For pro-choicers: where do you draw the line, and why?

[aociswundumho]

So again..."who says?" Who says the unborn have a right to life?

Many people do. They believe the unborn have rights, therefore killing the unborn is murder.

Presumably you disagree. Ok, then when does the baby get its rights?

 

[Individual]

You own what is contained in your body.

There's the answer to your question in post #16.

 

[aociswundumho]

There's the answer to your question in post #16.

No, it doesn't answer the question. Expelling the baby means the mother exercised her right to her own body, it has nothing to do with the rights of the baby. Furthermore, I highly doubt you even believe what you are saying, unless you believe the mother should be allowed to have an abortion at the time of delivery.

 

[MrWonka]

My understanding is that the question comes down to when the fetus/baby/human has rights. We know that a fertilized egg does not have rights. We also know that a 5 year old child does have rights. So somewhere between the fertilized egg and the 5 years later this being became endowed with human rights.

So let's hear you opinion regarding when it becomes not ok to kill the fetus/baby/human and why. The why is very important. If you don't have a good reason, then you're just guessing.

When the process of aborting becomes equally as cumbersome, painful, and or dangerous as simply giving birth and giving the child up for adoption.

No person is allowed to cause you pain against your will. No person is allowed to force you to suffer labor for them, suffered bodily deformation, and potentially risk death even if they need it for their survival. A woman always has a right to have whatever is growing inside of her removed just as you have a right to demand a Jehovah's witness get off your porch.
If the fetus is developed to the point where it can survive on its own or in incubation it's likely just as difficult, dangerous, and painful to remove the baby alive via C-section as it would be to abort.

But the more important question that needs to be answered is, when does the Government have the right to know you are pregnant in the first place? At what point can a hospital or doctor be required to notify the government of the child's existence?
When I child is born there is a birth certificate that is made part of the public record and registered at the courthouse. Should there be a conception certificate? Should home pregnancy tests be illegal? Should all women be required to report their pregnancy to the authorities as soon as they're aware of them?
Should a doctor be required to notify the state when they determine a woman is pregnant?

If a woman has a miscarriage should that require a homicide investigation in which the woman's body is a crime scene and the woman is the prime suspect? What type of tests can the Police require a woman to be subjected to in order to gather evidence in such a case?
Would it be worse to let women get away with performing a self-abortion or to subject every woman that has a miscarriage to the suspicion that she might have intentionally murdered her child? Keep in mind that approximately 1/3rd of all pregnancies in America result in a miscarriage.

How many women might avoid going to the doctor in the first place if they knew the doctor might report their pregnancy to the police?
If you determine a woman aborted a fetus what should be the punishment? Life in prison? The Death Sentence?

How will you know if the women herself even knew she was pregnant? If you find alcohol or drugs in the system of a woman who recently had a miscarriage is that gross negligence even if she didn't know she was pregnant?

Can you imagine if men could get pregnant? Do you think there's any way in hell a congress with a majority of men or a court with a majority of men would subject men to these types of disturbing privacy violations at the hands of the government?
Or is it only because men don't have to worry about ever being put into these ridiculous scenarios that they are willing to vote for abortion bans?

 

[aociswundumho]

When the process of aborting becomes equally as cumbersome, painful, and or dangerous as simply giving birth and giving the child up for adoption.

How the hell do you determine that?

No person is allowed to cause you pain against your will. No person is allowed to force you to suffer labor for them, suffered bodily deformation, and potentially risk death even if they need it for their survival. A woman always has a right to have whatever is growing inside of her removed just as you have a right to demand a Jehovah's witness get off your porch.

I completely agree.

If only you would hold on to that principle for other issues.

But the more important question that needs to be answered is, when does the Government have the right to know you are pregnant in the first place?

Never, of course, just like the government has no right to know your income.

 

[Individual]

No, it doesn't answer the question. Expelling the baby means the mother exercised her right to her own body, it has nothing to do with the rights of the baby. Furthermore, I highly doubt you even believe what you are saying, unless you believe the mother should be allowed to have an abortion at the time of delivery.

