Nicker on 3/6/2009 at 02:13
Shadow, the right to control one's body is hardly a "horseshit" argument. (But perhaps you'd like to prove me wrong by relinquishing control of your body to me, to prove your conviction. Please PM me for instructions on what you may and may not do with my new body...)
Since you missed it the first time I will say it again - even if we accept the fetus is a fully entitled human being, from conception, the right of that still forming "person" to be carried, is secondary to the right of a already existing, fully adult person, to determine what is done with their body.
If they are both people, the one with the prior claim to the womb in question gets the nod. How they justify that choice to themselves is also between themselves and their conscience - it is nobody's business but their own.
That is not horseshit.
Phatose on 3/6/2009 at 04:01
Excluded middle.
Please explain why the prior claimant gets the automatic nod, especially in light of the reality that they've already made the choice to call the second claimant into existence in said womb.
Christ, that's like building a sentient robot in your basement, then saying it's ok to kill it cause it was in your basement.
Shug on 3/6/2009 at 04:07
One time, I heard a woman started building a sentient robot in her basement by accident
wait no I didn't; pretty weird analogy because even if you avoid the fact it really doesn't apply, what's your point? I'd say if you built a robot you have the right to kill it too, but maybe that's just me.
Phatose on 3/6/2009 at 04:31
Quote Posted by Shug
One time, I heard a woman started building a sentient robot in her basement by accident
wait no I didn't; pretty weird analogy because even if you avoid the fact it really doesn't apply, what's your point? I'd say if you built a robot you have the right to kill it too, but maybe that's just me.
The point, dear sir, is that any claims to that womb the fetus may have were absolutely granted to it by the mother - well, in most cases anyway, rape being the sole exception. And in light of that fact, simply taking it for granted that the mother's right to the fetus outweighs the fetuses right is unacceptable.
Sure, the fetus is in her body. But she fucking PUT IT THERE. So lets maybe consider the possibility that her right to the body went right out the fucking window when she chose to share it.
demagogue on 3/6/2009 at 05:07
I think some of you are getting side-tracked by red herring stuff.
A "person" is a cognitive function that follows a (properly functioning) brain. There isn't any need to get bogged down in what tissue belongs to whom, at least on this point... Just keep your eyes on the prize, the fetus and later infant brain.
When the cognitive apparatus for "person-hood" has developed, then you have your person and all the rights that follow it (the brain), then you follow the rights out from that brain, rather than backwards from the body/placenta back to it.
A (slightly) relevant analogy here is those weird joined-twin cases, two brains, but they share the same heart and gastro-system, etc. Morally and legally, this is treated as two people, since the "person" follows the brain, and in situations where splitting the body would require killing one side, legally you can't do it (unless both would die if you don't; then I think you have to pick one in a democratic way where each has equal billing, like a random lot, or purely on medical likelihood of success; a few other weirdo cases are like this ... but now we're already straying from the abortion case. The analogy isn't perfect).
All that said, before a certain point when it's certain there is no relevant cognitive functionality, early-term abortions, since there isn't a person there, there just isn't the cognitive capacity for it, the question of "to whom" the cells in question belong (the mother, a foreign body nobody owns, or a future person -- but most ethical theory doesn't allow rights/ownership to potentially future people for good reasons; a potential person isn't a person) doesn't really need to have an absolute answer since it has the same result that the woman can reject it.
On the other hand a late-term fetus in a womb, where the brain is much more developed, adds the twist (to the joined-twins case) that the supporting apparatus for the fetus brain/person (i.e., the mother's circulatory, respiratory, etc systems) isn't connected to the fetus's own neural system, although it's doing the job that the fetus body would normally do for it in life (I think each of the joined twins' respective neural systems are both connected to the shared body). But a fetus's brain isn't connected to the beating of the heart that's supporting it.
If you take the question of who "owns" what organs seriously, or whether joint ownership is possible (remember I'm just talking about late-term here), you want to think carefully about what really makes a person (a cognitive function of a brain) own the body parts connected to it. It seems obvious, but you still want to be exact about it. But having a body organ actually neurally connected to the brain/self seems to me the most direct link of "ownership" of your body, although I'm still mulling over the specifics of why; something to do with the unique "inside" experience a brain has to its own body.
I had one professor that thought the mother's ownership of her body (fetus supporting apparatus) was enough to give her the right to eject the fetus from it, but because a person had developed there (in the fetus brain; again just talking about late-term here), you had to connect it to another life-support system, an incubator or surrogate mother or something to vindicate that right. I haven't thought enough about it to have a good opinion about that I trust, but anyway it probably wouldn't ever be practicable anyway, so isn't really a viable answer.
Nicker on 3/6/2009 at 05:37
I think I understand you now, Phatose. She should be punished for having sex.
Got it!
Thanks for participating.
Kolya on 3/6/2009 at 07:00
Phatose, I'd like to have a word with you. In my basement.
kidmystik101 on 3/6/2009 at 07:11
Ooo, sounds fun Kolya, can I get in on this?
Albert on 3/6/2009 at 07:19
Heh, being agnostic (little off topic for this first part, buh-), I read the newspaper today and laughed at the inner headlines (near the section where some highly respected priest/stoner makes a broad headed attack at people they just can't stand) and:
Obama is a socialist
2 pages later, I read on this abortions guy getting shot... in a church of all places.
Devo wasn't wrong after all, though it cost them the chicks... :p
