morals are subjective and not based on logic, and when you can find me a neglected child that is still living inside of a woman you might have a point, until then this is just an attempt to distract from the question asked. Oh and please state what these "assumptions" are, as far as I can see the only assumptions being made are coming directly from your comments. give me your "reasoned analysis" on why the OP is "mere boilerplate"
I wanted to rep you for this but can't .. but it does highlight the misrepresentation and basic lying of the pro-life camp, they have to resort to personal attacks when they have no answers to the points raised. It's funny I responded to the question asked - "If (a) the continued existence of Person A is dependent upon Person B; and (b) Person B is responsible for the very creation of Person A; then it naturally follows Person B should be held legally responsible. " with the fact that a one year old meets the criteria of the question, and yet the parents cannot be forced to provide a single drop of blood to sustain 'Person A', so far the crickets have been louder than the poster.
No, that is not at all my position. I have made no boundary at the point of birth - that is the abortionists arguement. My claim is that at some point between conception and 21 weeks the baby is a human being and gains all the rights and protections of any other human being. Because of its unique relationship with the mother, the rights of the baby and the mother have to be balanced up to the point of viability when the baby's right to life trumps the mothers rights. The "parasite" argument and the cutting the cord arguement are both shallow. A baby for many years after birth is for all intensive purposes a parasite as it will not survive without "taking" from the parents. The baby exists at the cost of the parents. Also, many people with alzheimers, terminal illness, severe disability, are also effectively "parasites" and live at the cost of their families while providing nothing in return. Do they lose their rights? Can they be terminated whenever the caregiver decides its too much effort and energy to keep them alive and chooses to "discontinue the support"? Cutting the cord is equally shallow and arbitrary, and unless the event is linked to viability (which your link already dismisses as problematic) that event is independent to the development of the baby. With that arguement a fully developed baby at 9 months can be birthed and then either legally killed ("aborted") before the cord is cut or the cord can be cut and suddenly it is a human being in the eyes of the law. Cutting the cord removes the mother from the equation, but it is a very poor yardstick for determining human status.
LOL, take your nose out of the air and stop acting like you are holier than the rest. I post "such a thing" because its accurate. If you dont like it, too bad.
The fetus has no right to demand food and shelter inside the woman's body. Gestation is a gift, not an obligation to be demanded, and it is given with extreme sacrifice to the woman's body and life. None of your examples require physical attachment inside someone's body. Any determination for human being status is arbitrary, and at whatever point abortion is criminalized, there will be those who still claim it is legalized murder.
You are entitled to your opinion completely wrong though it is, but never mind if all you can do is personally attack other people then it just shows a lack of credence of the poster.
A 'right to life' has NEVER trumped a right to decide who, what, where and when a persons body, or parts there of, are used by another to sustain their life without consent. nope, it is your rebuttals that are shallow Parasite - An organism that obtains nourishment and shelter on another organism. - http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Parasite So your usage of the word is merely a social usage and not the actually biological definition, furthermore a born baby or any of the other people mentioned could be described as social parasites, they can live of ANY other person, where as a zef cannot. Any person can provide the care required, the same cannot be said of a zef. In this respect you are trying to compare cows with elephants and it is dishonest. reductio-ad-absurdum and hasty generalization, and a touch of slippery-slope
The entire issue is the rights & status of the baby. Simply declaring the baby has no rights is convenient to abortionists but dodges the fundamental issues. Many things in life are entered into voluntarily yet require extreme sacrifice. That does not give the person the right to kill another person. Physical attachment is the reason for balancing the rights of the baby and the mother. It is not a justification for determining personhood. And at some point (21+ weeks) the physical attachment is no longer required but is voluntary, and your arguement based on physical attachment means that at viability the baby is a human and has rights whether it is attached or not. Wrong, I have presented a perspective that attempts to objectively determine the status of the baby and which balances the rights of the mother and baby. Thats the rational approach and is not arbitrary. Whether a determination has 100% approval or not is irrelevent. There will always be irrational dissenters, that is not a reason to make a decision.
Women have no rights then, it's all about the "baby"? Aren't you simply declaring the "baby" has rights? How convenient for anti-abortionists. Where is it written that unborn "babies" have rights? No unwanted pregnancy was entered into voluntarily. That argument requires proof that a zygote/embryo/fetus is a person. "Balancing the rights of the 'baby' and the 'mother' " requires that rights be taken away from the woman. I'm not following you here. Certainly it IS arbitrary, it is based entirely on your OPINION that an embryo/fetus has rights. Those who disagree with you are irrational?
This is going in circles, and your above comment shows you do not read the posts as I have repeatedly stated there is a balance between the rights of the baby and the mother. Looks like I jumped to the correct conclusion about you after all.
You said,"The entire issue is the rights & status of the baby." I don't see anything about the woman in that statement, and I wouldn't expect any kind of balance from anyone who said that.
