Abortion

[southernhybrid]

https://www.gettyimages.com/photos/human-zygote

A zygotę is not a human, not even close.

Nature washes those little clusters away far more often than women who decide it's in her best interest to dispense of them. Sometimes nature or God if one believes such an entity exists, is so cruel, that it kills the fully developed fetus. Why are so many people so judgmental when women insist on the right to bodily autonomy? Other than to oppress women, I see no valid reason for the opposition to safe, legal abortion. Just sayin'.

 

[prideandfall]

A zygotę is not a human, not even close.

yeah but... so what?
i get so frustrated by this argument, this thread has now been several pages of pointless and fruitless back-and-forth posting links to articles or arguing over whether or not NASA said something.
it's the biggest red herring in the abortion topic, it bogs down every discussion on the subject, and it's completely idiotic.

for the purposes of this discussion it's a needless distraction because the assertion that a zygote is not a person will never matter to those who think a zygote is a person - they think that because of their feefees, or because of religious indoctrination.
arguing about it is like arguing over whether or not chocolate is somebody's favorite flavor of ice cream and trying to convince them that it isn't, it's completely retarded.

Why are so many people so judgmental when women insist on the right to bodily autonomy?

because for 50,000 years of human society women had no right to bodily autonomy, and the concept has only been presented to humanity in the last 50-60 years or so.
i don't care how progressive a given individual might be, on a species-wide scale this change is so new we're collectively still registering that it even happened, make no mention of what the ramifications are.

Other than to oppress women, I see no valid reason for the opposition to safe, legal abortion.

there isn't one, and there never has been, and there never will be, and this is why the whole 'when is life' argument is pointless.

the best possible motivation for an anti-abortion stance is something disgustingly pragmatic, like race purity or ensuring a healthy pool of desperate poor people to fill the ranks of the military and the service industry.
the worst motivation is simply arbitrary authoritarianism, and that is what 99.9% of anti-choice people are up to.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think another interesting side of this is that there is virtually no consideration for the woman post conception. There is all the care in the world about the fetus... a moral obligation! But there is no implied interest in the woman, when society is morally forcing her to endure pregnancy and birth and post-birth related issues. Funding, comfort, assistance aren't mentioned at all. If one were forcing a woman to remain pregnant and give birth, it would seem logical that there would be a moral role a moral obligation on society to provide needs to the woman in doing so.

If help is needed by the mother after birth then it should be available.

After? Seems curious how disinterested pro-‘life’ folk are with pregnancy itself, as if it were just nine months of nothing, especially in light of being forced to give birth. Pro-life legislation is never such, it is merely anti-abortion legislation pretending to be pro-life.

Whether it be medical, help with supplies, be shown what to do, mentoring etc. This is where the father has his role to play.
We haven't really been discussing that. Far more attention, or inattention, has been given to pre-birth rather than post-birth.

Almost nothing has be given thought for the woman pre-birth or post-birth.

Also Daddy isn’t giving birth, vomitting, restricted with diet, breast feeding, dealing with the normal anxiety of pregnancy, dealing with the abnormal anxiety caused by forced birthing. Even great husbands or impregnators can only do so much.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

To me, the dogs and cats do not have minds sufficient to warrant being considered people.

Why not? What is the threhhold?

A mind capable of civilized behavior.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's also entirely inaccurate. "Life" on this planet began billions of years ago, and the formation of a zygote isn't "the beginning of life" or even the beginning of "a" life. It's like saying the "life" of a hair begins with the formation of a follicle.

Nitpick: Hair isn't alive.

That rather depends on your definition of ‘alive’, which is the entire point.

No. By no definition is hair alive. The follicle is alive but the hair is not.

 

[atrib]

I find you as morally ugly as an 18th century slaver. It wasn't illegal to kill a non-white person then, either. Because "rights"!
Property rights.

Rights are rights.

