Abortion

[FirstAscent]

The difference is that you can actively kill the unborn child.  That's how abortion works; kill it and suck it out.

If I want to remove someone from my house then the first resort must be to remove them without harming them. Only as a last resort can I kill them. Is there a way to remove the fetus without first killing it? If so, that must be tried first and all other methods left as a last resort. If not, only then are other methods justified as a first resort.

So is a house like a body? Is this where you're falling into the trap of thinking a sofa is like land, an animal is like an automobile, etc? Is this where you trot out the homesteading rule?

[NghtRppr]

So is a house like a body?

I own my body. I own my house. My body has to be nourished by food. My house does not. They are alike in the ways they are alike and differ in the ways they differ, but that's trivially true. My point is, all analogies have their limits but that doesn't make them worthless.

[Hawker]

The difference is that you can actively kill the unborn child.  That's how abortion works; kill it and suck it out.

If I want to remove someone from my house then the first resort must be to remove them without harming them. Only as a last resort can I kill them. Is there a way to remove the fetus without first killing it? If so, that must be tried first and all other methods left as a last resort. If not, only then are other methods justified as a first resort.

After 20 or so weeks, the unborn child has to be killed or else it will be capable of living outside the womb.  That would be called "birth" and would defeat the whole idea of having an abortion in the first place.

[NghtRppr]

The difference is that you can actively kill the unborn child.  That's how abortion works; kill it and suck it out.

If I want to remove someone from my house then the first resort must be to remove them without harming them. Only as a last resort can I kill them. Is there a way to remove the fetus without first killing it? If so, that must be tried first and all other methods left as a last resort. If not, only then are other methods justified as a first resort.

After 20 or so weeks, the unborn child has to be killed or else it will be capable of living outside the womb.  That would be called "birth" and would defeat the whole idea of having an abortion in the first place.

Then I am against that. You have the right to evict, not kill.

[TiagoTiago]

Somthing else you need to take in consideration is that if you consider a fetus to have all those rights way before it's much more than a simple organism, then shouldn't other similarly simple organisms have the same rights even if currently we don't have the technology to advance them to a similar level as an adult human?

[Bind]

Somthing else you need to take in consideration is that if you consider a fetus to have all those rights way before it's much more than a simple organism, then shouldn't other similarly simple organisms have the same rights even if currently we don't have the technology to advance them to a similar level as an adult human?

I believe there are distinct differences between food sources and human beings. I do not believe food source life is the same as human life. Most plants and animals are food sources. A fetus is not a food source required for survival by any species of life. So the answer to your question would be no.

Even religion makes this distinction if you believe in such things. For instance, the bible says thou shalt not kill, but Jesus fed the people fish and bread. Those are at least 2 forms of life. Fish and the wheat plant. Yeast as well if it was used then. Same goes with the fermentation process that goes with the sacrimental wine representing the blood of Christ.

The food chain. We are on top not because we want to be, but because we think, learn, rationalize, and most importantly, we have the intellect to ask questions and answer them, which leads to the manipulation of the world around us that improves our quality of life.

This is the belief and rationalization that I believe the ruling elites have. They consider non-thinking humans as beasts, and people who will not use their intelligence are no better than animals who do not have intelligence. Such people, according to them, are "beasts of burden and steaks on the table by choice and consent".

I suppose it all depends how you justify your actions, but I do not know another way to survive, and in the end its about survival of your species. The preservation of your species. The smartest survive.

All that said, arguements can be made about the unecessary loss of life.

is it ok to kill an insect that is pestering you ?

a rodent ?

a gopher or a groundhog tearing up your yard ?

a bee hive that built a nest in/under the eaves of your home ?

[TiagoTiago]

What about tumors, do they have rights? Their DNA is pretty much our own...

[FirstAscent]

What about tumors, do they have rights? Their DNA is pretty much our own...

No.

But here's some food for thought:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/09/28/tool-using-fish-caught-on-tape/

http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/of_primates_and_personhood/

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7475-dolphins-teach-their-children-to-use-sponges.html

[NghtRppr]

What about tumors, do they have rights? Their DNA is pretty much our own...

Here are two claims that should be uncontroversial. A one-day-old baby has rights. A tumor does not have rights. Now, all you need to do is figure out why that is the case.

[JA37]

I'm always amazed over how quickly the female body becomes a battlefield. Why does everybody think that they have the right to control female sexuality?

And I'll just leave this here too:
https://i.imgur.com/bWxLD.png

[TiagoTiago]

Aren't fetuses not much more than relatively healthy teratomas?

[NghtRppr]

Aren't fetuses not much more than relatively healthy teratomas?

If they are then that's only an argument to treat teratomas better, not fetuses worse.

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

Um, thats how abortion works.  You stick something into the body of the unborn person, inject saline solution to kill her and then suck it out with a kind of a vacuum device.

That's how late abortion is usually performed. In most cases, the woman just takes some pills and the undesired microscopic life inside her just goes away.

You people are seriously comparing this with a person? You're really equating the act of repealing a minuscule, unconscious and formless life from one's body, something done by hundreds of millions of women all around the world, with the cold blooded act of murder, performed mostly by psychopaths?
Seriously people... just have a bit of common sense! Murder is a serious crime. This comparison is absurd.

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

It's not like when you abort a baby they come out in one piece ready to be put up for adoption.  They come out in parts: arms, legs, etc.

That's an argument I can get behind. You shouldn't be allowed to damage the fetus, only evict it. Just like I can evict someone from my house, but not by chopping them into pieces first. However, the fact that death is certain doesn't change anything.

This makes more sense to me.  With our current technology I know of no way to evict a fetus without killing it, therefore I am against abortion in most circumstances.

You are allowed to use deadly force to repeal an intruder from your property if the intruder leaves you no other choice. That's precisely the case of an abortion performed when early delivery isn't yet possible. If early delivery is already possible (after 6 months I believe, when the lungs are formed), then yes, that should be a preferred path.

And no, waiting a few months isn't an available choice any more than waiting calmly for a robber to get everything he wants from you and leave "peacefully".

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

Really...

[TiagoTiago]

Really...

associating this with the mass killing of baby butterflies doesn't help...

[Hawker]

...snipped image to save space...

Really...

The difference is that we don't protect the lives of persons only.  You can be in a coma or born with severe mental disabilities and we don't kill you.

Abortion is one of those topics where looking for a logically consistent justification is missing the point.  Its something women insist on and anyone who has been married will tell you that, sooner or later, the little woman will get what she wants.

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

The difference is that we don't protect the lives of persons only.  You can be in a coma or born with severe mental disabilities and we don't kill you.

But nobody should be forced to keep a person in coma alive (except somebody contractually obligated to, of course).

Abortion is one of those topics where looking for a logically consistent justification is missing the point.  Its something women insist on and anyone who has been married will tell you that, sooner or later, the little woman will get what she wants.

Good point, but I disagree logic cannot address the issue. It can, and as common sense alone should indicate, to condemn hundreds of millions of women of murder is an ethical absurd.

[NghtRppr]

let's allow it on condition that the process causes mandatory sterilization

[memvola]

associating this with the mass killing of baby butterflies doesn't help...

+1

let's allow it on condition that the process causes mandatory sterilization

Humorous, but actually this aspect is somehow missing from the debate.

You are evicting someone from your house that you took in yourself. Isn't this a non-verbal contract? The person might have sneaked in somehow, or you could have accidentally let them in, but if there is consent I think it's a game changer.

If it's not OK to evict a baby without making it public, maybe you should also make it public before you take it in? Just a thought...