Redux: Rape, Abortion, and "Personhood"

[Randwolf]

A past girlfriend of mine, who had aborted her first pregnancy and kept the second (neither mine), said that she absolutely loved everything about being pregnant (and looking forward to the next), and that the only real downside was that hospital staff would not let her move around during labor, which is a bit misogynistic that a woman just cannot possibly know what is good for herself (prompting her to swear off hospital births in the future). She was much more put out by the sleep schedule, breast pumping, etc. that followed. She was pressured/talked into the earlier abortion, had a "bad reaction" during the procedure, and afterwards the abortion staff told her that they should not have allowed the abortion.

Misogyny can work both ways.

Oh absolutely. I can see exactly how that atrocious behavior by the hospital staff is equivalent to forcing a woman to carry a child to term and then being responsible for its well being for eighteen years - against her will. Fo' sure.

Women can be pressured into doing something they do not really want with justifications of social/economic consequences of being a single mother. Obviously safeguards were not in place to ensure that the woman was psychologically prepared to make such a decision, which is where sonograms enter the picture.

Women can be pressured into doing something they do not really want with justifications of "listen to that baby's heart beat before you kill it". Obviously safeguards were not in place to ensure that the woman was psychologically prepared to make such a decision, which is where counseling on the emotional and social/economic consequences of bringing an unwanted child into the world enter the picture.

 

[Syne]

Oh absolutely. I can see exactly how that atrocious behavior by the hospital staff is equivalent to forcing a woman to carry a child to term and then being responsible for its well being for eighteen years - against her will. Fo' sure.

Where did I make any such comparison? Oh right, that is just bombastic rhetoric. The point is that it is not universally a hardship, and there is such a thing as adoption.

Women can be pressured into doing something they do not really want with justifications of "listen to that baby's heart beat before you kill it". Obviously safeguards were not in place to ensure that the woman was psychologically prepared to make such a decision, which is where counseling on the emotional and social/economic consequences of bringing an unwanted child into the world enter the picture.

I knew a girl in my twenties who already had a kid, could not handle another, and opted to give it up for adoption. Her expenses were paid and she got a car to make doctor appointments, which she got to keep afterwards. Do you think women are advised of that option?

How is heartbeat or sonogram pressuring? If a woman wants to choose to avoid the consequences of her own actions, why should she not be made fully aware of those consequences? Do you advocate denial and avoidance as health coping skills?

I guess everyone has a human right to avoid the consequences of their own actions and be allowed to remain completely oblivious to what those consequences may have been. Ignorance is bliss, huh?

 

[Randwolf]

Where did I make any such comparison?

In post #359

The point is that it is not universally a hardship, and there is such a thing as adoption.

True. And? Many women do choose adoption. What's your point?

I knew a girl in my twenties who already had a kid, could not handle another, and opted to give it up for adoption. Her expenses were paid and she got a car to make doctor appointments, which she got to keep afterwards. Do you think women are advised of that option?

Yes, I do, in most cases. How many women do you know that are not aware of adoption? Or maybe you're referring to those twelve - fourteen year olds that should be obligated to carry to term to satisfy your concept of morality. Is that it?

How is heartbeat or sonogram pressuring?

Seriously?

If a woman wants to choose to avoid the consequences of her own actions, why should she not be made fully aware of those consequences?

One can become "fully aware" without resorting to obvious and undue emotional coercion, right? Or no?

Do you advocate denial and avoidance as health coping skills?

No, but apparently you do since you seem to espouse denial and avoidance of the emotional and social/economic consequences of bringing an unwanted child into the world as sound policy. Pretty explicitly, I might add...

I guess everyone has a human right to avoid the consequences of their own actions and be allowed to remain completely oblivious to what those consequences may have been.

I guess you're wrong. One can not ever "avoid the consequences of their own actions", now can they?

Ignorance is bliss, huh?

And you complain about rhetoric? Really? Rhetoric, personal opinion, anecdotes and fundamentalism seem to constitute the majority of your posts. Am I missing something?

 

[billvon]

How is heartbeat or sonogram pressuring?

Would you be OK with a mandatory colonoscopy for anyone who wanted Viagra? After all, it could save someone's life, since most older men (which is the demographic that uses Viagra) are at risk for colon cancer.

If a woman wants to choose to avoid the consequences of her own actions, why should she not be made fully aware of those consequences?

They can certainly be made aware of those consequences without a mandatory transvaginal ultrasound. Mandatory ultrasounds are a way to try to threaten women with an invasive procedure in hopes that 1) it will scare them and 2) they will make an emotional rather than a rational decision.

