mercy killing the retarded/feeble-minded

I see the usual, already defeated, arguments are re-surfacing again.

1. The connection does not take away the personhood, you cannot take away something that was never there in the first place .. unless you can find something in the history of mankind where the fetus has been deemed a person.

2. You are yet again unable to distinguish between biologically dependent and socially dependent, despite the fact this has been explained numerous times before, but for the sake of clarity here it is once more;

Biologically dependent - no other person but the pregnant female can provide for the fetus
Socially dependent - Any other person can provide for the fetus.

In your examples above, any person can proved the sustenance for the baby, just as any person can provide the life support machine .. so your attempt at false equivalence is noted.

3. Correct and as such it cannot assume that it has consent to use another persons body to sustain it's own life, you cannot so why should any other "person" be allowed to do so?

4. Location does have a small bearing on the issue, you cannot locate yourself inside another person and expect to do so with impunity .. which is what you are claiming a fetus can do, how is this equal rights between the two people, the female and the fetus, when one has the right to impose itself onto another without the other having the right to defend against that imposition .. that is not equality, that is granting a right to the fetus that no other person has.

It really makes no difference either way, this is a fight pro-lifers cannot win unless they are prepared to establish rights to the fetus over and above the rights of all other people. The fight has moved on and now pro-choice people are starting to fight back using the very same ultimate tactics that pro-lifers use .. it is an all or nothing fight now, pro-lifers had their compromise when Roe placed restrictions onto abortion after viability, that was not enough for them, pro-lifers wanted ALL the unborn protected right from conception with little to no leeway, well now you are reaping what you sow .. you want personhood from conception then PLEASE do go for it, you will find that you may regret what you wish for.

I hope it does become recognized as an individual person, makes keeping abortion legal so much easier AND removing ALL restrictions including state funding.

WTF has that got to do with abortion and pregnancy.

What an individual calls it is up to them, reality is somewhat different.

 

What you do deny is her right to consent to the fetuses presence and her right to self-defence against it's non-consented injuries.

Being born does change things, just because you choose to ignore that reality does not change it.

 

How do you know nothing was ever there?
Couldn't this be said about the severely retarded also?

How about this?

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

Still takes a female with mammary glands to provide nourishing life-sustaining milk.
What about when the fetus has a chance of surviving outside the woman?

And even if the fetus is entirely biologically dependent on the mother, why would that mean there would be no fetal rights?

How does that difference really matter?
It could be in a remote location in the middle of a terrible storm, all the roads washed out. You might urgently be in need critical care, and I might be the only one with a life support machine in your small town.

If the woman is the only one who can act as a life support machine, how does that relate to personhood?
What if medical science advances to the point that the fetus could be transferred into another woman?
First Womb Transplant

Because it's a completely natural process, and the woman (in all likelihood) took part in putting the fetus there in the first place through her actions.

It's her own child for heaven sakes! You don't think women should have any obligation to their children, even for just nine months?
The mother doesn't even really have to do anything, she just has to sit there and gestate. Then a day of birth-giving and that's it!

 

the anti-choice crowd complains about single parent families and says they should not make babies if they can't afford it, then complains if they decide not to have a baby, complain about easy access to birth control, even complain about adding plan b to all rape kits...

 

Most of the post is gibberish but I'll take the last four sentences.

The fetus IS her own, NOT yours.


And you have been shown dozens of times that consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. A fetus is not "put there". If only you could read a book but you can't even read posts in here proving you wrong over and over again......


No, women have no obligation to give birth.......prove they do???

It's asinine to think pregnancy and child birth are nothing more than "sitting and getstating", "then a day of birth" ...you must be totally and completely out of touch with the real world and real women.

 

Nope, haven't you heard of the modern invention of baby formula? Many a baby has not only survived, but thrived, without ever having breast milk.

What about it? Women don't choose to abort in late-term.

One must be capable of exercising rights to be given them.

The difference is between being forced to provide care for someone and having a choice about doing it.

Oh please, I am much more interested in seeing that medical science devises a way that the fetus can be transferred into a man. I'm making a list of possible men candidates.

Sigh....back to the same old.....it's the woman's fault so she must be punished for choosing sex.

Please, scientists hurry with that man-womb development! We've got some men who really need that experience.

 

As I said find something that states personhood has ever existed for the unborn, and no it cannot be said for mentally disabled people .. they have rights by virtue of being born.

Do you ever read what you quote? The throne was reserved for the unborn child, it did not become king until AFTER it's birth. Was it king while still gestating?

