After Birth Abortion.

[Stubbly_Dooright]

I often wonder about the 'where does one draw the line' situation. I was thinking about that here, in this thread. I have to admit my honest feelings here, and agree with Orphalesion. I myself, cannot label the death of an infant as an 'after-birth abortion' but as infanticide. 

1 hour ago, danydandan said:

Yeah it fits in with what I wanted to discuss. My main point is, if we repeal the eight amendment what's to stop the government allowing by law after birth abortions. I was waiting to find out if anyone could justify it. Piney has enlightened me, as is religious beliefs allows this because of reincarnation.

*quickly looks up 8th amendment in Ireland* Now, if I'm getting this correct, I would think it would be 100 percent not viable, after the child has been born. From a physical point of view, I don't think the mother or the child would be affected, if something went wrong after birth. So, I would think it wouldn't be something that could be done (changing the amendment) if the situation is not the situation that the amendment is defending. I just think it's more of a philosophical line of thinking, and I would think that the law or amendment is not what it's for. 

(If, of course, if I'm getting this correctly again.)

I may have a New Age outlook, and have varying ideals of life after death, reincarnation, and such, I don't think for me, it's a comforting point to practice infanticide for the consideration of the newborn. For me, I would feel strongly, that it's not entirely provable, and cannot act on something that in the end, cannot be definite for me. There might be compelling clues, but in the end, the clues are not evidences for exactness. I again, still wouldn't think that making that choice for a newborn is right. 

So, I don't think it would go that far, when considering changing an amendment in that way. (If that's ok for an American to provide her opinion on this.   )

[danydandan]

13 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I often wonder about the 'where does one draw the line' situation. I was thinking about that here, in this thread. I have to admit my honest feelings here, and agree with Orphalesion. I myself, cannot label the death of an infant as an 'after-birth abortion' but as infanticide. 

*quickly looks up 8th amendment in Ireland* Now, if I'm getting this correct, I would think it would be 100 percent not viable, after the child has been born. From a physical point of view, I don't think the mother or the child would be affected, if something went wrong after birth. So, I would think it wouldn't be something that could be done (changing the amendment) if the situation is not the situation that the amendment is defending. I just think it's more of a philosophical line of thinking, and I would think that the law or amendment is not what it's for. 

(If, of course, if I'm getting this correctly again.)

I may have a New Age outlook, and have varying ideals of life after death, reincarnation, and such, I don't think for me, it's a comforting point to practice infanticide for the consideration of the newborn. For me, I would feel strongly, that it's not entirely provable, and cannot act on something that in the end, cannot be definite for me. There might be compelling clues, but in the end, the clues are not evidences for exactness. I again, still wouldn't think that making that choice for a newborn is right. 

So, I don't think it would go that far, when considering changing an amendment in that way. (If that's ok for an American to provide her opinion on this.   )

Yeah it's definitely ok for anyone to voice their opinion, as I'm looking generally for non Irish perspective.

The eight amendment does protect the fetus and mother at all stages of pregnancy, mostly the fetus, i think the point of the thread was to ask if it's repealed, there is nothing stopping the government from expanding the definition of abortion to after birth, and if other places on Earth do this.

I am confident that they won't and when it's repealed, by all indications it will,  they will adopt a twelve week blanket allowance of abortion regardless of reasons. The regardless of reasons is the point I have an issue with.

I agree that this is a more philosophical debate than a debate of what's actually going to happen.

Edited May 3, 2018 by danydandan

[Doug1029]

First:  "After-birth" abortion is one step beyond what I would feel comfortable with.  There is too much left to discretion.  It is the same thing as the Nazis' eugenics program.  If a problem can't be detected and treated in the first nine months, then it is too late.  Events will have to run their course.

Second:  People who say they are anti-abortion generally aren't.  If abortion is murder, then we should convict the killer:  the mother.  Not even fundamentalists think this is a good idea.  An abortion doctor tells me that something like a quarter of his patients are opposed to abortion, but they think an exception should be made in their case - in other words, they aren't really against abortion.