I guess everyone has a human right to avoid the consequences of their own actions and be allowed to remain completely oblivious to what those consequences may have been. Ignorance is bliss, huh?

Having an abortion is not "avoiding the consequences for your actions." Indeed, it is the definition of dealing with the consequences of your actions.

 

[Syne]

In post #359

Sorry, I did not know any mention of misogyny would be taken as a direct comparison of two completely different situations.

Or maybe you're referring to those twelve - fourteen year olds that should be obligated to carry to term to satisfy your concept of morality. Is that it?

I have not weighed in on exceptions for rape/incest at all, so it seems you are only blindly demonizing any opposition. Just more bombastic rhetoric.

One can become "fully aware" without resorting to obvious and undue emotional coercion, right? Or no?

If you call a vague abstraction "fully aware". Sure.

No, but apparently you do since you seem to espouse denial and avoidance of the emotional and social/economic consequences of bringing an unwanted child into the world as sound policy. Pretty explicitly, I might add...

I did not advocate being uninformed by any means. Yet more rhetoric. How do you justify "the emotional and social/economic consequences" as any less emotional that hearing a simple heartbeat? I advocate them being fully advised, in every respect. There is a difference between being informed of all available options and being pressured toward one particular option. Being informed is not inherently pressuring.

I guess you're wrong. One can not ever "avoid the consequences of their own actions", now can they?

Apparently they can not only avoid the consequences, but they do not even ever need be aware of what they avoided.

If personhood is intrinsic then it follows that it is so from conception (or more specifically, perhaps gastrulation, about 16 days after fertilization), as everything that will become any traits we define as personhood exist from that point.

Interesting take there Syne. So you are saying that we are the person that we are irrespective of intrauterine influence because "everything that will become any traits we define as personhood exist from [conception]". Did I get that right?


If so, do you include cognitive functionality in the set of traits used to define "personhood"?


How about sexual orientation?

Ridiculous argument. Personhood is the very general "status of being a person", so yes, everything that will satisfy that very general definition does exist at gastrulation.

Or are you saying that the mentally deficient or certain sexual orientations are somehow less of a person?

 

[lightgigantic]

LG, how would your proposed "triage model" even differentiate cases of rape or incest?

In the standard manner that one differentiates cases of rape and incest outside of the issue of abortion I assume.
How else?

Precisely how would the protocols differ in those cases from other pregnancies involving healthy mothers and fetuses? If they would differ, pray tell, why? I don't understand the logic that you would use to distinguish these cases based solely on the parents' relationship. I've seen you argue this "triage" stuff before and I've never seen you address this...

I don't understand what you are asking.

How does abortion suddenly render the issue of ascertaining instances of rape or consequential medical issues for the mother intractable?

 

[Randwolf]

Sorry, I did not know any mention of misogyny would be taken as a direct comparison of two completely different situations.

Only if the two scenarios are mentioned in the same context along with the comment "Misogyny can work both ways." Don't think avoidance and profession of ignorance excuse your underlying fundamentalist agenda, I'm not deceived in the slightest.

I have not weighed in on exceptions for rape/incest at all, so it seems you are only blindly demonizing any opposition.

No, and the silence is deafening.

Just more bombastic rhetoric.

Yes, I wish you would stop with such sophomoric tactics.

If you call a vague abstraction "fully aware". Sure.

At what point does pregnancy become real to you Syne? Exactly? After the heartbeat is present? Does that mean you're ok with abortions prior to six weeks? Because, you know, it's only a "vague abstraction" till then?

I did not advocate being uninformed by any means.

You certainly implied that you view counseling on the emotional and socioeconomic implications of a single mother keeping a child should not be allowed to sway a woman's decision on abortion, didn't you? Didn't you say:

Women can be pressured into doing something they do not really want with justifications of social/economic consequences of being a single mother.

Or am I confused again?

Yet more rhetoric.

Yes, again I wish you would desist.

How do you justify "the emotional and social/economic consequences" as any less emotional that hearing a simple heartbeat?

Let me borrow a play from your book - where did I say that?

I advocate them being fully advised, in every respect. There is a difference between being informed of all available options and being pressured toward one particular option. Being informed is not inherently pressuring.

Then what's the point of informing someone of anything if it won't influence their decision? Nice spin you're attempting here but I don't buy it.

Apparently they can not only avoid the consequences, but they do not even ever need be aware of what they avoided.

This statement is just false, intrinsically. One can not avoid the consequences of their actions, period. Perhaps you mean to say they can avoid the consequences you would impose, is that it?

Ridiculous argument. Personhood is the very general "status of being a person", so yes, everything that will satisfy that very general definition does exist at gastrulation.

