Support NeoGAF

[ElTorro]

To me personhood question is ultimately irrelevant because of body autonomy. No human has the right to latch on to a uterus and suck up nutrients without consent.

Nobody asked the fetus to begin to exist in the body of a person, who, at least in most cases, chose to have sex and knew or should have known about the risks of pregnancy. In most cases, excluding rape, the mother has significant responsibility for the person being there in the first place.

And even apart from that, "body autonomy" does not automatically trump the right of a person, assuming that personhood is stablished, to live. For instance, in most countries you are legally bound to help somebody who is in a medical emergency, even if that person does not have a general right to use your time and resources.

 

[diaspora]

Nobody asked the fetus to begin to exist in the body of a person who, at least in most cases, chose to have sex and knew or could have known about the risks of pregnancy. In most cases, excluding rape, the mother has significant responsibility for the person being there in the first place.

And even apart from that, "body autonomy" does not automatically trump the right of a person, assuming that personhood is stablished, to live. For instance, in most countries you are legally bound to help somebody who is in a medical emergency, even if that person does not have a general right to use your time and resources.

Nobody's legally bound to say- donate organs, tissue, blood, etc if they don't want to right? Even in an instance of a medical emergency. Ultimately the question as to whether or not a fetus is a person is irrelevant, if a person doesn't want to continue supporting it they shouldn't have to under any circumstances.

 

[partyphone]

I'm general supporter of full autonomy of the own body, so I wouldn't support any proposal that would limit the time frame. It should be the right of the woman and also the moral responsibility to choice if and the right point of abortion.
Though I also come from a socialist hell and would also etablish and support a strong welfare system so that stuff like danger of poverty because of pregnancy and all the other stuff wouldn't exist.

and this is the real fucked up thing about republicans. they're against abortion, birth control and welfare.

and then they have the gall to complain about welfare queens with a dozen babies(which actually don't exist in any significant numbers). but how about you idiots stop fucking up sex ed and access to reproductive health services for poor women?

 

[ElTorro]

Nobody's legally bound to say- donate organs, tissue, blood, etc if they don't want to right? Even in an instance of a medical emergency. Ultimately the question as to whether or not a fetus is a person is irrelevant, if a person doesn't want to continue supporting it they shouldn't have to under any circumstances.

It does not have to be granted, but here we are talking about a situation where support is about to be withdrawn. I admit that my analogy with medical emergencies is flawed. A better analogy would be that you cannot throw somebody out of your driving car because that person has no right to be in your car. That's also not a perfect analogy. My point is that once you accept that a fetus qualifies as a person, it has a right to live. To not grant it that right would be inconsistent with how we value the life of a person in any other situation. And we usually value the right to live very highly. I think it's a hard case to argue that this right to live is of less value than the lost time and resources and the comparatively mild medical risk caused by a pregnancy. This is especially true if the woman bears a significant responsibility for that pregnancy.

 

[diaspora]

It does not have to be granted, but here we are talking about a situation where support is about to be withdrawn. I admit that my analogy with medical emergencies is flawed. A better analogy would be that you cannot throw somebody out of your driving car because that person has no right to be in your car. That's also not a perfect analogy. My point is that once you accept that a fetus qualifies as a person, it has a right to live. To not grant it that right would be inconsistent with how we value the life of a person in any other situation. And we usually value the right to live very highly. I think it's a hard case to argue that this right to live is of less value than the lost time and resources and the comparatively mild medical risk caused by a pregnancy. This is especially true if the woman bears a significant responsibility for that pregnancy.

That's an even worse analogy, the body isn't a car and a person shouldn't have to give life support to anyone. Even if you qualify a fetus as a life. There are no circumstances wherein someone has to be forced to support a fetus. "It has the right to live" does not mean it has the right to another person's body.

 

[ElTorro]

That's an even worse analogy, the body isn't a car and a person shouldn't have to give life support to anyone. Even if you qualify a fetus as a life. There are no circumstances wherein someone has to be forced to support a fetus.

To be clear, being alive is not of ethical relevance to me. A zygote has no more right to live than a cucumber. I see abortions before even a rudimentary nervous system has developed as a complete ethical non-issue; same as stem cell research. There is no reason to impose any ethical restrictions here. Personhood depends on much more than just being alive, and it can only begin to be established when a significantly complex brain has already developed.

