Ethics and legal issues behind abortion

[Sthenno]

One thing genuinely puzzles me about the people who are completely opposed to abortion except in the case of it endangering the life of the mother. So, what, you believe that a foetus is the same as a baby and killing it is morally abhorrent, but if the mother is likely to die otherwise then that's OK? Where is the line on that? Does it then follow that it would be completely appropriate for a mother to send her newborn child into surgery because she needed it's kidney? What if a mother doesn't have enough food for her and her son and will starve to death if she has to feed both. Is it then OK to murder the child? I just don't get the logic...

[Rlyeh]

One thing genuinely puzzles me about the people who are completely opposed to abortion except in the case of it endangering the life of the mother. So, what, you believe that a foetus is the same as a baby and killing it is morally abhorrent, but if the mother is likely to die otherwise then that's OK? Where is the line on that? Does it then follow that it would be completely appropriate for a mother to send her newborn child into surgery because she needed it's kidney? What if a mother doesn't have enough food for her and her son and will starve to death if she has to feed both. Is it then OK to murder the child? I just don't get the logic...

So you don't get that the mother's body is inherently her own?

[Sthenno]

So you don't get that the mother's body is inherently her own?

I get that, sure. What puzzles me is people who are completely anti-abortion, believing a foetus is a person with just as much right to live as you are I, but are then happy to suspend that right if the mother's health is at risk.

[Mr Walker]

So you don't get that the mother's body is inherently her own?

The mother's body may be; but the baby inside her is NOT, biologically, a part of her own body. It is an independent biological entity feeding from her for 9 months before separating from her. She does not logically have the same rights over that entity as she does over her own body. But there is a logical argument that her own health as an adult citizen has a higher priority than that of an unborn child.

Immediately the child is born, of course, they enjoy the same priority of legal protection, even if still umbillically attached. Smother a child after it has taken its first breath, and you are a murderer, whether you are its mother or not.

[Rlyeh]

What definition of independent are you using?

She does not logically have the same rights over that entity as she does over her own body.

Logically then she can still have it removed, as it is her body. To come to your conclusion you've got to ignore the fact she must give up her body.

Immediately the child is born, of course, they enjoy the same priority of legal protection, even if still umbillically attached. Smother a child after it has taken its first breath, and you are a murderer, whether you are its mother or not.

Unless it offended God. Edited November 17, 2012 by Rlyeh

[Beckys_Mom]

So you don't get that the mother's body is inherently her own?

Strictly speaking yes it is her own body.. But for someone who has been pregnant, I can tell you that my body was not my own during pregnancy.. Pregnancy changes the body to great lengths.. It is kind of hard to explain..

In saying that, this does not mean the woman should not abort if her life is in danger or she was raped ...

[Rlyeh]

Strictly speaking yes it is her own body.. But for someone who has been pregnant, I can tell you that my body was not my own during pregnancy.. Pregnancy changes the body to great lengths.. It is kind of hard to explain..

Thats not what I meant.

I meant it is you, biologically.

[Beckys_Mom]

Thats not what I meant.

I meant it is you, biologically.

That is why I said - Strictly speaking it is her body ..

[Mr Walker]

What definition of independent are you using?

Logically then she can still have it removed, as it is her body. To come to your conclusion you've got to ignore the fact she must give up her body.

Unless it offended God.

It is an independent entity, temporarily attached to a host, like a human being attached to a life support machine for 9 months. It is independent gentically, being a unique human being,combining two sets of genomes, and it will develop an independent body and mind. It is NOT a part of the mothers body, as all other organs are. It is evolved to separate and have an independent life.

Why on earth do you think a woman has to give up her body to have a child? Biologically mother hood iS the role of a womans body. It is a part and parcel of being a woman. Arguably the presence of a child in a woman's body completes the woman. It certainly doesnt subtract anything from a woman..

If a woman's life or health is threatened by having a child, that is an entirely separate matter and ethical situation, and we all have a right to maintain our health and well being.

Your last reference is both incomprehensible to me and, i suspect, puerile. Kill your child after it is born, and you are a murderer, whatever god says. You still seem to be living in old testament times, or at least applying the legal principles of those times to the modern world. When is the last time god told you to kill a child because it offended him?

