A secular debate about abortion

[Seth]

The mother and the abortionist are forcing the fetus to "have an abortion." They are killing the fetus. Only by denying the fetus rights can your argument be sustained, and whether a fetus does, or should have rights is precisely the point of the debate, so you can't escape the debate that easily.

Nobody has "escaped" the debate or even tried.

You indicated that the embryo and the fetus was no different from a living, breathing human being. You asked for differences - many differences - material, serious, substantial differences - were listed. Clearly, your assertion that the only difference between an embryonic Angelina Jolie and the extraordinarily hot and breathing Angelina Jolie is "time" is plainly incorrect.

The adult human and the surgeon are forcing the appendix to "have an appendectomy." They are killing the appendix. Only by denying the appendix rights can the argument that appendixes can be removed (if the possessor of the appendix desires) be sustained, and whether an appendix does, or should have rights is precisely the point of the debate. It's a human appendix, after all.

Your argument is that because an embryo may develop into a breathing human it must be granted the right to continue existing regardless of the will of its possessor, the mother. The potentiality of birth, in your view, means the mother must serve the embryo or fetus. The only way that can be sustained is to deny the woman the right to control her own health and medical decisions, and place that decision in the hands of the State to decide when her abortion is allowable, and when she must serve as an unwilling host.

Now you try to install "breathing" as the criteria for "personhood." But "breath" is not the demarcation point even in the law as it exists today. It is the LOCATION OF THE FETUS that determines whether it is a human being entitled to respect of its rights, and LOCATION alone, as I've proven conclusively with the c-section example. You can only attempt to evade this fact by stopping time at some particular instant and saying "Look, the fetus is not the full-grown Angelina Jolie, therefore it is not human and has no rights." But as I've proven, "personhood" is, in law at the moment, not a function of stage of development at all. The c-section example proves this. The premature fetus delivered by c-section becomes a fully-vested human person the instant it's removed from the mother's womb by the surgeon. But it's not reached the natural stage of development reached for vaginal delivery, and it has not been vaginally delivered. The ONLY DIFFERENCE between a fetus of the same developmental stage and the fetus removed by c-section is LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION. Yet one has full human rights, and the other may be killed with impunity. That is irrational and illogical in the extreme.

[Tero]

Fetus production appear normal, slightly below replacement units, immigration keeps the population on the rise.
http://teroreport.blogspot.com/2011/03/ ... tuses.html

[Coito ergo sum]

Now you try to install "breathing" as the criteria for "personhood." But "breath" is not the demarcation point even in the law as it exists today. It is the LOCATION OF THE FETUS that determines whether it is a human being entitled to respect of its rights, and LOCATION alone, as I've proven conclusively with the c-section example. You can only attempt to evade this fact by stopping time at some particular instant and saying "Look, the fetus is not the full-grown Angelina Jolie, therefore it is not human and has no rights." But as I've proven, "personhood" is, in law at the moment, not a function of stage of development at all. The c-section example proves this. The premature fetus delivered by c-section becomes a fully-vested human person the instant it's removed from the mother's womb by the surgeon. But it's not reached the natural stage of development reached for vaginal delivery, and it has not been vaginally delivered. The ONLY DIFFERENCE between a fetus of the same developmental stage and the fetus removed by c-section is LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION. Yet one has full human rights, and the other may be killed with impunity. That is irrational and illogical in the extreme.

You're mixing two things together that don't mix.

Where did I try to install breathing as THE criteria for personhood? I did not. Personhood is not defined by logic. It's defined by the law.

You made a specific assertion that the "only difference" between a fetus and an adult is time. That is plainly not true.

You are also incorrect that the "location of the fetus and location alone" that matters. That is not the only criteria.

The fact that a born fetus may have more rights than an unborn is not a function of the location, but a function of the relationship between the mother and the fetus, as well as the fact that the fetus begins to breathe, generally speaking, after a c-section. It's not "just" location. Moreover, the change in location is not insignificant.

[hiyymer]

I'm not into complex legal angles that require judges and lawyers. So it is a simple case of there is a fetus inside this woman, it is her fetus. The guy lost rights to his sperm when he let go of them. Now the complicated part is when the kid is born, then we do recognize two parents. But even that could be decided on the spot. If the father provides no support at birth, then he has lost all claims to it.

SIMPLE!

Next case.