Er, no it doesn't or have you never heard of baby formula

What about it, take away the artificial methods of sustaining life, tell me Anders when does the NATURAL viability threshold occur?

I never said it didn't, you are the one trying to say there is no difference between a fetus and someone on life support or a newborn.

It is still only social dependency.

It doesn't and I have never said it does, these are your assertions not mine.

Then as long as a willing donor could be found it is another option for a female who does not want to be pregnant, great as it would. hopefully, reduce abortions which, despite the erroneous claim of pro-lifers, is the goal.

Irrelevant to abortion

Define natural, according to the dictionary definition natural means occurring with NO humankind intervention ergo human pregnancy cannot be natural as it involves human intervention.

Doesn't matter as to the circumstances of how the fetus came into existence, no person is legally obliged to provide life support for another person even if they placed them in the situation where that life support was required, and as has been shown to you many times the consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, even implied or informed consent fail as both are only relevant up to the point where the person, by word or action, explicitly says 'no'.

Whether she should or should not have an obligation is not my decision to make, it is hers as she is the only person who has to give up her body liberty, just as it is your decision and your decision alone whether you give up your body liberty in order to provide life support, in the shape of organs or blood to another and herein lies the difference between pro-life and pro-choice, you want to force that obligation onto her, I don't.

No mother involved in pregnancy unless she already has born children - Mother : A woman in relation to a child or children to whom she has given birth - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/mother

By your logic a woman being raped doesn't have to do anything, she can just lie there and take it, then go and get a morning after pill .. just in case.

The question you should be asking yourself is do you believe in the concept of consent and or self-defence?
Do you believe a person has the right to decline consent to another person to use their body as they see fit in order to sustain themselves?
Do you believe that all people have the right to defend themselves, up to and including deadly force, in order to protect their bodies from non-consented injuries?

If you answer yes to these questions they why should a fetus not be held to the same limitation as any other person, after all it is just equality you want isn't it?

 

The severely retarded are not.

Or being forced to pay for it.

I was just making a point to Fugazi of the "what if " scenario of the mother not being the only one who could care for the fetus. Whether, according to Fugazi's logic, that would make the fetus any more of a person. Obviously it does not matter.

Not punished. Take responsibility for the life within her. Only temporarily.

Even if it were possible, the woman should still be the one to care for the fetus, because the procedure would likely entail substantially increased risk, and the man's body is not naturally designed for pregnancy. If the woman just keeps the fetus, overall risk to all involved can be minimized, and the fetus can still survive.

Seems like circular logic. The born have rights ergo those who are born have rights.
As I mentioned previously, this is pure Bornism.

This is not entirely relevant. The fetus still has a right to nourishment from the mother. This is the entire thesis of the pro-life position, basically.

It is not that there is no difference, but if you want to talk about dependence, they are both dependent on someone else or other people.

How is this relevant?
How does this difference even matter?

Should they legally be required to pay for someone else's life support? Should they be taxed to pay for the care of the severely retarded?

Back ending someone else's car is not "consent" to paying to repair the damage, but you still have to pay.

 

Abortion is not "self defense" – not unless there is a considerable risk to the woman's life.
Even then I do not necessarily believe in absolute self defense, when the other person who is to be harmed should not be held responsible for putting themselves in that position where they have become a threat. This does not just apply to abortion.

I also do not believe in the concept of absolute consent, not when the individual in question had the possibility of avoiding the problem. It's not that I do not believe in choice, only that choice is not entirely continuous, I do not believe people should continue to always have choice regardless of all and any prior choices they may have made.


The woman infringed on the rights of a new life when she brought it into conception, if you want to view it that way.

 

"""" It's not that I do not believe in choice, only that choice is not entirely continuous, I do not believe people should continue to always have choice regardless of all and any prior choices they may have made."""""

Yup, you believe in choice, YOUR choice of what everyone else must do .... How aggravating for you ) ) that it just doesn't work that way....

 

No more so than what pro-lifers use when they say a zygote is human ergo it is a human being, so don't accuse others of the very thing you do yourself, that is hypocrisy, and as I have said show me anywhere in history where the unborn have been deemed as persons, that is not to say that that position is correct though and as you know I really couldn't careless whether the unborn are persons or not, it makes little to no difference to the legality of abortion.

Wholly relevant, and you are wrong, every person has the right to food, no person has the right to be fed eg your right to food does not mean you have the right to steal someone else food in order to be fed ergo a fetus does not have the right to the food a female ingests UNLESS she gives consent for it to do so.

and as already shown to you in one case it is a biological dependency in the other it is a social dependency ie biological dependency = the dependency on a single person where no other person can provide. Social dependency = the dependency on any number of people that can be provided by any number of people.