[Rlyeh]

Why on earth do you think a woman has to give up her body to have a child? Biologically mother hood iS the role of a womans body. It is a part and parcel of being a woman. Arguably the presence of a child in a woman's body completes the woman. It certainly doesnt subtract anything from a woman..

I have a question, as a person do you have the right to remove what ever is attached to your body?

Your last reference is both incomprehensible to me and, i suspect, puerile. Kill your child after it is born, and you are a murderer, whatever god says. You still seem to be living in old testament times, or at least applying the legal principles of those times to the modern world. When is the last time god told you to kill a child because it offended him?

It was more a shot at your (rather lame) apologetic excuses for killing in the Bible. Edited November 17, 2012 by Rlyeh

[Mr Walker]

I have a question, as a person do you have the right to remove what ever is attached to your body?

It was more a shot at your (rather lame) apologetic excuses for killing in the Bible.

No. As a person I do not have a legal right to remove another person/human being, attached to my body, if that might harm or kill them. As, for example, with conjoined twins.

You will have to remind me about my excuses for killing in the bible. Times were slightly different 2-4000 years ago. Laws ethics and moralities were different and matched the societies of the time. Only in the very modern era have humans had the luxury of modern ethical and moral standards and the freedoms to apply them. I am not one to apply old testament laws to modern society, but i do believe america still has a death penalty in some states, for certain crimes.

In other words, even in the most modern of modern states, humans can legally be put to death for crimes against their society or individuals within the society. This was the same in biblical times and has been ever since, but; because crimes had harsher effects on people and on society, because social order and safety was valued more than individual rights, and because human life was less valued, due to its harshness and brevity, the punishments were also harsher.

If you dont like judaeo- christian laws from a few millenia ago, I wonder how you would cope under maya/incan law, that of ghengis khan/ the mongols, the vikings, or many other non christian societies. Mmnn! How about life as an apache indian?

Edited November 17, 2012 by Mr Walker

[Sthenno]

No. As a person I do not have a legal right to remove another person/human being, attached to my body, if that might harm or kill them. As, for example, with conjoined twins.

Of course you don't have that right - because there's absolutely no situation in which such a right might be neccessary. Conjoined twins isn't an example, it's the only other possible situation in which you could have a person attached to you. And technically, conjoined twins do have this right. For example, a fully developed twin would have the legal right to remove a partially formed one.

[Beckys_Mom]

A pregnant woman does NOT have a baby attached to her ... It is INSIDE her

[Rlyeh]

No. As a person I do not have a legal right to remove another person/human being, attached to my body, if that might harm or kill them. As, for example, with conjoined twins.

So you wouldn't mind then if someone attached themselves to you? lmao.

Conjoined twins is a poor example of something attaching itself to your body.

You will have to remind me about my excuses for killing in the bible. Times were slightly different 2-4000 years ago. Laws ethics and moralities were different and matched the societies of the time. Only in the very modern era have humans had the luxury of modern ethical and moral standards and the freedoms to apply them. I am not one to apply old testament laws to modern society, but i do believe america still has a death penalty in some states, for certain crimes.

Do you recall your asinine excuse for killing the sabbath breaker? Half of it you pulled out of thin air.

Even in the context of the time, your excuses and justification were convoluted to the point of utter nonsense.

A pregnant woman does NOT have a baby attached to her ... It is INSIDE her

Which is attached to her.

[Beckys_Mom]

Which is attached to her.

You say attached to her body, as if it was on the outside, that is your mistake here...It is NOT attached to her body... Something that grows inside you, is not classed as an attachment.. When something grows on the outside of your body, that is classed as an attachment ..

The word 'attached' means to join or fastened on to something...Saying a woman who is pregnant, has a baby attached to her as a way to describe it, does not sound medically correct

Edited November 17, 2012 by Beckys_Mom

[Rlyeh]

You say attached to her body, as if it was on the outside, that is your mistake here...It is NOT attached to her body... Something that grows inside you, is not classed as an attachment.. When something grows on the outside of your body, that is classed as an attachment ..