As to the rest of what you said, in the case of a pregnancy the mother is already involved in the situation. And in most cases, she will have, along with the father, significant responsibility for being pregnant. In most cases, people who have sex are, or should be, aware of the risks of pregnancy, even if contraception is used correctly. She has basically "forced" the fetus to be there and to depend on her. She can't just shake off that responsibility. It has to be considered with all other pros and cons. And given how much we value the life of a person, it's a pretty big con against an abortion at that stage in a pregnancy.

 

[diaspora]

To be clear, being alive is not of ethical relevance to me. A zygote has no more right to live than a cucumber. I see abortions before even a rudimentary nervous system has developed as a complete ethical non-issue; same as stem cell research. There is no reason to impose any ethical restrictions here.

As to the rest of what you said, in the case of a pregnancy the mother is already involved in the situation. And in most cases, she will have, along with the father, significant responsibility for being pregnant. In most cases, people who have sex are, or should be, aware of the risks of pregnancy, even if contraception is used correctly.

None of that matters though? In the end, it doesn't make sense to force someone to give or use their body to support someone else- whether it's giving organs, blood, bone marrow, or maintaining a pregnancy. What the parent or parents knew or didn't know going into unprotected sex is irrelevant.

She has basically "forced" the fetus to be there and to depend on her. She can't just shake off that responsibility.

Of course she can, if a mother doesn't wish to continue giving her body to a fetus she shouldn't be under any legal obligation to continue doing so.

 

[ElTorro]

"n the end, it doesn't make sense to force someone to give or use their body to support someone else.

And nobody should force somebody to have his or her life depend on somebody else's body; but that's what you do when you conceive a child and let it develop sufficiently to become a person. Mother and father are responsible for the situation and thus need to bear the consequences. If we grant a developed fetus personhood, the consequences would be to kill another person; which is the harshest way to infringe on another person's freedom that we can think off.

 

[diaspora]

And nobody should force somebody to have his or her life depend on somebody else's body; but that's what you do when you conceive a child and let it develop sufficiently to become a person. Mother and father are responsible for the situation and thus need to bear the consequences.

Again, that doesn't really matter, if someone's continued blood donations keep someone- even a child alive and the person wants to back out even if it results in the dependent's death, they both can and should be able to. The consequences are the woman got pregnant and now has to undergo a medical procedure to end it. There are no circumstances in which a person has to be forced by the state to give their literal body to anyone else, fetus or otherwise. Whether or not the fetus "asked" to be there is of no consequence.

 

[Airola]

zygotes are alive. as are the sperm and eggs that create them.

none of them should have full human rights.

i'd be a mass murderer. D:

plus, it's like pure Dr. Caligari shit as you can do murdering in your sleep without you knowing it! :O

 

[grumble]

A zygote is, biologically speaking, a human being in an early stage of development.

That many countries allowing zygotes to be used for research isn't a biological question but a result of ethical, legal and if you want religious discussions.

It is not really, biologically speaking. A human being is reasonably defined as having higher brain functions. What a zygote is is a cell which can potentially become a human being, given certain things go right.

 

[PdotMichael]

It is not really, biologically speaking. A human being is reasonably defined as having higher brain functions. What a zygote is is a cell which can potentially become a human being, given certain things go right.

That's not how a human being is defined, especially not biologically. What you are talking is human personhood.

 

[diaspora]

I feel like the question of whether or not a fetus is a human being is a bit of a red herring. I don't think it or how it came to be has any bearing on whether someone ought to be forced by the state to carry it to term.

 

[PdotMichael]

I feel like the question of whether or not a fetus is a human being is a bit of a red herring. I don't think it or how it came to be has any bearing on whether someone ought to be forced by the state to carry it to term.

Which was kind of the point of my very first post in this thread.

It's kind of strange how people are trying to get a natural science on the own side, although biology can't provide any arguments for the prochoice or prolife stance.

 

[diaspora]

Comparing the fetus to a birthed baby, child, or grown adult is such an asinine false equivalency too. Born dependents require care and work not the literal blood and body of another person. The only comparison that makes any sort of sense- and even then it's a huge stretch is the dependent- child or otherwise that needs blood from the parent/relative.

