Parental Consent for Tanning

[Coito ergo sum]

That's a rational argument. But as I have pointed out, "personhood" is not a scientific determination, it's a political and social determination, so there is no real impediment to society declaring "personhood" at the zygote stage, is there?

There is no legal impediment to declaring nonpersonhood through the age of 21, or including apes or sperm as "persons."

Yes, there are abnormal circumstances in which the choice is the life of the fetus or the life of the mother, but let's not let that rare circumstance be the metric for public policy regarding abortion, let's deal with that when the issue arises.

We don't have to, but let's not let the future dictate the present. And, before the fetus gets along in development, it is not about a threat at all, generally speaking. If, however, a threat to the mother arises at any point in time during the pregnancy, and it's medically necessary to sacrifice the fetus to save the mother, then the decision to save the mother ought to prevail.

In this, I agree. I would add the proviso however that if the fetus is viable, then perhaps there is a duty to try to save both the mother and the fetus.[/quote]

That approaches my position, since I can't seem to wrap my arms around the idea of aborting a pree-mee when there is the ability to retrieve it and put it up for adoption.

2. Even nonperson are protected from harm where the law specifies. One can't just go shoot one's neighbors dog, and the neighbor nowadays can't generally go shoot his own dog. And, even property is protected from harm by the law. Personhood is not required.

That is a property issue. You can shoot your neighbor's dog if it's attacking you or your livestock (and I have done so), and there are no legal consequences for shooting your own dog in most places. But if you wrongfully shoot your neighbor's dog, the best he can do is sue you for damages to his property. It's hardly the same thing.

Even non-persons are protected from harm where the law specifies. That's the point.

Any object or creature may be legally protected from the deliberate acts of a person that would harm it if it's in the best interests of society to bar such injury. The ESA is sufficient proof of that.[/quote]

That's part of why having an argument over "is it a person" or "is it not a person" is a canard.

It doesn't matter if it's a "person" in the legal sense. What matters is how it is in fact treated under the law.

So, I think what we're dealing with here is the extent of a woman's right to unrestricted control of this decision, and the interest of the state in protecting whatever it is that is in the womb.

Yes, exactly.

The issue of "my body, my choice" is a nice catch-phrase, but is inadequate to completely decide the issue, because there are many instances where one's choices of what to do with one's own body is limited.

The balance struck in Roe v Wade seems pretty reasonable, albeit imperfect from an absolute, bright-line perspective.

I agree.

Huh. I thought you previously argued otherwise. However, I must've misunderstood, or you were arguing some hypothetical thing.

Most likely I was arguing an extreme point of view as a method of encouraging critical analysis and debate of the opposing opinion. This issue is so commonly polarized that many bald assertions are presented as arguments, so I often take an extreme opposite position in order to stimulate debate. What I actually believe may be something entirely else.[/quote]

Yeah yeah, I know I know.

[hadespussercats]

All right, clearly we've reached the point where we'll just go round and round. Particularly considering this:

Only if you presume as a given that the fetus is not a person at any time prior to birth.

I have said several times now I do think the fetus is a person prior to birth. I maintain that a woman is also a person, with a right to control her body and rid it of inhabitants she doesn't want. Those inhabitants may be peaople, as in a baby. Doesn't matter. The woman's right to bodily autonomy trumps the baby'r right to live off the woman's body.

So how exactly does that work ethically. If a woman's bodily autonomy trumps the right of the baby to live "off the woman's body" before birth, does not her autonomy continue in the same way after birth, and therefore doesn't the woman's bodily autonomy then trump the child's life interests after birth as well? Would that not absolve her of her duty to care for the child after birth? How is that justifiable? I see an ethical inconsistency here.

Why should a woman's bodily autonomy prevail after the point in gestation where the fetus becomes a person endowed with rights? Given that the consequences to the woman are usually a few more weeks of gestation and discomfort, and the consequence to the fetus is death, what is your ethical argument that the woman's rights should prevail in such a case?

You seem not to understand the difference between inside and attached, versus outside and unattached.

[hadespussercats]

All right, clearly we've reached the point where we'll just go round and round. Particularly considering this:

Only if you presume as a given that the fetus is not a person at any time prior to birth.