It is inconsistent to oppose abortion and also oppose spending public money on health insurance and pre-natal care for the mother, and adequate nutrition for them after the child as born.  It is inconsistent to oppose spending to give that child a good education so he/she can become a productive member of society.  It is hypocritical to oppose abortion while supporting the death penalty (judicial murder).  It is hypocritical to oppose abortion while supporting dropping bombs on Palestinian children, as Israel is wont to do.  Or support spending for people who want to do that.

The hypocrisy inherent in the issue is mind boggling, but the entire issue boils down to one question:  Is it better to kill people before or after they're born?

Doug

 

[jamesjr191]

3 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

" I have had bad eyesight singe childhood, (inherited) and yes, there is the slight learning disability. Granted, these both have been very very challenging for me, part of me sees how I can adapt to it. "

 

I just gotta mention Stubbly_Dooright, i've been seeing and reading your responses here for several years now. For a half blind Lady with a learning disablilty,  i must say you've greater insight, vision and logic than most of the people that have no issues. Preach it to crowd Lady!                                                                                                                         

                                                                                                                                               Huggers

[Podo]

I don't really see how a child who has been born and is surviving outside of its mother is anything alike to a fetus in the uterus. Abortion is the mother making a decision about her own body, no different than having a cyst removed, a tattoo, or a piercing. "Aborting" a human child is strictly murder, since that child has been born and is now a human person with all the rights therein. Once the child comes out of the mother, it should (and does) get the same rights as everyone else. Before? It's 100% the mother's decision, whether anyone else likes it or not. As far as I'm concerned, nobody other than the person with the fetus' opinion should factor in to a woman choosing to abort a fetus or not. 

[Podo]

2 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

First:  "After-birth" abortion is one step beyond what I would feel comfortable with.  There is too much left to discretion.  It is the same thing as the Nazis' eugenics program.  If a problem can't be detected and treated in the first nine months, then it is too late.  Events will have to run their course.

Second:  People who say they are anti-abortion generally aren't.  If abortion is murder, then we should convict the killer:  the mother.  Not even fundamentalists think this is a good idea.  An abortion doctor tells me that something like a quarter of his patients are opposed to abortion, but they think an exception should be made in their case - in other words, they aren't really against abortion.

It is inconsistent to oppose abortion and also oppose spending public money on health insurance and pre-natal care for the mother, and adequate nutrition for them after the child as born.  It is inconsistent to oppose spending to give that child a good education so he/she can become a productive member of society.  It is hypocritical to oppose abortion while supporting the death penalty (judicial murder).  It is hypocritical to oppose abortion while supporting dropping bombs on Palestinian children, as Israel is wont to do.  Or support spending for people who want to do that.

The hypocrisy inherent in the issue is mind boggling, but the entire issue boils down to one question:  Is it better to kill people before or after they're born?

Doug

 

[danydandan]

14 hours ago, Podo said:

I don't really see how a child who has been born and is surviving outside of its mother is anything alike to a fetus in the uterus. Abortion is the mother making a decision about her own body, no different than having a cyst removed, a tattoo, or a piercing. "Aborting" a human child is strictly murder, since that child has been born and is now a human person with all the rights therein. Once the child comes out of the mother, it should (and does) get the same rights as everyone else. Before? It's 100% the mother's decision, whether anyone else likes it or not. As far as I'm concerned, nobody other than the person with the fetus' opinion should factor in to a woman choosing to abort a fetus or not. 

I agree and disagree. Regarding the after birth abortion I agree it's a kin to murder. But I can see where cultures like, Native Americans and the likes deem it ok. People don't have the right to force other beliefs on them like it or not.

Regarding fetus abortion I am very much on the fence. I kinda think there needs to be a reason for it. But that just my opinion and it's not gospel.

[Stubbly_Dooright]

19 hours ago, danydandan said:

19 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I often wonder about the 'where does one draw the line' situation. I was thinking about that here, in this thread. I have to admit my honest feelings here, and agree with Orphalesion. I myself, cannot label the death of an infant as an 'after-birth abortion' but as infanticide. 