 

[PdotMichael]

Comparing the fetus to a birthed baby, child, or grown adult is such an asinine false equivalency too. Born dependents require care and work not the literal blood and body of another person. The only comparison that makes any sort of sense- and even then it's a huge stretch is the dependent- child or otherwise that needs blood from the parent/relative.

The problem with that stance is that you didn't provide any argments why something that needs "blood and body of another person" is less protection worthy.

 

[diaspora]

The problem with that stance is that you didn't provide any argments why something that needs "blood and body of another person" is less protection worthy.

I'm not making an argument about the worthiness of protection for anyone- only that there are no circumstances where a person ought to be forced to give their body and blood to another person/fetus that needs it.

 

[Eye for an Eye]

You two need to stop arguing over whether a fetus is a human or a bunch of cells.

If you ever talk to or read stories from women who have terminated for medical reasons, they will very well tell you that it is their baby, their child, they are the mother, and they are doing what they feel is best they can do for their child. Many will cremate the remains (the same we do for anyone else that dies), a few will choose to bury (some cemeteries have angel gardens or butterfly garden for infant loss), some will choose to donate the remains to research (especially in very rare cases of abnormalities), and some will choose to let the hospital deal with it. Almost every mother will choose a name, create some kind of keepsake as a memorial, and they will never forget their children.

I do not think of my terminations as a bunch of cells. I went through L&D with both of them. I held both of them. They are my children. They will always be my children. I will always be their mother. I did what any loving mother would do for her child, to protect them. Just because you can't fathom making the same choice as I have, doesn't mean you wouldn't choose the same option if you're faced with it.

This bill specifically targets women terminating for medical reasons. No matter the reason, whether that baby will die before or after birth or live for many years. This is not a discussion for lawmakers to have. This is a discussion between the mother and her doctors. That's it. Lawmakers aren't sitting in the hospitals making decisions when it comes to other people's healthcare, they don't get to interject when it comes to abortion.

 

[Suikoguy]

So basically you can boil down abortion opinions into 4 groups?

1.) Absolutists - Any abortions up until birth.
2.) Viabilityist - Abortions up until Viability except for rare cases of Rape/Incest/Defect.
3.) Anti-abortionists for all except for rare cases of Rape/Incest/Defect
4.) Extremists No abortions at all period

I understand where 1 is coming from, but I consider the current policy of viability to be a reasonable compromise.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Nobody asked the fetus to begin to exist in the body of a person, who, at least in most cases, chose to have sex and knew or should have known about the risks of pregnancy. In most cases, excluding rape, the mother has significant responsibility for the person being there in the first place.

And even apart from that, "body autonomy" does not automatically trump the right of a person, assuming that personhood is stablished, to live. For instance, in most countries you are legally bound to help somebody who is in a medical emergency, even if that person does not have a general right to use your time and resources.

If I shot you accidentally in the kidney I would not have to donate my kidney to you. Or undergo any medical procedure. Even if not doing so would kill you.

Fuck corpses can't be forced to donate organs

 

[diaspora]

You two need to stop arguing over whether a fetus is a human or a bunch of cells.

If you ever talk to or read stories from women who have terminated for medical reasons, they will very well tell you that it is their baby, their child, they are the mother, and they are doing what they feel is best they can do for their child. Many will cremate the remains (the same we do for anyone else that dies), a few will choose to bury (some cemeteries have angel gardens or butterfly garden for infant loss), some will choose to donate the remains to research (especially in very rare cases of abnormalities), and some will choose to let the hospital deal with it. Almost every mother will choose a name, create some kind of keepsake as a memorial, and they will never forget their children.

I do not think of my terminations as a bunch of cells. I went through L&D with both of them. I held both of them. They are my children. They will always be my children. I will always be their mother. I did what any loving mother would do for her child, to protect them. Just because you can't fathom making the same choice as I have, doesn't mean you wouldn't choose the same option if you're faced with it.

This bill specifically targets women terminating for medical reasons. No matter the reason, whether that baby will die before or after birth or live for many years. This is not a discussion for lawmakers to have. This is a discussion between the mother and her doctors. That's it. Lawmakers aren't sitting in the hospitals making decisions when it comes to other people's healthcare, they don't get to interject when it comes to abortion.

