[RD] Restrictions on Abortions are illiberal

[Yeekim]

I'm not making that point at all, I'm making the point that if you're the creator of a being, and that being has not left the stage of being dependent on you, then it is not murder to cause their death.

Ethically speaking, terminating a (sentient) life one was responsible for creating somehow strikes me as decidedly worse than terminating just any other (sentient) life.

simply because bodily autonomy does trump the right to life, if living means being dependent on a host

No, it simply doesn't. At least not according to any metric I can think of.

If you had a Siamese twin and you could survive without her but not vice versa, do you claim you could just go "To hell with her, saw her off, muh bodily autonomy!"?
Given that in case of a late term pregnancy, the "dependancy" is temporary and about to be resolved soon anyway, your case here is much weaker still.
EDIT: Also, withdrawing consent during sex is a poor analogy. Offering someone a BJ, then biting it off and leaving him bleed to death would be more accurate.

 

[onejayhawk]

I would agree that bodily autonomy is insufficient to trump right to live. I am not sure it would be sufficient to greatly accelerate delivery.

If the situation of conjoined twins came up pre-birth, would it be different? I think it has happened. Medical necessity is one reasonable grounds for choosing one life over another. Still, that is for a court, time permitting. Compare the Kornbluth/Pohl short story The Meeting.
https://www.podomatic.com/podcasts/aboutsf/episodes/2011-09-26T18_18_10-07_00

J

 

[Perfection]

The freedom of the mother extends until it interacts with the life of the child. At that point the child's right to live takes priority. Done.

What new has been added to the conversation?

J

The choice of the term "child" is a bit misleading. A fetus is not a child. It does not act like a child, it does not walk and play and emote like a child. Most importantly it does not think like a child. Children think a lot like adults with elaborate inner worlds, they are conscious beings, a fetus is not a conscious being and it's inappropriate to ascribe them the same rights as conscious beings.

 

[timtofly]

That is why giving people rights tend to make an issue more difficult. It would be more sensible to just endure the natural order of life, instead of escaping it. I still do not see how reproduction is a barrier. It is the only way to continue a species.

The barrier is the artificial attempt to redefine life to fit into the emotional needs of humanity.

 

[onejayhawk]

The choice of the term "child" is a bit misleading. A fetus is not a child. It does not act like a child, it does not walk and play and emote like a child. Most importantly it does not think like a child. Children think a lot like adults with elaborate inner worlds, they are conscious beings, a fetus is not a conscious being and it's inappropriate to ascribe them the same rights as conscious beings.

The choice of the term child is exact. It may be a prior-to-birth child but it is a child, not a tissue mass or a parasite.

The distinction between child and fetus is the central one to the whole discussion. The tradition demarcation at birth is being challenged.

J

 

[Perfection]

The choice of the term child is exact. It may be a prior-to-birth child but it is a child, not a tissue mass or a parasite.

The distinction between child and fetus is the central one to the whole discussion. The tradition demarcation at birth is being challenged.

J

A child has a developed adult-like consciousness. A fetus does not. It does not have the mental properties of a child. That is the crucial difference.

 

[onejayhawk]

A child has a developed adult-like consciousness. A fetus does not. It does not have the mental properties of a child. That is the crucial difference.

I call foul. A newborn does not have an adult-like consciousness.

A late term fetus is indistinguishable from a newborn child in this area. That is why birth as the distinction is challenged.

J

 

[Perfection]

I call foul. A newborn does not have an adult-like consciousness.

A late term fetus is indistinguishable from a newborn child in this area. That is why birth as the distinction is challenged.

J

The birth distinction isn't about the change in mental properties of a late-term fetus vs. a just born infant (which I agree is minimal), it's about the change in relationship between the mother. Post-birth the mother doesn't have the reason of bodily control to exercise her will on the infant, as such it shouldn't be her call whether or not its life should continue.

