|
|
#31
08-01-2007, 07:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
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. 
|
|
#32
08-01-2007, 07:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#33
08-01-2007, 07:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#34
08-01-2007, 07:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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?
|
|
#35
08-01-2007, 07:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.'
|
|
#36
08-01-2007, 07:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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?
|
|
#37
08-01-2007, 07:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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
|
|
#38
08-01-2007, 09:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#39
08-01-2007, 09:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#40
08-01-2007, 09:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
