Opinions on abortion?

Post Reply New Topic

No, I argue they are human beings, at least in the course of a natural pregnancy, not persons and that human beings should not be killed or injured without good cause. I don't use the term person in this discussion, it's brought in by the other side for one reason only - so they can "unperson" inconvenient humans. The terminology is further confused, because, as I mentioned in the other threads, in US law and other places humans are not legally persons until they reach the age of majority.



Hehe, I like your replies. But the point of a thought experiment is to attempt to analyse a greater truth, not consider the pragmatic reality of such an experiment, or change the rules. For this thought experiment there are no other options other than the ones presented.

One thing about the "abortion debate" I detest, is it always devolves into "thought experiments."

I look forward to the day they invent artificial wombs and we can all stop bickering.

I don't mind a thought experiment when it's used to explore ideas rationally - scientists do some very interesting work that way. Of course, on internet fora, they're more often used to trap people.

Seconded on the artificial uterus, although I can't escape a little shiver at the echoes from Huxley.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4839905/w ... ve-babies/

Except you know there's going to be a whole new round of bickering over the expense and availability of such devices.

"Artificial wombs are sexist/racist/elitist/classist/etc"

I know. The bickering never ends.

But, personally, it would solve the abortion debate for me.

It's just the abortion debate is always such a mess.

I don't have a firm, solid position on this topic, so, I find it exhausting.

I think this may actually be a case of crossed semantics. Saying, "...human life, as defined by a distinct genetic code, is a human being and should ...." sounded clumsy to me. I'm not attempting to set up a debate regarding what constitutes a person in order to justify my pro-choice position.

To clarify, then, would you state that any living being constructed on the blueprint of human DNA is a human being? (I'm dismissing the concept of genetic hybrids, while the science may or may not be there at this time I'm referring to purely human DNA and not some hypothetical humanzee, or what have you.)

A side note: in general, under US law, a minor is defined as a person under the age of 18, so their status as "persons" isn't in question. While certain legal rights are denied based on the presumption of immaturity (drinking, driving, voting), their constitutional rights aren't in question (due process, counsel, protection from cruel & unusual punishment, freedom from unreasonable search & seizure, etc.).

The problems tend to multiply when we muddle different definitions of "personhood" by disregarding categories. Legal personhood, constitutional personhood, and moral or ethical personhood are not identical concepts, though they can certainly overlap in broad areas. When discussing US law, minors may or may not be legal persons, defined as "an entity that is recognized and protected under common law or statutory law," and with the further implication that the entity can hold/sell property or sue/be sued, but they are constitutional persons, defined as "a human being or legal entity with some or all constitutional rights." A child is a legal person. Thus far, an unborn child is not. A child is a constitutional person. Thus far, an unborn child is not.

For the purpose of the abortion question, the disagreement seems to center around the moral/ethical personhood concept, and people on both sides of that disagreement continually try to legislate their own interpretation into both legal and constitutional personhood so they can force others to conform to their beliefs (in the case of the pro-life faction), or refuse to be coerced by others' beliefs (in the case of the pro-choice faction). I don't personally know any pro-abortion people, though I understand China's still dealing with some pretty ugly situations resulting from that brand of governmental meddling.

Agreed.

So is menstruation and masturbation, if you're going to classify it that way.
If decent quality of life is not possible, then lack of that life is the most humane possible solution.

But I also think it's no one else's f*****g business what difficult decisions others have to make because of their sh***y circumstances. I'm personally more appalled at the eugenic mindset of many groups, including Autism Speaks, than I am about a blueprint for a human being (because it's not alive, life requires brain activity, and abortions occur before brain activity) being removed from the just as valuable woman.

Menstruation: it's insane to hold that against any woman. It's only natural.
Masturbation: Would you be offended if I watch?

I really believe that if it were men who got pregnant, there would be no abortion debate. It would be seen as a personal choice of the man that only he had domain over and there would probably be home abortion kits.

In some societies, such as Amazonian societies and ancient Rome, men had/have the right to determine if newborn lived or not, and exercised that right absolutely.

If males were the ones who got pregnant, human societies would be unrecognisable. You can't change that single aspect of biology in a hypothetical vacuum.

Thats a fallacy ignoring a fundamental difference between sperm, eggs, zygotes, and fetuses.
http://abort73.com/abortion/are_sperm_a ... lls_alive/
And if you are in situations where you cannot support a child, give the child to adoption or don't get pregnant in the first place. Everyone using birth control, condoms and such is aware they are fallible. They are not perfect. Ergo, if you simply cannot afford to be pregnant, don't f*****g have sex

The decision to have sex is not the decision to have a baby.

I'm never going to accept that a fetus has more rights than I do. If I'm pregnant, and I go for a run, trip and fall on my face, thus, precipitating a miscarriage, should I be charged with homicide? After all, if you cause the death of another person, even unintentionally, you can be held legally liable.

I dread to think of what the world would look like for women if we started considering fetuses as fully legal human beings.

I'm not sure what you mean, sorry. Are we talking science fiction?



I'm not sure how a fetus would have more rights than you, even if I were emperor of the world. You would have the same right not to be killed arbitrarily. I also don't think you could be charged with homicide for that, unless negligence or intent could be proved.