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

Provide evidence that is the case then. I already gave you a well thought out argument to the contrary. Just saying "you are wrong" doesn't cut it, and so far that is all you have done.

 

Accident - An unexpected and undesirable event

Odds - the ratio of probability that something is so, will occur, or is more likely to occur than something else.

You make it sound like being a woman is a bad thing.

- - - Updated - - -

Again, is the division between being a child and an adult arbitrary or not?

 

To get technical, there isn't really a division between childhood and adulthood--there is more in between. From a scientific standpoint, adolescence precedes adulthood. But that of course begs your next question, which would be "is the division between an adolescent and an adult arbitrary." To that I say no, and I don't see the point in the question. Even if the division between the two is arbitrary, that does not mean the division between a fetus and a human individual is. Certain stages of human development may have clearer and more sharper transitions than others.

 

I love it when definitions are cherry picked.

Accident - 1. an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury
2. an event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/accident

did you miss the second definition?

and exactly how does your response relate to your original assertion of "Who says it is an accident. Again that is just opinion."

Nothing you have written applies to that assertion.

So again I ask the question ".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."

Care to answer this time instead of evading and trying to divert the subject?

 

Yeah, but this misses the point a bit. Of course the right to self ownership would make abortion permissible, given your implied conception of ownership, and hence obligation. The disagreement is entirely over consent and obligation. The pro-lifers think that having sex places an obligation on the mother to look after the pregnancy, the pro-choicers think that foresight of consequences doesn't = tacit consent to those consequences, and hence no such obligation exists.

IMO the issue is a little more nuanced than you put it. Nonetheless, thanks for bringing up the discussion

 

I disagree, this whole notion of benefits is only assuming that A: There are no benefits(which has since been disproven) or that B: There aren't nearly enough benefits worth the risk of pregnancy. But if B were held true prior to the advent of Abortion being legalized(and Fugazi, among others spoke of the history behind Abortion concurring for literally as long as man can remember) then why are we here?

Women weren't dumb creatures, nor were they submissive slaves(as said rebellions should testify in the first place). If B were held true, at the very least humanity should've never reached the 7 billion mark. Even accounting for the Baby Boomers, they have to be barely a portion of that number.

http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2002/JustHowManyBabyBoomersAreThere.aspx So yeah, life would have had to be sustained in prior generations(such as the War periods) and the periods thereafter(the 70's and so forth) for all of humanity to reach this present point in time.

Which brings me to my thesis for C: Abortion was largely approved in Western Civilizations, once A: The government promised to pay for it and B: The shift of responsibility from motherhood unto the fathers.(Such as child ailmony)

And along those same lines, a fetus is a developing body. Does it not have its rights to continue to develop that body? Invoking an animal example once again, we have poaching laws as well as laws protecting endangered wildlife. If there are laws that protect the sanctity of animal life, all the moreso should a fetus be granted the same rights.

It's no different from you and I biologically, and to proclaim superiority violates both equality and equity. When we say a Fetus is a "potential human being", we have to be really careful here.

In the context of potentiality, it's not so much that it's a random coincidence that it pops out as a human child. Only human sperm can impregnate a woman, and only human sperm can spawn a fetus. It's a human child, period. There's no randomization in terms of what it'll be.(Which is the false argument of abortionists).

The chance doesn't lie in whether or not it's a human being. The chance lies in whether or not it can safely develop and go through the birth process. And so to that end, let's bring out the data.

http://genetics.emory.edu/docs/Emory_Human_Genetics_General_Population_Risk_for_Birth_Defects.PDF

Emory(200 "Most babies are born healthy. In fact, 96 to 97 out of every 100 babies born are born healthy."

In addition, the same paper goes onto state that most health defects are acquired in adulthood.

Mind you, we can get better https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2223rank.html?countryname=United%20States&countrycode=us&regionCode=noa&rank=137#us

But it's a small difference between the U.S and Europe. (Not that I'm against improving it, more lives the better).

But clearly in the Western/Developed Worlds, the risks in pregnancy have been stabilized(that's probably the best word to use, if I use a more optimistic word, I'll be attacked for it).

Quite the opposite of Abortion, what we need now is for Western medicine to make it's way to the 2nd/3rd world countries. And once it does, humanity will once again grow. There's opportunities for more birth, not less.(And with the death rate increasing incrementally in the U.S. That's probably a good thing).

The sense of control is different. Wherein an autonomous control references to control of the body, one doesn't necessarily "own" his body. His body cannot be owned by anyone. Owning a body, is pretty much a spiritual and philosophical concept. You are your own individual certainly, but that doesn't mean you own it.

