Sorry to say

I tend to agree with Howard and geomeau overall.
It is a complex topic just the same.
One stakeholder I feel for is the father of the fetus.

While acknowledging that the woman has the overarching right, the father tends to have no rights at all.
Take a situation where an unmarried couple are unsure of their relationship's future and she accidentally falls pregnant, from that moment she decides - if she will terminate his potential child, bear it and have him pay child support for the next 18 years (thus limiting his chances of making a fresh start), or perhaps get married and both live happily ever after.
While many women suffer from abortion regrets, I know men who are also grieving years later.
I don't have a clue as to how to handle this aspect.

Bruno Behrends wrote:...

The mother-to-be has rights. The child-to-be also has rights - at least at some point. There is no easy solution to this dilemma and whoever thinks they have one are deluding themselves.
...

It´s easy to claim that, but the moment you place the rights of the child above that of the mother, then you are asking for tyranny, and demanding that the "mother to be" take medical risks that are potentially lethal, not to mention all nonmedical risks, and to spend months more or less incapacitated.

And as long as you don´t also guarantee that the child gets 100% taken care of after birth both physically and financially, any statements about the "rights of the child" is just hot air.

Bruno Behrends wrote:I don't want to take a particular side in this discussion at this point.

But I do want to point out that both sides have valid arguments. The reason you guys are having this discussion is that it is a real problem.

Would you mind listing one of these valid argument that a woman should not have final say over how her own body is used for a 9 month period?

The mother-to-be has rights.

The "mother-to-be" has rights because she currently *IS* an actual person. Rights which have nothing to with any "to-be" status.

The child-to-be also has rights - at least at some point.

1. "At least at some point" is glossing over the entire reality of the situation. Which is that that point is not when all we are dealing with is one person and one zygote or undeveloped fetus.

2. As I already demonstrated, even if we were to magically substitute a zygote or fetus for an actual baby, the rights people have do not extend to appropriating control of other people's bodies for the preservation of your own life. Babies don't have that right. Toddlers don't have that right. Teenagers don't have that right. Adults don't have that right. I don't have it. You don't have it.

So fetuses and zygotes sure as hell don't either whether you want to argue they should be given all the rights enjoyed actual people or not... because those rights STILL wouldn't cover denying a woman the right to control her own body.


Unless of course we want to have this debate in, say, Saudi Arabia where it is considered acceptable to define women as property. Is anyone proposing that that's the route we should go? If so, would love to hear *that* "valid argument".

The current legal, not moral definition IMHO, is that when the fetus takes a breath of air it becomes a person and why there are partial birth abortions where the fetus is killed prior to birth, for it the fetus takes a breath becoming an infant he or she has legal rights of an independent person. To then kill him or her is murder.. There are reports of such things going on in abortion clinics, even removing organs while still alive and conscious.



Dr. Mangle the 'angel of death' would be proud, murdering human beings for science.

Check out this history to see where such thoughts lead:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syhXomxP5uI

Poker

pokermind wrote:The current legal, not moral definition IMHO, is that when the fetus takes a breath of air it becomes a person and why there are partial birth abortions where the fetus is killed prior to birth, for it the fetus takes a breath becoming an infant he or she has legal rights of an independent person.

IMHO, your HO is based on complete ignorance of the facts.

First, "partial birth abortion" is not a medical term. It is just something abortion opponents made up. The term is dilation and extraction.

Second, it is pretty much always performed on fetuses in the 20-24 week stage, far before viability without some pretty extraordinary measures being taken. So no the procedure is not performed as some kind of legal loophole to avoid delivering a living baby that would suddenly have rights. If that was the goal they would just perform *a regular damn abortion*. What the hell would be the point of going to all the extra trouble to accomplish something a regular abortion already does???? It is simply, in some circumstances, a lower risk procedure for the mother. Who, as the only person involved, has the right to have her safety considered.

Third, it accounts for approximately 0.2% of all abortions.

To then kill him or her is murder.. There are reports of such things going on in abortion clinics, even removing organs while still alive and conscious.

Fabricated reports, that have been exposed as such.

Dr. Mangle the 'angel of death' would be proud, murdering human beings for science.

Nobody is being "murdered for science". But enjoy your propagandizing.

