Abortion is about the most fundamental human right: self-ownership

If it were not a benefit, there would be no imperative.

Well, let's just say an absurd straw man then.

Let me break down what you are saying, because to be honest you are jumping between multiple arguments.

Survival of the species (and the bloodline) was brought up because you wanted to know what benefits are provided.

It's not my "new argument". I introduced this argument way back at post #40.

Again, you are relying on your own assumption that the only rights are individual rights, to reach this conclusion. Remove your assumption, and your logic dissolves.

- - - Updated - - -

Again, you are relying on your own assumption that the only rights are individual rights, to reach this conclusion. Remove your assumption, and your logic dissolves. And I notice during this post, you are dancing back and forth between "human" and "individual" as if they are synonymous. They are not. I mean, wasn't that your argument to begin with, that they are not the same?

 

Not true, sorry. That is why we have two different words.

Pointing out the logical conclusion of your argument is not a strawman.

The onus is on you to prove that the individual right of self-ownership is not an individual right. Again, you have to completely turn all philosophical knowledge on its head to do that. Furthermore, my premise does not require that all rights are individual rights. That is your own strawman. It only requires that the rights we are discussing are, mainly self-ownership. Self-ownership as a concept is defined as an individual right. Feel free to debunk that long-held definition.

No. The right to self-ownership is an individual right, and the whole literature of philosophy would agree. It is you who must justify your absurd notion that self-ownership is not an individual right. You also still have to prove that a pregnant woman is not an individual, which is utterly absurd in and of itself. You are only creating more work for yourself. Now you must do the following:

1. Prove that the philosophical framework of individuals rights is false, and that the right to self-ownership (self synonymous with one's own individual being) is not an individual right, but some other kind of right.

Again, good luck doing that. If self-ownership is not an individual right, what is it? What rights do non-individuals have? Where do they come from?

 

Some little story I have experienced myself some 25 years ago. I was in my 3rd year of training as anesthesiologist and during my internship rotated into a gynecological OR. We had approximately 5 patients with abortions per day, abortion was permitted with an indication until the 14th week, most women were between week 8 and 12 of pregnancy. We had the regulation that physicians not wanting to attend or assist abortions, either as gynecologist or as anesthesiologist, have the right to refuse participation. 50% didn't participate, I did participate.

One day the gynecologists came with a new research project which had been approved by the ethics commission (all women had given consent). It was in the early days of stem cell research. The study: After induction of anesthesia and before the small amnion with the fetus inside, measuring 20mm ( 25/32 inch), was removed by suction, the research assistant had to puncture the amnion sac by a micro needle to retrieve as much as possible of the amniotic fluid, from which in the lab the stem cells were filtered out. Because everything was so small the gynecologists used some sophisticated ultrasound equipment to locate the amniofetal entity, to guide the needle and to make sure it would stay in place during removal of the fluid. Caused by the small diameter of the capillary that collection of liquid volume (like a small water drop) lasted 5 - 10 minutes. During the very first procedures we had the impression that the fetus during the procedure, the volume of liquid slowly decreasing and the tip of the needle coming closer to the fetus, moved away from it. Gynecogists first strongly advocated the movements to be artefacts, the fetus being too small and too premature to be aware of any danger, not to speak from making any defensive movement intentionally. Unfortunately that movement was seen in all 5 of the 5 first procedures by 3 different anesthesiologists. (The gynecologists were so concentrated on their procedure that they were not able to look all the time).

All anesthesiologists, myself included, then refused to participate anymore. The gynecologists called the chief of gynecology for help. He was attending cases 6 and 7, our own chief being the anesthesiologist performing anesthesia. Fetus 6 and 7 moved away from the needle. The study was stopped immediately.

Don't tell me an 8 - 10 weeks old fetus is not a human being. The fetus is human, the fetus is an individual, the 8th week fetus seems to have some intelligence, feels pain and already can anticipate threats. Nobody has the right to call that a "parasite" or a "part of the mother which can be cut off like hair" as it was mentioned earlier in this discussion.

 

A similar claim was made in the pro-life propaganda film, Silent Scream. A panel of doctors explained:

CLAIM: The 12-week fetus makes
purposeful movements (e.g., agitated
movement in an attempt to avoid suction
cannula).

