Better Restated Abortion Question
 

Ignore the first one as I was unclear.

If technology advances to the point where even young embryos can be saved after an abortion, will pro choicers claim woman will have the right to tell the surgeons not to save it?

Re: Better Restated Abortion Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ignore the first one as I was unclear.

If technology advances to the point where even young embryos can be saved after an abortion, will pro choicers claim woman will have the right to tell the surgeons not to save it?

[/ QUOTE ]

If they're the ones who will have the responsibility to care and provide for it, I think the answer is yes.

What bugs me about these abortion debates is that rarely do they ever get to the heart of the problem. Sex education, contraception, and family planning. Education in these areas would eliminate the need for most abortions. The wrong questions are being asked, and the wrong topics are being discussed.

Re: Better Restated Abortion Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ignore the first one as I was unclear.

If technology advances to the point where even young embryos can be saved after an abortion, will pro choicers claim woman will have the right to tell the surgeons not to save it?

[/ QUOTE ]

If they're the ones who will have the responsibility to care and provide for it, I think the answer is yes.

What bugs me about these abortion debates is that rarely do they ever get to the heart of the problem. Sex education, contraception, and family planning. Education in these areas would eliminate the need for most abortions. The wrong questions are being asked, and the wrong topics are being discussed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the general approach to such situations would be the mother is giving the baby away for adoption or whatever. The technology solution seems to null arguments of "My body, my choice" which is essentially what the pro-choice crowd has been shouting for years.

Otherwise you're certainly right that the vast majority of situations can be avoided with education.

Re: Better Restated Abortion Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ignore the first one as I was unclear.

If technology advances to the point where even young embryos can be saved after an abortion, will pro choicers claim woman will have the right to tell the surgeons not to save it?

[/ QUOTE ]

If they're the ones who will have the responsibility to care and provide for it, I think the answer is yes.

What bugs me about these abortion debates is that rarely do they ever get to the heart of the problem. Sex education, contraception, and family planning. Education in these areas would eliminate the need for most abortions. The wrong questions are being asked, and the wrong topics are being discussed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree completely, the pro-choicers feel it is much more important to selfishly focus on themselves and bitch about choices, and the pro-lifers even though they educate are too ignorant to furnish any practical solutions.

Re: Better Restated Abortion Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
If technology advances to the point where even young embryos can be saved after an abortion, will pro choicers claim woman will have the right to tell the surgeons not to save it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. People have abortions because they do not want a specific potential person to become an actual person.

Stu

Re: Better Restated Abortion Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If technology advances to the point where even young embryos can be saved after an abortion, will pro choicers claim woman will have the right to tell the surgeons not to save it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. People have abortions because they do not want a specific potential person to become an actual person.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

You keep saying this, but that doesn't make it true.

Re: Better Restated Abortion Question
 

<font color="blue"> I think the general approach to such situations would be the mother is giving the baby away for adoption or whatever. </font>

Of course, this is ideal. Unfortunately, it's not always feasible. Healthy white babies are in high demand, but I don't think that's the case for say, African American babies or those of poor health.

I happen to be pro-choice. But that doesn't mean I like abortion or even think it should be a first option. I think the problem should be dealt with at it's core. Don't make unwanted babies! I also think pro-lifers put way too much emphasis on abortion and not nearly enough on preventing unwanted pregnancies.

Re: Better Restated Abortion Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
If they're the ones who will have the responsibility to care and provide for it, I think the answer is yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

the father has no legal say in abort/noabort , but must pay child support.

based on this i would say the mother couldn't insist on death for the embryo, and could still be held financially liable for the child.

Re: Better Restated Abortion Question
 

<font color="blue"> I agree completely, the pro-choicers feel it is much more important to selfishly focus on themselves and bitch about choices, </font>

Uh, I think it's the other way around. Feel free to prove me wrong. I'm a pro-choicer and I'm not bitching about choices. I'm bitching about not enough available education to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

It's the pro-lifers who back away from discussions of contraception and sex education in schools, etc. They mainly want to bitch about abortion itself and the rights of a 3 day old fetus. Well, by that time, it's too late.

