Conquer Club

Lootifer wrote:Can the fetus, under standard healthcare, live outside the womans body?

No?

Then it's the womans choice (however morally reprehensible that choice may be).

Nonsense, can you, under standard healthcare, live if I cut off your head?

No?

Then it's my choice as to whether you live.

pmchugh wrote:

Lootifer wrote:Can the fetus, under standard healthcare, live outside the womans body?

No?

Then it's the womans choice (however morally reprehensible that choice may be).

Nonsense, can you, under standard healthcare, live if I cut off your head?

No?

Then it's my choice as to whether you live.

What possible connection do you have to my head which would be even remotely analogous to the relationship between woman and fetus?

i'm saying that if the fetus is a human, then killing it is clearly depriving it of far more "choices" than the woman is deprived of by giving birth to it.

so the argument of "liberty or choice" is secondary to the argument of whether the fetus has a right to life, or whether it is human.

Well from a purist perspective if the fetus is a real human it should be able to sustain itself independently (and this is different from severely handicapped or dependent people in society who cannot survive independently, they are anomalies, compared to the fetus that can never sustain itself because of human biology) otherwise it's not entitled to make decisions for itself (or decisions made for it by proxy - anti-abortionists).

Lootifer wrote:Well from a purist perspective if the fetus is a real human it should be able to sustain itself independently (and this is different from severely handicapped or dependent people in society who cannot survive independently, they are anomalies, compared to the fetus that can never sustain itself because of human biology) otherwise it's not entitled to make decisions for itself (or decisions made for it by proxy - anti-abortionists).

do you think these are all facts?

do you realize how many unfounded assertions there are in this paragraph?

"Well fix it dear henry" - Liza

Im just trying to put on a neutral hat. As far as abortion goes im a pragmatist: it does more good than harm /shrug.

Comparing that to putting down stupid people im more liberal: They are a very small minority (interlectually disabled that is) so the moral/ethical gain vs the cost of this portion of society on society makes for a pretty easy decision.

john9blue wrote:

Lootifer wrote:Well from a purist perspective if the fetus is a real human it should be able to sustain itself independently (and this is different from severely handicapped or dependent people in society who cannot survive independently, they are anomalies, compared to the fetus that can never sustain itself because of human biology) otherwise it's not entitled to make decisions for itself (or decisions made for it by proxy - anti-abortionists).

do you think these are all facts?

do you realize how many unfounded assertions there are in this paragraph?

And lol at condescending tone. I love how you think ur so smart /giggle

Doc_Brown wrote:Wait, this thread is about an argument posed in the Journal of Medical Ethics. They started with the assumption that pre-term elective abortion is commonly accepted in society. They argued that there is no essential difference between a fetus and a newborn and concluded that what is ethically and morally acceptable in the case of a fetus can reasonably be extended to newborns as well.

The discussion is not about whether abortion is acceptable (though the journal publisher did note that one potential response would be to posit that after-birth abortion is morally unacceptable, and therefore, the moral equivalence argued for in this article would require that pre-term abortion fall under a similar moral judgement), it's about whether abortions which are already accepted can be extended past the point of birth.

From the article's point of view, how is there no essential difference between a fetus and a newborn?

Doc_Brown wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Yet again.. until people actually understand that "abortion' refers to miscarriages and life-threatening situations, not just fully healthy or even "deformed" children who parents just decide to get rid of, this debate will continue to be nonsense. Or, often just a bunch of egotistical people trying to tell women what to do with their bodies.

Just so I'm clear, you're saying that because women have occasional miscarriages and end up in situations where an elective abortion is essential to save the life of the mother (an ectopic pregnancy for instance), we should not object to elective termination of newborns within the first few weeks after delivery?

No, I am saying making that kind of argument is idiotic. Making the argument that ALL abortions are wrong and claiming that the "few exceptions" are not enough to make them legal and ignoring the fact that those "exceptions" just happen to amount to about 50-70% of all abortions is stupidity.

Doc_Brown wrote: There have been a number of cases in the news of women suffering from postpartum depression terminating the lives of their children. Would you consider that the moral equivalent of ending an ectopic pregnancy?