Could be decided but typically isn't. This problem gets huge in the case of abortion versus adoption. The mother can abort on her own, but adopt only with the sperm donor's agreement. While it's true that the judge can ignore the father's rights if he hasn't provided support, if there is any gray area it will take years to sort it out in court and meanwhile the mother either turns the baby over to the state or keeps it, a no-win situation for her and especially for the baby. If the pro-life people want to argue that adoption is a real option, then they need to change the law so that a mother who wishes to place a kid for adoption can do it on her own.

[Seth]

Now you try to install "breathing" as the criteria for "personhood." But "breath" is not the demarcation point even in the law as it exists today. It is the LOCATION OF THE FETUS that determines whether it is a human being entitled to respect of its rights, and LOCATION alone, as I've proven conclusively with the c-section example. You can only attempt to evade this fact by stopping time at some particular instant and saying "Look, the fetus is not the full-grown Angelina Jolie, therefore it is not human and has no rights." But as I've proven, "personhood" is, in law at the moment, not a function of stage of development at all. The c-section example proves this. The premature fetus delivered by c-section becomes a fully-vested human person the instant it's removed from the mother's womb by the surgeon. But it's not reached the natural stage of development reached for vaginal delivery, and it has not been vaginally delivered. The ONLY DIFFERENCE between a fetus of the same developmental stage and the fetus removed by c-section is LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION. Yet one has full human rights, and the other may be killed with impunity. That is irrational and illogical in the extreme.

You're mixing two things together that don't mix.

Where did I try to install breathing as THE criteria for personhood? I did not. Personhood is not defined by logic. It's defined by the law.

Very good! You're absolutely correct, personhood IS defined by law, which means that a society can define a fetus as a person at any stage of development that it chooses.

You made a specific assertion that the "only difference" between a fetus and an adult is time. That is plainly not true.

That was in the context of the nature of the organism. A human fetus is merely an undeveloped human adult. It never changes its fundamental nature or DNA structure. "A clump of cells" is not a scientific description of anything, nor is "fetus" anything but a description of a stage of development. There is no genus, phylum or species "fetus" or "embryo," all such words simply describe developmental stages of the organism, which may be a monkey, or a dog, or a human being. Thus, one can only correctly describe the organism in this case as a human zygote, human blastocyst, human embryo, human fetus, human infant, human child, human adolescent, or human adult. The organism is at all times human, and thus the "only difference" between a human fetus and a human adult, from the perspective of the genetic makeup of the organism, is time.

You are also incorrect that the "location of the fetus and location alone" that matters. That is not the only criteria.

In the specific context cited, in the legal distinction in use today between a pre-born fetus and a born infant is indeed location. At one instant it's unworthy of legal protection, and at the next it's fully protected, and the only difference is its location.

The fact that a born fetus may have more rights than an unborn is not a function of the location, but a function of the relationship between the mother and the fetus, as well as the fact that the fetus begins to breathe, generally speaking, after a c-section. It's not "just" location. Moreover, the change in location is not insignificant.

You are correct in bringing up the "relationship between the mother and the fetus" because this is the core of the pro abortion argument, which is that so long as the fetus is within the mother, the mother has the absolute right to destroy the fetus. But as you say above, this is a LEGAL distinction, not a scientific one. I was pointing out that the argument that the fetus is something completely different from the scientific perspective at two points in time close to one another, and at two locations close to one another, is a specious one.

You have correctly identified the truth about abortion, which is that it's a matter of personal and social belief and law, not a matter of science. It's a question of whose rights prevail and at what time, which is an entirely legal and societal matter, and there is absolutely no scientific justification involved in the permitting or banning of abortion, it's purely a social decision.

I agree completely.

However, what this means is that there is no innate right to an abortion, and that it is up to society, through its laws, to determine when and if abortion is to be legal by determining at what stage of development the living human being inside the mother is entitled to respect for its civil rights.

And that's what I've been saying all along. The only "right" to an abortion that a woman has is the right which society chooses to acknowledge and defend as her right, and society can choose to impose a burden of gestation upon her if it chooses to do so, whenever it chooses to do so, just as society can impose other burdens on individuals in the interests of justice and law.

[Seth]

I'm not into complex legal angles that require judges and lawyers. So it is a simple case of there is a fetus inside this woman, it is her fetus. The guy lost rights to his sperm when he let go of them. Now the complicated part is when the kid is born, then we do recognize two parents. But even that could be decided on the spot. If the father provides no support at birth, then he has lost all claims to it.

