Better Restated Abortion Question

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
So if I'm following this correctly:

-The fetus became the woman's exclusive property the moment it was conceived inside her body.
-The woman continues to have exclusive ownership of the fetus after it is removed (without being terminated).
-Therefore, the woman has the exclusive right to terminate the fetus (now outside her body) as long as it does not become human (since the moment the fetus becomes "human," it owns itself).

OK thus far?

[/ QUOTE ]

So we don't get lost in terminology, the fetus is a human fetus so it doesn't need to 'become' human. The question, as chez puts it, is 'the status' an entity has.
Let's test that against our approach with other entities. Does a normal newborn own itself .. in the same way a 25 year old teacher does. Does it actually have a different status, one in which the parent(s) would seem to have some aspect of ownership also. Does a senile old man own himself?

Those simple cases seem to indicate this ownership thing is not a yea-nay. Perhaps if there were a phased in way of looking at?

luckyme

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, no matter how much you minimize it in your brain, (which is much easier because a fetus is out of sight), the bottom line in abortion is taking a life--

[/ QUOTE ]

So is toasting a peanut. If a fetus is the same concept for a person as a 36 year old sumo wrestler then the case is closed for them. Others take different views and see carriers of human DNA in a variety of states. Their bottom lines come out on different rows.

luckyme

[nepenthe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So if I'm following this correctly:

-The fetus became the woman's exclusive property the moment it was conceived inside her body.
-The woman continues to have exclusive ownership of the fetus after it is removed (without being terminated).
-Therefore, the woman has the exclusive right to terminate the fetus (now outside her body) as long as it does not become human (since the moment the fetus becomes "human," it owns itself).

OK thus far?

[/ QUOTE ]

So we don't get lost in terminology, the fetus is a human fetus so it doesn't need to 'become' human. The question, as chez puts it, is 'the status' an entity has.
Let's test that against our approach with other entities. Does a normal newborn own itself .. in the same way a 25 year old teacher does. Does it actually have a different status, one in which the parent(s) would seem to have some aspect of ownership also. Does a senile old man own himself?

Those simple cases seem to indicate this ownership thing is not a yea-nay. Perhaps if there were a phased in way of looking at?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're saying that there exists a gray area around the precise moment a fetus becomes a human being (in the sense that it now has the same innate right of self-ownership as that of a normal adult), it's probably true. In terms of the current hypothetical, though, what I have trouble accepting is the first premise mentioned above: that a woman has exclusive property ownership of the fetus by virtue of the fact that it was conceived inside her body. Given that 50% or so of the fetus is the product of the father's DNA, it doesn't seem correct that the father has 0% ownership interest.

If everything else were equal, the mother and father should have equal ownership interest over the fetus. The only tangible distinction here is that the mother is the host of the fetus - and with that we're back to the question of whether the choice to perform an abortion hinges upon whom (or where) the fetus is currently stored.

It just seems disingenuous to say that because the fetus was attached to the woman's body for an X amount of time (before being removed and placed in the incubator), the father therefore loses 100% of his ownership interest.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Given that 50% or so of the fetus is the product of the father's DNA,

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not even a Taken let alone a Given. my guess would come in around 0.01% of a fetus has any input from the father and even that little isn't mandatory.
I suspect you're thinking if we each chip in a penny to purchase a seed then you disappear while I prepare the soil, plant it, weed, fertilize, feed, protect if from frost, treat it for lice and eventually a crop is reaped that you are entitled to half of that crop. If the crop is worth $100, you may get a cent or two.
I friend of mine worked on the plans for my house with me, likely 50-50. does he now own half of my house?

luckyme

[nepenthe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Given that 50% or so of the fetus is the product of the father's DNA,

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not even a Taken let alone a Given. my guess would come in around 0.01% of a fetus has any input from the father and even that little isn't mandatory.
I suspect you're thinking if we each chip in a penny to purchase a seed then you disappear while I prepare the soil, plant it, weed, fertilize, feed, protect if from frost, treat it for lice and eventually a crop is reaped that you are entitled to half of that crop. If the crop is worth $100, you may get a cent or two.
I friend of mine worked on the plans for my house with me, likely 50-50. does he now own half of my house?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, so let's say the father's interest is less than 50%. Anything greater than 0% defeats the proposition that a woman has exclusive property ownership of the fetus, and that's all this is about.