 

[onejayhawk]

The birth distinction isn't about the change in mental properties of a late-term fetus vs. a just born infant (which I agree is minimal), it's about the change in relationship between the mother. Post-birth the mother doesn't have the reason of bodily control to exercise her will on the infant, as such it shouldn't be her call whether or not its life should continue.

This admits that there is valid reason to consider a pre-birth fetus/child to be a sapient being. The argument is that this is sufficient to at least give the fetus/child a voice.

J

 

[Perfection]

This admits that there is valid reason to consider a pre-birth fetus/child to be a sapient being. The argument is that this is sufficient to at least give the fetus/child a voice.

J

That is incorrect as I don't consider an infant to be a sapient being either.

 

[timtofly]

The birth distinction isn't about the change in mental properties of a late-term fetus vs. a just born infant (which I agree is minimal), it's about the change in relationship between the mother. Post-birth the mother doesn't have the reason of bodily control to exercise her will on the infant, as such it shouldn't be her call whether or not its life should continue.

The loss of bodily control happened at conception. A miscarriage is not an act of control. If it were then abortion would be considered the same thing as a miscarriage.

 

[Perfection]

The loss of bodily control happened at conception. A miscarriage is not an act of control. If it were then abortion would be considered the same thing as a miscarriage.

I'm afraid I don't follow your line of reasoning. Just because some events like miscarriage act outside of a women's control doesn't mean she doesn't deserve as much control of her own body as feasible. If a technology existed that would give her the ability to stop a miscarriage we want her to be able to choose whether or not to use it. I'm not sure if that counters what you were trying to say because I don't understand your argument.

 

[onejayhawk]

That is incorrect as I don't consider an infant to be a sapient being either.

I trust you recognize that this is opposite usual usage. Infants learn extremely quickly, much faster than adults.

J

 

[Perfection]

I trust you recognize that this is opposite usual usage.

Nope sapience is wisdom, not ability to learn.

Infants learn extremely quickly, much faster than adults.

J

Of course, they need to learn how to become sapient beings.

 

[El_Machinae]

An infant is inbetween child and fetus on the consciousness scale. To call a fetus a child is completely imprecise, to the point of being incorrect.

 

[timtofly]

I'm afraid I don't follow your line of reasoning. Just because some events like miscarriage act outside of a women's control doesn't mean she doesn't deserve as much control of her own body as feasible. If a technology existed that would give her the ability to stop a miscarriage we want her to be able to choose whether or not to use it. I'm not sure if that counters what you were trying to say because I don't understand your argument.

My argument is that rights are reactionary, and emotional responses. All humans have equal control over what they do to their body, but the being and body inside a woman is currently beyond any human's control.

Now humans are free to legislate laws that from a legal standpoint allow such control, but it is against nature and evolution, ie beyond human control.

Moderator Action: Talking about evolution in an abortion thread is considered spam, especially when you have been warned not to do it before. ~ Arakhor
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Perfection]

My argument is that rights are reactionary, and emotional responses. All humans have equal control over what they do to their body, but the being and body inside a woman is currently beyond any human's control.

Now humans are free to legislate laws that from a legal standpoint allow such control, but it is against nature and evolution, ie beyond human control.

How is it beyond human control?

 

[Zack]

My argument is that rights are reactionary, and emotional responses. All humans have equal control over what they do to their body, but the being and body inside a woman is currently beyond any human's control.

Now humans are free to legislate laws that from a legal standpoint allow such control, but it is against nature and evolution, ie beyond human control.

Does "against nature and evolution" matter?

 

[Arakhor]

Moderator Action: This thread has now been upgraded to RD status. All passengers are advised to check out the RD lounge and observe the new posting environment.

Once again, evolution is neither the destination nor a permitted layover point.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[timtofly]

How is it beyond human control?

Does "against nature and evolution" matter?

Because there are universal laws at play, that humans only have an illusion that they have an ounce of control over. Never said humans could not eradicate themselves, but I guess that depends on if humans can show up again after doing so.

Whatever laws human come up with will never be 100 percent socially accepted or carried out.