Oh, George.Follow

Even the Bible weighs in on this, such that if someone hits a pregnant woman and she loses the baby, he owes her husband money. (Presumably hitting a non-pregnant woman entails no punishment as long as she's not seriously injured.)

Not that I think we ought to be deciding civil law based on biblical law or anything.

Anyway, I agree with idiggory.

'Cept it was his girlfriend, not his wife, so I suppose he has to pay his sheckles to the lady in question's father.

You see it, you just don't want to accept it. We have contradictions in our laws. Accepting this wouldn't be a justified argument against abortion, it's just reality.



It has much to do with the fetus. If it were all about women having the freedom to control her own body, then abortions would be legal during anytime of the pregnancy. Society has compromised a solution where women are given the freedom to choose for x amount of weeks of her pregnancy and after that, the fetus is protected under the law.



False.



Specifically provide an example. I'm sure my "Congratulations!" posts are not examples.



You have a weird way of acknowledging your own ignorance.

So what happens now? He will get an official felony because white girl's word means three times that of a black teenager in a hoodie and lose his weapon access?

I know you're making a separate point, but still:



1. Women have a right to control their own bodies.
2. Swinging their fists such that they hit someone else in the head is a way in which women may gain control of their bodies.
3. Therefore, punching someone in the head is a right.

See?




Actually, Roe v. Wade set two specific standards on each side that neither side can legislate past. It's incredibly wrong to say that the ruling only limits the degree to which states may restrict abortion. The ruling also limits the degree to which states may allow abortion and does effectively establish that a fetus gains rights gradually as the pregnancy continues.



Er... Technically correct, but not as absolute as most people assume. All constitutional rights can be infringed when they impact with another constitutional right. Like the right to life.



Again, that's not really correct. There's a reason why late term abortions of a viable fetus is a crime. If you were correct, it would be legal to have or perform an abortion right up to the moment of birth. It's not, at least partly because of the Roe v. Wade decision. While conservatives oppose the ruling because it effectively legislated from the bench, the same set of guidelines that say that you cant restrict abortion in the first period of pregnancy also say that you can't allow it once the fetus reaches a certain stage of viable development (typically somewhere around 5-6 months). Roe v. Wade also allows for changes in medical technology, such that as our ability to keep a fetus alive outside the womb increases, the legal standards in terms of abortion must change as well.

The ruling ties abortion to the development and external viability of the fetus. So it's completely wrong to say that the fetus's condition as a living organism is irrelevant. It's arguably the single most relevant element involved.



So like arguing that left over IVF fetuses should be made available to surrogates (so not artificial, but wombs other than their biological mother) so as to give them a chance to live rather than being harvested for stem cells. Or perhaps encouraging women to give children up for adoption rather than aborting in the absence of a magical artificial womb?

You do bring up an interesting point though, but I suspect you're not looking in the more interesting direction. What do you think the pro-choice folks would argue if such a thing were available? I just don't believe that the entire pro-choice argument revolves around a woman's right to control her own body. I think that's the argument used most, because it works. But I honestly think that for many pro-choice folks, it's about the right to abort the child. Period. It's about the right of a woman to divest herself of the responsibility of raising a child in the event of an unplanned pregnancy. I suspect that if artificial wombs existed, the same vocal pro-choice folks will argue that the state has no right to force her to allow her property (in this case the fetus) to be transferred from her and to the artificial womb.


Why do you think the points about raising a child come up in such discussions? If it were only about the woman's right to control her own body, then the cost/burden of raising a child should never enter into the discussion. Yet, it pretty much always does. It's the social argument for abortion as an institution. We can argue whether we like or dislike that, but it is a fact that abortion is supported by many because they believe it allows a means for a woman to avoid a condition (single motherhood) which will significantly decrease her likely socio-economic outcomes. If the woman would still be responsible for the child, even if the entire pregnancy could occur outside her body, those same people would still argue she had a right to terminate the pregnancy.


Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so.

