posted just someone walked on my lawn and I blew them away then I think I'll be spending some time in jail soon.

 

[Jhhnn]

These doctors, like some on this forum, are willing to follow this logic to its most extreme.

You'll need to cite actual examples for that to be anything other than false attribution.

 

[shira]

A three year old fits their description and therefor should be included. A 15 year old certainly does not have the same moral status as a 50 year old and should be included.

They are psychopaths.

As should a certain ATPN poster with a user name that's an anagram of "grey scab."

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

In the US, innocense is assumed until proven otherwise.

This is true of persons. This is not true of non-sentient things, like trees, cars, and fetuses

Thus, unborn are innocent of any crime.

This is a rather stupid and false assertion given the list of crimes I provided that one can attribute to a fetus if one were so idiotic as to suppose it could be judged innocent or guilty.

If you wish to say the unborn are not innocent, you must show what crime the unborn committed.

I did that already. You just like to ignore the things that are inconvenient for the utterly moronic tripe you incessantly spruik.

 

[michal1980]

Who is this argument often usen by? I've heard a lot of debate on both sides of the abortion issue, and I've never once heard anyone comparing the worth of a fetus to a cut of meat.

they frequently call it a growth, or a tissue, equating it to something like a cancer.

 

[boomerang]

I don't see why the OP is being so nice to the lefties that are seriously working to derail his thread, he should just report them and not respond to them.

Here's another link to the article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/h...s-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html

Here's a money quote from the editor of the ethics piece.



I always knew that the people that support a "liberal society" want to murder children, but usually they're more circumspect about actually admitting it.

Their ideas and beliefs are based in fear. Fear of a shortage of natural resources. I could go on for several paragraphs explaining in further detail but I will let those two sentences suffice.

Combine that with their overwhelming desire to create a perfect society with no blemishes or flaws (created in their own image of course) and voila, the progressive movement is born. They're smarter, they're better and they're going to make sure you know it no matter what it takes.

Part of socialist angst may be due to class envy, but I believe most of it is based on the phobia of scarcity.​

If you are a socialist, chances are you believe that there is only a limited amount of wealth in the world. People are impoverished only because rich capitalists are hoarding it.​

You probably also believe that global natural resources are scarce, the world's water supply is drying up, and irreplaceable species are becoming extinct.​

This irrational fear of scarcity is what drives the socialist advocacy for abortion of the unborn and euthanasia of the aged and infirm. ​

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/06/the_socialist_phobia_of_scarcity.html#ixzz1nxcX1EKD​

 

[Mursilis]

Why isn't it within my rights to tell another person what to do with their fetus? Is that what you are asking me?

As for the trespassing situation, what are the local laws and were there signs posted? If you are saying no signs posted just someone walked on my lawn and I blew them away then I think I'll be spending some time in jail soon.

I'm not asking you what the laws are, I'm asking you what you think they should or should not be, and why.

 

[pcgeek11]

No, I said 100k innocent civilians who did not partake in the war.

You just decided to ignore what I said and make something else up to deal with the self deception.

Intentional killing is not equal to incidental killing from a war.

 

[dank69]

I'm not asking you what the laws are, I'm asking you what you think they should or should not be, and why.

I don't think people should be able to shoot someone dead without warning simply for stepping on their property. Clearly demonstrated intent to do harm would be an exception, maybe.

As for what laws I think should be on the books regarding when it is permissible to perform abortion, I am not even remotely qualified to make those decisions for other people. To claim otherwise is pure arrogance. I have stated my moral standing on the issue already, but would never push those morals onto others in the form of laws.

 

[Mursilis]

I don't think people should be able to shoot someone dead without warning simply for stepping on their property. Clearly demonstrated intent to do harm would be an exception, maybe.

As for what laws I think should be on the books regarding when it is permissible to perform abortion, I am not even remotely qualified to make those decisions for other people. To claim otherwise is pure arrogance. I have stated my moral standing on the issue already, but would never push those morals onto others in the form of laws.

So you'll push your morals on others on some issues (trespassing), but not on others (abortion). What's the difference?

 

[cybrsage]

This is true of persons. This is not true of non-sentient things, like trees, cars, and fetuses

Show me that this is true.

This is a rather stupid and false assertion given the list of crimes I provided that one can attribute to a fetus if one were so idiotic as to suppose it could be judged innocent or guilty.

List the crimes.

I did that already. You just like to ignore the things that are inconvenient for the utterly moronic tripe you incessantly spruik.

Let me guess, you are going to say it is there, but magic makes it invisible, like you have said in the past, right?