I have said several times now I do think the fetus is a person prior to birth. I maintain that a woman is also a person, with a right to control her body and rid it of inhabitants she doesn't want. Those inhabitants may be peaople, as in a baby. Doesn't matter. The woman's right to bodily autonomy trumps the baby'r right to live off the woman's body.

So how exactly does that work ethically. If a woman's bodily autonomy trumps the right of the baby to live "off the woman's body" before birth, does not her autonomy continue in the same way after birth, and therefore doesn't the woman's bodily autonomy then trump the child's life interests after birth as well? Would that not absolve her of her duty to care for the child after birth? How is that justifiable? I see an ethical inconsistency here.

Why should a woman's bodily autonomy prevail after the point in gestation where the fetus becomes a person endowed with rights? Given that the consequences to the woman are usually a few more weeks of gestation and discomfort, and the consequence to the fetus is death, what is your ethical argument that the woman's rights should prevail in such a case?

You seem not to understand the difference between inside and attached, versus outside and unattached.

Also-- once the baby is out, a woman can still decide not to care for it-- by putting it up for adoption. She's just not allowed to kill it anymore.

[Coito ergo sum]

All right, clearly we've reached the point where we'll just go round and round. Particularly considering this:

Only if you presume as a given that the fetus is not a person at any time prior to birth.

I have said several times now I do think the fetus is a person prior to birth. I maintain that a woman is also a person, with a right to control her body and rid it of inhabitants she doesn't want. Those inhabitants may be peaople, as in a baby. Doesn't matter. The woman's right to bodily autonomy trumps the baby'r right to live off the woman's body.

So how exactly does that work ethically. If a woman's bodily autonomy trumps the right of the baby to live "off the woman's body" before birth, does not her autonomy continue in the same way after birth, and therefore doesn't the woman's bodily autonomy then trump the child's life interests after birth as well? Would that not absolve her of her duty to care for the child after birth? How is that justifiable? I see an ethical inconsistency here.

Why should a woman's bodily autonomy prevail after the point in gestation where the fetus becomes a person endowed with rights? Given that the consequences to the woman are usually a few more weeks of gestation and discomfort, and the consequence to the fetus is death, what is your ethical argument that the woman's rights should prevail in such a case?

You seem not to understand the difference between inside and attached, versus outside and unattached.

Also-- once the baby is out, a woman can still decide not to care for it-- by putting it up for adoption. She's just not allowed to kill it anymore.

She can't put it up for adoption without the father's consent. Nor can she decide not to provide support. The father has the same right as the mother to sue for child support.

[hadespussercats]

I have said several times now I do think the fetus is a person prior to birth. I maintain that a woman is also a person, with a right to control her body and rid it of inhabitants she doesn't want. Those inhabitants may be peaople, as in a baby. Doesn't matter. The woman's right to bodily autonomy trumps the baby'r right to live off the woman's body.

So how exactly does that work ethically. If a woman's bodily autonomy trumps the right of the baby to live "off the woman's body" before birth, does not her autonomy continue in the same way after birth, and therefore doesn't the woman's bodily autonomy then trump the child's life interests after birth as well? Would that not absolve her of her duty to care for the child after birth? How is that justifiable? I see an ethical inconsistency here.

Why should a woman's bodily autonomy prevail after the point in gestation where the fetus becomes a person endowed with rights? Given that the consequences to the woman are usually a few more weeks of gestation and discomfort, and the consequence to the fetus is death, what is your ethical argument that the woman's rights should prevail in such a case?

You seem not to understand the difference between inside and attached, versus outside and unattached.

Also-- once the baby is out, a woman can still decide not to care for it-- by putting it up for adoption. She's just not allowed to kill it anymore.[/quote]

She can't put it up for adoption without the father's consent. Nor can she decide not to provide support. The father has the same right as the mother to sue for child support.[/quote]

Okay, fair enough. But if the father doesn't mind, she can give it up for adoption.

[Coito ergo sum]

Okay, fair enough. But if the father doesn't mind, she can give it up for adoption.

Yuppers.

I think the only way to make things even in the Seth proposal is to allow women to abort, or allow women to choose anytime during pregnancy to have the baby, but give it to the father, or if neither of them wanted it, then it would have to either be left to die of exposure or picked up by the State or adopted.