I do believe the Woman has the sovereign right to make such a decision, though I expect most every choice to have an abortion would occur prior to that point in time.

 

[MrWonka]

What difference does that make? Why does the baby have rights now but it didn't when it was inside the mother's body?

Because when the child is viable its rights no longer conflict with the rights of the mother.

We weigh conflicting rights all the time. People have a right to bare arms, but if someone commits a felony using a gun they no longer have a right to own one because they have proven they are willing to use that gun to violate someone else's.

Self Defense requires us to weigh one person's life over another. We know that in many cases police and white people have been acquitted of killing black people simply by claiming they felt threatened or scared even when there is very little excuse for them to be.

If a fetus can be extracted from a woman's body alive with equal difficulties compared to aborting it then the fetus has every right to be extracted and attempt to survive by itself, but if that is not possible then the woman's right to no longer remain pregnant are more important.

 

[aociswundumho]

I do believe the Woman has the sovereign right to make such a decision, though I expect most every choice to have an abortion would occur prior to that point in time.

Really? How about 10 minutes after the baby is born. Is that still ok with you?

 

[Lursa]

Many people do. They believe the unborn have rights, therefore killing the unborn is murder.

We're talking about killing, not rights.

A baby in the US has rights. It's illegal to kill babies.

The morality of killing the unborn is a different thing. I also asked you earlier why this is all about the unborn? Dont the moral implications impact the woman as well? Does that matter to the discussion? If not, why not?

I believe the govt is morally correct in protecting the woman from having her bodily autonomy violated without her consent. That has nothing to do with the Const...that's a personal imposition of other people's 'feelings' or morals on individuals that dont believe the same if a much safer medical procedure were denied to her.

Presumably you disagree. Ok, then when does the baby get its rights?

This is all codified and clear 'legally.' Do you really need it sourced? You've been in threads where I've cut and pasted US Legal Code, Section One of the 14th Amendment, the RvW decision quotes, etc. And again, rights are a legal concept. And our Const 'recognizes' them, it does not grant them.

Morally (and legally) born and unborn cannot be treated equally. It's not possible (if you believe otherwise, please explain how?)

Morally I absolutely side with NOT intentionally imposing pain and suffering on another. The side of not diminishing a person by removing their consent to what happens to their body...in front of all society (e.g. women would no longer have equal status with men). Their right to self-determination in life...which dangerous pregnancy and a lifetime of motherhood changes. Those 'changes' should absolutely be the decision of the person undergoing them.

I believe in quality of life, not quantity.

The unborn suffer nothing, no pain (dont waste time arguing this, it can all be sourced as well. Doing so would only be a diversion on your part) and no diminishing in status before society. No loss of consent to what happens to them imposed on them by society. So again, I side with the born.

If you disagree, how do you justify denying women self-determination in life, in society, in order to provide the exact same thing to the unborn instead?

 

[aociswundumho]

Because when the child is viable its rights no longer conflict with the rights of the mother.

The newborn baby still needs to be taken care of, hence the conflict still exists either with the mother or with someone else.

 

[MamboDervish]

My understanding is that the question comes down to when the fetus/baby/human has rights. We know that a fertilized egg does not have rights. We also know that a 5 year old child does have rights. So somewhere between the fertilized egg and the 5 years later this being became endowed with human rights.

So let's hear you opinion regarding when it becomes not ok to kill the fetus/baby/human and why. The why is very important. If you don't have a good reason, then you're just guessing.

You cannot bestow human rights on something that has no identity, and being born is the beginning of one's identity.

 

[MrWonka]

How the hell do you determine that?

Just because it is difficult doesn't mean the point doesn't exist. The point of viability is a good place to start. At a very minimum, we know that before that point there is no way the fetus can survive at all.

I completely agree.

If only you would hold on to that principle for other issues.

Liberals do. It is the right which is very inconsistant on this point.

the government has no right to know your income.

Of course, it does. Printing U.S. Money is the sole domain of the U.S. government. They have every right to know how much of it is in circulation, who has it, and how much was transferred to you this year.

 

[MrWonka]

The newborn baby still needs to be taken care of, hence the conflict still exists either with the mother or with someone else.

