Chimpy Chompy on 3/6/2009 at 17:05
Quote Posted by Phatose
when I'm really just against the notion that a woman's right to control her body outweighs all other concerns, and includes the right to terminate a fetus even if we grant that it is a fucking person.
This troubles me also.
Also I think someone should be punished for me
not having sex :mad:
Starrfall on 3/6/2009 at 17:12
If it is not true that the mother's rights outweigh the rights of the fetus, then why don't abortion statutes punish the mother for having illegal abortions?
If the mother has no special status, she should be just as culpable for the death of the fetus as the doctor is. But abortion statutes typically punish only the doctor, and not the mother. (
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1531.html) Here's a well-known federal example. (
http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs//abortion/sdabortionlaw06.html) Here's a rather notorious state example. That's pretty much the strongest recent state abortion law, and even it is too squeamish to punish the mother: "Nothing in this Act may be construed to subject the pregnant mother upon whom any abortion is performed or attempted to any criminal conviction and penalty."
(obviously what the law says is not necessarily what "is", but this is a pretty universal phenomenon and even if the laws don't show what "is" they show how we pretty much universally "think" here)
Why treat the mother differently if there isn't something about the mother that makes her less culpable? And if that something isn't the right to control what happens to her body, what is it?
Or in other words, if we're serious about the fetus being a person, and if we're serious about the fact that the woman has no better right to the womb than the fetus does, then what is the justification for giving the mother a free pass for murder
even when her life is not at stake?
Perhaps the fundies need to put their money where their mouths are or shut the fuck up and let the grownups make the laws.
Phatose on 3/6/2009 at 19:54
Quote Posted by Morte
Surely you can't be so dense that you fail to see how the second sentence obviously contradicts the first?
Surely I can, apparently. You see, we're not going "ohmygodshehadsex!slut!whore!". I really don't care that she had sex,
except insofar as that it made her pregnant, fine by me. That ain't punishment, that's nature.
But now, since for the purpose of this discussion, we've already allowed the fetus is equivalent to a sentient being, then now we're weighing her right to control her body to it's right to exist. And claiming that you have the right to terminate a being you don't want in your uterus because it's your uterus doesn't carry a whole lot of fucking weight when you put it there.
In cases of rape, it's a different equation, because now the mother bears no responsibility for putting it there, and thus we have a broader picture to contend with.
Quote Posted by Wormrat
My point is just that you can't punish something with death if that thing has no concept of its own existence. This applies to fully-birthed babies as well; I'm not arguing against personhood or whether the baby is alive.
That's an entirely different discussion, and my stance changes quite a bit if we don't go and immediately make the fetus equivalent to a person. I'm referring specifically to a single argument.
Queue on 3/6/2009 at 20:01
Family photos are always such a hoot.
...mom liked it, too.
nickie on 3/6/2009 at 20:05
Phatose, I'm struggling a bit here to understand you. Are you saying that a woman who takes every precaution (contraceptive device) not to get pregnant and it fails and she does become pregnant should then just get on with it and have the child no matter what impact it may have on the rest of a family or anybody else?
Are you saying that women should not have sex just in case they get pregnant?
DDL on 3/6/2009 at 20:05
Quote Posted by Phatose
But now, since for the purpose of this discussion, we've already allowed the fetus is equivalent to a sentient being, then now we're weighing her right to control her body to it's right to exist. And claiming that you have the right to terminate a being you don't want in your uterus because it's your uterus doesn't carry a whole lot of fucking weight when you put it there.
In cases of rape, it's a different equation, because now the mother bears no responsibility for putting it there, and thus we have a broader picture to contend with.
So...you're saying the only difference between "YOU ARE A BEING, AND DESERVE LIFE!" and "yeah ok, you can squish that thing" is whether or not the mother was raped or not?
Because that seems...senseless.
Queue on 3/6/2009 at 20:21
Quote Posted by Wormrat
My point is just that you can't punish something with death if that thing has no concept of its own existence. This applies to fully-birthed babies as well.
I don't know nothin' about birthin' babies...
Inline Image:
http://g.imagehost.org/0130/missprissy.jpgPhatose on 3/6/2009 at 22:10
Quote Posted by nickie
Phatose, I'm struggling a bit here to understand you. Are you saying that a woman who takes every precaution (contraceptive device) not to get pregnant and it fails and she does become pregnant should then just get on with it and have the child no matter what impact it may have on the rest of a family or anybody else?
Are you saying that women should not have sex just in case they get pregnant?
I am saying that if we decide that a fetus is equivalent to human life, and a woman has sex - using precautions she knows can and do fail - then she better have a goddamn better reason then 'it's my body' before she can justify an abortion.
That's it. That's all. That one claim that was made earlier in the thread, that's what I'm arguing against.
Kolya on 3/6/2009 at 22:31
Alright, but as we established in the last abortion thread a fetus is not equal to human life, as for example a born baby is, because it is very much a part of the woman's body. Try to separate them, see what happens.