Well that's the crux isn't it? When it comes right down to it we have to simply agree to disagree. I do not believe that a blastocyst satisfies the "very general 'status of being a person'". In fact, I would venture to say that 99% of all people would not recognize one if you handed it to them on a platter. Would you? Let alone attest that what you just handed them obviously satisfies the "status of being a person".

Or are you saying that the mentally deficient or certain sexual orientations are somehow less of a person?

Not at all. I simply refuted your absurd proposition that a blastocyst possesses "everything that will become any traits we define as personhood". That's patently ridiculous in so many ways that I was kind of at a loss as to where to start. But nice try at deflection there.

 

[Randwolf]

I don't understand what you are asking.

Let's start over LG. What position does your "triage' for abortion take on cases of rape and incest?

 

[lightgigantic]

Oh for goodness sake. Still dodging and trolling and trying to take the subject of this thread off course to suit your religious pro-life stance..

will the irony never end?

Ms Jessen claims that her biological mother had a late term saline abortion, which apparently resulted in a lack of oxygen, which she claims caused her cerebral palsy. She claims this because her adoptive mother told her this. I have yet to see any proof that her claims are actually true. Moving on..



A saline abortion is one where saline is injected into the amniotic sac and the cervix is then dilated.

Now she claims this occurred during the 30th week of pregnancy. Saline abortions are usually done much earlier than that, usually before the 24th week of pregnancy. There is also the fact that she was born without any burns, which would have been there with a saline abortion. Also, there is absolutely no proof that she would not have cerebral palsy if her biological mother had not attempted to abort her, since cerebral palsy is something that can occur during pregnancy, birth or even after the birth. So it is more than likely that she would have had it anyway.

In 13 out of 14 cases of cerebral palsy in Australia, the brain injury leading to cerebral palsy occurs either in the uterus (while the mother is pregnant) or before 1 month of age.​

So in reading these links you so thoughtfully provided, do you think its reasonable to suggest that cerebral palsy could be a possible outcome for a survivor of a saline abortion?
Its an incredible act of mental dissonance that you are investing so much mental effort to avoid drawing an inevitable connection between a medical procedure designed to kill and the subsequent physical ailments from somehow surviving it.

(BTW its good form to quote statistics drawn from a body of information that exclusively avoids procedures aimed at killing children in the womb ... so your 1 in 14 margin for error suddenly gives way to an immensely wider statistical chasm )

To be fair, speculation is warranted. So in answer to that, here are documents proving Gianna is indeed an abortion survivor. The first is Gianna's birth medical record, indicating she was "Born during Saline abortion"...

Next is Gianna's birth certificate, listing infamous abortionist "Edward C. Allred, M.D.," as the physician who delivered her. Allred is the owner of the largest group of independent abortion mills in the U.S.

Finally is an article written in April 1978, when Gianna was 10 months old. She was entered as an exhibit of sorts under an alias in the murder trial of abortionist William Waddill, who stood accused of strangling another saline abortion survivor. In reading the article, recall Jessen has the "gift of cerebral palsy," as she likes to say

Note where the abortionist , in his defense for strangling another survivor of a saline abortion (on that occasion the child had the misfortune of being birthed when the abortionist had clocked on for work), declares that Gianna is not a normal child on account of having cerebral palsy and that he strangled the other child because they would have developed, in his professional opinion, brain damage from the somewhat failed saline procedure.

Now you can try and pretty this up any way you like, but that is the reality of Ms Jessen's condition.

once again, you are clearly speaking from the authority of your imagination

Yes, I know, it doesn't make for good reading for pro-lifer's if Ms Jessen's story is put in a more accurate perspective.

So stop trolling and lying and answer the question and discuss the topic of this thread. Hard for you, I know, but try to stop being a troll. Just once. For me. Consider it a birthday present.

Its always entertaining to watch you squirm in the face of reality ... but only perhaps because I imagine you have a conscious and the ability to read stuff before replying.
:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

Let's start over LG. What position does your "triage' for abortion take on cases of rape and incest?

Ok

Two women are pregnant
One is claiming to be the victim of incest or rape.
The other isn't.

Far from the former claim being more difficult to process, most would say the opposite is true.
If you disagree, please explain yourself.

 

[Syne]

Sorry, I did not know any mention of misogyny would be taken as a direct comparison of two completely different situations.

Only if the two scenarios are mentioned in the same context along with the comment "Misogyny can work both ways." Don't think avoidance and profession of ignorance excuse your underlying fundamentalist agenda, I'm not deceived in the slightest.

Sure, because showing there can be misogyny in two different situations MUST mean that they are of equal magnitude, right? And now you have moved from rhetoric to broad stereotypes.

