Phatose on 5/6/2009 at 19:00
Wow, look, a snarky useless comment. Thank you, go fuck yourself.
Wormrat, fine. Let's do things your way. It's not equivalent to an adult, but it's aware, it's alive, it's human. Equivalent to a baby. Does that somehow make it acceptable to kill it?
Phatose on 5/6/2009 at 19:42
And yet public morality and the legal tradition is pretty clear that a baby does have a claim to the parents resources. And while there are exceptions where the baby can be given up and the state comes in, those are exceptions and even in the most marginal cases killing the thing is not even close to an option.
Beyond that though, you're arguing again that the baby isn't aware. Which is all well and good, but it's a different conversation. Cause here's the thing - I didn't make the assumption, it was made by someone else in the claim I was answering.
At any rate.....you'll understand if I say your position severely worries me, as it does seem to make the worst of what the pro-life movement says about the pro-choice movement true. You know, the whole 'pro-baby-killing' thing?
Phatose on 5/6/2009 at 20:33
OK, so you think the original statement I had the problem was wrong too, just in a different fashion. I can live with that.
And yeah, a discussion on the differences between egg cells, fertilized eggs, fetuses, babies and adults would seem to be the best way to get to the correct answer. Unfortunately, that's pretty much the question of what makes a person a person, which people have been working on for millennia and we still haven't gotten a solid answer.
Turtle on 5/6/2009 at 21:17
I want to have this thread's baby.
So I can abort it.
june gloom on 5/6/2009 at 21:18
it's already an abortion though
Pyrian on 5/6/2009 at 21:52
Quote Posted by Phatose
Find me another legal situation where a person gets to call another into existence, and we'll talk about fucking precedent.
Given that such a position invalidates
your entire argument, I hardly see why
I would need to defend it. I was merely pointing out that your fundamental premise - which is that rights are implicitly given up entirely upon not exercising said rights at all times - is completely unsupportable by any and all precedent. Without considerable such precedent in your favor,
you have no argument, since that was the
entirety of your argument's rationale.
It's worth further noting that there is no such thing as a safe pregnancy. Having an abortion at virtually any moment improves the chance that the mother will survive (even though, of course, abortion in general and a late term abortion in particular is a potentially dangerous procedure as well, but it's still less dangerous than carrying to term). So, things like "it's only acceptable to abort a baby which threatens the mothers life" does not actually narrow the field down at all unless you also define an acceptable level of risk.
Quote Posted by Phatose
When you get right down to it, our brains, our thinking, is the only reason why killing a human is murder and killing an ape is at most a violation of protected species laws.
By that reckoning, a child would be abortable until somewhere around age 2. "Pass this test, and we won't let mommy kill you!"
Quote Posted by Namdrol
In mainland UK the morning after pill is available over the counter without a prescription.
But I think there are very, very few woman who have an abortion and are not effected long term.
What about women who don't even know for sure if they did or not? Anyway, I think in this regard you are essentially a victim of anti-abortion propaganda.
Some women are particularly bothered by having had an abortion (and often these people are themselves essentially victims of anti-abortion propaganda), but the vast majority, or even most? I think not.
Shug on 5/6/2009 at 22:07
Quote Posted by Wormrat
Yeah, I shouldn't have slipped that bit in.
hehe
Phatose on 5/6/2009 at 22:47
Quote Posted by Pyrian
Given that such a position invalidates
your entire argument, I hardly see why
I would need to defend it. I was merely pointing out that your fundamental premise - which is that rights are implicitly given up entirely upon not exercising said rights at all times - is completely unsupportable by any and all precedent. Without considerable such precedent in your favor,
you have no argument, since that was the
entirety of your argument's rationale.
It's worth further noting that there is no such thing as a safe pregnancy. Having an abortion at virtually any moment improves the chance that the mother will survive (even though, of course, abortion in general and a late term abortion in particular is a potentially dangerous procedure as well, but it's still less dangerous than carrying to term). So, things like "it's only acceptable to abort a baby which threatens the mothers life" does not actually narrow the field down at all unless you also define an acceptable level of risk.
Not exercising rights at all times? You're forcing another human into a unescapable situation, and then claiming they're violating your rights.
In contractual law, coerced contracts are unenforceable. In nearly any criminal case, if the defendant was coerced into the situation, they're found not guilty. When the police cause a defendant to commit a crime he'd otherwise not have done, it's entrapment and the defendant walks off scot free. If you coerce someone into anything, then you're at fault.
In short, in nearly every single aspect of legal precedent, one when party knowingly coerces another party into a violation, the offender is off the hook for any violations - especially of violations towards the coercing party.
There's your precedent - take a look around you. It's in every aspect of the law. Coercion is a mitigating factor in culpability, and thus the unborn can not be held responsible to the woman for their trespass in her uterus, cause she caused it.
So, have you got any precedent of your own to show? Maybe one where you can force someone to do something to you, then have them punished for doing it? That would be swell if you could show me that now.
Quote:
By that reckoning, a child would be abortable until somewhere around age 2. "Pass this test, and we won't let mommy kill you!"
No dear sir, a stupid person is a person as well. This ain't an IQ test, this is an EEG.
SubJeff on 6/6/2009 at 01:38
Quote Posted by Phatose
Taking that life is only acceptable if there are huge mitigating factors - like say, a real threat to the life of the mother.
pregnancy presents a real threat to the life of a mother.
Quote Posted by Phatose
It's not equivalent to an adult, but it's aware
No its not. At least you can't prove it is.
Renzatic on 6/6/2009 at 02:11
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
Every single pregnancy presents a real threat to the life of a mother.
I just looked up some statistics. Keep in mind I'm not vouching for 100% accuracy here, considering I only hit up a couple of pages before started getting into the nasty pro-life aborted baby pictures, but the results I found were surprisingly low. Something along the lines of 13 deaths per 100,000.
Considering 99% of us here live in well developed first world countries where healthcare is readily available, I find it hard to consider this particular point as a valid argument. The potential is scarier than the actuality.
Edit: Forgot to post a link to back me up. (
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5202a1.htm) The CDC