*quickly looks up 8th amendment in Ireland* Now, if I'm getting this correct, I would think it would be 100 percent not viable, after the child has been born. From a physical point of view, I don't think the mother or the child would be affected, if something went wrong after birth. So, I would think it wouldn't be something that could be done (changing the amendment) if the situation is not the situation that the amendment is defending. I just think it's more of a philosophical line of thinking, and I would think that the law or amendment is not what it's for. 

(If, of course, if I'm getting this correctly again.)

I may have a New Age outlook, and have varying ideals of life after death, reincarnation, and such, I don't think for me, it's a comforting point to practice infanticide for the consideration of the newborn. For me, I would feel strongly, that it's not entirely provable, and cannot act on something that in the end, cannot be definite for me. There might be compelling clues, but in the end, the clues are not evidences for exactness. I again, still wouldn't think that making that choice for a newborn is right. 

So, I don't think it would go that far, when considering changing an amendment in that way. (If that's ok for an American to provide her opinion on this.   )

Yeah it's definitely ok for anyone to voice their opinion, as I'm looking generally for non Irish perspective.

I thank you, for inviting all, and allowing my weird warped way of looking at it. Well, hearing me out, at the least.     And, I find your posts, to be very enlightening and fascinating to read. I don't know, if I personally, welcomed you here. 

Quote

The eight amendment does protect the fetus and mother at all stages of pregnancy, mostly the fetus, i think the point of the thread was to ask if it's repealed, there is nothing stopping the government from expanding the definition of abortion to after birth, and if other places on Earth do this.

I think, understandingly, that kind of concern is in all places. Here in the states, I see various individuals in and out of the government, make these statements and concerns. Kind of like where equal marriage is concern, what's stopping the legalization of man on beast marriages?   

In which, I think I see it being responded, (and I feel that way myself) some of these 'concerns' really don't sound like well thought out concerns, so I think a line can be drawn, and it's something that shouldn't be a worry, because of it's ............ unsound and lack of logic environment. From my observations, that is.     

So, in my point of view here, and talking about what your concerns here, I think this is in the same kind of outlook. Because of the situation, a child already have been born, (and some already seeing it more like infanticide), this might be the part where the line has been drawn. 

I do see your point though, and do take into consideration your belief and it's outlook on it, and other's as well, as the Native American's belief on it. And yes, I can how that would play into, how it can been seen in varying outlooks, but I think in the end, would your country allow religious views play a part in this? I think about my country, and how there always to be the debate of religious freedom in varying legal situations, and in the end, that has to be put aside, because it's something a secular country is really not built on. <------------ This on my residential observations and how I see it. (I could be wrong. Just using my opinion of it.  ) I wonder, does your country consider religious aspects of laws or point of views more? Much I feel, that the varying religious outlooks, (and I consider my weird New Age one in this too.((Which closely see your's and other's))), I think there might be a secular outlook in the end. 

If I could be allowed to imagine this.................   

If, in the end, it looks to be life, and always life, after birth, and the child's life is considered more over other situations, (the fact of the child is facing a life of misery so to speak) As for the hardship for the parents, because of the child's situation, I think, (when parents realize the consequences of their actions, and wish for children, this will happen too. I think of other examples, like a newborn is born healthy and fully functional intelligently, but an accident in later years render them in poor condition, what is the choice there? Could the line be drawn there? 

Sorry, something that just came up in my mind, while typing this last paragraph. 

Quote

I am confident that they won't and when it's repealed, by all indications it will,  they will adopt a twelve week blanket allowance of abortion regardless of reasons. The regardless of reasons is the point I have an issue with.

I agree that this is a more philosophical debate than a debate of what's actually going to happen.

Yeah, I think so too. And, I understand fully why you would start a thread here to see varying opinions on it. It is something, that should be reflected on and how life is viewed from many viewpoints. 