And a more accurate analogy than the one you have given would go something like this: Person A and person B decide to build X (X can be anything you want to think of) together. A gets 50% of the raw materials and B gets the other 50%. They decide to build X in B's place because B's place can protect their project from (insert whatever harmful influences here - wear & tear, weather effects, better temperature, whatever), whereas building it in A's place would surely lead to failure.

They get to building, and while A puts in a lot of work early on in the project, B ends up doing most of the work and maintenance overall. Then, just before X is completed, B changes his mind and decides to blow up the entire thing with a bomb. A is flabbergasted and says, "You can't do that! What about the work I put in? What about my raw materials which cost so much?" B says, "Too bad, the moment you decided to invest your raw materials and build X in my place, you lost all ownership interest."

[Shandrax]

[ 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 surgeons have a choice to save it then yes, if surgeons are forced by law to save it then no.

Therefore the question should be different and about the duties of the surgeon.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
So if I'm following this correctly:

-The fetus became the woman's exclusive property the moment it was conceived inside her body.
-The woman continues to have exclusive ownership of the fetus after it is removed (without being terminated).
-Therefore, the woman has the exclusive right to terminate the fetus (now outside her body) as long as it does not become human (since the moment the fetus becomes "human," it owns itself).

OK thus far?


[/ QUOTE ]
That's more or less what they're saying. Its easy to disagree with but its not illogical.

chez

[Mendacious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, no matter how much you minimize it in your brain, (which is much easier because a fetus is out of sight), the bottom line in abortion is taking a life--

[/ QUOTE ]


So is toasting a peanut. If a fetus is the same concept for a person as a 36 year old sumo wrestler then the case is closed for them. Others take different views and see carriers of human DNA in a variety of states. Their bottom lines come out on different rows.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

If you put this on a continuum of moral significance, roasting a peanut would be on one end, and pulling your own unborn fetus out of the womb of its mother and killing it would be pretty close to the opposite end.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, no matter how much you minimize it in your brain, (which is much easier because a fetus is out of sight), the bottom line in abortion is taking a life--

[/ QUOTE ]


So is toasting a peanut. If a fetus is the same concept for a person as a 36 year old sumo wrestler then the case is closed for them. Others take different views and see carriers of human DNA in a variety of states. Their bottom lines come out on different rows.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

If you put this on a continuum of moral significance, roasting a peanut would be on one end, and pulling your own unborn fetus out of the womb of its mother and killing it would be pretty close to the opposite end.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was clearly your position with your 'bottom line' claim, no need to reaffirm. My response was to the other belief you appear to hold --that such a view is universal or obvious or easy to support.

luckyme

[Mendacious]

[ QUOTE ]
That was clearly your position with your 'bottom line' claim, no need to reaffirm. My response was to the other belief you appear to hold --that such a view is universal or obvious or easy to support

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that the number of people who do not recognize that the gravity of a decision to abort a fetus is vastly more significant to the decision to "roast a peanut" is statistically insignificant. Regardless of one's ultimate view on the morality of the situation, YES, I would say it is a virtually universally held opinion that abortion is more morally significant than peanut roasting. Although I will concede that perhaps a majority of the people on earth favor allowing the woman to choose-- and I include myself in that group. Denying the significance of the moral question seems purely contrarian. There are no "roasting peanut" threads on this board, No contentious Supreme Court decisions, no campaign debates, no meaningful discussion or thought on the topic of the morality of "Peanut Roasting" whatsoever. The record on and of this issue speaks for itself.