I'd say the question of getting an abortion regardless of the circumstances is between the doctor and mother. The fact that circumstances are debated at all is asinine to me.

If I shot you accidentally in the kidney I would not have to donate my kidney to you. Or undergo any medical procedure. Even if not doing so would kill you.

Fuck corpses can't be forced to donate organs

You wouldn't be forced to donate blood or your kidney even if it was on purpose. Even if you'd get in trouble for the shooting, it wouldn't be for refusing to give your blood to support life.

 

[H.Protagonist]

It does not have to be granted, but here we are talking about a situation where support is about to be withdrawn. I admit that my analogy with medical emergencies is flawed. A better analogy would be that you cannot throw somebody out of your driving car because that person has no right to be in your car. That's also not a perfect analogy. My point is that once you accept that a fetus qualifies as a person, it has a right to live. To not grant it that right would be inconsistent with how we value the life of a person in any other situation. And we usually value the right to live very highly. I think it's a hard case to argue that this right to live is of less value than the lost time and resources and the comparatively mild medical risk caused by a pregnancy. This is especially true if the woman bears a significant responsibility for that pregnancy.

Having just gone through this myself, I wanted to address this. "Mild medical risks" caused by pregnancy is an incredibly dismissive and uneducated statement. Carrying something for 9 months, even when everything generally goes to plan is anything but mild or easy or something anyone should be forced to do for something they don't want. It's more than just 'sharing space' with something that's inside of you for a period of time. You risk 1) your life (pre-eclampsia, blood loss, uterine rupture, complications, maternal sepsis, obstructed labor, etc.) 2) your physical health (blood pressure, diabetes, miscarriage, c-section, torn perineal, labia, hyperemesis gravidarum, etc.) 3) your mental health (post-natal depression, postpartum psychosis, etc.).

Some stats: In the immediate postpartum period, 87% to 94% of women report at least one health problem. Long term health problems (persisting after 6 months postpartum) are reported by 31% of women.

There's also the matter of giving birth which is delightfully agonizing.

So while it's easy for a man to say, 'well, why can't she just carry it to term and then put it up for adoption?' (and boy does this come up a lot in these threads/debates), that just demonstrates exactly how ignorant they are to what pregnancy actually entails during and after.

Women should not be forced to be incubators and your 'mild medical risk' is no basis to argue in favor of removing any part of that decision from them because some people think a bundle of cells has more 'value' than the mother's own life.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I'd say the question of getting an abortion regardless of the circumstances is between the doctor and mother. The fact that circumstances are debated at all is asinine to me.

You wouldn't be forced to donate blood or your kidney even if it was on purpose. Even if you'd get in trouble for the shooting, it wouldn't be for refusing to give your blood to support life.

I just said accidentally to avoid the yeah but you'd go to jail response.

 

[diaspora]

I just said accidentally to avoid the yeah but you'd go to jail response.

Fair enough.

I mean it boils down to this really:

Women should not be forced to be incubators

 

[excelsiorlef]

Fair enough.

I mean it boils down to this really:

Yup

 

[Wolfe]

You are free to provide some arguments.

"Human development is the process of growing to maturity. In biological terms, this entails growth from a one-celled zygote to an adult human being." - wikipedia

The question if it already life is already answered because the human fulfils all criteria of life.

Ah, so we're not actually fully Human until we're adults. I mean that's the time we're developing into Humans is it not?

But wait, if that's the case then when exactly is it that we finish developing and become adults?

Am I even an adult yet?

AM I EVEN HUMAN?!

 

[ElTorro]

Having just gone through this myself, I wanted to address this. "Mild medical risks" caused by pregnancy is an incredibly dismissive and uneducated statement.

I tried to verify this, but since your information comes from Wikipedia and since the original sources linked to these statements are not publicly available, I do not know whether the numbers you quoted are global numbers or from developed countries. It is also unclear what these complications entail in detail. The Wikipedia article further states that "severe complications of pregnancy are present in 1.6% of mothers in the US and in 1.5% of mothers in Canada."

