Better Restated Abortion Question

[All-In Flynn]

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.

[KipBond]

[ 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.

[KipBond]

[ 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.).

[vhawk01]

[ 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.

[vhawk01]

[ 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.

[luckyme]

[ 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

[jackflashdrive]

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.

[Borodog]

David,

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

[David Sklansky]

[ 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.

[goofball]

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.