SIMPLE!

Next case.

Could be decided but typically isn't. This problem gets huge in the case of abortion versus adoption. The mother can abort on her own, but adopt only with the sperm donor's agreement. While it's true that the judge can ignore the father's rights if he hasn't provided support, if there is any gray area it will take years to sort it out in court and meanwhile the mother either turns the baby over to the state or keeps it, a no-win situation for her and especially for the baby. If the pro-life people want to argue that adoption is a real option, then they need to change the law so that a mother who wishes to place a kid for adoption can do it on her own.

Why? This disrespects the father's rights. Furthermore, if he's obligated to provide support even though he has no parental rights, why shouldn't the woman also be required to provide support even though she's voluntarily terminated her parental rights?

[Gallstones]

How about this?

The woman gets to decide if she will gestate to term.

Both get to decide on adoption.

If she decides to keep the child and has no agreement with the father prior to the point that abortion is no longer an option, then she can not compel unwilling participation or expect contribution. The father sacrifices parental rights in this case. And since she bears the physical and financial burden she does not owe the father any compensation.

If the father wants the child himself he can collaborate with the mother or compensate her for the physical and financial burdens of pregnancy and childbirth. In the latter case the mother would sacrifice parental rights--unless there has been some other agreement between the two regarding her level of participation and contributions expected.

[Tero]

Why? This disrespects the father's rights. Furthermore, if he's obligated to provide support even though he has no parental rights, why shouldn't the woman also be required to provide support even though she's voluntarily terminated her parental rights?

I don't see a problem here. The man should be able to figure out what comes out from sticking his penis there.

It gets confusing to have multiple people decide on an unplanned pregnancy. A child is different. A fetus is not a child. Courts can decide on a child, it is no longer any part of a woman. If she rejects the child, fine. Let the courts decide on a child. Not on a fetus.

[Seth]

Why? This disrespects the father's rights. Furthermore, if he's obligated to provide support even though he has no parental rights, why shouldn't the woman also be required to provide support even though she's voluntarily terminated her parental rights?

I don't see a problem here. The man should be able to figure out what comes out from sticking his penis there.

And shouldn't a woman be able to figure out the same thing?

It gets confusing to have multiple people decide on an unplanned pregnancy.

Well, that's a good reason not to have an unplanned pregnancy, isn't it? It's no argument for disregarding the rights of the involved parties once it happens, however.

A child is different. A fetus is not a child.

Sez you. Others believe differently, and since the distinction is entirely a social and legal one, as we've established already, there's nothing that prevents the legislature from declaring that a fetus is protected by the Constitution, at least, at present, in the third trimester.

Courts can decide on a child, it is no longer any part of a woman. If she rejects the child, fine. Let the courts decide on a child. Not on a fetus.

Courts can decide on a fetus as well, as Roe v. Wade points out. Courts commonly balance the rights of a parent against the rights of a child, and parents have obligations imposed upon them by law that non-parents do not.

[Gallstones]

How about this?

The woman gets to decide if she will gestate to term.

Both get to decide on adoption.

If she decides to keep the child and has no agreement with the father prior to the point that abortion is no longer an option, then she can not compel unwilling participation or expect contribution. The father sacrifices parental rights in this case. And since she bears the physical and financial burden she does not owe the father any compensation.

If the father wants the child himself he can collaborate with the mother or compensate her for the physical and financial burdens of pregnancy and childbirth. In the latter case the mother would sacrifice parental rights--unless there has been some other agreement between the two regarding her level of participation and contributions expected.

I hate being fucking ignored.

I'm going to the movie--True Grit--then, who the fuck knows.
But, I offered a valid idea--so what the fuck?

I win!

Next!

[Seth]

How about this?

The woman gets to decide if she will gestate to term.

Both get to decide on adoption.

If she decides to keep the child and has no agreement with the father prior to the point that abortion is no longer an option, then she can not compel unwilling participation or expect contribution. The father sacrifices parental rights in this case. And since she bears the physical and financial burden she does not owe the father any compensation.

If the father wants the child himself he can collaborate with the mother or compensate her for the physical and financial burdens of pregnancy and childbirth. In the latter case the mother would sacrifice parental rights--unless there has been some other agreement between the two regarding her level of participation and contributions expected.

I hate being fucking ignored.

I'm going to the movie--True Grit--then, who the fuck knows.
But, I offered a valid idea--so what the fuck?