That is certainly not a trivial figure and I concede that "mild" is an understatement. I did not intent to paint pregnancy as something similar to having a cold or breaking a leg. My point was to contrast its medical risks to the death of a person, which a fetus in the later stages of pregnancy is, if we grant it that personhood. In that comparison, pregnancies are in another category than death.

Women should not be forced to be incubators and your 'mild medical risk' is no basis to argue in favor of removing any part of that decision from them because some people think a bundle of cells has more 'value' than the mother's own life.

I should stress that my purpose in this conversation is to debate the ethical foundations. I am not a woman, but since men do share the responsibility for an unwanted pregnancy, these thoughts are still interesting and relevant to me.

The question of the extent to which restrictions on abortions should be enforced by law is yet another matter. Given the ambiguities of the issue, I am definitely for the state to give the woman wide freedoms in deciding this ethical question for herself.

 

[boiled goose]

Nobody asked the fetus to begin to exist in the body of a person, who, at least in most cases, chose to have sex and knew or should have known about the risks of pregnancy. In most cases, excluding rape, the mother has significant responsibility for the person being there in the first place.

And even apart from that, "body autonomy" does not automatically trump the right of a person, assuming that personhood is stablished, to live. For instance, in most countries you are legally bound to help somebody who is in a medical emergency, even if that person does not have a general right to use your time and resources.

Oh so it's about punishing the pregnant woman for her actions then?

Body autonomy absolutely trumps rights of another person. Legally helping someone is different from legally having to donate your kidney. To a fetus! It's not even a thinking person!

Kidney too much?

How about making blood transfusions mandatory?

A pregnancy is far more than a blood transfusion.

I've yet to hear a. rational argument why we have any reason to value a fetus. Other than the all life is sacred woo which cant rationally justify valuing some cells over others anyway.

There is basically no circumstance where I can see as moral forcing a woman to be an incubator AGAINST HER CONSENT.

 

[ElTorro]

To a fetus! It's not even a thinking person!

I've made it very clear that I am only talking about a fetus with a "sufficiently developed" brain to exemplify personhood; meaning, it has a brain capable of thinking. Surely, you will conceded that what pops out of a woman's body after nine months is capable of thinking, and that it didn't start thinking at the moment it popped out. All I said beyond that is that the difficult question is to establish the moment at which it becomes a thinking person.

I don't know how you can just shrug this line of thinking off by saying that you have not heard any argument why a fetus has any value at all.

To be clear again, I am absolutely pro-choice, especially since, as I have also pointed out, the question of the personhood of the fetus is just one aspect of the overall ethical problem. But some of the arguments here are just completely ignoring some of the ethical challenges here. You cannot convince pro-life people by just shrugging off the obvious problem of deciding when a fetus starts thinking.

 

[ibyea]

My definition can't be arbitrary because I refuse that concept.

There is the defined zero point aka the beginning of life in biology and anything else is a subjective opnion. There is nothing wrong to be aware of that while using the right of abortion.

No, not really, there is no defined zero point and it shows your ignorance in biology. What you want is something that your own psychology is comfortable with. Which is fine, but you shouldn't pretend it's objective.

 

[BajiBoxer]

So basically you can boil down abortion opinions into 4 groups?

1.) Absolutists - Any abortions up until birth.
2.) Viabilityist - Abortions up until Viability except for rare cases of Rape/Incest/Defect.
3.) Anti-abortionists for all except for rare cases of Rape/Incest/Defect
4.) Extremists No abortions at all period

I understand where 1 is coming from, but I consider the current policy of viability to be a reasonable compromise.

I don't think it's reasonable to legislate against any type of abortion. All births are risky medical procedures and it has to be about what a woman and her doctor think makes sense medically. The number of women who decide to simply terminate the pregnancy extremely late generally aren't likely to be doing it "just because". Her reason for terminating the pregnancy really isn't anyone else's buissiness though. When you legislate something like that, you're bringing in a lot of other people who should have no say whatsoever in the decision.

 

[boiled goose]

I've made it very clear that I am only talking about a fetus with a "sufficiently developed" brain to exemplify personhood; meaning, it has a brain capable of thinking. Surely, you will conceded that what pops out of a woman's body after nine months is capable of thinking, and that it didn't start thinking at the moment it popped out. All I said beyond that is that the difficult question is to establish the moment at which it becomes a thinking person.