Matters a great deal, just because you can't comprehend why or even accept why does not change the fact that they are different . .though I suspect it is through willful ignorance you ask.

Whether they should or should not is irrelevant, just as it is irrelevant in the terms of monetary cost which has nothing to do with the issue . .which is, no person can be forced to provide life support for another person regardless of how the situation came into being.

so you are equating a fetus to being a possession which is what a car is.

 

You are 100% wrong, as usual, self-defence can be used not only in life threats to the person, there are three federal and state recognized justifications for deadly force in self-defence.

1. when one is threatened with death
2. when one is threatened with a serious bodily injury (defined as damage or loss of use of an organ or limb for a protracted period of time, such as six weeks)
3. the invasion of one's liberty, such as in kidnaping, rape, or slavery

and pregnancy is already deemed as a serious literal injury in some cases, it is even stated as such in at least two states legislation - "Nebraska, which defines “serious personal injury” as “great bodily injury or disfigurement, extreme mental anguish or mental trauma, pregnancy, disease, or loss or impairment of a sexual or reproductive organ.” Nebraska’s statute can be read as stating not simply that pregnancy is like a serious personal injury, but rather that pregnancy is a serious personal injury: pregnancy is an injury. Michigan’s statute does the same work, defining “personal injury” as “bodily injury, disfigurement, mental anguish, chronic pain, pregnancy, disease, or loss or impairment of a sexual or reproductive organ.” Case law establishing that pregnancy could be considered a “substantial bodily injury” that aggravates the sexual assault and increases the sentence imposed performs the same work as statutes that explicitly define pregnancy as a substantial bodily injury.

So if you are attacked by a mentally incompetent person under your logic you cannot defend yourself as they are not responsible for putting themselves in that position where they have become a threat, furthermore, and something that not a single pro-lifer has ever been able to dispute, consent to sex only creates a risk of pregnancy and no person is expected to suffer injury due to a risk taken and implied consent is only valid up to the point, by word or action, that a person explicitly says 'no' AND a fetus is not held responsible, it cannot be, to be held responsible for something implies the ability to recognize what they are being held responsible for, the fetuses actions are involuntary but even so the courts recognize that even involuntary actions can cause injury and as such allows for the defense against those actions, however if you really want to dig even further into the biological and legal facts, the sole purpose of the fetus is to maintain the pregnancy until it's birth - this could be seen as an involuntary intent - it does so by various means including suppressing the local immune system of the woman so her body defenses don't attack it as a foreign invading body.

Whatever you believe isn't relevant, the point is that consent is the one fundamental right of all people that even, upon occasions, over rules the right to life of another person BTW choice is different from consent, for while there can be a choice without consent, as when people make decisions that refer only to themselves, there can be no consent without choice because consent refers to a relationship between two people one of whom invades the interest of the other. Without choice, that invasion is necessarily coercive, not consensual.

Rubbish, what rights of the fetus does the woman infringed upon?
The fertilized ovum infringes the rights of the woman from the moment of conception by releasing hormones that suppress her immune system, it then further violates her rights by invading the uterine wall, re-routing her circulatory system, increasing her hormone levels by up to 400%, increasing her blood pressure by up to 15% and growing a completely new organ inside her .. all of which more than justify the use of deadly force in self-defence.

 

When a police officer pulls your car over, and reaches to place his hand on the gun in his holster, does that entitle you to take preventative action?
The answer tends to be obvious, but it's a philosophical moral dilemma to think about, if you really want to get down to the roots of the ethics of self-defense.
There's another thread about this: The Right to Defend Yourself

I think we can agree that not in all cases where one's life/liberty might be threatened is it morally justified to use deadly force in self-defense.
(though I do tend to side with greater liberties afforded to the individual)

You could still defend yourself, but on different moral grounds. The issue is more whether this is the type of person who is going to be outright threatening again and again.
But yes, I would argue there might be a higher bar when it comes to justifying preventative action against a person who is known to be mentally incompetent.

True, but that risk can vary quite a bit depending on the woman's concurrent actions.

Not true.

It's not so much continuing consent as it is obligation concurrent with the effects of the woman's prior actions.

She might not have explicitly given consent to be pregnant, but she already is pregnant. She did it to herself, basically.
Should her consent be required for her to continue with the pregnancy? Because it is not just about her body anymore.