I have not weighed in on exceptions for rape/incest at all, so it seems you are only blindly demonizing any opposition.

No, and the silence is deafening.

Your blind assumptions are naive and biased.

If you call a vague abstraction "fully aware". Sure.

At what point does pregnancy become real to you Syne? Exactly? After the heartbeat is present? Does that mean you're ok with abortions prior to six weeks? Because, you know, it's only a "vague abstraction" till then?

The experience of "real" is having some sense input rather than only conceptual awareness.

I did not advocate being uninformed by any means.

You certainly implied that you view counseling on the emotional and socioeconomic implications of a single mother keeping a child should not be allowed to sway a woman's decision on abortion, didn't you? Didn't you say:

Women can be pressured into doing something they do not really want with justifications of social/economic consequences of being a single mother.

Or am I confused again?

You inferred; I did not imply. You can use honest information as justification for pressuring someone. That does not make that information inherently pressuring.

How do you justify "the emotional and social/economic consequences" as any less emotional that hearing a simple heartbeat?

Let me borrow a play from your book - where did I say that?

Never said you did. Why evade the question?

I advocate them being fully advised, in every respect. There is a difference between being informed of all available options and being pressured toward one particular option. Being informed is not inherently pressuring.

Then what's the point of informing someone of anything if it won't influence their decision? Nice spin you're attempting here but I don't buy it.

Buy whatever you like. There is no "spin" or "influence" if all available options are presented without bias. Do you believe that you cannot give someone information without some agenda to sway their decision?

Apparently they can not only avoid the consequences, but they do not even ever need be aware of what they avoided.

This statement is just false, intrinsically. One can not avoid the consequences of their actions, period. Perhaps you mean to say they can avoid the consequences you would impose, is that it?

Abortion is avoiding the natural consequences, as it is the termination of pregnancy. You know, the possible consequences of sex that you seem to be oblivious to. Until averted, pregnancy is the consequence, and abortion is the means to avoid it.

Now you have moved from rhetoric to stereotyping to semantics. Where to next?

Ridiculous argument. Personhood is the very general "status of being a person", so yes, everything that will satisfy that very general definition does exist at gastrulation.

Well that's the crux isn't it? When it comes right down to it we have to simply agree to disagree. I do not believe that a blastocyst satisfies the "very general 'status of being a person'". In fact, I would venture to say that 99% of all people would not recognize one if you handed it to them on a platter. Would you? Let alone attest that what you just handed them obviously satisfies the "status of being a person".

Then you need to exhaustively detail what constitutes personhood, and exactly where each of those traits are considered to originate. Is it magically imbued at birth? At five years? 10?

If you use this definition...

Capacities or attributes common to definitions of personhood can include human nature, agency, self-awareness, a notion of the past and future, and the possession of rights and duties, among others. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personhood#Overview​

...then you can justify infanticide or filicide.

Or is it just when you arbitrarily decide it has rights? Can humans grant personhood?

Or are you saying that the mentally deficient or certain sexual orientations are somehow less of a person?

Not at all. I simply refuted your absurd proposition that a blastocyst possesses "everything that will become any traits we define as personhood". That's patently ridiculous in so many ways that I was kind of at a loss as to where to start. But nice try at deflection there.

If there is no soul, then everything about general personhood is determined as soon as all the genetic material comes together. But premature births are often viable, so where, if not at birth, would you assign personhood?

 

[Bells]

will the irony never end?

You can keep saying that, but you still refuse to answer those 3 questions. I wonder why.

So in reading these links you so thoughtfully provided, do you think its reasonable to suggest that cerebral palsy could be a possible outcome for a survivor of a saline abortion?

I have never heard of a saline abortion past 24 weeks. They are usually performed much earlier on in a pregnancy. Could it be? Considering no one really knows what results in cerebral palsy, it can yes. But again, it could have been something she would have had anyway. The best friend of my former sister in law had a little girl, born at 27 weeks, when she went into labour when she developed an infection in the umbilical cord. The little girl has severe cerebral palsy.

Its an incredible act of mental dissonance that you are investing so much mental effort to avoid drawing an inevitable connection between a medical procedure designed to kill and the subsequent physical ailments from somehow surviving it.

Not at all. I just don't buy into the hysterics of the 'amg she survived her mother trying to kill her' story. No one knows the mother's reasons. Her story is quite unusual and I found her performance during the last election in America to be deceitful and dishonest. She was born with cerebral palsy. If she was born full term with it, we would not be having this discussion. So trying to claim it was solely because of the botched abortion is dishonest and leaning to the hysterical.

