Against abortion and against person-hood?

[gcthomas]

I think you are a dumbbell.

I suppose your contentless comment saves you from actually answering my post. The question remains, though. If I kill a person through negligence I am criminally liable for not taking sufficient care of that life. The point was made that there would be unintended consequences of making a foetus legally a person and the point was summarily dismissed. Yet you have no answer to the actual issue.

How can you treat a foetus as a person of it is not to be protected from negligent killing like any other person?

 

[Ktoyou]

I suppose your contentless comment saves you from actually answering my post. The question remains, though. If I kill a person through negligence I am criminally liable for not taking sufficient care of that life. The point was made that there would be unintended consequences of making a foetus legally a person and the point was summarily dismissed. Yet you have no answer to the actual issue.

How can you treat a foetus as a person of it is not to be protected from negligent killing like any other person?

Intent and negligence are legal terms. As such, they are taken case by case. In some cases, such as one struck by a car when walking in a pedestrian zone will not be the same is one walking across a busy street when traffic does not permit.

Your question lacks substance; the law has the same ramifications when pregnant, as it would having a toddler in care.

 

[gcthomas]

Intent and negligence are legal terms. As such, they are taken case by case. In some cases, such as one struck by a car when walking in a pedestrian zone will not be the same is one walking across a busy street when traffic does not permit.

Your question lacks substance; the law has the same ramifications when pregnant, as it would having a toddler in care.

Delmar said that granting foetuses the rights of personhood "could never do anything to criminalize miscarriage.", while others warned of unintended consequences.

Why would someone who caused a miscarriage by her own negligence not be criminally liable for the death of her foetus if she had caused it by negligence, just as if a post-partum baby had died through her mother's negligence? What exactly do you see as the difference?

 

[Ktoyou]

I have already answered this. It depends on the act being considered negligent, and to what degree.

 

[gcthomas]

I have already answered this. It depends on the act being considered negligent, and to what degree.

Would you want negligent pregnant women to be charged with manslaughter?

 

[PureX]

WHY does one person's autonomy need to *unsurp* the other's?

The fetus in not autonomous. It's 'personhood' is dependent upon the mother's personhood being willing to sacrifice her body to it while it's developing to the point where it's body can survive on it's own. If the mother is not willing to do that, than either the fetus' presumed autonomous personhood is ended, forever, or the mother's actual autonomous personhood is usurped by force, at least until the child is born.

This argument implies that only one (the child or mother) can and will survive the pregnancy instead of acknowledging that the mother sees the unborn child as an inconvenience.

It's not about physical survival, it's about autonomous personhood. If I enslave you indefinitely, and make you do my bidding all the days of your life, you could survive, but not with autonomy. Which means you will never get to live your own life, you will only be able to live the life that I dictate to you.

Is that living? Sure, you'd survive, but for what? What's the point of existing without free will? Without the autonomy to be yourself?

Everyone thinks the abortion issue is just about survival. But it's not. Not unless the fetus could be removed to develop in an artificial womb. But so far we can't do that. So for the fetus to survive long enough for it to become an autonomous being (and thereby claim it's personhood), it remains subject to the autonomous personhood of it's mother because it can't survive outside her womb. And if we force her to carry that fetus to birth (so that it can gain it's own autonomy), we are usurping her autonomy in the same way we usurp the autonomy of a slave. And slavery is illegal in this country, and in most countries of the world for good reason! Because even though it does not end one's physical existence, it does end one's personhood.

 

[Ktoyou]

Would you want negligent pregnant women to be charged with manslaughter?

If the case permits.

 

[Rusha]

Is that living? Sure, you'd survive, but for what? What's the point of existing without free will? Without the autonomy to be yourself?

The person in question already practiced *free will* when they consented to the possibility of pregnancy. The only person who is having their autonomy trampled on is the unborn baby, who, by no action of their own, was conceived.

 

[Crucible]

:mock: People who try to convince themselves that abortion is 1st degree murder

..and crack at the slightest logical counter

 

[Rusha]

:mock: People who try to convince themselves that abortion is 1st degree murder

..and crack at the slightest logical counter

That's a rather odd position for an anti-abortion/prolife advocate ...

The unborn are either innocent human beings deserving of life or they are nothing more than a parasite. Which is it?

 

[patrick jane]

The fetus in not autonomous. It's 'personhood' is dependent upon the mother's personhood being willing to sacrifice her body to it while it's developing to the point where it's body can survive on it's own. If the mother is not willing to do that, than either the fetus' presumed autonomous personhood is ended, forever, or the mother's actual autonomous personhood is usurped by force, at least until the child is born.
It's not about physical survival, it's about autonomous personhood. If I enslave you indefinitely, and make you do my bidding all the days of your life, you could survive, but not with autonomy. Which means you will never get to live your own life, you will only be able to live the life that I dictate to you.

Is that living? Sure, you'd survive, but for what? What's the point of existing without free will? Without the autonomy to be yourself?

Everyone thinks the abortion issue is just about survival. But it's not. Not unless the fetus could be removed to develop in an artificial womb. But so far we can't do that. So for the fetus to survive long enough for it to become an autonomous being (and thereby claim it's personhood), it remains subject to the autonomous personhood of it's mother because it can't survive outside her womb. And if we force her to carry that fetus to birth (so that it can gain it's own autonomy), we are usurping her autonomy in the same way we usurp the autonomy of a slave. And slavery is illegal in this country, and in most countries of the world for good reason! Because even though it does not end one's physical existence, it does end one's personhood.

You make no sense

 

[Crucible]

That's a rather odd position for an anti-abortion/prolife advocate ...

The unborn are either innocent human beings deserving of life or they are nothing more than a parasite. Which is it?

That's a false dichotomy. A fetus is neither a born human or 'parasite'.

If you had to choose between your four year old son and your four month old fetus, you would choose your four year old son because you know deep down that what you all push on this matter just isn't the case

 

[Delmar]

Delmar said that granting foetuses the rights of personhood "could never do anything to criminalize miscarriage.", while others warned of unintended consequences.

Why would someone who caused a miscarriage by her own negligence not be criminally liable for the death of her foetus if she had caused it by negligence, just as if a post-partum baby had died through her mother's negligence? What exactly do you see as the difference?

What you are describing is not criminalizing miscarriage but rather criminalizing causing harm through neglect. Why would you have a problem with that?

 

[Nick M]

 

[Rusha]

:mock: People who try to convince themselves that abortion is 1st degree murder

..and crack at the slightest logical counter

That's a rather odd position for an anti-abortion/prolife advocate ...

The unborn are either innocent human beings deserving of life or they are nothing more than a parasite. Which is it?

That's a false dichotomy. A fetus is neither a born human or 'parasite'.

If you had to choose between your four year old son and your four month old fetus, you would choose your four year old son because you know deep down that what you all push on this matter just isn't the case

I didn't state the fetus is a *born* human, but rather an innocent human being. Are you denying the innocence and humanity of unborn babies?

Insofar as the example you used about choosing between a four your old and an unborn baby .... that is the type of red herring I would expect from a pro-abortion advocate.

 

[gcthomas]

If the case permits.

That is a vague answer for such a definite moral question. Under what circumstances would you not want a woman who has negligently caused her own miscarriage to be prosecuted for manslaughter?

 

[gcthomas]

Should this mother be prosecuted for risking her baby's health with smoking?

 

[PureX]

The person in question already practiced *free will* when they consented to the possibility of pregnancy. The only person who is having their autonomy trampled on is the unborn baby, who, by no action of their own, was conceived.

Unwanted pregnancies are not "consented to". They are the result of rape, misfortune, or carelessness. And anyway, the blame issue is pointless because there will always be unwanted pregnancies.

Bob rapes Mary and forces her to carry his child to birth.

Steve rapes Mary and then Bob forces her to carry Steve's child to birth.

What's the difference, really? The rape is an usurpation of Mary's personal autonomy, and is illegal. Yet forcing Mary to carry the pregnancy through to birth is also an usurpation of Mary's personal autonomy. So why is it wrong for Steve to usurp Mary's autonomy by forcibly impregnating her, yet it's not wrong for Bob to usurp her personal autonomy by forcing her to carry the pregnancy through?

Why is YOUR usurping Mary's autonomy OK, in your mind, but a rapist usurping her autonomy not OK in your mind?

The answer is that you have endowed the fetus with it's own autonomous personhood from the moment of it's conception. But the fetus is NOT autonomous, even if it is it's own unique "person". The fetus' personhood is dependent upon the mother's until it is birthed. Yet you are determining that the fetus' personhood is of greater import than the mother's personhood, even though her personhood IS autonomous, while the fetus' is not.

Why?

The answer to this question of usurping personal autonomy is really the crux of the abortion issue, NOT the life or death of a human being. Because we kill human beings all the time, on purpose, without compunction.

 

[PureX]

You make no sense

I'm referring to the difference between existing, and living. Existing without autonomy is not living, … for we humans. We need to exist autonomously (with the liberty of free will) to become who we are, as individual 'persons'. Our 'personhood' can only be developed through autonomous thought and action. Without it, our personhood is stifled, negated, and pointless, because although we can continue to exist; we cannot not fully live our own lives.

And a fetus in the womb is not autonomous. It does not possess the liberty of free will, nor therefor the ability to develop it's 'personhood'. The mother, however, is a autonomous being with a developed personality. So the question is: why should her autonomy be usurped by the presumed "personhood" of a fetus that is not yet even autonomous? And more importantly, why should her autonomous personhood be usurped by ours, when we force her to carry an unwanted pregnancy to birth?

Are you beginning to understand the issue, here? The abortion debate is really about personal autonomy, and who's usurps who's.

 

[Crucible]

I didn't state the fetus is a *born* human, but rather an innocent human being. Are you denying the innocence and humanity of unborn babies?

"Innocent human being" is adding more credence than what is actually present in the womb- it's an innocent fetus.
There's a difference.

Equal value of a fetus to that of an already born person only subtracts from the value of born life. It makes autonomy and sentience frivolous, which are the two primary functions which makes us in God's likeness.

Insofar as the example you used about choosing between a four your old and an unborn baby .... that is the type of red herring I would expect from a pro-abortion advocate.

It's actually a very good example that brings out the reality of the matter- it proves you wrong.

The fact of the matter is that you all- and a lot of ultra conservative society- simply evolved into calling it 'murder' through constantly reproaching others.


As for 'pro abortion', I do not support it. It's still a sin against natural law, the same as homosexuality, cannibalism, and anything else which goes against Adamic principle.