I win!

Next!

Sorry, didn't mean to ignore you. Enjoy True Grit, it's one outstanding remake.

I don't have a problem with anything except the "The woman gets to decide if she will gestate to term" part.

Which takes us right back to the argument about whether a woman should be legally relieved of her personal responsibility and accountability for creating a child.

I suspect that most pro-abortion people will never agree that a woman can be obliged to gestate a child to term, no matter how irresponsible she was in getting pregnant, under any circumstances whatsoever. So, there's not much left to discuss in that regard, is there?

I doubt there's even a middle ground to be discussed about a woman being required to gestate a fetus to term after fetal viability has been reached, as Roe v. Wade clearly states is within the power of the state.

Please correct me if I'm mistaken.

[Gallstones]

As long as we aren't labeling me as "pro-abortion".

I will be back at some time later.
But I am going out now--and I'm late!!!

Thanks for the reply.

[Gallstones]

How about this?

The woman gets to decide if she will gestate to term.

Both get to decide on adoption.

If she decides to keep the child and has no agreement with the father prior to the point that abortion is no longer an option, then she can not compel unwilling participation or expect contribution. The father sacrifices parental rights in this case. And since she bears the physical and financial burden she does not owe the father any compensation.

If the father wants the child himself he can collaborate with the mother or compensate her for the physical and financial burdens of pregnancy and childbirth. In the latter case the mother would sacrifice parental rights--unless there has been some other agreement between the two regarding her level of participation and contributions expected.

I hate being fucking ignored.

I'm going to the movie--True Grit--then, who the fuck knows.
But, I offered a valid idea--so what the fuck?

I win!

Next!

Sorry, didn't mean to ignore you. Enjoy True Grit, it's one outstanding remake.

I don't have a problem with anything except the "The woman gets to decide if she will gestate to term" part.

Which takes us right back to the argument about whether a woman should be legally relieved of her personal responsibility and accountability for creating a child.

I suspect that most pro-abortion people will never agree that a woman can be obliged to gestate a child to term, no matter how irresponsible she was in getting pregnant, under any circumstances whatsoever. So, there's not much left to discuss in that regard, is there?

I doubt there's even a middle ground to be discussed about a woman being required to gestate a fetus to term after fetal viability has been reached, as Roe v. Wade clearly states is within the power of the state.

Please correct me if I'm mistaken.

I am not pro-abortion. But I do not think that males should presume to dictate what a woman can and can not do with a fetus she does not wish to gestate regardless of the circumstances of it's conception.

At some point the male has to stand aside and stake no claims.
IMO that is the during the early days--first trimester.

So, although I am not pro-abortion, I am vehemently pro-woman's choice.
When you are subject to the burden of pregnancy, gestation, childbirth and infant/child care--then I will feel that you have a voice on the topic that is equal in merit to mine.

If you want children, make sure the women you have sex with are informed and willing to participate with you in that.

If you do not want children insure that you can not, even resorting to surgery to be certain.

How do you justify being careless in your own sexual comportment while trying to enforce some kind of consequences--as punishment, or just desserts--on your partners when those "consequences" manifest?

It is really fucking simple---don't have sex with women you do not want to have children with.

[Seth]

How about this?

The woman gets to decide if she will gestate to term.

Both get to decide on adoption.

If she decides to keep the child and has no agreement with the father prior to the point that abortion is no longer an option, then she can not compel unwilling participation or expect contribution. The father sacrifices parental rights in this case. And since she bears the physical and financial burden she does not owe the father any compensation.

If the father wants the child himself he can collaborate with the mother or compensate her for the physical and financial burdens of pregnancy and childbirth. In the latter case the mother would sacrifice parental rights--unless there has been some other agreement between the two regarding her level of participation and contributions expected.

I hate being fucking ignored.

I'm going to the movie--True Grit--then, who the fuck knows.
But, I offered a valid idea--so what the fuck?

I win!

Next!

Sorry, didn't mean to ignore you. Enjoy True Grit, it's one outstanding remake.

I don't have a problem with anything except the "The woman gets to decide if she will gestate to term" part.

Which takes us right back to the argument about whether a woman should be legally relieved of her personal responsibility and accountability for creating a child.

I suspect that most pro-abortion people will never agree that a woman can be obliged to gestate a child to term, no matter how irresponsible she was in getting pregnant, under any circumstances whatsoever. So, there's not much left to discuss in that regard, is there?