Edited, Nov 19th 2013 7:24pm by gbaji

Iddigory probably wont make this exact argument, but that's because you (and a whole lot of people) have bought into the idea that abortion is based on whether the fetus is "alive". We hear this debate all the time. The pro-life folks talk about "life begins at conception", which prompts some pro-choice folks to (incorrectly) respond with the claim that the fetus isn't alive, or isn't human, or isn't "something" that allows for abortion to be perfectly morally ok. I think that's a completely BS argument though. Of course a fetus is alive. By every freaking definition of the word and it's a dumb argument to try to make precisely because it end with idiots trying to argue the whole "fetus==cancer cells" bit that is frankly just intellectually dishonest. Not to mention manages to miss the fact that cancer cells are also alive.


IMO the correct pro-choice argument is that a fetus is alive the whole time, but develops human rights as the process of gestation occurs. Thus, in the early stages of development its right to live is superseded by the right of the woman to control her body. As the fetus develops though, its rights gradually assert themselves and become more important (since "life" is a more important right than "control of my body" when everything else is equal). Clearly, at the point at which a fetus could survive outside the womb, it should have a full "right to life", right? I mean, I would hope that all of us would agree that if a doctor could perform a c-section instead of an abortion and the fetus would survive that doctor should be morally bound to do so. The trick is figuring out where precisely that point is (or should be), but it's dishonest to proceed with an argument based on the woman's right to control her body that fails to acknowledge at all the rights of the fetus to live.


It's only honest if, as I mentioned above, the real argument is a right for a woman to not have to bear the burden of raising a child. And that's an entirely different argument for completely different reasons and brings with it a whole slew of additional problems anyway. The same late term abortion issue also still exists since there's no reason the woman couldn't have a c-section and give the child up for adoption instead of having an abortion. And frankly, it's one of the more troubling aspects of this issue that we do see people advocating for the "right" of a woman to abort in that situation even when it makes absolutely no sense under any reasonable argument anyone could make. It's almost like for some, it's ceased to even be about the social aspect and has simply become some bizarre belief in an absolute right to perform the damn medical procedure itself. And that's freaking insane and should be rejected by everyone on all sides.

The "You are never free unless you can do literally anything you want" line of reasoning has never been interesting, nor has it ever been anything but absurd.

We live in a society that has established that all people have a set of rights. You do not have the right to infringe upon those rights, even if that occasionally creates limitations in the scope of your own rights. I don't have the right to punch you in the face, because you have not done anything to forfeit your protections against that.

A fetus, even if it is a person, only has right to control its own body. It's a shame that it can't live without a host, but that doesn't mean hosts are obligated to house it.

How many homeless people die to exposure a year? Yet we don't require people to house them in their homes. How many people die from not getting a kidney in time in the US? Kidney donations are always voluntary. Blood transfusions? Even if it's guaranteed to save a life, and is the only possible way that life will be saved, I'm not obligated to offer mine.

Someone's right to life does not trump my basic rights. And it sure as hell doesn't trump my right to control my own body.

If fetuses are people, it's a shame they can't live without a host. But that's not the host's problem. The fetus would still only have a right to its own body, as incapable of sustaining itself as it is.

If a woman doesn't want to be its host, then she is perfectly within her rights to abort. Because the fetus' right to life does not supersede her own right to control her body.

My liver could contain the cure to a pancreatic cancer. You still wouldn't have the right to even biopsy it without my permission.

My personal favorite is, "How would you feel if your mother aborted you?!"

Ohh, that's what you're trying to do? Try being clear and concise next time you do that, maybe even say what you mean instead of some unrelated attempt at looking clever.

I'd be in pieces over it

That depends on how you look at it. For you in particular, they are conceptually similar, but in general they are not. I'm not sure why posters think I should continue to reiterate entire posts because they chose not to read it. If there is something that you don't understand, then quote specifically what you don't understand. Assuming that you can read English, there are parts of the post that you DO UNDERSTAND.