(BTW its good form to quote statistics drawn from a body of information that exclusively avoids procedures aimed at killing children in the womb ... so your 1 in 14 margin for error suddenly gives way to an immensely wider statistical chasm )

Just as your wording leads to hysterics. Killing children in the womb. Not even babies or toddlers, but children.. I'll leave it to you to figure out why your wording is kind of pathetic.

Although, you would see a woman or girl forced to endure pregnancy against her consent. Then again, you blame women for being raped, so your misogynistic views of women and their wombs shouldn't be too surprising. So the hysterical 'think of the children' argument isn't really unsurprising from you.

Finally is an article written in April 1978, when Gianna was 10 months old. She was entered as an exhibit of sorts under an alias in the murder trial of abortionist William Waddill, who stood accused of strangling another saline abortion survivor. In reading the article, recall Jessen has the "gift of cerebral palsy," as she likes to say

Note where the abortionist , in his defense for strangling another survivor of a saline abortion (on that occasion the child had the misfortune of being birthed when the abortionist had clocked on for work), declares that Gianna is not a normal child on account of having cerebral palsy and that he strangled the other child because they would have developed, in his professional opinion, brain damage from the somewhat failed saline procedure.

The fact that the doctor was charged should tell you that what he did was not usual or legal. Jessen's case is very unusual, hence why she makes so much money out of it.

once again, you are clearly speaking from the authority of your imagination

No, I asked questions and queried her abortion, which is highly unusual, even by the standards of when she would have been born.

Still waiting for you to answer the questions.

Its always entertaining to watch you squirm in the face of reality ... but only perhaps because I imagine you have a conscious and the ability to read stuff before replying.
:shrug:

I have already said that I have no issues with women having a say over their own bodies. I am pro-choice. I am against forcing women to endure pregnancy and giving birth against their consent.

And it is always interesting watching you trying to dodge questions and drag threads off topic because you are incapable of being honest and instead prefer to resort to the poster child. In short, you are simply a dishonest troll. Here are the questions again:

Tell me LG, should women be able to access safe and legal abortions? Yes or No?

Should women be forced to endure a pregnancy against their will? Yes or no?

Look at the case of the 14 year old girl, discussed above, who fell pregnant after being raped by her step-father. Should she be forced, against her will, to have a child to her rapist? Yes or no?


Simple yes or no answers will suffice.

So answer the questions, troll. Simple enough for you?

 

[Bells]

Ok

Two women are pregnant
One is claiming to be the victim of incest or rape.
The other isn't.

Far from the former claim being more difficult to process, most would say the opposite is true.
If you disagree, please explain yourself.

Both should have access to abortions if they wish to terminate the pregnancy.

Why? Because no woman should be forced to remain pregnant without her consent.

 

[lightgigantic]

Both should have access to abortions if they wish to terminate the pregnancy.

Why? Because no woman should be forced to remain pregnant without her consent.

The problem with this proposal of yours is that it defaults to a death sentence on individual s you arbitrarily decree have no claim to personhood via the classic argument of thuggery ... namely the strong overpowering the weak.

I will reply to the other post in about three hours .... just give you an opportunity to re edit since it's plainly obvious that you yet again fail to read stuff before attempting replies.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Personhood
It is generally agreed that one person's freedom ends where it infringes on the rights of another. This is the crux of why the question of personhood is at issue. If personhood is intrinsic then it follows that it is so from conception (or more specifically, perhaps gastrulation, about 16 days after fertilization), as everything that will become any traits we define as personhood exist from that point. If personhood only occurs at physically independent existence then it is a circumstantial status contingent upon birth. In the former, the personhood would be held inviolate from the mother, as murder outweighs her rights, barring life-threatening health issues. In the latter, the mother would grant the personhood or not. So the question comes down to whether we believe that personhood can be granted by another human.

Now this is what I'm talking about, a clean philosophical discussion on the morality of abortion, none of that tripe about sonograms, striping women of ALL fundamental human rights, god fearing religious fanatics, etc, etc

Personhood is not a definite concept: a being does not go from not a person to a person with all rights bestrode instantly. As a matter of fact we grant children less rights then adults, ergo children are not fully "people". Now does that mean a child does not have a right to life, of course not, we might not grant children the right to drink, vote, drive, choose sex with adults, independents from parents (baring some special circumstance) but we do hold dear to the concept that they should not be killed, a fetus on the other hand could be classified as something even less than a child.

And the implication that a mother can either revoke an existing personhood or deny its origination altogether may have some consequences for personhood rights in general. If personhood can be revoked, who is to say only pregnant mothers have that right? If personhood is merely denied/granted, what is it about birth that imbues an organism with this somewhat mystical status that it cannot be later rescinded, at least by the one who granted it?