That's what that meant earlier. I'll use my own terminology to explain it better: Ownership doesn't exist. Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else controls anyone or anything including ourselves. We only "control" ourselves insofar as our movements and actions(and thoughts). We're not an item, we're a sentient living being.

And because ownership doesn't exist, the mother doesn't exert any ownership or influence on the fetus at all(that's the whole reason for Abortion to begin with).
But she has no right to abort the fetus since Ownership doesn't exist as a concept. Since the fetus is as autonomous as she is.

So what about rape, health to the mother, etc?(The reasons that even a Pro-lifer like myself could support Abortion). A couple of reasons. 1) The rate of abortion in those cases is so small as to be statistically irrelevant. If we only aborted in those cases, abortion would be scarcely noticeable and a non-political issue.

Secondly and most importantly: Rape, incest, health to the mother all violate a woman's autonomy. The reason being quite simple: She didn't give her consent to sex(and therefore, obviously didn't give consent to the pregnancy). While I contend philosophically that some health problems are a fact and that for that sake alone, you shouldn't abort a child, but if it's fatal, a mother didn't give consent for fatal bodily harm.

And just as simply, we've come to the main reason why Abortion has no standing: When a woman engages in consensual sex, she did in fact give consent to the child. The child is only born through vaginal intercourse, scientifically it's already been proven that there's no other way for a woman to be impregnated.

Not via another species, not via oral or anal. None. The only alternative is the sperm bank(and even then, guess where sperm comes from? Man).

Abortion, in its present state and as you argue for the rights of Supremacy, does not stand.(At least I, as an intellectual won't allow it to intellectually stand). A fetus is an autonomous, sentient being. And you yourself concurred that the fetus is a party to the woman's body, and I've demonstrated that ownership doesn't exist.
Philosophically, logically or ethically.

The only logical reason Abortion has, is in a case where a woman's autonomous rights are violated. But now, I want to take the time to tackle a separate issue. The issue of Abortion violating a man's autonomous rights.

It's actually pretty straightforward, doesn't need explaining and is pretty gross considering women complained about "equal rights". Abortion violates a man's autonomous rights on two basic premises:

1) Assuming consensual sex, the man already planted his seed, his genetic DNA into the womb. Yet, the law makes an utterly absurd claim that the man does not have shared ownership of the child? I'll tell you what philosophically: If you want to defend this absurd notion, get rid of Child Ailmony.

After all, the man didn't have shared ownership during pregnancy, why does he have shared ownership now? Because it's born? What changed in the child's genetic makeup when it was born that all of a sudden, connected it with its father? Nothing changed, except the economic necessity of the female(as well as the child).

I would argue that a mother and its child exhibits parasitic tendencies against a man. A man essentially makes love to a woman, and the woman(as well as the law) effectively denounced the loving man up until he was actually "useful". If that's not parasitic, then what is?

2)Whereas the option of Abortion exists for women, the option doesn't exist for men. The options currently prevalent(and women are advocating with an alarming rate of consistency) is the violation of a man's autonomy(vasectomy, among others).

Simply put, a man is biologically and economically disadvantaged in our society today. .

Of course I concur with that sentiment(though I have to put a disclaimer here, that a zygote is also part of the evolutionary process). But for the purposes of abortion, aborting a zygote to me is more ethically reasonable than aborting a fetus. But this is like saying I'm willing to eat peas and carrots if I can get my junk food lol.

The premise of abortion is still faulty, it shouldn't even stand on its own weight. But the scary thing about being a human is that it's not about what's right, or even what's just. If a million people believe in a faulty ideology, that ideology becomes truth. The reality is, you and I could talk to each other all day and we wouldn't get anywhere.

The only reason a person ever converts from one ideology to another, is if he never truly believed in that ideology to begin with.(Or if the need for change is compounded for some reason). Without that compounding, compelling reason there's no need for change. In my case, I'm a Humanist as well as a Social Darwinist. I oppose Abortion because it defiles Humanism as well as Social Darwinism. By intentionally weakening humanity, and depriving it of the vast numbers of new human life that could've spawned into the world.

Except due to said Child Ailmony, it never ends up actually working that way(and Pasithea here once called it blackmail), so men have no escape route for what you call the 'solitary choice' and what I've defined above as stripping men of their autonomic rights(as well as their economic labor).

And above, I pronounced some counter arguments to your thesis. That child is only born partially(if not almost entirely) due to the father. How could the father not have guardianship? And why does he only have guardianship at a woman's convenience?(IE: Now that it's actually born, she needs the money from somewhere).
Your argument is an arrogant one, in which you just professed to eliminate a man's sexual contributions.