Here in this video, the baby is clapping his or hers hands on the screen with the parents singing to the baby. The unborn baby is 14 weeks in gestation. So, please do not come out with legal definition. As to my womb my body argument their are alternatives like the day after pill and good old birth control. Not that I am endorsing the choice of day after pill that but it is option. Murder is Murder! Abortion under most circumstances is Murder. Have some compassion in your heart...you know empathy! What if your Mom was considering an abortion when your body was being created in the womb for your soul?

http://www.lifenews.com/2015/03/27/14-week-old-unborn-baby-starts-clapping-in-the-womb-as-parents-sing-a-nursery-rhyme/

smr wrote:Here in this video, the baby is clapping his or hers hands on the screen with the parents singing to the baby. The unborn baby is 14 weeks in gestation.

Here, in this video, is an actual baby clapping it's hands.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDvoN1kLGIg

And here's some kids clapping:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYm04r7_gzI

And here's lots and lots and lots of people clapping!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QL-T9bL4kDg


And you know what all of them have in common? NONE of them have the right to use someone else's body against their will to stay alive. You can like it or not like it. People die all the time because they can't, for example, have someone tackle, kidnap and then strap someone else to an operating table to have a surgeon cut a piece of their liver out to keep them alive. And you can feel sad those people die for lack of a willing organ donor (or whatever), but that's a long way from saying because you feel sad they die they should be allowed to violate other people's bodies against their will to avoid it! Recognizing that that's a bad thing does not require a lack of empathy, just a functioning brain.

What if your Mom was considering an abortion when your body was being created in the womb for your soul?

The same thing that would have happened if my mom and dad decided to use protection the night I was conceived.

Of if she decided she didn't like him on their first date.

Or if they just never met.

Nothing of any concern to me, since I'd never have existed to be concerned about it.


Now, do you have anything to bring to this argument besides outraged appeals to emotion?

I apologize for my crudeness.

It is remarkable that the majority of 'pro-life' opposition to abortion comes from men, not women. This suggests that the issue is not abortion, but one of who gets to exercise control over women's bodies, and therefor their economic and social independence, and therefor their political power.

Moreover, it is a matter of women's humanity. A man gets to fuck and leave, but the woman is left with the consequences. Society praises men who indulge in casual sex, but condemns their partners. Yet at the same time, if a woman refuses a man's advances, society calls her 'frigid', 'old-fashioned', 'uppity'. But, if she dares have a child out of wedlock, the same people (yes conservatives, I'm talking about you) who would deny her the right to have an abortion, would refuse any kind of assistance so that she does not lose her opportunities for a self-sufficient and productive life

Tenshinai wrote:

Bruno Behrends wrote:...

The mother-to-be has rights. The child-to-be also has rights - at least at some point. There is no easy solution to this dilemma and whoever thinks they have one are deluding themselves.
...

It´s easy to claim that, but the moment you place the rights of the child above that of the mother, then you are asking for tyranny, and demanding that the "mother to be" take medical risks that are potentially lethal, not to mention all nonmedical risks, and to spend months more or less incapacitated.

And as long as you don´t also guarantee that the child gets 100% taken care of after birth both physically and financially, any statements about the "rights of the child" is just hot air.

I did write 'balance' for a reason, Tenshinai. Don't put anything in my mouth (like claiming I put this above that or so).

And you are making my point for me by mentioning the difficulties - medical, financial etc - that can arise. I believe I also wrote 'no easy solution', right?

Apparently not

The video in question is the result of editing (the parents used it to make a "baby announcement" video).

It should be noted that if it were true it would be a very precocious fetus; clapping hands, especially in response to sounds, is something which a newborn can't do, it takes some months to develop.

smr wrote:Here in this video, the baby is clapping his or hers hands on the screen with the parents singing to the baby. The unborn baby is 14 weeks in gestation. So, please do not come out with legal definition. As to my womb my body argument their are alternatives like the day after pill and good old birth control. Not that I am endorsing the choice of day after pill that but it is option. Murder is Murder! Abortion under most circumstances is Murder. Have some compassion in your heart...you know empathy! What if your Mom was considering an abortion when your body was being created in the womb for your soul?

http://www.lifenews.com/2015/03/27/14-week-old-unborn-baby-starts-clapping-in-the-womb-as-parents-sing-a-nursery-rhyme/