· FACTS: At this stage of pregnancy, all
fetal movement is reflexive in nature
rather than purposeful, since the latter
requires cognition, which is the ability to
perceive and know. For cognition to occur,
the cortex (gray matter covering the brain)
must be present, as well as myelinization
(covering sheath) of the spinal cord and
attached nerves, which is not the case.

An example of the reflex withdrawal without
pain occurs in an anencephalic (absent
brain) newborn. Another known example of
the reflex movement at this stage of human
pregnancy is thumb sucking in utero.

What is termed “frantic activity” by the fetus
is a reflex response of the fetus resulting
from movement of the uterus and its
contents induced by operator manipulation of
the suction curette or the ultrasound
transducer on the abdomen. This same type
of response would likely occur with any
external stimulus. A one-cell organism such
as an amoeba will reflexively move or display
a withdrawal reaction when touched.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/Facts_Speak_Louder_than_the_Silent_Scream_03-02.pdf

 

Yeah, I'm more libertarian when it comes to domestic policy. American citizens should be controlled as little as possible and should have all the rights they can have as long as they dont hurt anyone else imo

I'm more right wing on foreign policy, and immigration

left wing on economics and social issues

I'm a hybrid on the Environment, more left when it comes to national parks, and right when it comes to oil drilling and the economic side of the envioment

Basically, it sucks for me on election day because I can never win. lol

 

And that's also not true(that the existence of different words denies that a phrase or an action might coincide with a different phase or action) In this case, if Action X is beneficial, it might be imperative for that person to take Action X.

Just because it's beneficial, doesn't necessarily mean Action X cannot be imperative.

Allow me to do so. This is an entirely different debate than the one we previously had, and hence I feel we can possibly get somewhere. First, let's look at the definition of Self-Ownership.

"Self-ownership refers to the idea that persons own themselves. The principle that persons own themselves is a foundational principle for many libertarians, it is defended by some liberals, and it has great importance for distributive justice. If persons own themselves, it seems reasonable to say that they own their talents and abilities. If they own their talents and abilities it seems to follow, on many accounts of appropriation, that they own the fruits of those talents. But, since there is a wide variety of talents and abilities, then there will be a wide variety of returns to individuals. So the claim that individuals own themselves seems to licence widespread inequality."

"Both the notion of self-ownership and the thesis that we own ourselves have been criticised, however. It is arguable that, although this is my right hand, I don’t, in any clear sense, own it because ownership mischaracterises the sort of relation I have to it. Further, it is suggested that what is at stake in concerns about the control of my body parts is best characterised as individual autonomy, not the infringement of a set of property relations.


Bolded Emphasis mine. Self-ownership. (2007)

According to the Political Philosophical world, Individual Autonomy is different from Self-Ownership per say. And secondly, what really hurts your argument is that Individual Autonomy is referred to in the sense of an individual's body parts.

But the whole crux of the Abortionist's arguments is on the basis that the fetus isn't a part of the woman. If you hold onto that thesis, you can't invoke Autonomy because it is not a part of a woman's body. We've already covered that a Fetus is sentient, therefore it's a being that actually exists.

But presuming that this argument were feasible, what about the father? Is his sperm not a part of his reproductive organs? Is it not feasibly his own product? Said sperm comes from his penis, is it not a part of his body? Considering that 90% or so of men want to be fathers according to recent polls, does he not have a form of autonomy?

http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/human-biology/pregnancy1.htm

The Umbilical Cord as an example is a part of the fetus's body. Can we say that the cord belongs to the woman? Absurd. It's far more biologically accurate to say the womb is a shared space, a specific place where only a fetus can develop.



No. The right to self-ownership is an individual right, and the whole literature of philosophy would agree. It is you who must justify your absurd notion that self-ownership is not an individual right. You also still have to prove that a pregnant woman is not an individual, which is utterly absurd in and of itself. You are only creating more work for yourself. Now you must do the following:

1.It appears to be a political right, one that if used in the context of Autonomy, also protects the fetus as well as the male. Since you concurred that they are sentient lifeforms.