But you cannot biologically do that. As much as that probably irritates you, without men, there is no child.

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/tech/cloning/whatiscloning/

" A somatic cell, which already contains two complete sets of chromosomes."(Utah, 2013). So even cloning, requires a male chromosome. That article I quoted a while back(to clarify that any and all Living Beings are Sentient by definition) started off by stating that all science has a sound premise, unlike say numerology which doesn't have such a premise.

If you and I concur on that basic truth(that all science has a sound premise), then philosophy also must match. Since, as of yet there's no way to separate a male biologically from the birthing system, it goes without saying that the baby is as much the man's property as it is the woman's.

That's a biological truth and it's the only fair way to philosophically see birth.

Actually, I don't know why but I was of the assumption that the umbilical cord was created via the fetus. The fetus is biologically autonomous though(as I've clearly demonstrated throughout the thread). The fetus's DNA/Gender clearly give it an individual identity that doesn't belong to the mother's. The very act of intercourse shows that it's autonomous, because if it wasn't it's own individual then there would be no need for pro-creation.

Philosophically, it comes down to a simple concept: Will you accept the biological laws as they are? Or accept the twisting that we've done to legalize a crappy solution to a real serious problem of economic straits for families?

I'll philosophically accept biological laws as they are. Men and Women are two necessary parts of a component that bring forth individual life(which then continues on the cycle). Even artificially, the cells of a man and woman are required to create birth. I recognize that individual life as its own life.

When sperm met the egg and fertilized, it was no longer just a group of cells, but the eventual emerging of a human child. This isn't a religious or spiritual outlook, this is a biological fact. The 9-12 month journey is a part of a process that eventually reaches this conclusion.

To the women out there: Sure, if you don't want a kid, take protection. But even better than that: Don't seriously date a guy with that kind of mindset. The least you can do is let the guy know that you're not going to leave him hanging. Or worse yet, set up a situation where if you don't like the date you can make his life a living hell.

IMO, if you don't want a kid, you're not his GF. And likewise, if a guy doesn't want a kid, he shouldn't be your BF. Your "(*)(*)(*)(*) buddies" at best, nothing more.

And who gave us these "self-ordained" rights? Let's keep religion out of this, it's been 2013 or 2,013 years. We've yet to see this creator. The "bible" isn't even legitimate testimony as anything it might've matched would be coincidental at best, or as some others have noted, it's a political bible of the times. It has no relation or impact into the beliefs of those in A.D(After Death).

Who gave us these "self-ordained" rights were fellow Human Beings, who basically signed a covenant. A mutual agreement upon them that it would be better if we had self-respect than not. This is what formed our modern Western Governments.

All rights are political rights, and political rights are rights recognized universally by men. Even "Natural Law"(which is the premise of Humanism) should be renamed into "Law that's been etched into our culture so long that we have neither the desire nor any idea on how to change it."

Government is Humanity, Humanity is effectively the government. I know that doesn't bode well for the anti-government propaganda that suggests that as individuals, we don't approve of the government. But if we did, we would fix it. The Founders gave us express permission to do so. If we haven't exercised it, it's because we agree on some fundamental level with the government.

Yeah, Natural Law's shorter lol. Okay, so now that's cleared up let's address the rest shall we?

1) To Deny a Fetus the "right" to live inside the womb, is to deny the Fetus's existence itself(which, of course is your position). Furthermore, because it's effectively quarantined to that one space(the womb); can it really be said that the fetus is living in the body per say? It's living in the womb, not the woman's body.

2)Of course no one has the right to 'live' in another person. It's not physically possible for a non-fetal person to do so, and a fetal person itself cannot exercise rights. Therefore, the fetus by definition is not breaking laws nor autonomy by merely existing. If so, then we'd have to call this the biblical "Original Sin".(As we surely weren't conscious of this violation).

However, just because a fetal person cannot exercise rights doesn't mean it doesn't have rights. In the same way that a doctor is medically required by law to serve a patient's interests(even if said interests contradict the person's desires). The Fetus's rights(or supposed lack of rights) is decided by humans.

Again, I reference to the Scot Peterson case as a point of reference. If the fetus weren't deem socially recognizable, then they wouldn't have changed it into a capital murder case. But the fact that the case became worse for him due to the circumstances of the murder is proof that a fetus is socially recognized.

So, as a Human, I'll philosophically recognize the Fetus as a Human Being, with all of the sovereign rights established to a Person. In fact, I can only recognize it as a Human Being. Since otherwise, we all would lose our rights at Origin.

The flaw in rights is that they're arbitrarily decided by Man. Your philosophical recognition and mine are merely two opposite sides of the same coin.