A fetus unlike a child is a endoparasite that needs to feed off its mother to live, it can't be transferred to another mother or to an orphanage, it can't live independently in anyway. Unlike a child or an adult this complete dependences on the mother could grant a mother the special right to choose the fate of the fetus. Birth imbues independence or the ability for it, thus the special privilege of the mother ends. Of course this would mean very late term abortions could be immoral because the fetus could be at that point capable of independent life. Also paradoxically unimplanted embryos in a cryofreezer are also not dependent, so who exactly who has the right to "kill" them?

Abortion
The choice in question is preceded by the choice of behavior well-known to run a significant risk of pregnancy (and even with the advent of the morning after pill). Since that initial choice avoids the moral or philosophical quagmire, it is the less ambiguous choice. There is some merit to the idea that this initial choice has consequences that should not merely be evaded.

I think that a little unfair, the very act of abortion its self is certainly a consequence, an often painful and emotionally damaging one at that.

It should be clear that those who believe that personhood is intrinsic operate under a larger moral conundrum. It should also be clear that those who believe personhood to be a granted status have no real reason to make any relevant issue of rape in the question of abortion.

I completely agree, rape is a non-issue, the mother should have the right to abort regardless of the nature or claimed nature of the conception. The issue of rape though is brought up by both sides as a wedge issue, many who are pro-life are open to an allowance for rape and many who are pro-choice pounce on that allowance and ask "why stop at rape?". The problem is likely that these people have not thought up a detailed system of ethics for abortion if they had they would have come to a conclusion further along on either side of the debate, either all out pro-choice or all out pro-life.

 

[Bells]

Also paradoxically unimplanted embryos in a cryofreezer are also not dependent, so who exactly who has the right to "kill" them?

One of the biggest ironies of the pro-life camp and hysteria is that they protest outside of planned parenthood and any clinic or hospital that offers abortions to women. Yet they never protest or demand the same 'right to life' for embryo's in IVF treatments, the embryo's that are left over and never used and are usually either donated to science or destroyed. You will sometimes, occasionally hear of a faint protest, but then they disappear and return to harassing and abusing women for wanting to have abortions.

Why is that?

Why is the embryo in the woman's uterus more important and she must be stopped from aborting it, but embryo's in test tubes are ignored. Why don't they protest at the parents of IVF babies, who destroy countless of embryo's during the whole process? Funny that, isn't it? Hence the misogynistic hypocrisy.

 

[billvon]

Personhood is not a definite concept: a being does not go from not a person to a person with all rights bestrode instantly. As a matter of fact we grant children less rights then adults, ergo children are not fully "people". Now does that mean a child does not have a right to life, of course not, we might not grant children the right to drink, vote, drive, choose sex with adults, independents from parents (baring some special circumstance) but we do hold dear to the concept that they should not be killed, a fetus on the other hand could be classified as something even less than a child.

That is a good point, one often missed by both sides in the debate. There's a continuum going from before fertilization (where nearly everyone agrees the egg and sperm have no rights) through the age of majority where a person has all the rights society normally bestows. Although many people on both sides present their position as morally unassailable and uncompromising, in some ways the difference is merely one of degree - the point at which someone decides "here is the dividing line for the right to life." In one corner we have the "at conception" people and in the other we have "at birth," but there is also a scale in between.

 

[billvon]

One of the biggest ironies of the pro-life camp and hysteria is that they protest outside of planned parenthood and any clinic or hospital that offers abortions to women. Yet they never protest or demand the same 'right to life' for embryo's in IVF treatments

============================
Home » News
Pro-Lifers Protest In Vitro Fertilization
July 7, 2008 - 7:03 PM
By Christine Hall

In vitro fertilization, the procedure that allows many infertile couples to conceive, has come under increasing scrutiny from pro-life groups in recent years because many embryos die in the process or are donated for research purposes.

"The whole process is actually fraught with needless death," said Mo Woltering, assistant director of public policy for the American Life League, which hosted a Dec. 28?protest at a Norfolk, Va. research clinic.

"And then on top of that, the Jones Institute [for Reproductive Medicine] here in [Norfolk,] Va. announced over the summer that they are actually creating embryos specifically to be killed for research," said Woltering.
=======================
Anti-abortion group expands protests to fertilization clinic
by David Tonyan
April 05, 2012

David Tonyan/MEDILL

Supporters and opponents faced off at a Naperville city council meeting over a proposed in vitro fertilization clinic on Tuesday.
A major anti-abortion group has expanded its scope beyond abortion clinics to include protests against in vitro fertilization clinics.