I don't know how you can just shrug this line of thinking off by saying that you have not heard any argument why a fetus has any value at all.

To be clear again, I am absolutely pro-choice, especially since, as I have also pointed out, the question of the personhood of the fetus is just one aspect of the overall ethical problem. But some of the arguments here are just completely ignoring some of the ethical challenges here. You cannot convince pro-life people by just shrugging off the obvious problem of deciding when a fetus starts thinking.

Im hesitant to say a newborn is capable of thinking. It's mental capacities are effectively below many mammals. Yet we don't give person hood to those mammals.

It's a grey area. We choose birth because at that point it's a clear cut case that doesn't really conflict with body autonomy.

 

[PdotMichael]

No, not really, there is no defined zero point and it shows your ignorance in biology. What you want is something that your own psychology is comfortable with. Which is fine, but you shouldn't pretend it's objective.

But the fertilization is general the first step in human developement in all biology textbook (and not the production of sperm and eggs for example or any other moment past the state of fertilization) and it doesn't even matter that pinpointing the exact moment of fertilization is quite the task.

Ah, so we're not actually fully Human until we're adults. I mean that's the time we're developing into Humans is it not?

But wait, if that's the case then when exactly is it that we finish developing and become adults?

Am I even an adult yet?

AM I EVEN HUMAN?!

Your body is in developement until the mid 20s.

Though it doesn't matter for being "fully human".

 

[boiled goose]

But the fertilization is general the first step in human developement in all biology textbook (and not the production of sperm and eggs for example or any other moment past the state of fertilization) and it doesn't even matter that pinpointing the exact moment of fertilization is quite the task.



Your body is in developement until the mid 20s.

Though it doesn't matter for being "fully human".

Yes, which is why the criteria shouldn't be state of development. It should be cognitive ability or stage of development .
And cognitive ability is a grey area we have to sort out.
Children can't consent, we give more rights to dogs than to mosquitos, etc.

If we discovered aliens, underground mole people, developed AI, etc. The criteria for personhood will be cognitive ability, not genetics.

 

[Astral Dog]

Nobody asked the fetus to begin to exist in the body of a person, who, at least in most cases, chose to have sex and knew or should have known about the risks of pregnancy. In most cases, excluding rape, the mother has significant responsibility for the person being there in the first place.

And even apart from that, "body autonomy" does not automatically trump the right of a person, assuming that personhood is stablished, to live. For instance, in most countries you are legally bound to help somebody who is in a medical emergency, even if that person does not have a general right to use your time and resources.

what? do you really think people are responsible/mature when having sex? stuff happens. that should not be the way of saying abortion is unnethical.

 

[hey_monkey]

Among all the things about this that are fucked up -- and they are many, numerous, extreme, ridiculous, goddamned mind-boggling -- is that of course this will be challenged immediately and of course it will eventually be crushed, and in the process, it will cause pain and suffering as well as loads of money for the state. WHAT A GREAT IDEA.

Indiana has got to get younger voters to the polls.

 

[PdotMichael]

Yes, which is why the criteria shouldn't be state of development. It should be cognitive ability or stage of development .
And cognitive ability is a grey area we have to sort out.
Children can't consent, we give more rights to dogs than to mosquitos, etc.

If we discovered aliens, underground mole people, developed AI, etc. The criteria for personhood will be cognitive ability, not genetics.

What you want to use to define personhood is a different question and most people indeed are in favour of using brain functions as starting point because that's also how we define the end of personhood.

 

[Astral Dog]

Am I even an adult yet?

AM I EVEN HUMAN?!

well, you are...kind of a turtle.

Spoiler

sorry

 

[ibyea]

But the fertilization is general the first step in human developement in all biology textbook (and not the production of sperm and eggs for example or any other moment past the state of fertilization) and it doesn't even matter that pinpointing the exact moment of fertilization is quite the task.

But the thing is, the words "life begins" and "humans" have far more baggage than just being about when two gametes combine to form the 46 human chromosomes. I mean you don't exactly call your skin cells human even though they are human cells, right? In that case it's not exactly clear when a human begins.

 

[PdotMichael]

But the thing is, the words "life begins" and "humans" have far more baggage than just being about when two gametes combine to form the 46 human chromosomes. I mean you don't exactly call your skin cells human even though they are human cells, right? In that case it's not exactly clear when a human begins.