 

[Stubbly_Dooright]

18 hours ago, jamesjr191 said:

22 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

" I have had bad eyesight singe childhood, (inherited) and yes, there is the slight learning disability. Granted, these both have been very very challenging for me, part of me sees how I can adapt to it. "

 

I just gotta mention Stubbly_Dooright, i've been seeing and reading your responses here for several years now. For a half blind Lady with a learning disablilty,  i must say you've greater insight, vision and logic than most of the people that have no issues. Preach it to crowd Lady! 

   Awwww, shucks jamesjr191, that's nice of you to say.   

Well, I hope I do. And thank you for saying it. 

And if others don't see it that way. .........................

Well, I hope they had a good laugh, If at least, I like to spread the humor.   

 

[Stubbly_Dooright]

17 hours ago, Podo said:

19 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

First:  "After-birth" abortion is one step beyond what I would feel comfortable with.  There is too much left to discretion.  It is the same thing as the Nazis' eugenics program.  If a problem can't be detected and treated in the first nine months, then it is too late.  Events will have to run their course.

Second:  People who say they are anti-abortion generally aren't.  If abortion is murder, then we should convict the killer:  the mother.  Not even fundamentalists think this is a good idea.  An abortion doctor tells me that something like a quarter of his patients are opposed to abortion, but they think an exception should be made in their case - in other words, they aren't really against abortion.

It is inconsistent to oppose abortion and also oppose spending public money on health insurance and pre-natal care for the mother, and adequate nutrition for them after the child as born.  It is inconsistent to oppose spending to give that child a good education so he/she can become a productive member of society.  It is hypocritical to oppose abortion while supporting the death penalty (judicial murder).  It is hypocritical to oppose abortion while supporting dropping bombs on Palestinian children, as Israel is wont to do.  Or support spending for people who want to do that.

The hypocrisy inherent in the issue is mind boggling, but the entire issue boils down to one question:  Is it better to kill people before or after they're born?

Doug

 

Yeah........

Me too..............   

 

[danydandan]

2 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I thank you, for inviting all, and allowing my weird warped way of looking at it. Well, hearing me out, at the least.     And, I find your posts, to be very enlightening and fascinating to read. I don't know, if I personally, welcomed you here. 

I have been here for ages, just reading never really getting involved. I decided as a new years resolution I'd get involved and try spread good scientific thinking. I think I joined in 2008. But I appreciate the belated welcome.

I think, understandingly, that kind of concern is in all places. Here in the states, I see various individuals in and out of the government, make these statements and concerns. Kind of like where equal marriage is concern, what's stopping the legalization of man on beast marriages?   

In which, I think I see it being responded, (and I feel that way myself) some of these 'concerns' really don't sound like well thought out concerns, so I think a line can be drawn, and it's something that shouldn't be a worry, because of it's ............ unsound and lack of logic environment. From my observations, that is.     

I think I understand what you mean and I agree.

So, in my point of view here, and talking about what your concerns here, I think this is in the same kind of outlook. Because of the situation, a child already have been born, (and some already seeing it more like infanticide), this might be the part where the line has been drawn.

I do see your point though, and do take into consideration your belief and it's outlook on it, and other's as well, as the Native American's belief on it. And yes, I can how that would play into, how it can been seen in varying outlooks, but I think in the end, would your country allow religious views play a part in this? I think about my country, and how there always to be the debate of religious freedom in varying legal situations, and in the end, that has to be put aside, because it's something a secular country is really not built on. <------------ This on my residential observations and how I see it. (I could be wrong. Just using my opinion of it.  ) I wonder, does your country consider religious aspects of laws or point of views more? Much I feel, that the varying religious outlooks, (and I consider my weird New Age one in this too.((Which closely see your's and other's))), I think there might be a secular outlook in the end. 

Historically we are a very conservative Country based on Catholic points of view. However this has changed, we were one of if not the first to allow and recognise same sex marriages. Our Taoiseach, leader of the Country or Prime Minister, is a gay son of an Indian migrant so I'm very proud of our Country and it's openness to change.