Yes, unlike the woman who... you know... , the fetus was not responsible for creating the pregnancy. So the fetus cannot be blamed.

Indeed, a fetus is too young to really grasp exactly what is happening. It cannot give its consent.

I would agree that in some cases, involuntary actions may still constitute a reason to exercise self-defense, but not in the case of abortion.

From a purely biological perspective, the fetus's purpose it to allow the woman to reproduce and pass on some of her genes. This is basically the biological reason women get pregnant in the first place. So biologically the woman is a co-conspirator.

Are you a Libertarian? I didn't think so.

I agree, but really depends what those occasions are.

So would you agree that when abortion is not allowed, women have choice, but not consent ?

The right to LIFE (which you do not agree with).
Or the right to not be brought into existence only to be snuffed out shortly thereafter.

This is true if the woman did not consent to sex.

So a woman has the right to have a man shoot his seed into her, but she also has the simultaneous right not to have her eggs fertilized?
You can't have it both ways. With great rights comes great responsibility.

They would, if it was not for three critical facts.
1. The woman had the ability to choose to make the likelihood of this happening extremely small.
2. The fetus is not responsible for the circumstances it finds itself in.
3. The threat posed by the fetus is hardly extreme, and after the pregnancy is over the fetus will not really be a threat to anyone.

You basically responded to my post without really answering any of the questions or arguments.

 

Ok, I guess I had not really kept up to date on that. But what about before the modern era, when they did not really have baby formula?
Would you agree that a female with mammary glands was still required?

And who knows how things could change in the future... it might someday become possible to remove the fetus at 8 weeks and sustain it in an artificial womb. Would that affect your ideas about dependency?
But right now we don't have an artificial womb, just like people a long time ago did not have baby formula (anything that could sustain the baby's life without using milk).

Again, I do not see how the whole "dependency" thing matters, but if pro-choicers want to try to make that argument, these are things to consider.

 

Your denial of facts is apparent above but I will address only one error.

Women are under NO obligation, nor do they have a responsibility, to reproduce.... , NONE. You have NO basis for those claims.

Women are NOT farm animals even if you think they are.

 

I do not necessarily want them to reproduce. I just don't want them to kill.

Any way you look at it, abortion is pretty f(*)(*)ked up.

 

society doesn't consider the fetus a separate human being? can you provide proof? I know plenty in society that do consider the fetus a separate human being. I think what you meant is SCOTUS deemed the fetus a potential human life. Reality is it is a human life, it's not a potential anything, it exists.

 

Some time before that, cow's and goat's milk was found to be a substitute. Before that, when a poor woman died, her baby could be kept alive with a sugar tit.

Since overpopulation is a significant concern, I don't see the populace investing the millions of dollars necessary to save unwanted fetuses.

Dependency matters if you are the one being forced to care for a dependent. Especially when providing such care is so damaging to the woman's body. Of course, you don't see it, there are a whole plethora of issues you don't understand because your understanding of pregnancy/childbirth is so limited.

 

Regardless of how many you know who consider the fetus a separate human being, it's not. It's not "a separate human being" until it's separated, you know, detached from the female host. It's potentially a separate human life, but until separation, it's not one. Society doesn't consider anything or even know the potential separate human being exists, unless it is told by the pregnant woman, because it is rude to make remarks, ask questions, or speculate about a woman's growing girth. It could, after all, be due to something besides pregnancy.

 

This is quite a depressing topic. I personally don't know. I don't like either outcome.

 

Are you suggesting society is unaware that women get pregnant? Or that there are thousands of pregnant women walking around everyday?
It is a separate human being. It has its own blood type and features. It is not part of the woman ever. It is attached by a cord, which is actually part of the fetus. It is a separate human life. It has potential to be born.
Now do you consider Siamese twins to be 1 person, or two if they are never separated?
Society considers everything.

 

YOU said women have a responsibility and an obligation to reproduce(see bolded blue above)

WHO says they do?


YOU?

 

@ SteveJa Physically speaking it is part of the woman. Even if it is temporary.

 

physically nothing on the fetus belongs to the woman, or is part of her. It is a unique and separate individual from conception. It doesn't even attach itself to the woman for the first couple of weeks.
To say the unborn is not separate gives the unborn no justice. a leech that attaches itself to my arm, or a tick that is burrowing itself into my armnare considered separate, but the unborn oh no it is part of the woman.

 

I'm not trying to disagree with you here. Since it is within the belly of a woman that means to me it is physically part of her. That is the way I'm seeing it.