2. Rights non-individuals(let's say animals) have, have been granted by other homo sapiens via recognition. These rights of course, come no where close to ours but a sort of moral sanctity in our principles, which we hope prevents us from becoming predatory beasts.

Now why we don't apply said sanctity to human life as a whole(including warfare) goes beyond me. We hold animals to a higher degree then we do ourselves.

As proof, the bane of abortion itself purely and can only exist as long as there's an economic problem. Eliminate poverty, and you'll virtually eliminate abortion.
And if a woman doesn't want children? She should just get her tubes tied, it's a one-time cost, compared to aborting a child and then having to fear if you get another one(In the hypothetical world where poverty doesn't exist, getting her tubes tied is better than an abortion IMO).

 

There is no stimulation or movement of the uterus during general anesthesia.

 

If not in decline how is it a benefit? Adding more consumers to a limited amount of resources can not possibly be a benefit. The benefit can only be claimed in case of a decline or if necessary to maintain a balance. In regards to abortion, neither is the case.

Really? You will have to do better than that.

 

A simple question to all here;

Does a person have the right to refuse to sustain the life of another.

I say yes, even of you adhere to the idea that the fetus would not exist if it were not for the actions of the man and woman (I don't adhere to that idea) that does not negate the right for a woman to remove the usage of her body against her consent .. if this were not the case then no parent would be able to refuse to use their body in order to sustain their born child, after all that born child would also not exist if it were not for the actions of the man and woman.

 

Just because something is imperative does not necessarily make it beneficial. Again, it may be imperative that the human race as a whole reproduces. That does not mean such reproduction is beneficial to the specific woman wanting an abortion, nor does it even mean it is imperative that that specific woman has an abortion. You are committing a fallacy of division in addition to your equivocation.

Yes, human beings are different. Yes, we are born with different talents and abilities. Is there anything wrong with that? No. That is our fundamental nature of being humans--diversity. There is nothing unjust or wrong about it. What matters is not so much equality (in terms of being the same) but equity (fairness). And self-ownership gives every single person control over their body and their life, and that is about as equitable as you can get in a world of diversity.

Furthermore, I fail to see the distinction between individual autonomy and self-ownership. Would not the same "inequality" result if you use the phrase individual autonomy? Individual autonomy is simply another way of describing self-ownership. You have not described any meaningful distinction between the two--you have merely said they are different. How your talk about individual body parts hurts my argument is beyond me at this point, because I fail to see how an autonomous individual has any less control over his body than a self-owning one.

Just to clarify, the crux of my argument relies on the notion that a fetus is a party of the woman's body (which I am sure is what you meant) because the fetus itself is not a biologically autonomous individual. A question for you: it is undeniable than a zygote is not sentient, nor is it sentient for quite some time during the pregnancy (assuming your notion of sentience is correct, which I reject). Would you therefore support very early abortions?

We have two possible scenarios: either the fetus is it's own individual (in which case the father has no say) or the fetus is part of the mother (again, in which case the father has no say). The man has no right to be a father against the woman's wishes. If she does not want to be a mother, then to insist that she produce a baby for his benefit puts her in the position of a chattel slave. The woman has the right, however, to choose to be a mother even if the man does not want to be a father. Since her bodily systems produce the baby, her right to self-ownership (or individual autonomy) requires that the choice ultimately be hers and hers alone. If she elects to make a solitary choice, of course, the ensuing responsibility for the child is morally hers alone also.

Of course the umbilical cord is part of the woman. If you hold as I do that a fetus is simply part of the woman's body because it is not biologically autonomous, then the umbilical chord, the means of the fetus attaching itself, is still equally part of the woman's body. You are saying a fetus is it's own being because the umbilical chord is part of the fetus's being. That is circular reasoning.

How is it a political right? A political right is granted by the government. Human beings have the right to self-ownership regardless of the existence of a government. And your concept of autonomy in no way gets around the question. Again, I do not agree that a fetus is sentient and its own individual. But I did say even if you believe that, the fetus still has no right to be in the woman's body. No individual has the right to physically live in the body of another individual. Even if the fetus is an autonomous individual, it has no right to infringe upon the rights of another autonomous individual by living inside of her body.