If I could be allowed to imagine this.................   

If, in the end, it looks to be life, and always life, after birth, and the child's life is considered more over other situations, (the fact of the child is facing a life of misery so to speak) As for the hardship for the parents, because of the child's situation, I think, (when parents realize the consequences of their actions, and wish for children, this will happen too. I think of other examples, like a newborn is born healthy and fully functional intelligently, but an accident in later years render them in poor condition, what is the choice there? Could the line be drawn there? 

Sorry, something that just came up in my mind, while typing this last paragraph. 

Yeah, I think so too. And, I understand fully why you would start a thread here to see varying opinions on it. It is something, that should be reflected on and how life is viewed from many viewpoints. 

 

Some responses are underscored in the above.

It's a topic that had no easy answer, it's kinda like the trolley dilemma. It depends on your, religious, cultural and our value on human life.

http://theconversation.com/the-trolley-dilemma-would-you-kill-one-person-to-save-five-57111

[Podo]

7 hours ago, danydandan said:

I agree and disagree. Regarding the after birth abortion I agree it's a kin to murder. But I can see where cultures like, Native Americans and the likes deem it ok. People don't have the right to force other beliefs on them like it or not.

Regarding fetus abortion I am very much on the fence. I kinda think there needs to be a reason for it. But that just my opinion and it's not gospel.

I think there should be a reason, too, actually. But I acknowledge that my opinion in this matter does not and should not have any bearing on a woman's decision and/or ability to get an abortion if she so chooses. Women and men who don't like abortions are free to not have them.

[+and-then]

On 5/3/2018 at 12:49 PM, Orphalesion said:

And even from a Christian standpoint I find it reasonable to assume that god would take care of souls that have died without committing sin.

I believe this also.  Do you think He will look the other way when His innocents are killed for no reason other than the convenience of others?  The truth is that the vast majority of abortion is done for exactly that reason.  Actively ending the life of a human being that is outside the mother's body and alive on its own is murder.  There is no other word for it.

[danydandan]

I think I've decided to vote Yes, and allow the government to change our legislation.

At least it will stop women who choose to abort travelling over seas to abort. Which means they will at least be in Ireland near family and friends during a time, I can only imagine, is extremely stressful.

[Farmer77]

3 minutes ago, danydandan said:

I think I've decided to vote Yes, and allow the government to change our legislation.

At least it will stop women who choose to abort travelling over seas to abort. Which means they will at least be in Ireland near family and friends during a time, I can only imagine, is extremely stressful.

Vote your conscience. Thanks for sharing the process with us 

[Podo]

3 hours ago, danydandan said:

I think I've decided to vote Yes, and allow the government to change our legislation.

At least it will stop women who choose to abort travelling over seas to abort. Which means they will at least be in Ireland near family and friends during a time, I can only imagine, is extremely stressful.

[Stubbly_Dooright]

9 hours ago, danydandan said:

Some responses are underscored in the above.

It's a topic that had no easy answer, it's kinda like the trolley dilemma. It depends on your, religious, cultural and our value on human life.

http://theconversation.com/the-trolley-dilemma-would-you-kill-one-person-to-save-five-57111

Yeah, I agree. It really doesn't seem to have the easy answer. As I have mentioned before, (I think in this thread.... *shrugs*) I was having a friendly debate/conversation with a Catholic friend about abortion, and I said how I think it's very controversial and not really can be pin pointed as one side or another definitely, because of how we really cannot tell for sure about when life begins in the womb. She agreed with me, on the grey area about this. 

That is an interesting dilemma/thought there. (Though, I wonder, why were those five lally gagging around and on tracks in the first place!?  ) I think, there are similar dilemmas and thoughts here too. I just can't remember them. But, the way I see it, no matter what, there is going to be something tragic about it. 

[Stubbly_Dooright]

6 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

6 hours ago, danydandan said:

I think I've decided to vote Yes, and allow the government to change our legislation.