A woman's right to say no to allowing a fetus to use her as an incubator trumps the rights of the fetus to survive. You cannot a force a human to donate their body to support the life of another. Millions of people die each year waiting for organ transplants. Yet we still don't allow a dead person's organs to be harvested if they haven't previously consented, much less a live one's, for purposes of saving their lives. Whether the fetus is alive, or whether the fetus is a person deserving rights is irrelevant. How the fetus was conceived is irrelevant.

 

[Jarhyn]

I find you as morally ugly as an 18th century slaver. It wasn't illegal to kill a non-white person then, either. Because "rights"!
Property rights.

Rights are rights.

A woman's right to say no to allowing a fetus to use her as an incubator trumps the rights of the fetus to survive. You cannot a force a human to donate their body to support the life of another. Millions of people die each year waiting for organ transplants. Yet we still don't allow a dead person's organs to be harvested if they haven't previously consented, much less a live one's, for purposes of saving their lives. Whether the fetus is alive, or whether the fetus is a person deserving rights is irrelevant. How the fetus was conceived is irrelevant.

In some respects, how it was conceived has some relevance, so long as the result is a pregnancy without severe defect.

If it was conceived by turkey baster for someone else via arranged surrogacy and lacks severe defect there might be some conflict, albeit this is a corner case involving premeditated agreement.

 

[atrib]

Some people feel entitled to choose death for other people.

I don't. That's why I'm a ProLifer.

Have you donated a kidney to save a person's life? Or a portion of your liver? If you haven't, you have chosen to sentence some people to death, people who could have used your organs to survive. So get off your fucking high horse and actually listen to the arguments people are making.

 

[atrib]

If it was conceived by turkey baster for someone else via arranged surrogacy and lacks severe defect there might be some conflict, albeit this is a corner case involving premeditated agreement.

Perhaps, but that is the topic of the broad discussion.

 

[Jarhyn]

If it was conceived by turkey baster for someone else via arranged surrogacy and lacks severe defect there might be some conflict, albeit this is a corner case involving premeditated agreement.

Perhaps, but that is the topic of the broad discussion.

Fair. I'm just pointing out that there is some conflict over that particular relevance as I see it, though the rest of it IS irrelevant and this too except only insofar as it is a borderline case in the vicinity of paid tissue "donation".

 

[Bomb#20]

You cannot a force a human to donate their body to support the life of another. Millions of people die each year waiting for organ transplants. Yet we still don't allow a dead person's organs to be harvested if they haven't previously consented

The reason this is a contentious issue in the first place is because on the one hand there are popular religions that prohibit abortion, but on the other hand there are a lot of folks who think religion isn't a good enough reason for some to get control over what others do. For us in the latter department to offer "we still don't allow a dead person's organs to be harvested" as a counterargument is pretty self-defeating -- the only reason we disallow that in the first place is the squick we've been trained into by thousands of years of religious superstition about corpses. A dead guy isn't using his kidney any more; why on earth should the rest of us throw it in the trash on a dead guy's command unless religion qualifies as a good reason to do things?

 

[atrib]

You cannot a force a human to donate their body to support the life of another. Millions of people die each year waiting for organ transplants. Yet we still don't allow a dead person's organs to be harvested if they haven't previously consented

The reason this is a contentious issue in the first place is because on the one hand there are popular religions that prohibit abortion, but on the other hand there are a lot of folks who think religion isn't a good enough reason for some to get control over what others do. For us in the latter department to offer "we still don't allow a dead person's organs to be harvested" as a counterargument is pretty self-defeating -- the only reason we disallow that in the first place is the squick we've been trained into by thousands of years of religious superstition about corpses. A dead guy isn't using his kidney any more; why on earth should the rest of us throw it in the trash on a dead guy's command unless religion qualifies as a good reason to do things?

For the same reason we distribute the proceeds from their estate as expressly written out in their will, or set up a trust to decide how the proceeds will be handled if a will does not exist. Our expressed wishes regarding our possessions survive our demise. If you haven't expressed a wish to donate your organs, then your body should be destroyed (or embalmed, or cryogenically frozen if that is what you wished for and arranged for).