Indeed, no one would call its cells "alive" - in the sense of fulfilling the criteria for life.

A human does it though, which developement starts with the fertilization. It also doesn't matter that at this poit it could even be the base for twins or even more humans.

 

[boiled goose]

Indeed, no one would call its cells "alive" - in the sense of fulfilling the criteria for life.

A human does it though, which developement starts with the fertilization. It also doesn't matter that at this poit it could even be the base for twins or even more humans.

I agree that fertilization is that start of development of a new human.
Zero relevance on personhood in the eyes of the law.
Zero relevance on whether the government can force women to be incubators without consent.

 

[Beer Monkey]

Which is why I will vote for WHOEVER GETS THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION. Period.

 

[hey_monkey]

Having just gone through this myself, I wanted to address this. "Mild medical risks" caused by pregnancy is an incredibly dismissive and uneducated statement. Carrying something for 9 months, even when everything generally goes to plan is anything but mild or easy or something anyone should be forced to do for something they don't want. It's more than just 'sharing space' with something that's inside of you for a period of time. You risk 1) your life (pre-eclampsia, blood loss, uterine rupture, complications, maternal sepsis, obstructed labor, etc.) 2) your physical health (blood pressure, diabetes, miscarriage, c-section, torn perineal, labia, hyperemesis gravidarum, etc.) 3) your mental health (post-natal depression, postpartum psychosis, etc.).

Some stats: In the immediate postpartum period, 87% to 94% of women report at least one health problem. Long term health problems (persisting after 6 months postpartum) are reported by 31% of women.

There's also the matter of giving birth which is delightfully agonizing.

So while it's easy for a man to say, 'well, why can't she just carry it to term and then put it up for adoption?' (and boy does this come up a lot in these threads/debates), that just demonstrates exactly how ignorant they are to what pregnancy actually entails during and after.

Women should not be forced to be incubators and your 'mild medical risk' is no basis to argue in favor of removing any part of that decision from them because some people think a bundle of cells has more 'value' than the mother's own life.

This needs to be shouted from the rooftops. There's so much more to a pregnancy than people consider. It's not just "carrying" a baby. It's growing an entire human creature, which takes a major toll on the body and requires a lot of changes and care. Yeah, plenty of women have easy pregnancies. I had one with my eldest, but I still needed maternity clothes, different food so that I could actually eat, creams to mitigate destruction to my body, etc. With my youngest, I had a lot of issues and needed even more. Both times I had episiotomies. It's SUPER FUN to have stitches all up in your lady bits. No one asked me if I wanted them; they just cut me open just in case. With youngest, too, my asthma was so bad during birth I almost died before they put me on oxygen, but hey! No problem, right?

So imagine you're poor, and if you're very young, potential damage to the body is even greater. Maybe someone who wants to adopt your child will pay medical expenses. Great. How the fuck do you deal with everything else, and how is it at all legal/moral/ethical to require damage to the body, stress, hardship, potential trauma, missed school/work, all the other expenses, and everything else?

Every pregnancy takes a toll on the body. We should be allowed to choose whether or not we're ready for that. Period. No one has a right to my body and my life just because a condom broke or some guy convinced me he shouldn't wear one because I'm 16 years old and believe I'm supposed to make him happy and have never had good sex ed, or because I'm 37 and have discovered maybe I'm carrying a child with birth defects I can't handle or afford, or because a morning-after pill didn't work, etc., etc.

It's utterly outrageous that anyone would honestly promote forcing women into this. It really shows how much we're valued as autonomous individuals.

 

[PdotMichael]

I agree that fertilization is that start of development of a new human.
Zero relevance on personhood in the eyes of the law.
Zero relevance on whether the government can force women to be incubators without consent.

Which is more or less what I said in my first posts. Until some people were using "basic biology"

 

[ElTorro]

do you really think people are responsible/mature when having sex?

I am sure that many aren't acting responsible. I certainly haven't been responsible enough on occasions. But I don't see why this is relevant. Not acting responsibly doesn't mean that the responsibility for eventual consequences wouldn't have been on our shoulders. I don't think that I have for argue for this. Sex can have many consequences besides pregnancy, including disease and emotional harm. Everybody needs to be aware that there are risks involved when you have sex. That should not stop people from having sex. But when something happens, then the responsibility (in normal cases) is on you.