The Chicago-based Pro-Life Action League tried to block approval of an in vitro fertilization clinic in Naperville on Tuesday. When the city council approved its construction in a 7-2 vote, the league’s Executive Director Eric Scheidler said his group would stage protests at the clinic.

“There is no moral difference between those children and the children being killed down the road at Planned Parenthood,” Scheidler said at the council meeting, “and justice is due to those children. If that justice is not done by this council today then you must know, that justice will be done through public protest at Dr. Morris’ facility.”
============================

 

[Syne]

Now this is what I'm talking about, a clean philosophical discussion on the morality of abortion, none of that tripe about sonograms, striping women of ALL fundamental human rights, god fearing religious fanatics, etc, etc

Personhood is not a definite concept: a being does not go from not a person to a person with all rights bestrode instantly. As a matter of fact we grant children less rights then adults, ergo children are not fully "people". Now does that mean a child does not have a right to life, of course not, we might not grant children the right to drink, vote, drive, choose sex with adults, independents from parents (baring some special circumstance) but we do hold dear to the concept that they should not be killed, a fetus on the other hand could be classified as something even less than a child.

Nice to see someone else here who appreciates something other than pure hyperbole.

I agree, personhood itself is a much debated term. Here we are primarily concerned with right to life (which does seem to be an instant bestowal proposition), so that is the only attribute of personhood really relevant to this debate. When does an organism have a right to life? Does it take a certain recognition of similarity before we find it morally/philosophically objectionable do destroy an organism like we would unthinkingly quash an ant? Why is it we can anthropomorphize pets to an extent greater than what many would an organism that will become a person? "Personality"? I would suggest that a highly subjective cognitive similarity is a very poor criteria. After all, many would not have such a feeling of similarity until a child can, or almost can, speak.

The typical criteria offered by one side is independent physical existence, but human babies can hardly be said to be physically independent, as they rely heavily upon others for their survival. So this "independence" is only about bodily separation. As long as it is physically attached it has no rights. Both sides generally agree that abortion is excusable in cases of grave threat to the mother's life. The first "independent" organism taking precedence. But then what of conjoined twins? If that argument generally holds, then the first to, what, breath air technically has the right to end the others life. Why is that not a consideration when estimating the risk to one or the other when undertaking a separation surgery?

What if two people are pinned under the same wreckage in such a way that a choice must be made of which to save? Does the oldest automatically take precedence? In the case of a child, it seems that our instincts are to save the child at the cost of the adult. So it seems that vulnerability incurs a definite moral/philosophical obligation.

A fetus unlike a child is a endoparasite that needs to feed off its mother to live, it can't be transferred to another mother or to an orphanage, it can't live independently in anyway. Unlike a child or an adult this complete dependences on the mother could grant a mother the special right to choose the fate of the fetus. Birth imbues independence or the ability for it, thus the special privilege of the mother ends. Of course this would mean very late term abortions could be immoral because the fetus could be at that point capable of independent life. Also paradoxically unimplanted embryos in a cryofreezer are also not dependent, so who exactly who has the right to "kill" them?

Okay. So the distinction of "feeding off" the host would seem to exclude my wreckage example above, but that does not necessarily solve the conjoined twin dilemma. After all, one could be completely dependent upon the shared stomach, lungs, heart, etc. with the other. Nor does that necessarily preclude considerations of vulnerability which definitely does accrue to children and would perhaps further accrue to a more vulnerable organism.

What about a direct, emergency blood transfusion? During such the donor is being "fed off". If they initially give their consent, should they then have the right to revoke their consent (without any risk to the donor) even if that should mean the recipient dies? Is this just a risk/benefit analysis of moral/philosophical obligation?

So what birth may imbue may not be quite so clear cut, including the matter of viable premature births you mention. Which is why even pro-choice proponents generally agree that some limit should be imposed. How does this limit not infringe on the rights of the woman? How is it justified? Do the rights of the fetus grow over time until they overtake the rights of the woman?

Somewhat odd notion that rights can be grown. Just add water.

I think that a little unfair, the very act of abortion its self is certainly a consequence, an often painful and emotionally damaging one at that.

Abortion is the termination of pregnancy. Anything terminated is quite literally avoided. Kind of a question of whether "should" need only be justified by "can".

I completely agree, rape is a non-issue, the mother should have the right to abort regardless of the nature or claimed nature of the conception. The issue of rape though is brought up by both sides as a wedge issue, many who are pro-life are open to an allowance for rape and many who are pro-choice pounce on that allowance and ask "why stop at rape?". The problem is likely that these people have not thought up a detailed system of ethics for abortion if they had they would have come to a conclusion further along on either side of the debate, either all out pro-choice or all out pro-life.