But not by the mother. Hence it is a voluntary transaction that the mother can relieve herself of without destroying the child.
The state can relieve the mother of her burden, therefore, the state has a say in what happens to the child.

 

[Lursa]

Because when the child is viable its rights no longer conflict with the rights of the mother.

Yes they do. The govt nor society cannot act on the unborn in anyway without her consent. To do so violates several of her Const rights, including her 'security of the person,' 4th Amendment (bodily autonomy).

The unborn, a no stage, has rights.

For a moral perspective on this, a 'moral right,' please see my post 59.

 

[aociswundumho]

Just because it is difficult doesn't mean the point doesn't exist. The point of viability is a good place to start.

Why?

At a very minimum, we know that before that point there is no way the fetus can survive at all.

The baby can't still can't survive on its own after it is born.

Liberals do.

No, they don't.

Of course, it does. Printing U.S. Money is the sole domain of the U.S. government. They have every right to know how much of it is in circulation, who has it, and how much was transferred to you this year.

Great, so you agree that people paid in crypto should not have to report their income to the government.

 

[aociswundumho]

But not by the mother. Hence it is a voluntary transaction that the mother can relieve herself of without destroying the child.

So the mother can desert her one month old baby in the woods, and there's nothing morally wrong with that?

 

[Lursa]

The newborn baby still needs to be taken care of, hence the conflict still exists either with the mother or with someone else.

If no one else cares for the baby, it dies. It requires a society to decide to care for other people. However in doing so, it does not affect the woman who bore the baby.

For the same reason, the society decided that it cannot take the baby away from the woman who bore it...without reason (in the US, that's due process). In Romania, they felt differently a few regimes ago.

We in the US as a society believe it is moral to care for other people and to allow parents to raise their children. I believe that is moral.

 

[aociswundumho]

If no one else cares for the baby, it dies.

So just to be clear, you have no problem with a mother abandoning her baby and letting it die, correct?

 

[MrWonka]

So the mother can desert her one month old baby in the woods, and there's nothing morally wrong with that?

No, she must notify the state she no longer wishes to care for the baby. If the state believes the child's life has value then the state is welcome to take charge of raising it.
At this point, the state is aware of the child's birth and existence and can require a basic minimal effort on the part of the parent to care for the child or release custody so the state can find a suitable situation for it.

 

[Individual]

Really? How about 10 minutes after the baby is born. Is that still ok with you?

That could be a possibility in rare instances.

 

[soylentgreen]

My understanding is that the question comes down to when the fetus/baby/human has rights. We know that a fertilized egg does not have rights. We also know that a 5 year old child does have rights. So somewhere between the fertilized egg and the 5 years later this being became endowed with human rights.

So let's hear you opinion regarding when it becomes not ok to kill the fetus/baby/human and why. The why is very important. If you don't have a good reason, then you're just guessing.

As there is no reason here to think that the right to make a decision that belongs to the pregnant woman has changed then the answer would be the often repeated phrase of it is a woman's right to decide. And the moment the pregnant woman decides she wants to have a child is the moment that child ( and we can now call it a child ) has the right to be born.

As well your understanding is misplaced. The question still comes down to whether a woman has the right to decide if she wants to be pregnant, not as to what rights a fetus may have.

 

[aociswundumho]

That could be a possibility in rare instances.

Alright, so an hour after it's born. Still ok?

 

[aociswundumho]

As there is no reason here to think that the right to make a decision that belongs to the pregnant woman has changed then the answer would be the often repeated phrase of it is a woman's right to decide. And the moment the pregnant woman decides she wants to have a child is the moment that child ( and we can now call it a child ) has the right to be born.

Does the newborn have the right to be taken care of after it is born?

 

[Lursa]

So just to be clear, you have no problem with a mother abandoning her baby and letting it die, correct?

I was discussing a moral framework, 2 actually, not my view.

For insights into my moral perspective, please see post 59.

 

[Individual]

Alright, so an hour after it's born. Still ok?

There could be instances where it would take more than an hour. Why are you so intent on placing a limit on the Woman to make her choice?