At least it will stop women who choose to abort travelling over seas to abort. Which means they will at least be in Ireland near family and friends during a time, I can only imagine, is extremely stressful.

Vote your conscience. Thanks for sharing the process with us

I hope we helped.  

[GlitterRose]

No one justifies infanticide. That is just propaganda from people who want to demonize pro-choice people. 

[GlitterRose]

This is from those two philosophers...

We started from the definition of person introduced by Michael Tooley in 1975 and we tried to draw the logical conclusions deriving from this premise.  It was meant to be a pure exercise of logic: if X, then Y.  We expected that other bioethicists would challenge either the premise or the logical pattern we followed, because this is what happens in academic debates.  And we believed we were going to read interesting responses to the argument, as we already read a few on this topic in religious websites.

However, we never meant to suggest that after-birth abortion should become legal. 

http://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2012/03/02/an-open-letter-from-giubilini-and-minerva/

[Mr Walker]

On 03/05/2018 at 7:26 AM, danydandan said:

Here in Ireland we have a referendum coming up regarding abolishment of the eight amendment of our constitution. The eight amendment states, "The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right." This basically means abortion is against the law unless the mother is going to die as a result of pregnancy or giving birth. There are a number of cases where doctors hands were tied as a result of this amendment. Both of the links below are sad stories.

http://www.thejournal.ie/savita-parents-speak-out-675917-Nov2012/

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/ann-lovett-death-of-a-strong-kick-ass-girl-1.3429792?mode=amp

What the government is asking in the referendum is, should we repeal the eight amendment. If so it would leave it up to the government to create a law that dictates when an abortion is permitted. Most observers are stating that most likely this will be a blanket allowance of abortion for up to twelve weeks. I don't really want to get into the politics of this here, however it's becoming clear that a number of Non-Irish citizens are donating money to both sides of the debate which I find disgusting.

In my research I have come across the idea of after-birth abortion. Coined by pro lifers and philosophically defined by Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2012/03/after_birth_abortion_the_pro_choice_case_for_infanticide_.html

With this thread and I understand this is a hot topic, I am looking for some reason people would justify infanticide, because basically thats what after-birth abortion is, on an ethical or philosophical argument. I posted this in this section because I believe most people will look at it from a spiritual point of view.

It appears to me that if one allows a abortions for anything other than life threatening reasons, where does one draw the line ? Is killing a child after birth any different than killing one in vitro?

For me I'm finding the decision to vote either way very hard. I can't justify killing a child to save a mother nor can I justify letting a woman die to save a child. But I am very much against the complete lack of care given by the state to women who have to travel to England via ferry, to get an abortion.

 

It is a complex issue and i will try to make it simple for me.

 I am opposed to abortion on demand  because it negates the life of an unborn child  for no good reason.  Human life begins at conception, when two sets of genes become one new and unique individual. If that embryo and its host   is healthy then, with,the passage of time, and nothing else, it WILL become a full human being 

 BUT i am in favour of aborting a fetus which i s known to be severely  damaged, either physically or mentally ( ie the parents should have a right  to chose .) i am also in favour of abortion where a mother's physical or mental health is genuinely at risk. 

To be consistent i would extend this to immediate after- birth .

Where a child will require constant care all its life. and will never become able to speak. or walk.  or think, then i have no opposition to it being killed. But again the parents input would be critical. Some might still want to have it, love it, and care for it. 

Our best friends ( an accountant and graphic artist) had a son who was born severely damaged due to inadequate oxygen supply  40 years later he lives a comfortable life in a unit with a full time carer. ( actually 3 on rotation)   He cannot walk or talk, or care for himself, but is  (appears to be) happy.

No parent should be forced to care for such a child all their lives,  but if the state is prepared to so so, then they can. The couple later adopted a child but unfortunately that dint work out well once she realised she was adopted .  She became an ice addict and while she had several children by different partners she  is not able to be a mother to them.