 

[Jarhyn]

You cannot a force a human to donate their body to support the life of another. Millions of people die each year waiting for organ transplants. Yet we still don't allow a dead person's organs to be harvested if they haven't previously consented

The reason this is a contentious issue in the first place is because on the one hand there are popular religions that prohibit abortion, but on the other hand there are a lot of folks who think religion isn't a good enough reason for some to get control over what others do. For us in the latter department to offer "we still don't allow a dead person's organs to be harvested" as a counterargument is pretty self-defeating -- the only reason we disallow that in the first place is the squick we've been trained into by thousands of years of religious superstition about corpses. A dead guy isn't using his kidney any more; why on earth should the rest of us throw it in the trash on a dead guy's command unless religion qualifies as a good reason to do things?

We do it because we want to prevent murder for organs.

 

[Bomb#20]

You cannot a force a human to donate their body to support the life of another. Millions of people die each year waiting for organ transplants. Yet we still don't allow a dead person's organs to be harvested if they haven't previously consented

The reason this is a contentious issue in the first place is because on the one hand there are popular religions that prohibit abortion, but on the other hand there are a lot of folks who think religion isn't a good enough reason for some to get control over what others do. For us in the latter department to offer "we still don't allow a dead person's organs to be harvested" as a counterargument is pretty self-defeating -- the only reason we disallow that in the first place is the squick we've been trained into by thousands of years of religious superstition about corpses. A dead guy isn't using his kidney any more; why on earth should the rest of us throw it in the trash on a dead guy's command unless religion qualifies as a good reason to do things?

For the same reason we distribute the proceeds from their estate as expressly written out in their will, or set up a trust to decide how the proceeds will be handled if a will does not exist. Our expressed wishes regarding our possessions survive our demise. If you haven't expressed a wish to donate your organs, then your body should be destroyed (or embalmed, or cryogenically frozen if that is what you wished for and arranged for).

We distribute the proceeds from an estate as expressly written out in the deceased's will because there are at least two living people who want his or her stuff and probate courts exist to settle conflicts. If you give what's yours to another, it becomes his. But a garbage dump is not a person and when you throw out your stuff the garbage dump has no claim on it -- finders keepers. If you specify in your will that after your death your priceless Renoir is to be burned, a probate court that orders your wishes carried out is insane. If you want it burned, have the stomach to burn it yourself.

(* Full disclosure: Yes, I'm biased. A friend died on the transplant waiting list.)

A dead guy isn't using his kidney any more; why on earth should the rest of us throw it in the trash on a dead guy's command unless religion qualifies as a good reason to do things?

We do it because we want to prevent murder for organs.

Not seeing how it helps prevent murder for organs. A surgeon willing to transplant a kidney received from a disreputable supplier is unlikely to balk over the donor not having the little organ donor dot on his driver's license.

 

[Jarhyn]

You cannot a force a human to donate their body to support the life of another. Millions of people die each year waiting for organ transplants. Yet we still don't allow a dead person's organs to be harvested if they haven't previously consented

The reason this is a contentious issue in the first place is because on the one hand there are popular religions that prohibit abortion, but on the other hand there are a lot of folks who think religion isn't a good enough reason for some to get control over what others do. For us in the latter department to offer "we still don't allow a dead person's organs to be harvested" as a counterargument is pretty self-defeating -- the only reason we disallow that in the first place is the squick we've been trained into by thousands of years of religious superstition about corpses. A dead guy isn't using his kidney any more; why on earth should the rest of us throw it in the trash on a dead guy's command unless religion qualifies as a good reason to do things?

For the same reason we distribute the proceeds from their estate as expressly written out in their will, or set up a trust to decide how the proceeds will be handled if a will does not exist. Our expressed wishes regarding our possessions survive our demise. If you haven't expressed a wish to donate your organs, then your body should be destroyed (or embalmed, or cryogenically frozen if that is what you wished for and arranged for).