Saying a right is granted by recognition is no sort of philosophical framework at all. It is also not true that if you eliminate poverty you will eliminate abortion. The immense physical and psychological harms of a pregnancy on a woman exist regardless of economic status, and there will always be women who do not want to have a child. The wealthy still have abortions, so I find it odd you can even make such a statement. Perhaps a woman does want children, just not at the given moment. Thus getting her tubes tied would be a horrible solution, for it would prevent her from ever having children.

Thank you for such a civil discussion by the way. I have enjoyed it so far. I guess the main questions from me at this point are:
1. Do you support abortion in early stages of development?
2. How is individual autonomy different than self-ownership?
3. Granting for argument that a fetus is an individual equal to the woman, how can the fetus's individual autonomy invalidate the woman's?

 

This has been done numerous times in numerous ways, I commend you for the way you have portrayed the argument . .however it will fall onto deaf ears.

 

It seems "you can't handle the truth" but tell us why is it so in your opinion.

Yes that has been stipulated numerous times.

Not even close.

Quite frankly I have expected better from a trained physician, even if an opponent of abortion. It seems that you skipped a number of classes.

Parasitic is what it can be called.

 

Explain why a 8-10 week old fetus isn't a human being.

 

Nobody here has ever made the claim that the fetus is not human.

You can be human and still be considered biologically 'parasitic', as in you take nutrients from the host and give nothing in return. In fact, in the case of these conjoined twins, Manar Maged and unofficially named Islaam, Islaam was literally just a head and a small portion of chest cavity. She was considered a parasitic twin because she was taking all of her sister's nutrients and giving nothing in return. It was so bad that it was literally killing the fully formed twin. They had to separate them (which would result in the death of Islaam), just to save Manar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitic_twin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnWaF7txmnE

 

Sorry, they are built for it and it is the design for human survival. If you are not a person in the womb and can be terminated, then you are not a person out of the womb and can be terminated. Just sayin.

 

Hmm, it appears that reality completely disagrees with you.

 

You mean opinion.

 

No reality. As millions of abortions happen every year worldwide and in most places murder of born humans is still illegal. Sooo...yeah, reality for sure.

 

Yes, people like to take life since it is not really something of value to them. Man can rationalize anything.

 

They really can. I mean we kill people all the time in the name of 'fighting terror', and not actual terrorists either but innocent civilians. People try to make life seem so valuable, but the reality is it's only as valuable as certain people make it. Women must put their own lives and health at risk to have babies. If they are not willing to do this then the life in the womb may not be as valuable to them as it is say to you or someone else who isn't directly involved.

 

Life is cheap to many peoples. We just chose a different path and comfort ourselves that we are right.

 

Personhood begins after birth, not while in the womb. All adults were once newborn babies, and babies are the design for human survival. Are we to say that a newborn baby is thus an adult with all the political rights of an adult? Of course not. Likewise, it is absurd to grant individual rights to a fetus that is not yet an individual, but something biologically attached to the body of a woman that has no biological autonomy of its own.

Once again you conflate potential with actuality. A newborn baby is a potential adult. It thus does not have adult rights, only the rights of a newborn baby. A fetus is a potential individual. It thus does not have individual rights, only the rights of a fetus. A fetus, not being an individual or biologically autonomous human being, has no rights.

 

Well lets be really honest here, if you are not the right kind of person then you CAN be terminated, born or not.

Regardless if a woman is "built for it", the accident of their sex does not take away their right to deny consent to any other who is using their body.

 

Again personhood is just an arbitrary division not supported by anything other than opinion.

- - - Updated - - -

Who says it is an accident. Again that is just opinion.

 

There is a 49% chance overall of conceiving a female. In a natural conception there is no way to determine the sex of the zef prior to that conception . .are you alluding to some sort of 'higher' authority, if so your first task would be to prove that higher authority exists, unless you have some other relevant evidence to support that gender is not an accident.

So in reality it is not an opinion.

If you are unhappy about the use of the word accident I am more than happy to re-phrase

Regardless if a woman is "built for it", their sex does not take away their right to deny consent to any other who is using their body.