Of course not. I have a brain and use it. Too bad too many conservatives stop at "abortion == MUST be bad.. no matter what!!!!".

john9blue wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Yet again.. until people actually understand that "abortion' refers to miscarriages and life-threatening situations, not just fully healthy or even "deformed" children who parents just decide to get rid of, this debate will continue to be nonsense. Or, often just a bunch of egotistical people trying to tell women what to do with their bodies.

are you fucking serious player?

you don't think the debate revolves around whether the fetus is human or not? you think it's about restricting women's rights? get real.

YOU get real.

If I were not allowed to have had an "abortion" after my last miscarriage, (to remove the DEAD child, I assure you!!) I would not have the kids I have now.

See, this is not about some esoteric debate, it is about real people making real choices with real lives. AND if you will dare decide that YOU have the right to dictate to others what they should do, then you had darned well understand what the rules really are.

You can claim all you want that the state of the fetus AND the health of the woman have "nothing to do with this", you can pretend its about healthy women "just choosing" to not have fully healthy children"..b ut don't you dare pretend that is being honest !

Whoa. Player is in a Hearts of Iron 2 "Assault" phase.

thegreekdog wrote:

Doc_Brown wrote:From a peer-reviewed article in the Journal of Medical Ethics:

Abstract
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

I don't want to read the article, but is there an age limit on the term "newborn?"

Isn't it something like "you aren't a human being until you realize that there is a tomorrow"?

PLAYER57832 wrote:

john9blue wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Yet again.. until people actually understand that "abortion' refers to miscarriages and life-threatening situations, not just fully healthy or even "deformed" children who parents just decide to get rid of, this debate will continue to be nonsense. Or, often just a bunch of egotistical people trying to tell women what to do with their bodies.

are you fucking serious player?

you don't think the debate revolves around whether the fetus is human or not? you think it's about restricting women's rights? get real.

YOU get real.

If I were not allowed to have had an "abortion" after my last miscarriage, (to remove the DEAD child, I assure you!!) I would not have the kids I have now.

See, this is not about some esoteric debate, it is about real people making real choices with real lives. AND if you will dare decide that YOU have the right to dictate to others what they should do, then you had darned well understand what the rules really are.

You can claim all you want that the state of the fetus AND the health of the woman have "nothing to do with this", you can pretend its about healthy women "just choosing" to not have fully healthy children"..b ut don't you dare pretend that is being honest !

i don't understand how this makes me egotistical or how it proves that my goal is to tell women what to do with their bodies.

Lootifer wrote:

pmchugh wrote:

Lootifer wrote:Can the fetus, under standard healthcare, live outside the womans body?

No?

Then it's the womans choice (however morally reprehensible that choice may be).

Nonsense, can you, under standard healthcare, live if I cut off your head?

No?

Then it's my choice as to whether you live.

What possible connection do you have to my head which would be even remotely analogous to the relationship between woman and fetus?

lol you guys are funny. this post is nonsense

PLAYER57832 wrote:Of course not. I have a brain and use it. Too bad too many conservatives stop at "abortion == MUST be bad.. no matter what!!!!".

Player - Before you posted, (apart from a few non serious posts) there was no discussion in this thread about outlawing abortion. Too bad many feminists see conservatives mention abortion and immediately assume they hate the possibility of women having rights no matter what!!!! I realize that expecting any sort of reading comprehension in here is asking a lot. Maybe I just need to return to lurker status and not expect to get a serious conversation going.

BigBallinStalin wrote:From the article's point of view, how is there no essential difference between a fetus and a newborn?

I'd have to read it again. The entire text is there, and it's not too long to read. If I remember correctly, they basically suggest that personhood requires some sense of self awareness and a sense that losing one's life would negatively impact oneself and one's goals. Basically, they're saying forget the mother's body argument. The question is about whether the lump of tissue is an actual person from whom it would be morally objectionable to take a life.

Doc_Brown wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:From the article's point of view, how is there no essential difference between a fetus and a newborn?

I'd have to read it again. The entire text is there, and it's not too long to read. If I remember correctly, they basically suggest that personhood requires some sense of self awareness and a sense that losing one's life would negatively impact oneself and one's goals. Basically, they're saying forget the mother's body argument. The question is about whether the lump of tissue is an actual person from whom it would be morally objectionable to take a life.