The word 'attached' means to join or fastened on to something...Saying a woman who is pregnant, has a baby attached to her as a way to describe it, does not sound medically correct

Not sure where you got that idea from, the uterus is part of her body and the embryo attaches to the uterus.

http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2003/01/4630/scientists-discover-what-makes-human-embryo-attach-uterus

[Beckys_Mom]

Not sure where you got that idea from, the uterus is part of her body and the embryo attaches to the uterus.

http://www.ucsf.edu/...o-attach-uterus

Yes the embryo attaches itself to the uterus..

It was how you have worded it.. Look at this again - The baby is attached on to her body <-- Not correct.. It sounds as if the baby is attached on the outside ..It is a simple matter of wording it right

[Rlyeh]

Yes the embryo attaches itself to the uterus..

It was how you have worded it.. Look at this again - The baby is attached on to her body <-- Not correct.. It sounds as if the baby is attached on the outside ..It is a simple matter of wording it right

Show me where I used the words "attached on to her body". I said attached to her, is the uterus part of her or not? Edited November 17, 2012 by Rlyeh

[Beckys_Mom]

Show me where I used the words "attached on to her body". I said attached to her, is the uterus part of her or not?

Attached to her body is the same thing. When you attach something it has to go ON something else. Why split hairs? .. Fact is you have it worded wrong..

Edited November 17, 2012 by Beckys_Mom

[Rlyeh]

Attached to her body is the same thing. When you attach something it has to go ON something else. Why split hairs? .. Fact is you have it worded wrong..

Is the uterus part of her or not? Something attached to the uterus is therefore attached to her.

You're accusing me of saying something I haven't.

You object to my wording but still accept that the fetus is in the uterus and attached to it.

Edited November 17, 2012 by Rlyeh

[Beckys_Mom]

You're accusing me of saying something I haven't.

No...I haven't ... You said it was attached to her body.. You have that worded wrongly ( the sentence itself )

[Rlyeh]

No...I haven't ... You said it was attached to her body.. You have that worded wrongly ( the sentence itself )

There was nothing wrong with the sentence, maybe lack of clarification. Unless you can demonstrate the uterus is not part of her, my statement is technically correct.

[Beckys_Mom]

There was nothing wrong with the sentence, maybe lack of clarification. Unless you can demonstrate the uterus is not part of her, my statement is technically correct.

I never said anything about the uterus ...I know the embryo attaches itself to the uterus.. The uterus is a female organ.. Our organs are not attached to us.. they are inside of us..

I was aiming at one simple sentence - The baby is attached to her body.. . .I am saying that is not worded correctly.. It sounds as if you are saying the baby is stuck on the outside of her body.... The baby is not an attachment . it comes from what was an attachment inside the body, but when it grows inside the womb, it is no longer that.. It is INSIDE the womb.. which is INSIDE her body.. Not an attachment..

Edited November 17, 2012 by Beckys_Mom

[Beany]

Again, where is the dialogue about prevention, which is something we could all pretty much agree on? Imagine if all the energy & time & resource spent on promoting one's religious or moral views or political views on abortion were spent on effective prevention programs? Now THAT would make a difference. I just became cognizant of the fact that I identify with women faced with an unwanted pregnancy much more than I do with those who exercise moral judgments about them.

I see the morality as a concept, a way of thinking, as opposed to the very personal reality of women who are burdened with fears & practicality of carrying an unwanted to term, of worrying about how they would be able to support themselves & a baby, provide food, shelter, clothes, education, and love, especially the last if the pregnancy was a result of rape or incest. I think about the mental & psychological toll that carrying an unwanted baby to term or aborting it would exact, and that we all vary greatly in our ability to cope & thrive, to problem-solve, to make good decisions, our mental, physical, and emotional resources. I think about how little support there is for women with unwanted pregnancies, both economically & emotionally. And I think about the practical aspects of the situation, and how many people there are out there willing to judge & condemn who perhaps would never find themselves in this situation, because they're men or because this particular kind of tragedy has never happened to them nor could they imagine it happening. Mostly, we're all trying to do the best we can often under very demanding circumstances, at times, and the older I get the less willing I am to demand that others meet my expectations or to apply my own measure of morality & beliefs on to someone else.

[White Crane Feather]

Clarification its attached to her uterus, which is INSIDE OF HER, so it cannot be attached TO her. it is attached IN her Not to mention half of its make up actually came from her own parts in the first place or the fact that it was her part in the first place and does not belong to the other.

Edited November 17, 2012 by Seeker79