On abortion itself, I oppose it philosophically, but support it where the re is a genuine  need by the mother to prevent illegal abortions by desperate  women  and the harm done by them  (not everyone can travel to another country to have an abortion   ). and i believe  it should be free, and state supported, if the rest of your medical /health care also is. 

 However an unborn human should have some legal rights and protections, and thus be protected from  say, a woman who just wants to keep her figure a bit longer . This is especially true in an era of modern and effective contraception, including a morning after pill 

Edited May 5, 2018 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

On 04/05/2018 at 6:24 AM, Podo said:

I don't really see how a child who has been born and is surviving outside of its mother is anything alike to a fetus in the uterus. Abortion is the mother making a decision about her own body, no different than having a cyst removed, a tattoo, or a piercing. "Aborting" a human child is strictly murder, since that child has been born and is now a human person with all the rights therein. Once the child comes out of the mother, it should (and does) get the same rights as everyone else. Before? It's 100% the mother's decision, whether anyone else likes it or not. As far as I'm concerned, nobody other than the person with the fetus' opinion should factor in to a woman choosing to abort a fetus or not. 

A tattoo or cyst will not, over a short period of time, develop into an independent human being.

While a woman has some rights to her body, this does Not NECESSARILY equate to the right to kill a new child who will be in her womb for a relatively short time, and then become a human just like her. just becsue she would like to. 

Because  she is a developed human being with a self ware consciousness and a capacity to suffer,  she has greater rights than the fetus.

But not total rights.

It s not JUST her body. There  is a new human body ( symbiotically or parasitically ) attached to her own for 9 months.   The baby is NOT  "just a part of her body"  like an arm or a leg.

it has its own body and existence.

Ethically we MUST give some  rights and protections to the unborn, because the y are humans without the abilty to speak or act for themselves, who will " inevitably" develop those abilities  and thus the most vulnerable of us  all.  

[+Sherapy]

14 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

A tattoo or cyst will not, over a short period of time, develop into an independent human being.

While a woman has some rights to her body, this does Not NECESSARILY equate to the right to kill a new child who will be in her womb for a relatively short time, and then become a human just like her. just becsue she would like to. 

Because  she is a developed human being with a self ware consciousness and a capacity to suffer,  she has greater rights than the fetus.

But not total rights.

It s not JUST her body. There  is a new human body ( symbiotically or parasitically ) attached to her own for 9 months.   The baby is NOT  "just a part of her body"  like an arm or a leg.

it has its own body and existence.

Ethically we MUST give some  rights and protections to the unborn, because the y are humans without the abilty to speak or act for themselves, who will " inevitably" develop those abilities  and thus the most vulnerable of us  all.  

The first trimester it is her body and soley her decision and legally her right to do as she sees fit, it is her body. 

Personally, for me, I am pro life, but I am pro choice otherwise. I only have the right to decide for myself. 

I took Phillosophy/Ethics a few years ago this is the reading we were assigned and had to argue for or against and why. No right or wrong answer of course, just a well thought out articulate, comprehensive counter. 

http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm

Why not speed read through this and give your counter, give yourself two solid minutes, that should be plenty of time, right? 

 

Edited May 5, 2018 by Sherapy

[+Hammerclaw]

1 minute ago, Sherapy said:

The first trimester it is her body and soley her decision and legally her right to do as she sees fit, it is her body. 

Personally, for me, I am pro life, but I am pro choice otherwise. I only have the right to decide for myself. 

I took Phillosophy/Ethics a few years ago this is the reading we were assigned and had to argue for or against and why.

http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm

Why not speed read through this and give your counter. 

 

It's easy to be against abortion until one is called upon to deal with an unexpected, unwanted pregnancy. My, oh my, how inconvenient one finds one's moral scruples, then! Been there, done that.

[+Sherapy]

3 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

It's easy to be against abortion until one is called upon to deal with an unexpected, unwanted pregnancy. My, oh my, how inconvenient one finds one's moral scruples, then! Been there, done that.

Exactly, moral finger pointing is a fools game.