Usually, for abortion and ethics, I go with Judith Jarvis Thompson's “A Defense of Abortion" and John Noonan's "An Almost Absolute Value in History" (which is anti-abortion) so that's my small background on that.


The tricky part of this debate is determining that required amount of self-awareness which guarantees personhood status...

Also, there's this:

If a fetus is a person, than any miscarriage could be construed as murder, manslaughter, or negligent homicide if the mother was found to fail her duty in providing some extreme amount of safety in order to minimize the chances of a miscarriage. The degree of minimizing that risk could be extremely restrictive on the woman's set of choices.

Therefore, having her strapped to a bed and fed hospital food with constant medical tests would greatly minimize the chances of a miscarriage. Because, according to the implications of your interpretation of their argument, we wouldn't want a miscarriage--that would be negligent homicide of a person.

How can you forget a significant part of the argument just because a moral/ethical analysis bypasses it?

Sure the dependency of the fetus can be rightfully ignored in the discussion paper because it has a narrow scope. Fine I can accept that.

But to then apply this narrowed scope to the wider abortion debate is bunkum.

Also it is a pet peeve of mine where people make arguments without being completely transparent with their agenda.

Lootifer wrote:
Also it is a pet peeve of mine where people make arguments without being completely transparent with their agenda.

it is entirely possible that the person genuinely wants to find the answer to a question and doesn't have an agenda at all.

Lootifer wrote:How can you forget a significant part of the argument just because a moral/ethical analysis bypasses it?

Sure the dependency of the fetus can be rightfully ignored in the discussion paper because it has a narrow scope. Fine I can accept that.

But to then apply this narrowed scope to the wider abortion debate is bunkum.

Also it is a pet peeve of mine where people make arguments without being completely transparent with their agenda.

Some moral philosophers aren't consequentalists, Lootifer. :*(

Doc_Brown wrote:Wait, this thread is about an argument posed in the Journal of Medical Ethics. They started with the assumption that pre-term elective abortion is commonly accepted in society. They argued that there is no essential difference between a fetus and a newborn and concluded that what is ethically and morally acceptable in the case of a fetus can reasonably be extended to newborns as well.

The discussion is not about whether abortion is acceptable (though the journal publisher did note that one potential response would be to posit that after-birth abortion is morally unacceptable, and therefore, the moral equivalence argued for in this article would require that pre-term abortion fall under a similar moral judgement), it's about whether abortions which are already accepted can be extended past the point of birth.

Um... you guys should all read this again. Then after reading it again, read it a third time. And then keep reading it until you understand the point of the article (and the point of Doc Brown posting it).

Ok my bad. Assume makes and ass out of u and me...

So now my response is "lol this guy must be trollin'"

john9blue wrote:

Lootifer wrote:
Also it is a pet peeve of mine where people make arguments without being completely transparent with their agenda.

it is entirely possible that the person genuinely wants to find the answer to a question and doesn't have an agenda at all.

You are entirely correct and I apologise.

Lootifer wrote:Ok my bad. Assume makes and ass out of u and me...

So now my response is "lol this guy must be trollin'"

What? No. Doc Brown doesn't troll.

The point is this (at least how I read it):

(1) One of the reasons why abortion is palatable is because the fetus is classified as something that is not a developed person.
(2) A newborn has just been classified by a medical group as not a developed person (equal to a fetus).
(3) So... is killing... I mean aborting... a newborn now platable? I would say that the medical answer is yes.

And when the US Supreme Court decisions on this subject focus on the viability of a fetus as much as they do on the right to privacy, it's even more important that a medical group has now classified newborns as equal to fetuses. I wonder how soon it will be until a defense attorney representing a woman who has killed her newborn pulls out this study and we get a new Supreme Court case. If it wasn't so disgusting, it would be interesting.

But now you're expanding the narrowly scoped article into the wider debate. A postulated morally and ethically "the same" (the logic is fine, the answer is not definitive nor independent of interpretation however) does not make them equivilent.

Dependence MUST be involved in the debate.