I doubt there's even a middle ground to be discussed about a woman being required to gestate a fetus to term after fetal viability has been reached, as Roe v. Wade clearly states is within the power of the state.

Please correct me if I'm mistaken.

I am not pro-abortion. But I do not think that males should presume to dictate what a woman can and can not do with a fetus she does not wish to gestate regardless of the circumstances of it's conception.

At some point the male has to stand aside and stake no claims.
IMO that is the during the early days--first trimester.

So, although I am not pro-abortion, I am vehemently pro-woman's choice.
When you are subject to the burden of pregnancy, gestation, childbirth and infant/child care--then I will feel that you have a voice on the topic that is equal in merit to mine.

If you want children, make sure the women you have sex with are informed and willing to participate with you in that.

If you do not want children insure that you can not, even resorting to surgery to be certain.

How do you justify being careless in your own sexual comportment while trying to enforce some kind of consequences--as punishment, or just desserts--on your partners when those "consequences" manifest?

It is really fucking simple---don't have sex with women you do not want to have children with.

It's really fucking simple --- don't have sex with men if you do not want to risk having to gestate a baby to term.

Women claim sovereignty over their wombs, as well they should, so why is a man any longer responsible for what she invites him to put there, in any way whatsoever?

It's one or the other, ladies. Either you get to claim sovereign reproductive rights, in which case you can do what you want with the contents of your womb, but have absolutely no claim on the man, or you make a claim upon the man and thereby sacrifice a degree of sovereignty over your womb.

Pick one.

[Gallstones]

How about this?

The woman gets to decide if she will gestate to term.

Both get to decide on adoption.

If she decides to keep the child and has no agreement with the father prior to the point that abortion is no longer an option, then she can not compel unwilling participation or expect contribution. The father sacrifices parental rights in this case. And since she bears the physical and financial burden she does not owe the father any compensation.

If the father wants the child himself he can collaborate with the mother or compensate her for the physical and financial burdens of pregnancy and childbirth. In the latter case the mother would sacrifice parental rights--unless there has been some other agreement between the two regarding her level of participation and contributions expected.

I hate being fucking ignored.

I'm going to the movie--True Grit--then, who the fuck knows.
But, I offered a valid idea--so what the fuck?

I win!

Next!

Sorry, didn't mean to ignore you. Enjoy True Grit, it's one outstanding remake.

I don't have a problem with anything except the "The woman gets to decide if she will gestate to term" part.

Which takes us right back to the argument about whether a woman should be legally relieved of her personal responsibility and accountability for creating a child.

I suspect that most pro-abortion people will never agree that a woman can be obliged to gestate a child to term, no matter how irresponsible she was in getting pregnant, under any circumstances whatsoever. So, there's not much left to discuss in that regard, is there?

I doubt there's even a middle ground to be discussed about a woman being required to gestate a fetus to term after fetal viability has been reached, as Roe v. Wade clearly states is within the power of the state.

Please correct me if I'm mistaken.

I am not pro-abortion. But I do not think that males should presume to dictate what a woman can and can not do with a fetus she does not wish to gestate regardless of the circumstances of it's conception.

At some point the male has to stand aside and stake no claims.
IMO that is the during the early days--first trimester.

So, although I am not pro-abortion, I am vehemently pro-woman's choice.
When you are subject to the burden of pregnancy, gestation, childbirth and infant/child care--then I will feel that you have a voice on the topic that is equal in merit to mine.

If you want children, make sure the women you have sex with are informed and willing to participate with you in that.

If you do not want children insure that you can not, even resorting to surgery to be certain.

How do you justify being careless in your own sexual comportment while trying to enforce some kind of consequences--as punishment, or just desserts--on your partners when those "consequences" manifest?

It is really fucking simple---don't have sex with women you do not want to have children with.

It's really fucking simple --- don't have sex with men if you do not want to risk having to gestate a baby to term.

Women claim sovereignty over their wombs, as well they should, so why is a man any longer responsible for what she invites him to put there, in any way whatsoever?

It's one or the other, ladies. Either you get to claim sovereign reproductive rights, in which case you can do what you want with the contents of your womb, but have absolutely no claim on the man, or you make a claim upon the man and thereby sacrifice a degree of sovereignty over your womb.

Pick one.

Seth, isn't that pretty much what I said, only less crudely and with more words?

Correct me if I'm wrong.