Re: Better Restated Abortion Question
 

[ QUOTE ]

You keep saying this, but that doesn't make it true.

[/ QUOTE ]

You keep saying its false does not make it false....touche.

Why do women have abortions then? Becuase the fetus the woman is carrying is going become a person who will in some way complicate their lives. A woman has an abortion to ensure that person does not come into existance. Any other excuse givin for an abortion is just a sugar coat of the above.

Stu

Re: Better Restated Abortion Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You keep saying this, but that doesn't make it true.

[/ QUOTE ]

You keep saying its false does not make it false....touche.

Why do women have abortions then? Becuase the fetus the woman is carrying is going become a person who will in some way complicate their lives. A woman has an abortion to ensure that person does not come into existance. Any other excuse givin for an abortion is just a sugar coat of the above.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously it's part of the equation, but not necessarily the overriding one. Your phrasing suggests that the person deciding to have the abortion is more concerned about the life of the 'potential person' when it is often more about the life of the mother.

I personally am against abortion in most cases, but I don't think it's my place to legislate what a person can or can't do with their body.

Re: Better Restated Abortion Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ignore the first one as I was unclear.

If technology advances to the point where even young embryos can be saved after an abortion, will pro choicers claim woman will have the right to tell the surgeons not to save it?

[/ QUOTE ]

If it becomes the case, then I would say that as long as the parents of the "potential person" would still be responsible for the child at the end of the incubation process, then pro-choicer's will claim that it is the mothers decision whether or not it should survive.

On that note, since the fetus would now be separate from the mother's body but still a potential life, I cannot see how the decision could be entirely up to the mother when the mother and father both contributed genetic material and would thus be equally entitled to a choice with the "my body, my decision" line of thinking now nullified. Comments?

Re: Better Restated Abortion Question
 

Yes.

I am still not sure if you are targeting your question at me and so I'll wait for your response before I type up anything longer than this.

Re: Better Restated Abortion Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ignore the first one as I was unclear.

If technology advances to the point where even young embryos can be saved after an abortion, will pro choicers claim woman will have the right to tell the surgeons not to save it?

[/ QUOTE ]

If it becomes the case, then I would say that as long as the parents of the "potential person" would still be responsible for the child at the end of the incubation process, then pro-choicer's will claim that it is the mothers decision whether or not it should survive.

On that note, since the fetus would now be separate from the mother's body but still a potential life, I cannot see how the decision could be entirely up to the mother when the mother and father both contributed genetic material and would thus be equally entitled to a choice with the "my body, my decision" line of thinking now nullified. Comments?

[/ QUOTE ]

My point of course is that many woman who choose to have an abortion disingenously use the argument that they have a right to do what they want with their body, even though their real agenda is that the baby does not survive.

Re: Better Restated Abortion Question
 

I don't think they have any right if/when that technology comes. It's pretty much no different than saying "I gave birth to my son 34 years ago. It's my body/my choice so I have the right to kill him today".

The only difference is the amount of time that person was alive.

Re: Better Restated Abortion Question
 

Then it comes down to the neverending debate as to whether or not a fetus in its early stages can be regarded as human in the same way that a newborn baby can. Morbid, but it is a central theme in this discussion.

Re: Better Restated Abortion Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
My point of course is that many woman who choose to have an abortion disingenously use the argument that they have a right to do what they want with their body, even though their real agenda is that the baby does not survive.

[/ QUOTE ]

That seems like a semantic nit.

Re: Better Restated Abortion Question
 

In this thread there is no difference IMO. We have the technology to bring the extremely young fetus to life guaranteed. The only difference between this fetus and a newborn baby is x amount of time.

Re: Better Restated Abortion Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
My point of course is that many woman who choose to have an abortion disingenously use the argument that they have a right to do what they want with their body, even though their real agenda is that the baby does not survive.

[/ QUOTE ]
hmmm. I have the right to cut my toenails even if you have some super technology that turns them into babies.

seems to me the only issue is the value of the thing you're sticking in the machine (not what comes out).

chez

Re: Better Restated Abortion Question
 

*Some* women may not mind putting their body through 9 months of pregnancy because they had too much to drink the night before, but even when *they* seek an abortion, it still has nothing to do with the baby "not surviving". It has to do with not wanting a baby in their life! It's an important distinction.

Re: Better Restated Abortion Question
 

I think yes, assuming the woman would be responsible for the child's upbringing if it was saved. And it's difficult to imagine some state-run orphanage system handling the 'overflow' of unwanted babies in any kind of satisfactory way.

Re: Better Restated Abortion Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
If technology advances to the point where even young embryos can be saved after an abortion, will pro choicers claim woman will have the right to tell the surgeons not to save it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. I'm pretty sure the fetus is considered to be the mother's property. If she has an appendectomy, does she have the right to tell the doctor not to keep it? She should. Or even put it in a jar for a keepsake if she wants.

Re: Better Restated Abortion Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
My point of course is that many woman who choose to have an abortion disingenously use the argument that they have a right to do what they want with their body, even though their real agenda is that the baby does not survive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Women have abortions because they don't want to have a baby. Once the fetus is removed, and they are no longer going to have a baby, I don't think most women will care what you do with the fetus. Presumably, the best option would be to donate it to some lab so they can harvest the stem cells. But, if the mother decides she wants it cremated, that's probably her choice.

Whatever choice she would have to do with a tumor she has removed, she should have the same choices in regards to the fetus that is removed. I'm not positive what those choices are, but they should be the same, I think. Unless there is some compelling reason for them not to be (like medical science needs to get more stem cells, we have a population shortage and need every potential person to be actualized, etc.).

Re: Better Restated Abortion Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If technology advances to the point where even young embryos can be saved after an abortion, will pro choicers claim woman will have the right to tell the surgeons not to save it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. People have abortions because they do not want a specific potential person to become an actual person.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

I laughed at you in the other thread, I'm laughing at you now. Keep it up, though, you are on a roll.

Re: Better Restated Abortion Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You keep saying this, but that doesn't make it true.

[/ QUOTE ]

You keep saying its false does not make it false....touche.

Why do women have abortions then? Becuase the fetus the woman is carrying is going become a person who will in some way complicate their lives. A woman has an abortion to ensure that person does not come into existance. Any other excuse givin for an abortion is just a sugar coat of the above.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, this is incorrect. Since WE are the pro-choicers, us saying it is false DOES make it false, since it is a position you ascribe to pro-choicers. Of course, we don't speak for ALL of them, but you speak for none of them. His denial is far more valid than your assertion.

Re: Better Restated Abortion Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My point of course is that many woman who choose to have an abortion disingenously use the argument that they have a right to do what they want with their body, even though their real agenda is that the baby does not survive.

[/ QUOTE ]
hmmm. I have the right to cut my toenails even if you have some super technology that turns them into babies.

seems to me the only issue is the value of the thing you're sticking in the machine (not what comes out).

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

If DS were a magician, his OP would fall under 'misdirection'. The 'agenda' is the RIGHT of a person, their reasons for wanting to exercise that right are not that relevant. The disingenuous part is slipping into the premise that there is a baby to survive.

On the slippery slope front - if people lose the right to what happens to their body then my liver is at threat if DS's henchmen decide there is a 'higher need' and my reasons aren't sufficient. Perhaps claiming that my real agenda is I want the sick kid in Bulgaria to die.

A newborns value ( never mind a fetus) varies with it's fit in the society. When babies are relatively rare and the adult they become is in demand then newborns are valuable. The reason female infanticide has been practiced is because of that.

NEWS - Iran announces it can produce a million fetuses a week and raise them in army barracks.
"Oh, how cute, let's send them booties" may not be the world-wide response.

The two issues raised by the OP, mainly by sleight of hand, are - Do I have Rights over parts of my body?
and - Are acorns as valuable as oak trees?
As you note - Do toenails and skin cells ( which in an advanced technology are potential people, just as fetuses are) have personhood rights because of their potential?

Trying to focus the discussion on 'motive' is a Red Whale. Even if there were no legal obligations currently, there is still issues like - I don't want to be used to create a later demand for parts of my body for DNA reasons on some 'greater good' argument, etc ( teenager will die without transplant, say).

If there is one property right that seems self-evident, it's my ownership of my body, motive-smotive.

I have the Right not to eat dinner. Claims that my real agenda is to bankrupt walmart and put illegal aliens out of work are irrelevant. Either I have that right or I don't.

luckyme

Re: Better Restated Abortion Question
 

If science advances to the point where a surgeon can clone you on the basis of some tissue he removed during surgery, I think most people will agree that the surgeon has no right to clone you and the right to control over your body (and bodily materials thereof) is probably implicated.

Suppose you have a kidney transplant and your body rejects the kidney as incompatible. Does the surgeon who takes the kidney out have the right to give it to another person to save that other person's life? Not without your consent, though of course the surgeon could refuse to remove the kidney unless you passed it along.

Re: Better Restated Abortion Question
 

David,

As the kids these days say, I think chezlaw just pwned you on this one.

Re: Better Restated Abortion Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My point of course is that many woman who choose to have an abortion disingenously use the argument that they have a right to do what they want with their body, even though their real agenda is that the baby does not survive.

[/ QUOTE ]
hmmm. I have the right to cut my toenails even if you have some super technology that turns them into babies.

seems to me the only issue is the value of the thing you're sticking in the machine (not what comes out).

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

The question is whether you have the right to insist that the toenails be discarded. Also the analogy is flawed because the supertechnology doesn't "turn fetuses into babies". It just keeps from from dying. Using your argument parents should presently have the right to withhold incubators from their premature babies.

Re: Better Restated Abortion Question
 

The crux for many pro-choicers, and I would argue society (look at the way united states society values animals vs. humans), is not viability but when the fetus because uniquely human, when it can think.

From what I remember from college this happens near the beginning of the third trimester.

Re: Better Restated Abortion Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
Also the analogy is flawed because the supertechnology doesn't "turn fetuses into babies". It just keeps from from dying.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is 100% false. Given I currently have a son in a NICU born 13 weeks premature, I believe I can safely testify to the fact that the technology in existance today does much more than "keep the baby alive." It in fact continues to grow the child much like the womb would. I would assume that your fictitious machines which grow fetuses into babies will also need to do much more than simply "keep the baby alive."

Some of the thoughts (not all yours) that creep through in this thread (and some of your other abortion threads), are pretty sickening to read.

Re: Better Restated Abortion Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
The crux for many pro-choicers, and I would argue society (look at the way united states society values animals vs. humans), is not viability but when the fetus because uniquely human, when it can think.

From what I remember from college this happens near the beginning of the third trimester.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what the future holds for that individual doesn't matter? Thus it's worse to kill a chimp than an infant?

Bottom line is that a woman doesn't have a right to stop a conceived embyro that is past the point of possible twinning, from continuing on with its life once it is outside of her. Unless she also has the right to do the same with her three month old baby. At this point in time the subject is not an issue. But it will be someday.

Re: Better Restated Abortion Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The crux for many pro-choicers, and I would argue society (look at the way united states society values animals vs. humans), is not viability but when the fetus because uniquely human, when it can think.

From what I remember from college this happens near the beginning of the third trimester.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what the future holds for that individual doesn't matter? Thus it's worse to kill a chimp than an infant?

Bottom line is that a woman doesn't have a right to stop a conceived embyro that is past the point of possible twinning, from continuing on with its life once it is outside of her. Unless she also has the right to do the same with her three month old baby. At this point in time the subject is not an issue. But it will be someday.

[/ QUOTE ]

David,

I believe that the crux of this debate may be this: can a fetus actually own itself in any meaningful way?

There is an obvious answer.

Re: Better Restated Abortion Question
 

Why is viability the crux of the issue? Doesn't a natural extension of the viability argument make it ok for us to kill old people dependent on our care?

Re: Better Restated Abortion Question
 

Abortion is a slippery slope. The extreme positions are untenable, which forces us to draw a line somewhere on that slope. No convincing argument can be made for viability over 'humanness.'

Re: Better Restated Abortion Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
Bottom line is that a woman doesn't have a right to stop a conceived embyro that is past the point of possible twinning, from continuing on with its life once it is outside of her. Unless she also has the right to do the same with her three month old baby. At this point in time the subject is not an issue. But it will be someday.


[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't this basically amount to an adoption of the fetus? When a woman gives a baby she delivered up for adoption, she gives up all of her rights. You don't think that 99.99% of women would concede that having a fetus extracted
would do the same thing?

Re: Better Restated Abortion Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My point of course is that many woman who choose to have an abortion disingenously use the argument that they have a right to do what they want with their body, even though their real agenda is that the baby does not survive.

[/ QUOTE ]
hmmm. I have the right to cut my toenails even if you have some super technology that turns them into babies.

seems to me the only issue is the value of the thing you're sticking in the machine (not what comes out).

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

The question is whether you have the right to insist that the toenails be discarded. Also the analogy is flawed because the supertechnology doesn't "turn fetuses into babies". It just keeps from from dying. Using your argument parents should presently have the right to withhold incubators from their premature babies.

[/ QUOTE ]
That doesn't follow at all. It just depends on the value of the thing you stick in the machine. Generally folk seem to value premature babies more than discarded toenails. Only when the value of a thing makes it thought of as having rights of its own does its fate cease to be down to the decision of the parents/toenail cutter.

I look forward to the debate about the significant difference between the toenail turning machine and the keeping fetuses alive machine.

chez

Re: Better Restated Abortion Question
 

You pose a great question, but I'm not totally buying your argument.

What future an embryo may or may not have, is not the key consideration. Also, your hypothetical technology might not be as far off in the future as you think. The bottom line is, we may one day be able to create life from the cells you lose by scratching your nose or scrubbing yourself in the bath. Are you suggesting that once such technology becomes available we lose the right to discard our bath water?

In my opinion, human rights begin when a fetus can survive unassisted outside the womb (I'm not sure when that is, but if it's 3rd tri-mester so be it). I know you'll find fault with that, because I also agree with the use of incubators and technology to assist a newborn's life. But it's not the same. The new born made it to earth. The fetus did not.

Re: Better Restated Abortion Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If technology advances to the point where even young embryos can be saved after an abortion, will pro choicers claim woman will have the right to tell the surgeons not to save it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. People have abortions because they do not want a specific potential person to become an actual person.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

I laughed at you in the other thread, I'm laughing at you now. Keep it up, though, you are on a roll.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you stop laughing, you'll look around and see everyone else staring at you funny. If it isn't already obvious to you yet, your pro-choice stance, and the one that DS caricatured in his other post, is in the minority -- at least in the replies on this thread, and almost certainly in society at large.

Re: Better Restated Abortion Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
Bottom line is that a woman doesn't have a right to stop a conceived embyro that is past the point of possible twinning, from continuing on with its life once it is outside of her. Unless she also has the right to do the same with her three month old baby. At this point in time the subject is not an issue. But it will be someday.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope you realize that your "bottom line" is very contested, and really is the true crux of the pro-life / pro-choice debate. If a woman has the right to discard of a tumor once it is removed from her body, then she has the same right to discard of a fetus that is not yet a person.