For the man, he would have the right to demand an abortion and if the woman refused, then he could choose at anytime during pregnancy to keep the baby or leave it to die of exposure or have it picked up by the State adopted.

Unless they both have the option to allow merely disavow the child after birth, then the situation is not equal.

[eXcommunicate]

Unless they both have the option to allow merely disavow the child after birth, then the situation is not equal.

Biologically, the situation is not equal though. This should be taken into account.





Edited 3.5.2012-- fixed quote attribution.

[Seth]

That's a rational argument. But as I have pointed out, "personhood" is not a scientific determination, it's a political and social determination, so there is no real impediment to society declaring "personhood" at the zygote stage, is there?

There is no legal impediment to declaring nonpersonhood through the age of 21, or including apes or sperm as "persons."

Correct. Therefore it is vacuous to claim that a woman has a "right" to abort a fetus. She doesn't. She has the permission of society to do so, which can be modified or withdrawn at any time.

Yes, there are abnormal circumstances in which the choice is the life of the fetus or the life of the mother, but let's not let that rare circumstance be the metric for public policy regarding abortion, let's deal with that when the issue arises.

We don't have to, but let's not let the future dictate the present. And, before the fetus gets along in development, it is not about a threat at all, generally speaking. If, however, a threat to the mother arises at any point in time during the pregnancy, and it's medically necessary to sacrifice the fetus to save the mother, then the decision to save the mother ought to prevail.

In this, I agree. I would add the proviso however that if the fetus is viable, then perhaps there is a duty to try to save both the mother and the fetus.

That approaches my position, since I can't seem to wrap my arms around the idea of aborting a pree-mee when there is the ability to retrieve it and put it up for adoption.

And if and when artificial uteri or transplantation of a fetus (at any stage) into a willing host becomes technologically feasible, I will agree that a woman should be permitted to have the fetus safely removed to another uterus (artificial or othewise) on demand. Until then, at some point in gestation, the fetus develops rights which are due respect and the mother can and must be prevented from deliberately harming the fetus from that time on until delivery. It's a matter of sitting on one's rights until one loses them, which is a very old tradition in the law. If you want an abortion, do it as early as possible, because at some point you may rightfully be denied the permission to have one.

2. Even nonperson are protected from harm where the law specifies. One can't just go shoot one's neighbors dog, and the neighbor nowadays can't generally go shoot his own dog. And, even property is protected from harm by the law. Personhood is not required.

That is a property issue. You can shoot your neighbor's dog if it's attacking you or your livestock (and I have done so), and there are no legal consequences for shooting your own dog in most places. But if you wrongfully shoot your neighbor's dog, the best he can do is sue you for damages to his property. It's hardly the same thing.

Even non-persons are protected from harm where the law specifies. That's the point.

Any object or creature may be legally protected from the deliberate acts of a person that would harm it if it's in the best interests of society to bar such injury. The ESA is sufficient proof of that.[/quote]

That's part of why having an argument over "is it a person" or "is it not a person" is a canard.

It doesn't matter if it's a "person" in the legal sense. What matters is how it is in fact treated under the law.

Well, yes, except that a legal determination of "personhood" brings with it a panoply of rights and protections that do not necessarily accrue to property. Your dog is property, so you can obtain, at best, compensation for the fair market value of that property if it's killed wrongfully. With a person, much more by way of legal protection, compensation, and punishment for harm is possible, so it does matter if the fetus is deemed to be a person or not, unless you're suggesting applying all those rights and protections specifically to a fetus as well as to a person, which seems redundant.

[Tyrannical]

Too bad you can't abort an ex-wife out of your life. Just kick her out with no alimony or taking of your hard worked for assets. It's yours and she has no right or say in the matter.
We'll call her viable if she can survive on her own outside your household on her own. Still not fair though, it's not like a fetus can go to a bar and pick up another womb

[Seth]

Too bad you can't abort an ex-wife out of your life. Just kick her out with no alimony or taking of your hard worked for assets. It's yours and she has no right or say in the matter.
We'll call her viable if she can survive on her own outside your household on her own. Still not fair though, it's not like a fetus can go to a bar and pick up another womb

You can, if you plan carefully. It's called a "pre nup." Don't leave home without one.