I agree, both sides lack a consistent and robust ethical guideline.

 

[lightgigantic]

No re-edit ... can't say I am surprised

You can keep saying that, but you still refuse to answer those 3 questions. I wonder why.

Because you don't read.

I have never heard of a saline abortion past 24 weeks.

I discussed this with you about 12 or so months ago on a similar topic.
The irony is that you took the same path of outright doubt about this same scenario.
Its not so much that you haven't heard about it, but you don't assimilate information.

They are usually performed much earlier on in a pregnancy. Could it be? Considering no one really knows what results in cerebral palsy, it can yes. But again, it could have been something she would have had anyway. The best friend of my former sister in law had a little girl, born at 27 weeks, when she went into labour when she developed an infection in the umbilical cord. The little girl has severe cerebral palsy.

But all this aside, you are not really making a salient point unless you want to somehow drive home the colossal notion of ignorance that there are no extraordinary challenges in life for someone somehow surviving an abortion (along with the contingent aspects of culpability this might include)

Not at all.

yes completely.
Your inability to directly address this point finds no better than what follows ...

I just don't buy into the hysterics of the 'amg she survived her mother trying to kill her' story. No one knows the mother's reasons. Her story is quite unusual and I found her performance during the last election in America to be deceitful and dishonest. She was born with cerebral palsy. If she was born full term with it, we would not be having this discussion. So trying to claim it was solely because of the botched abortion is dishonest and leaning to the hysterical.

It wouldn't matter if she was your ex-lesbian lover, had an affair with your husband or sold your children into slavery ... unless you can somehow tie these acts later in her life being some consequence of surviving an abortion attempt

Just as your wording leads to hysterics. Killing children in the womb. Not even babies or toddlers, but children.. I'll leave it to you to figure out why your wording is kind of pathetic.

Weirdo.
"carrying a child" doesn't require a dramatic sojourn outside the english language

Although, you would see a woman or girl forced to endure pregnancy against her consent.

And you would see a child forced to die for no reason outside of the whim of the mother ... hence we are having this discussion

Then again, you blame women for being raped, so your misogynistic views of women and their wombs shouldn't be too surprising. So the hysterical 'think of the children' argument isn't really unsurprising from you.

Then again when the discussion gets desperate for you, you make comments devoid of any reference than your imagination

The fact that the doctor was charged should tell you that what he did was not usual or legal.

The fact that the doctors involved directly with Gianna weren't charged should tell us that once again you aren't reading stuff

Jessen's case is very unusual, hence why she makes so much money out of it.

well she hasn't retired to pursue a hobby of maintaining racing horses (like the medical professional on her birth certificate ... ie the doctor who stuffed up the abortion) if that's any consolation ...

No, I asked questions and queried her abortion, which is highly unusual, even by the standards of when she would have been born.

on the contrary, this is what you said :
Yes, I know, it doesn't make for good reading for pro-lifer's if Ms Jessen's story is put in a more accurate perspective.

It doesn't make good reading because your perspective is accurate.

It doesn't make good reading because it was penned by a person sitting on their over-opinionated crapulent crack devoid of even rudimentary investigative skills (eg : google)

Still waiting for you to answer the questions.

Already given.
Let us know when you get around to reading them ...

I have already said that I have no issues with women having a say over their own bodies. I am pro-choice. I am against forcing women to endure pregnancy and giving birth against their consent.

we all know this.
However at the moment we are in the middle of discussing how this view of yours defaults to an infringement on rights generally afforded to others.
Now from here we can talk about special situations or aspects unique to this scenario which may entail these rights being applied or suspended according to time place and circumstance ... or alternatively you just drone on the same party line rhetoric as if nothing else mattered in the universe except your opinion and your resources of imagination to back it up.

And it is always interesting watching you trying to dodge questions and drag threads off topic because you are incapable of being honest and instead prefer to resort to the poster child. In short, you are simply a dishonest troll. Here are the questions again:

will the irony never end?

Tell me LG, should women be able to access safe and legal abortions? Yes or No?

Should women be forced to endure a pregnancy against their will? Yes or no?

already answered slobberchops

Look at the case of the 14 year old girl, discussed above, who fell pregnant after being raped by her step-father. Should she be forced, against her will, to have a child to her rapist? Yes or no?

already explained how this is simply adding chaff to your presentation ... unless you have some macabre idea of how killing a child in the womb born from rape somehow establishes a satisfactory standard of justice regarding the criminality of the act.

:shrug: