Abortion

[Famine]

@Famine: "It requires an outside agency..." Indeed it does. Not only does it require a womb, it requires a placenta, which serves as the interface between two individuals.

Then the foetus will not develop into a human without the assistance of an outside agency.

As for 'unconstrained rights', I speak in terms of interpersonal/societal interactions, and more specifically, American notions of such. You have exposed me as guilty of unconsciously presuming that 'you think like me'. My apologies.

You're making further presumptions in that post too.

Rights can be unconstrained in interpersonal and societal interactions. Indeed the very concept of rights requires that they are. Please see the Human Rights thread for more.

@Famine: "This female is not a person..." As this statement is in quotations, I'm not certain whether it is an egregious misquote, a bad paraphrase, a comment on my composition, or an indication that perhaps I'm implying that the mother at some point has no rights.

None of those things. I copied the format of your post and transplanted the host entity in place of the parasite (and make no mistake, pregnancy is a host-parasite relationship). You originally used the quotation marks, I copied them.

As I consider the child to be an independent entity from the zygote stage forward, the child is not a part of it's mother, and has rights.

We already showed that the 'child' is not an independent entity at any stage of foetal development - and you agreed that it needs the outside agency of the host to develop. Its development is not inevitable and indeed will inevitably fail without this outside agency until around 24 weeks. After that it needs either the outside agency of the host or other humans to sustain its life and development - for quite a considerable time, well beyond the pregnancy stage.

These rights are not superior to the mothers' rights, but not inferior to the mothers' rights either.

These rights are non-existent as it is, as you have agreed, not an independent entity. The 'mother', on the other hand, is.

From that stand point, I do not object to abortion per/se. I object to abortion as a form of birth-control or to eliminate an inconvenience.

To be clear, you wish to deny the mother her rights that you say you are in favour of in order to preserve the development of an entity you agree is not independent and (through the argument of independence) does not possess rights, despite saying her rights are not inferior to this entity's non-existent rights, for certain subjective reasons to you?

That doesn't sound like you're in favour of "maximum human rights and freedoms in all situations" at all. That sounds like you're in favour of telling women what they can't do with their body when it suits you.

 

[synchromesh]

It's a conundrum for me. If someone were to... uhh... "unlawfully force a girl to have a baby with them" (trying to make it as appropriate as possible) then if abortion is banned will the girl be stuck with the criminal's baby?
What I think should happen is the baby should be birthed, behind a curtain so the mother doesn't see it and the baby should be put in a foster home or up for adoption.

 

[Azuremen]

It's a conundrum for me. If someone were to... uhh... "unlawfully force a girl to have a baby with them" (trying to make it as appropriate as possible) then if abortion is banned will the girl be stuck with the criminal's baby?
What I think should happen is the baby should be birthed, behind a curtain so the mother doesn't see it and the baby should be put in a foster home or up for adoption.

So put a woman through an ordeal after already going through an ordeal, then put a child through an ordeal with no parents?

Sounds lovely. Really does.

 

[synchromesh]

So put a woman through an ordeal after already going through an ordeal, then put a child through an ordeal with no parents?

Sounds lovely. Really does.

It wouldn't have any parents to begin with! The mom wouldn't want it and the offender would be in jail.

 

[Famine]

It's a conundrum for me. If someone were to... uhh... "unlawfully force a girl to have a baby with them" (trying to make it as appropriate as possible)

You can say "raped", it's fine.

then if abortion is banned will the girl be stuck with the criminal's baby?
What I think should happen is the baby should be birthed

I don't know how much you know about childbirth, but let me give you the highlights:

It's absolute agony.
For several hours.
No, really. I mean like... that time you cracked your ribs or had a kidney stone? Yeah, you're two orders of magnitude out. And it's your WHOLE body.
FOR HOURS.
I mean, TENS of hours. This would be outlawed as torture if it were inflicted in interrogations.
Did I mention the part where it literally tears your vagina apart?
That also really hurts.
Oh, all the pushing makes you poo yourself. That bit's fun.
Incidentally, a vaginal deliver often ends with you having to have your vaginal opening sliced open - a procedure called an "epesiotomy". This is even less fun than it sounds.
As are the stitches afterwards.

But hey, after a FULL DAY OF THIS, we're done now, with the vagina torn apart and then cut a bit more for good luck and the poo everywhere.

Oh I forgot, you have to deliver the placenta too. More pushing needed, out of your ripped vagina.
Are we having fun yet?

Let's not mention that girls pretty much know this from sex ed and every minute this approaches will be severe psychological trauma for them. That's kind.

What's that you say? Caesarian section? Well of course you can do that if you don't mind major abdominal surgery - with all the risks that entails - and then several months of possible herniation through your sliced abdominal wall. Still, you get a nice scar from it and at least your vagina stays youthful, even if you never want to wear a bikini again.

So, potted summary - a girl is raped and you want to psychologically, then physically, torture her... because?

 

[Azuremen]

It wouldn't have any parents to begin with! The mom wouldn't want it and the offender would be in jail.

Which doesn't address anything I said at all.

 

[synchromesh]

Which doesn't address anything I said at all.

then put a child through an ordeal with no parents?

Sounds lovely. Really does.

 

[synchromesh]

Fine, I don't know much about abortion I'm just jotting an idea down but it's okay to gang up on me. I'm going back to the "cars" section, every time I comment on something with a different subject this happens.

 

[Azuremen]

Fine, I don't know much about abortion I'm just jotting an idea down but it's okay to gang up on me. I'm going back to the "cars" section, every time I comment on something with a different subject this happens.

If you really feel where are ganging up on you, I suggest you grow some tougher skin. Especially after you suggested a raped woman should be forced to give birth to an unwanted child, and then that child should be forced to go through the foster system. Rather than, you know, getting an abortion after the rape.

Honestly, how do you think people are going to react to such a horrific concept?

 

[Danoff]

What I think should happen is the baby should be birthed, behind a curtain so the mother doesn't see it and the baby should be put in a foster home or up for adoption.

I do like that you took the time to point out the need for a curtain... you actually spent more time worrying about making sure that the mother couldn't keep her baby than justifying what it is that allows us to force her to have it.

 

[synchromesh]

If you really feel where are ganging up on you, I suggest you grow some tougher skin. Especially after you suggested a raped woman should be forced to give birth to an unwanted child, and then that child should be forced to go through the foster system. Rather than, you know, getting an abortion after the rape.

Honestly, how do you think people are going to react to such a horrific concept?

Look, my side is for abortion I think it's a good thing for the most part, some people don't like it and I'm just trying to stay neutral and on both sides. And Danoff, I'm not a woman but if I was I wouldn't want a baby that was related to the rapist! Especially if I had children of my own!

 

[Azuremen]

Look, my side is for abortion I think it's a good thing for the most part, some people don't like it and I'm just trying to stay neutral and on both sides. And Danoff, I'm not a woman but if I was I wouldn't want a baby that was related to the rapist! Especially if I had children of my own!

This doesn't sound terrible neutral to me...

It's a conundrum for me. If someone were to... uhh... "unlawfully force a girl to have a baby with them" (trying to make it as appropriate as possible) then if abortion is banned will the girl be stuck with the criminal's baby?

Where is the conundrum if abortion is "a good thing for the most part" in this case? The scenario you suggested is on par with Biblical notions of how rape victims should be treated. Which isn't good.

 

[sammy neuman]

@Famine: "Then the foetus will not develop into a human..."
You missed my point completely.
As the foetus will never be a dog foetus, or an elephant foetus, it already is human. Calling it a foetus instead of an unborn child does not change that.
The foetus has different DNA from the host mother. That makes the foetus an unique entity. The foetus is not part of the mother. ,That the foetus is dependent upon the mother for survival is well enough known that it did not occur to me to tell you that I know that.
As the rest of your post addresses neither of the above points, I have only one more comment. Do not tell me what 'I wish' based upon your interpretation of what you think I'm saying. Clear enough?

@Danoff: I've never thought that I own my children. Responsible for? Yes. Indentured servants, probably.

 

[Danoff]

As the foetus will never be a dog foetus, or an elephant foetus, it already is human.

We don't have rights merely because we're human. People in prison don't have (all) rights, people in a persistent vegetative state don't have rights, people who suffer from severe mental retardation don't have (all) rights. "Human" is not enough.

@Danoff: I've never thought that I own my children.

You don't.

 

[Azuremen]

As the rest of your post addresses neither of the above points, I have only one more comment. Do not tell me what 'I wish' based upon your interpretation of what you think I'm saying. Clear enough?

It probably wouldn't happen if you formatted your posts in a way that was clearly read. I often end up skipping your posts because of how convoluted they end up feeling between the random line breaks, awkward punctuation, and peculiar word choice. Gives everything a round about kind of feel.

As for your argument, you seem to make no distinction between a fully independent, conscious human being and a collection of cells that have human DNA but are incapable of making a decision, being self aware, or surviving without the human host. Which is a relatively important distinction to draw in this case, given how much you are tossing "human rights" around as justification.

 

[synchromesh]

@Azuremen it is a conundrum, as while it seems bad doesn't a baby still deserve to have life? But then again, what about the mother?

 

[Famine]

@Famine: "Then the foetus will not develop into a human..."
You missed my point completely.
As the foetus will never be a dog foetus, or an elephant foetus, it already is human. Calling it a foetus instead of an unborn child does not change that.

And all of this is irrelevant.

It's a human foetus, not a human. Its development from one to the other is not inevitable and requires considerable third party assistance.

The foetus has different DNA from the host mother. That makes the foetus an unique entity. The foetus is not part of the mother.

Cancer cells have different DNA from the host mother. Are tumours unique entities?

That the foetus is dependent upon the mother for survival is well enough known that it did not occur to me to tell you that I know that.

You skipped over her quick enough when you remarked that the foetus needs no outside agency to become a human...

As the rest of your post addresses neither of the above points, I have only one more comment. Do not tell me what 'I wish' based upon your interpretation of what you think I'm saying. Clear enough?

Aside from the fact it was a question, not a statement (note the question mark at the end), you already told us that you would completely disregard the host's rights in favour of the foetus's (despite conceding that it is not inevitably human and is wholly dependent on another individual to survive, and thus by your own argument of when rights are required, has no rights) in situations that are subjective to you:

As I consider the child to be an independent entity from the zygote stage forward, the child is not a part of it's mother, and has rights. These rights are not superior to the mothers' rights, but not inferior to the mothers' rights either.
From that stand point, I do not object to abortion per/se. I object to abortion as a form of birth-control or to eliminate an inconvenience.

No interpretation is necessary. Here you are objecting to women having the right to do what they like with their bodies when it suits you.

If that's not what you mean, express yourself more clearly. Clear enough?

doesn't a baby foetus still deserve to have life?

Why?

But then again, what about the mother?

As the only entity in the frame that has rights, why are we talking about anything but the mother?

 

[zzz_pt]

And all of this is irrelevant.

It's a foetus, not a human.Cancer cells have different DNA from the host mother. Are tumours unique entities?You skipped over her quick enough when you remarked that the foetus needs no outside agency to become a human...You already told us that you would completely disregard the host's rights in favour of the foetus's (despite conceding that it is not inevitably human and is wholly dependent on another individual to survive, and thus by your own argument of when rights are required, has no rights) in situations that are subjective to you:No interpretation is necessary. You object to women having the right to do what they like with their bodies when it suits you.

If that's not what you mean, express yourself more clearly. Clear enough?Why?As the only entity in the frame that has rights, why are we talking about anything but the mother?

I agreed with that...

...and I add that even after birth, the foetus, now a newborn, continues to be dependent upon the mother for survival (or another person/machine). Even if the foetus is not aborted (against the woman's will), no one can force her to take care of a newborn that she never wanted.

If human babies, right after birth, were completely independent like in some other animal species, the issue of abortion wouldn't be so much of a problem, IMO. The fact is that from conception, to birth and years after the birth, the foetus/baby/child/ won't be independent. I don't have any chindren but I have un idea of how much parents have to spend (time/effort/money/etc). And I think the problem is not even when women are pregnant because it's only 9 months (not easy ones). The years after that are probably those who they're thinking and the reason for their choice for abortion.

 

[Encyclopedia]

I think that even if you say that the fetus has rights, more specificaly the right to life, it would still have to give in to the mother's rights. Because the fetus lives directly off the mother's body, and the only way that can be ok is if there's permission. Otherwise it would conflict with the mother's right to her own body.

So I don't see how fetuses rights is important in the first place.

 

[nobuffalo]

At what point does a baby grown in a lab have rights?

 

[zzz_pt]

At what point does a baby grown in a lab have rights?

How? Can you be more specific?

 

[Danoff]

At what point does a baby grown in a lab have rights?

Awesome question, I love when GTPlanet folks make me think. Presuming a fetus could be grown in a lab from conception to personhood, what rights does it have and when?

I draw the moral requirement for rights based on the child's cognitive abilities, and claim that it should kick in somewhere in the neighborhood of 4 to 6 months after birth. The legal line I claim should be earlier than that to make sure that we're covered from a moral standpoint, but not so early as to infringe someone else's rights (like the rights of the mother). What that means is that the rights we afford a developing embryo/fetus in a lab can be based entirely on pragmatism.

Right now you can discard a 5 day old human embryo or donate it for scientific testing. I've personally discarded quite a few.

Here's another wrinkle, if stem cells are to be helpful for developing replacement organs or curing certain diseases, we could grow fetuses just for the purpose of harvesting stem cells.

Fantastic question, but one which I think has no real moral implications. I imagine the solution would something like this:

Lab-grown fetuses only:
0-3 months - Terminate for any reason
3-6 months - Terminate for fetal medical reasons or lack of willing guardians (ie: not for the purpose of harvesting stem cells)
6-9 months - Terminate for fetal medical reasons only
9+ months - Terminate for permanent lack of cognitive ability (ie: human vegetables, same as for adults)

 

[zzz_pt]

I just thought that babies grown in a lab would have a family already before they even have a personality. After the growth process in the lab (say, 8/9 months), they should be given to those who wanted them in the first place.

I ask @casey_2005 to clarify the question because I don't think that lab-grown babies would be there for scientific experiments like rats for example. I assume that after the growth process and before the baby aquire a "personality" or a "personhood", he should be with his/her parents already. And that's why I don't see why "rights" are a problem.

IMO, questioning for the rights of foetus grown in a lab is the same as questioning for the rights of feotus grown in women's wombs.

Of course assuming that a foetus grown in a lab will only be a process initiated by the will of at least one person who will be responsible for it.

 

[Danoff]

IMO, questioning for the rights of foetus grown in a lab is the same as questioning for the rights of feotus grown in women's wombs.

Neither must have rights, but for the one in the lab we can adopt stricter standards without the need for much justification. For a naturally carried fetus we can't do that because a person's rights are in the way.

 

[Azuremen]

@Azuremen it is a conundrum, as while it seems bad doesn't a baby still deserve to have life? But then again, what about the mother?

Read any of the posts on this page and you'll see that issue being discussed in depth.

 

[sammy neuman]

@Azuremen said: "As for your argument, you seem to make no distinction between a fully independent, conscious human being and a collection of cells that have human DNA but are incapable of making a decision, being self aware, or surviving without the human host. Which is a relatively important distinction to draw in this case, given how much you are tossing "human rights" around as justification."

You are correct, I make no distinction. As the timeline for any individuals' existence extends from conception until death, so also does their "personhood". If any right-to-exist is attached to personhood, that right-to-exist also extends from conception to death. I make no subdivisions based upon stages of development.

From this I draw my justification for tossing around "human rights".

I realize that the above is only my personal point of view, but none of the other views in this post have convinced me that I need to change it.

Thanks for the other comments.

 

[Omnis]

Awesome question, I love when GTPlanet folks make me think. Presuming a fetus could be grown in a lab from conception to personhood, what rights does it have and when?

I draw the moral requirement for rights based on the child's cognitive abilities, and claim that it should kick in somewhere in the neighborhood of 4 to 6 months after birth. The legal line I claim should be earlier than that to make sure that we're covered from a moral standpoint, but not so early as to infringe someone else's rights (like the rights of the mother). What that means is that the rights we afford a developing embryo/fetus in a lab can be based entirely on pragmatism.

Right now you can discard a 5 day old human embryo or donate it for scientific testing. I've personally discarded quite a few.

Here's another wrinkle, if stem cells are to be helpful for developing replacement organs or curing certain diseases, we could grow fetuses just for the purpose of harvesting stem cells.

Fantastic question, but one which I think has no real moral implications. I imagine the solution would something like this:

Lab-grown fetuses only:
0-3 months - Terminate for any reason
3-6 months - Terminate for fetal medical reasons or lack of willing guardians (ie: not for the purpose of harvesting stem cells)
6-9 months - Terminate for fetal medical reasons only
9+ months - Terminate for permanent lack of cognitive ability (ie: human vegetables, same as for adults)

By that framework, it would have been okay to bin FoolKiller. What if he would've disagreed?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

You can say "raped", it's fine.I don't know how much you know about childbirth, but let me give you the highlights:

It's absolute agony.
For several hours.
No, really. I mean like... that time you cracked your ribs or had a kidney stone? Yeah, you're two orders of magnitude out. And it's your WHOLE body.
FOR HOURS.
I mean, TENS of hours. This would be outlawed as torture if it were inflicted in interrogations.
Did I mention the part where it literally tears your vagina apart?
That also really hurts.
Oh, all the pushing makes you poo yourself. That bit's fun.
Incidentally, a vaginal deliver often ends with you having to have your vaginal opening sliced open - a procedure called an "epesiotomy". This is even less fun than it sounds.
As are the stitches afterwards.

But hey, after a FULL DAY OF THIS, we're done now, with the vagina torn apart and then cut a bit more for good luck and the poo everywhere.

Oh I forgot, you have to deliver the placenta too. More pushing needed, out of your ripped vagina.
Are we having fun yet?

Let's not mention that girls pretty much know this from sex ed and every minute this approaches will be severe psychological trauma for them. That's kind.

What's that you say? Caesarian section? Well of course you can do that if you don't mind major abdominal surgery - with all the risks that entails - and then several months of possible herniation through your sliced abdominal wall. Still, you get a nice scar from it and at least your vagina stays youthful, even if you never want to wear a bikini again.

So, potted summary - a girl is raped and you want to psychologically, then physically, torture her... because?

This is true my wife was in labor with our daughter for 20+ hours, only to get bad news that it would have to be a cesarean because supposedly the umbilical cord was too short. Either way it was a pretty big ordeal and then it was added on with a surgery so yeah...if you want to make it sound that easy @Lister_Storm have fun, it's good and what not here but I wouldn't say it around women especially those that have given birth.

 

[Imari]

As the timeline for any individuals' existence extends from conception until death, so also does their "personhood". If any right-to-exist is attached to personhood, that right-to-exist also extends from conception to death. I make no subdivisions based upon stages of development.

Why do you say rights start from conception? Why are sperm and eggs not afforded rights to exist? They are capable of developing into fully grown humans, given the right circumstances and materials.

Why should "sperm+egg" have right-to-exist, but neither the sperm or the egg should?

This may seem anal, but you've chosen to extend rights way back to a small collection of cells. Why is that collection of cells the start point, and not the cells that form that collection of cells? At some point you've drawn a line, whether you realise it or not, and I want to know why you chose to do it there.

 

[BobK]

Why do you say rights start from conception? Why are sperm and eggs not afforded rights to exist? They are capable of developing into fully grown humans, given the right circumstances and materials.

Why should "sperm+egg" have right-to-exist, but neither the sperm or the egg should?

This may seem anal, but you've chosen to extend rights way back to a small collection of cells. Why is that collection of cells the start point, and not the cells that form that collection of cells? At some point you've drawn a line, whether you realise it or not, and I want to know why you chose to do it there.

I understand the point you're making, but that takes us only a short step from the absurd. Should a woman then be obligated to become pregnant every time she ovulates? What about the fact that in the process of fertilizing an egg through the normal process, millions of sperm cells are released; what about all the cells that didn't make it? Worse, that places masturbation (by or on males at any rate) on the same level as abortion/murder.