Babies have no rights then, it's all about the woman? If the woman used birth control, or chose to not have sex, she wouldn't have gotten pregnant.
Yes, women who use birth control frequently get pregnant. Please stop saying, the woman could "choose not to have sex." You know that is unrealistic, and many women who need abortions are married.
Taken in isolation, that statement might be interpreted as strictly focused on the baby to the exclusion of the mother. Taken in context with the rest of what I have written, it is clear that I am discussing a balance between the rights of the mother and the baby based upon objective determinations of the status of the baby as a human. And you cannot even discuss the issue in that context since you do not read the posts, cogitate, and then respond with rational arguements. It seems clear that anything other than total permission to abort is beyond your understanding (not your agreement, just your ability to understand the arguement).
And I have asked repeatedly, what "baby's" rights? Giving rights to the embryo/fetus means taking rights from the woman. And could we please use accurate terminology? "Baby" is the stage of development from birth to one year. I responded to every point of your post. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they are irrational or lacking in understanding, so please stop that line of insults. What you don't understand is that women don't need your "permission" to abort, and they will abort if desperate enough, regardless of legality, as shown by abortion rates in other countries. The only proven policy for reducing abortion rates is providing free or easily accessible birth control and comprehensive sex education. Taking rights away from women has never worked.
To declare that a parent is "responsible [only] for the well-being of children they bring into the world" is to beg the fundamental question: What is the moral difference between one's killing a fully developed, unborn child in the womb--we are not speaking, here, of a mere zygote; that suggests an entirely different moral dynamic, in my opinion--and one's killing, say, a three-month-old infant, as he (or she) has simply proved to be too much of a burden on this young mother? Rather instructively, perhaps, no one to whom I have ever posed this inquiry has ever responded directly. If one wishes to assume the position that both late-term abortion and infanticide are perfectly acceptable, and should therefore be legalized, well, then one is at least embracing an intellectually consistent position; and that lends itself to reasoned debate. For the record, my own position is quite the opposite. But I find it exceedingly difficult to understand the moral or intellectual underpinnings for the position--such as it is--that late-term abortion is merely a matter of "choice," whereas infanticide would be cruel and inhumane... Or, alternatively, birth control could be the answer...
Actually, our society (in fact, any society) comes to a collective decision as to what is morally acceptable behavior, and what is entirely unacceptable. There is no need to imagine that this is exclusive to theocracies (such as, say, Iran); it is what all societies must necessarily do. If that were not the case, there would simply be no defensible case to be advanced in favor of, say, laws against rape; laws against murder; laws against armed robbery...well, the list seems almost infinite... I believe the chief assumption, in this regard, is the (almost unanimous) belief of secular progressives--in shorthand, the American left--that "personhood" may not attach to a child still in his (or her) mother's womb; that true "personhood" is the result of a process, involving various post-birth experiences, rather than something that is innate. My analysis--and I would certainly hope that it may be described as "reasoned"--is this: It is not so much that the question contained in the OP is boilerplate (although it does avoid the fundamental question by substituting for it an irrelevancy; one that is likely to engender emotional responses, rather than purely rational ones); rather, it is the quality of many of the responses, in favor of the orthodox S/P position, that is intellectually (and morally) suspect, in my opinion...
I haven't read the entire thread. But I know there are instances of women being considered guilty of child abuse for drinking or taking drugs while pregnant. And in my state, IIRC once you begin to provide CPR to another person you are legally required to continue up to the point that a medical professional takes over. You don't have the option of stopping.
Late term abortions are wanted pregnancies that went terribly wrong. Only 1% of abortions are performed after 20 weeks. Of those, the vast majority are for fetal abnormalities incompatible with life, and the rest are mostly for the health or life of the woman. It would be a very unusual case if a woman carried a pregnancy for months only to decide to abort at the last minute for trivial reasons. So I guess the difference is, it just doesn't happen without a compelling reason. By late term pregnancy, it isn't a matter of "choice," it's a matter of necessity, and an agonizing process for women with wanted pregnancies. The majority of abortions are for poor women who can't always afford birth control, and sometimes birth control fails. Women need abortion as a back up when that happens.
. There are laws on the books right now that prohibit abortion after a certain gestation. Just pick one out of the many. So I think that answers your question right?
and I never said anything different, still doesn't change that morals are subjective and not based on logic .. what you have shown above is that the moral standpoint is reliant on what the majority think and can enforce. Well as I personally believe that there is little that is innate then you would be right. Really, so then please enlighten us all to what is the "fundamental question" in your opinion ..
Women aren't forced to gestate in late-term, they are gestating in late term because they chose to do so. Women who choose to have abortions choose to do so usually before 12 weeks, but certainly not much longer than that. You can't force someone to do something they chose to do.