However, when deciding who's argument is stronger, let's examine one simple point: Your philosophical statement holds water only so long as a fetus is recognized as a "being that doesn't have rights". However, if that's true then none of us had legal rights from the beginning and would reject the Founders premise of "equality before the creator"(which I assume you also believe for non-fetal people).

My philosophical statement that all Fetal-persons are essentially Humans(or at the very least, sentient beings endowed with life) matches what the Founders have said, and matches what science and biology says. Your interpretation tries to rewrite our biological cycle and that cannot be physically accomplished.

3) A fetus is only violating a woman's autonomy if pregnancy was conceived via sexual violence. If she consented to the act, even if she was using protection, she should've been aware of the possibility of being impregnated. I don't believe in the concept of "unwanted children". That concept is the reason we have single parent households. The concept is what's created the poverty that bequeaths Abortion's existence.

Simply put, if I had it my way, Abortion would be severely limited to absolutely necessary cases. And in 10-20 years, I expect our scientists to come up with a more humane and far better solution than this inhuman practice.

According to recent polls, economic straits qualify for as much as 86% of the reasons a woman would have an abortion.(The others mentioned are relational problems, etc). But major health, rape, etc are almost universally at the bottom. It's at the point where women can no longer yell out 'There might be invisible women' somewhere(and even if there were, even you'd concur that they'd be statistically irrelevant).

Abortion exists for socially economic and developmental weaknesses. Fixing those economic and social flaws, would naturally cancel out the reasons a woman would have an abortion. When it comes to pain, we've developed various pain killers. If a woman wants to have an abortion because she can't deal with labor, either have a C-Section or don't do the deed at all. It's a mundane reason, and the fact that men don't have an equal option makes it not only morally reprehensible but ethically disgusting.

Something of such important magnitude shouldn't be done just because "it hurts". Real, legitimate health concerns should be addressed. But if you don't wanna go through labor, please, for the love of god exercise all of the options available to you. You don't have to screw the guy lol.

To me, Abortion is something I can only support as a last resort. Used as some every day thing for girls is a despicable political weapon, an anti-humanist ideology and it's devolved Western Culture.

Sorry for my digressions. I will admit that I tend to tie things together that I think can be tied together, others might find it different. So if you wanna skip all I wrote and just focus on this last segment, feel free to do that and I won't judge you for it. Here's some one-liners.

1. Yes I do. But I believe once it's developed into a Fetus, we're talking about a sentient, living being.(Whether you want to call it a Human or not is irrelevant and partially, I can't convince you one way or the other.) That living being should, in all reasonable circumstances be given the same opportunities to grow as anyone else. I believe that to be biologically consistent with the laws of nature, and philosophically consistent with Western Ethos.

2.Individual Autonomy refers to the moral concept of individuality. Your own personal space is your own, your bodily functions should only serve your own benevolent purposes. Whereas Self-Ownership refers to the "Ownership" of things that you own. It's biologically inconsistent to argue that anyone owns another being(in fact, this is what you're arguing against) but even supposing ownership were possible, it's absolutely impossible to argue that a man doesn't have equal rights to ownership. As he was mainly responsible for the "deposit"(as Cady would put it) in the first place. In addition to the obvious genetic sharing of a man and woman.

3)It doesn't. The flawed argument of the Abortionists is the assumption that a fetus's individual autonomy is invalidating the woman's. But that's not necessarily true. Not all of the nutrients are going to the baby. The heart is still pumping blood cells for the mother, she still has plenty of oxygen. To believe that a fetus is violating a woman's individual autonomy would be the same as arguing that marriage violates the individual autonomy of a person.

This however could only be argued if a spouse(be it wife or husband) is physically, sexually or mentally violating the other. In a normal and happy relationship, is cohabiting a violation of autonomy?

I'll sum up everything I believe about pregnancy in a simple, bold declaration: Pregnancy is the cohabiting of a Fetal Human life with its mother. And as such, the individual autonomy of both mother and child is ensured. Only a violation of autonomic rights can result in a revoking of cohabitation.

 

Meaning she had sex so she must suffer the consequences--punishment.

 

No. It has nothing to do with a desire to punish women. It's about respecting human life. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

 

" having sex places an obligation on the mother to look after the pregnancy" = "She had sex so she must be forced to suffer the consequences." Because she had the sex.

 

Because the fetus only exists as a result of her actions, the woman is responsible for it. That's why abortion isn't justified.

(quoting fifth of november.)

I never mentioned anything about "punishment".