Of course, you can always create scenarios that are ethically more difficult. For instance, somebody is less responsible for his/her actions if they never received any meaningful sex education, which sadly happens. But in general, people are responsible for their actions.

Again, I am not saying here "hence, fuck them". I am just saying that this responsibility is a major part of the ethical equation here. If you personally think that a fetus is a person after a certain time of development, and if you are responsible for having created it (that is, no rape, the mother not being so young that she is of limited accountability, the mother being fully mentally capable, etc.), then there is significant argument to be made that the right thing would be to bring it to term, if a certain time of development has already passed.

And to stress it again, these are the results of my personal thoughts on this issue, how I would likely deal with such situation, and what honest opinion I would give to my girlfriend or wife. That doesn't mean that I would want to enforce exactly that by law or do anything to shame women to act that way. I think that abortions in the first trimester should definitely be legal without any further restriction. Second trimester abortions become debatable, but I'd be ok with a more flexible position here. Basically, I am ok with the most liberal laws in existence today that I know of.

 

[Eye for an Eye]

Basically, I am ok with the most liberal laws in existence today that I know of.

Most laws says to the point of viability, meaning for it to survive on it's own outside of the mother's body. With todays technology, the youngest preemies that can survive is 24 weeks (but the average percentage is rather small). Most liberal states offer terminations up to 24 weeks; in non liberal states is 20 weeks. Weeks 12-24 is considered the second trimester.

But point of viability is a very loose term. Because if a mother receives a non compatible with life diagnosis. Meaning that there is no possible way for the baby to survive outside the womb. Termination can happen at any point of gestation in liberal states that allow it.

 

[Eye for an Eye]

For those that have blinders on and only see this as a discussion about Down Syndrome, here's a more comprehensive article about the affects of each of these provisions.

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/26/11308890/indiana-abortion-law-miscarriage

1. It makes an unprecedented requirement to bury or cremate all fetal remains, even from an early miscarriage.

So even if a woman has a miscarriage at 8 weeks of pregnancy at home, under this law she could be required to keep the blood and tissue, take it to a hospital, and have it buried or cremated by a funeral home.


2. It bans getting abortions for specific reasons, which is both burdensome and hard to enforce.

The "disability" part of the law is especially alarming to reproductive rights advocates. It could include not just conditions like Down syndrome, but also things like anencephaly where a fetus is missing part of its brain and is certain to die either before or after birth. Some women choose to carry such pregnancies to term, but for others the idea is pure torture.

 

[ShironRedshift]

For those that have blinders on and only see this as a discussion about Down Syndrome, here's a mote comprehensive article about the affects of each of these provisions.

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/26/11308890/indiana-abortion-law-miscarriage

What the hell... That's really messed up, and makes it quite clear what this is really about (if it wasn't already).

Fortunately, that will just make it easier to strike down, hopefully, but that still involves a whole bunch of time and money having been wasted on this nonsense to begin with so these idiots can put on a show. And actually, because this whole process takes time, even if the right decision is made and it gets struck down as quickly as it can, because of the amount of time these things take even in the best case scenarios and how abortion is on a very limited timetable that can't wait for those processes to take place a number of women are going to have their lives fucked up by this regardless. Insane... Screw the GOP.

 

[hey_monkey]

Yeah, cremations/burials for miscarriages is some nasty, back-handed shit. Let's make a really difficult thing EVEN HARDER (and also add an expense). Way to go, Indiana!

 

[Box]

If I shot you accidentally in the kidney I would not have to donate my kidney to you. Or undergo any medical procedure. Even if not doing so would kill you.

Fuck corpses can't be forced to donate organs

Pregnancy from consentual sex isn't really an accident though. You can't get off the hook just because you didn't want to become pregnant. It's a very foreseeable consequence that birth control can sometimes fail. It amounts to reckless endangerment if you're willing to engage in an act that will create a person who is dependent on your body without being willing to provide for them.

This assumes that one considers the fetus to be a person. But neither science nor secular morality has a convincing answer on where to draw that line, nor is it likely that they ever will.