We distribute the proceeds from an estate as expressly written out in the deceased's will because there are at least two living people who want his or her stuff and probate courts exist to settle conflicts. If you give what's yours to another, it becomes his. But a garbage dump is not a person and when you throw out your stuff the garbage dump has no claim on it -- finders keepers. If you specify in your will that after your death your priceless Renoir is to be burned, a probate court that orders your wishes carried out is insane. If you want it burned, have the stomach to burn it yourself.

(* Full disclosure: Yes, I'm biased. A friend died on the transplant waiting list.)

A dead guy isn't using his kidney any more; why on earth should the rest of us throw it in the trash on a dead guy's command unless religion qualifies as a good reason to do things?

We do it because we want to prevent murder for organs.

Not seeing how it helps prevent murder for organs. A surgeon willing to transplant a kidney received from a disreputable supplier is unlikely to balk over the donor not having the little organ donor dot on his driver's license.

It prevents murder for organs from seeing a legal trade develop, and any kind of targeted theft as such.

Keeping it illegal altogether to collect from non-consenting parties keeps the system relatively honest.

I would as soon active opt-out rather than active opt-in mechanics around donor volunteerism, but the ability to say no is invaluable and necessary.

 

[Elixir]

the [abortion] concept has only been presented to humanity in the last 50-60 years or so.

The concept of females’ entitlement to bodily autonomy might be new but abortion has been commonplace for centuries at least, and legal up until this last several decades. It’s a political issue, not an ethical one. Republicans have discovered how propitious it is - or was - to pretend that they were concerned with the well being of “unborn babies”. Somehow, and it’s not clear to me how, they insinuated their issue into so-called Christian sects’ doctrines, despite the utter absence of biblical support. Preachers now tell their flocks they’re going to Hell if they vote for democrats and fail to vote for Trumpsucking criminals.
Go figure.

 

[Tigers!]

To me, the dogs and cats do not have minds sufficient to warrant being considered people.

Why not? What is the threhhold?

A mind capable of civilized behavior.

That definition would eliminate an awful lot of Americans (Russians too) it would seem

 

[Tigers!]

s.

No, I don’t see a person. I see a clump of cells. A clump of cells is not a person!

But here you contradict yourself. Earlier you castigated me for characterizing a zygote, embryo or first-term fetus as a “potential person,” and here you are doing exactly the same thing! And in so doing, you are conceding the main point — that a clump of cells is not a person. If it were a person, you wouldn’t to wait for it to become a person, would you?

Can a racist can see a clump of cells that are non -insert least favoured colour here> and decide its not a person and thus kill it? Even if it is outside the womb?

Also I do not see a potential person in the womb. I see a person with unknown potential.

 

[prideandfall]

the [abortion] concept has only been presented to humanity in the last 50-60 years or so.

The concept of females’ entitlement to bodily autonomy might be new but abortion has been commonplace for centuries at leas

your edit changed my meaning, not sure if that was your intention as you wanted to address a secondary thought that my post prompted, or if you just misunderstood what i meant.

i specifically meant the [female bodily autonomy] concept - if you knew that and was just bouncing with a slightly divergent idea off what i said, i get that and do it myself often so that's cool.
if you thought my post was intended to be read as your edited it, just to clarify i didn't mean it that way.

 

[Bomb#20]

We do it because we want to prevent murder for organs.

Not seeing how it helps prevent murder for organs. A surgeon willing to transplant a kidney received from a disreputable supplier is unlikely to balk over the donor not having the little organ donor dot on his driver's license.

It prevents murder for organs from seeing a legal trade develop, and any kind of targeted theft as such.

Keeping it illegal altogether to collect from non-consenting parties keeps the system relatively honest.

I'm not connecting the dots in your reasoning. But for this thread's purposes it doesn't matter so let's not derail the thread -- even if it really does prevent murder for organs, that reason doesn't map over to abortion. So defending abortion rights by a parallel to the illegality of harvesting organs from dead people is a non sequitur.

I would as soon active opt-out rather than active opt-in mechanics around donor volunteerism...

Well, that would be a good start, anyway.