 

Try to have at least some intellectual empathy. That's not what they're saying at all. Is it punishment for me to have the obligation to pay my debts? Is it punishment for me to be obligated to respect the person of others? All lifers are saying is that there exists another obligation of the same sort for a mother to keep a fetus until birth. I might disagree with that, but that doesn't mean I can't recognize their argument.

 

Are you pro-life or pro-choice?

 

let me ask, does life begin when your nothing but a joined egg and sperm, or does the vessel grow until it can support life - what about when you die, is it when every cell in your body is dead and gone or is it when your life force has left the vessel

 

Yes. Sex is an act of intercourse, the pleasure derived from it is meant to stimulate humanity to continue to do so. That stimulation is necessary because regardless of what you see on Jerry Springer or Maury, the odds of a pregnancy from a one-night stand are slim to none. That's why we had relationships, marriages, etc. The longer the commitment, the better the odds.

IMO, if a woman is having sex(and likely, long-term) and gets impregnated, she has a responsibility to that child as well as to its father. You could call it a punishment, if pregnancy happened on a whim.

But generally, it doesn't. It happens after a certain period of time(far too many variables to count) when a sperm finally penetrates the egg. It could be weeks, months or even years. And yes, sometimes days.

But more than not, it's a long enough period of time you should know if you wanna be with the dude or not. Thinking of a baby as a "punishment" is simply sad and unfortunate. The mindset that brings that thinking, is not a very likable one from a woman.

Another reason would be this: Women wouldn't hesitate to shout from the rooftop that men should be responsible for their sexual decisions(and they should be). Why is it so offensive when it's the other way around?

A woman can only be impregnated by a man, and a woman can only be impregnated by her own choice.(If said choice is violated, I completely support the necessary decisions, hopefully locking the bastard up in the process). But if we spoke purely in terms of consensual sex. She had just as much of a hand in it as he did, and she should be as equally as responsible and prepared.

 

I am pro-choice.

 

On one hand you say "it's about respecting human life" and on the other hand you say "Because the fetus only exists as a result of her actions, the woman is responsible for it. That's why abortion isn't justified." So you see you are presenting conflicting points of view.

Now we know it is NOT just about respecting human life, because you are somewhat willing to allow abortions in the case of rape or incest, and the lives involved with those fetuses are just the same as a fetus conceived from consensual sex.

 

I do not believe that abortion should be legal, even in the cases of rape or incest. What if the fetus was conceived from consensual incest? Why is that fetus any less human than a regular fetus? Also, two wrongs do not make a right. Even if the fetus was conceived from rape, it doesn't deserve to be punished for the crimes of it's father. A person is a person, regardless of it's size, location, or the circumstances of his/her conception.

 

The concern with cases of incest is an underage participant who is not capable of giving consent when the initiator is of legal age. So you think a twelve year old girl pregnant as a result of an encounter with a stepfather should be forced to continue the pregnancy?

 

Abortion is a very complicated issue, and answering a question about abortion with a simple "yes" or "no" answer just doesn't work. Here's what I believe about what you said.

In a situation like that, there's no need for abortion. The girl could just give up the baby for adoption.

 

For some "pro-lifers," it is precisely what they are saying. Obviously when one says, "She shouldn't have spread her legs," or "There should be consequences for having sex," the motivation is punishment.

Your analogies are flawed. When one creates debt, there is an obligation to repay it, no question. But a woman doesn't necessarily incur an obligation when she has sex. If she does, it's an obligation to herself to make decisions and take actions to take care of her own body. She has no obligation to anyone else, nor to a zygote, because she had sex.

That might be what some of them are trying to say, but I would be more likely to have empathy for their argument if they would support policies that are actually proven to reduce abortion, rather than those which only punish women.

 

It really isn't, and McElroy addresses that same point. If you believe consent is the issue, then abortion is to be allowed in all cases of rape, where the mother clearly did not consent. But most pro-lifers are quick to say "no, it is really about the life of the fetus" when the rape argument is brought up. Furthermore, having sex is not akin to consenting to bearing a child. Such a notion is ridiculous. Do you support abortions when the mother has not consented to sex? (rape)

 

There's just a couple of things wrong with that. One, pregnancy/childbirth is very risky for young girls, under age 15 is considered a high risk. So the young girl is forced to risk her life and her health for someone else's religious views. Two, women suffer more emotional trauma from giving up a child for adoption than from abortion. It's all very easy to dictate what someone else MUST do when you will never face those circumstances and so cannot even imagine them.

Oh, BTW, your answer IS simply "yes."

 

No, that is your opinion but not fact. Fact is that the law recognizes personhood and the fetus is not.

 

Actually it does, you can be convicted of a double murder if you kill a pregnant woman.

 

The UVVA makes an exception for abortion. It contradicts the Constitution and itself.